PDA

View Full Version : Battle of Agincourt - October 25th, 1415



SaxonPagan
Tuesday, October 25th, 2011, 11:05 PM
Battle of Agincourt - October 25th, 1415
The Battle of Agincourt was a major English victory against a numerically superior French army in the Hundred Years' War. The battle occurred on Friday, 25 October 1415 (Saint Crispin's Day), near modern-day Azincourt, in northern France. Henry V's victory crippled France and started a new period in the war, during which Henry married the French king's daughter and his son, Henry VI, was made heir to the throne of France (although Henry VI failed to capitalize on his father's battlefield success).

Henry V led his troops into battle and participated in hand-to-hand fighting. The French king of the time, Charles VI, did not command the French army himself as he suffered from severe, repeating illnesses and moderate mental incapacitation. Instead, the French were commanded by Constable Charles d'Albret and various prominent French noblemen of the Armagnac party.

The battle is notable for the use of the English longbow, which Henry used in very large numbers, with English and Welsh archers forming most of his army. The battle is also the centrepiece of the play Henry V, by William Shakespeare.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

One of England's finest triumphs over the French ;) :thumbup

GeistFaust
Tuesday, October 25th, 2011, 11:36 PM
Non Nobis is a great song commemorating the battle. The English Long Bowmen were truly the rose of the British military system during that time frame. They were truly a revolutionary force that could not be dealt with this can be seen in the battle of Crecy.

Van Wellenkamp
Wednesday, October 26th, 2011, 02:23 AM
I have read that the terrain as well as mud and the long bow led to the down fall of the French knights. Chivalry was lost when the order came to kill the French knights downed in the mud. Most English knights refused and the bowmen finnished them off with daggers and swords. At least that is what I saw on Discovery. Still a great victory for the English.

I did not mean to make lite of the victory. But I have seen other sources on this. I was curious if anyone else has heard simular stories.

GeistFaust
Wednesday, October 26th, 2011, 02:31 AM
I have read that the terrain as well as mud and the long bow led to the down fall of the French knights. Chivalry was lost when the order came to kill the French knights downed in the mud. Most English knights refused and the bowmen finnished them off with daggers and swords. At least that is what I saw on Discovery. Still a great victory for the English.

I did not mean to make lite of the victory. But I have seen other sources on this. I was curious if anyone else has heard simular stories.



I think this happened during the battle of Crecy. The French made the mistake of putting the Genoan Archers into the front line to fight the British and then employed their cavalry against them and this lead to a disaster.

After the battle the English soldiers killed dying or maimed French soldiers on the battle with a dagger and they called it mercy killing. In the battle of Agincourt a few French Cavalry members swept into the English camp and killed the pages and squires which violated chivalry once again.

The battle of Agincourt though was more of a complete strategic victory for the English with the French cavalry being annihilated by the defense positions which the English took up.

Lew Skannon
Wednesday, October 26th, 2011, 10:58 AM
Battle of Agincourt - October 25th, 1415
The Battle of Agincourt was a major English victory against a numerically superior French army in the Hundred Years' War. The battle occurred on Friday, 25 October 1415 (Saint Crispin's Day), near modern-day Azincourt, in northern France. Henry V's victory crippled France and started a new period in the war, during which Henry married the French king's daughter and his son, Henry VI, was made heir to the throne of France (although Henry VI failed to capitalize on his father's battlefield success).

Henry V led his troops into battle and participated in hand-to-hand fighting. The French king of the time, Charles VI, did not command the French army himself as he suffered from severe, repeating illnesses and moderate mental incapacitation. Instead, the French were commanded by Constable Charles d'Albret and various prominent French noblemen of the Armagnac party.

The battle is notable for the use of the English longbow, which Henry used in very large numbers, with English and Welsh archers forming most of his army. The battle is also the centrepiece of the play Henry V, by William Shakespeare.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

One of England's finest triumphs over the French ;) :thumbup

I know I am "spitting in church" here right now, but I need to point out that until Agincourt the laws of chivalry specifically stated that one should not use bowmen against knights, but meet them on the field with ones own knights.

That said, it was an astonishing victory. And the play is just ecxcellent! :)

Neophyte
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 12:50 PM
I know I am "spitting in church" here right now, but I need to point out that until Agincourt the laws of chivalry specifically stated that one should not use bowmen against knights, but meet them on the field with ones own knights.

That said, it was an astonishing victory. And the play is just ecxcellent! :)

So it was also a victory in the struggle for social justice. :P

Wulfram
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 01:09 PM
I know I am "spitting in church" here right now, but I need to point out that until Agincourt the laws of chivalry specifically stated that one should not use bowmen against knights, but meet them on the field with ones own knights.

