 |
| The Morning of Agincourt, by Sir John Gilbert |
What an excellent and iconic anniversary to begin this blog on! Exactly 598 years ago on today, October 25th, one of the most celebrated battles in English history took place, the one that Shakespeare crafted perhaps the most famous speech in history to commemorate. And even though Shakespeare's account of the battlefield in his play was obviously a fictional one, it seems that it at least could have been real.
But the Battle of Agincourt was more than a simple tale of a band of brothers, or even the place where chivalry died (it never truly lived, and was a dying form of warfare as early as a century before), but it was a brutal killing ground, where the flower of the French nobility was destroyed without mercy. It was also a dramatic representation of what could have been- nearly swinging the pendulum of the Hundred Years War in total favor of the English, were it not for the miracle of the Maid of Orleans fifteen years later.
Political Background:
Henry V came to the throne in 1413, succeeding his father, Henry IV. Though rebellions ravaged the country during his father's reign (as he was of questionable legitimacy, usurping the throne and setting the stage for the Wars of the Roses later in the century), Henry V ruled over a stable country. With peace at home, Henry focused his energies on events in France.
The France of this time was not the powerful and stable kingdom it would come to be in the coming centuries. It had a turbulent nobility and vastly reduced territory compared to what it would come to govern. Many lands in what is today France were actually domains of the English king, a leftover inheritance from the earliest Plantagenet kings of the High Middle Ages. In addition to the fundamentals of the kingdom being weak, the French king at the time, Charles VI, was himself a weak ruler. Civil strife was