That said, it was an astonishing victory. And the play is just ecxcellent! :)

Agincourt was the equivalent of David and goliath. The English longbowmen were the slingshot against the giant that was the French army. The longbow simply evened the odds. If it was meant to be a chivalrous affair then maybe the French should have tapered down the size of their army to match that of England's. :P
Henry had a legitimate claim. The fact that the French refused to acknowledge his right was lacking in chivalry also.

Neophyte
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 01:30 PM
vAUp1ripJLE

Not Agincourt, but related and quite funny for those not of the French persuasion. :D

SaxonPagan
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 02:45 PM
Actually, Neo, that's not too far removed from reality!

A good bowman could loose 15 arrows a minute and if there were 5,000 archers in the English ranks (as records suggest) then you've got something like 75,000 arrows coming at you per minute.

The sky must have been literally filled with them :-O

Alfadur
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 03:03 PM
I know I am "spitting in church" here right now, but I need to point out that until Agincourt the laws of chivalry specifically stated that one should not use bowmen against knights, but meet them on the field with ones own knights.
Actually, it was the Battle of Crecy that broke the laws of chivalry. It was so shocking for the French nobility at the time, because it was such a violation of the Indo-European caste system. This was the first time the warrior-aristocracy got slaughtered by the peasant class on the battlefield. The English, who were shrewder, simply didn't care about abstract things like "chivalry" and "knightly values", but went the pragmatic route.

As Neophyte said, it was a victory for social justice. The main reason the knights were valued so highly, and why they could set the standards of society ("the laws of chivalry"), was not just because of their noble blood but mainly because they were the best fighters. The ultimate attack on the battlefield was the heavy cavalry charge. The knights were the last incarnation of the Indo-European warrior caste, and remained so for centuries simply because they were the most efficient killers. As we saw, the Welsh peasant longbowmen proved to be better killers.

(The French had the purest form of the medieval caste system, that existed in all of Europe. It was the noble knights on the top, and the peasants on the bottom. Soon enough, the French armies had a huge problem dealing with powerful infantry, like the Welsh longbowmen or the Flemish pikemen.)

Lew Skannon
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 03:43 PM
Actually, Neo, that's not too far removed from reality!

A good bowman could loose 15 arrows a minute and if there were 5,000 archers in the English ranks (as records suggest) then you've got something like 75,000 arrows coming at you per minute.

The sky must have been literally filled with them :-O

A company of well trained longbowmen would have been extremely effective even in the battle of Waterloo in 1815, or for that matter in Bull Run. The punch and accuracy of a longbow on 150-200 yards is at least as good as thatof a musket.

The reason they went obsolete was the cost and time to train a good longbow archer and formation tactics.

Lew Skannon
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 03:44 PM
Actually, it was the Battle of Crecy that broke the laws of chivalry. It was so shocking for the French nobility at the time, because it was such a violation of the Indo-European caste system. This was the first time the warrior-aristocracy got slaughtered by the peasant class on the battlefield. The English, who were shrewder, simply didn't care about abstract things like "chivalry" and "knightly values", but went the pragmatic route.

As Neophyte said, it was a victory for social justice. The main reason the knights were valued so highly, and why they could set the standards of society ("the laws of chivalry"), was not just because of their noble blood but mainly because they were the best fighters. The ultimate attack on the battlefield was the heavy cavalry charge. The knights were the last incarnation of the Indo-European warrior caste, and remained so for centuries simply because they were the most efficient killers. As we saw, the Welsh peasant longbowmen proved to be better killers.

(The French had the purest form of the medieval caste system, that existed in all of Europe. It was the noble knights on the top, and the peasants on the bottom. Soon enough, the French armies had a huge problem dealing with powerful infantry, like the Welsh longbowmen or the Flemish pikemen.)

Accepted.
I stand corrected.

Wulfram
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 03:55 PM
The reason they went obsolete was the cost and time to train a good longbow archer and formation tactics.

No, they stopped using them long before that because the forests were being depleted.

Neophyte
Thursday, October 27th, 2011, 05:46 PM
A mounted heavy cavalryman was worth about 80 foot soldiers because the coordination within the armies of that day was so bad. You basically rounded up some people—some very well trained, others not so trained—put them in a line and went at it.

As coordination and control on the battle field improves, armies begin to operate with smaller and smaller units and this gives them more flexibility and adaptability and allows them to concentrate fire power where it will have the best effect. See e.g. the improvements of Maurice of Nassau, Gustavus Adolphus and how these were used in the 30-years war and by Cromwell in the English Civil War.

When you get to Waterloo, a cavalry charge against infantry is again as effective as it would have been against a Roman legion; i.e. the disciplined and well trained infantry forms squares and bites back with a vengeance.

Herr Weigelt
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 03:12 AM
It really was a great victory for England. I still think there were a lot of things the French could've done differently to even or win the battle. But it was basically a bunch of pissed off nobles and knights against a group of very well trained and prepared peasants and also mounted and unmounted knights lead by the king himself in a desperate battle to survive and win the day.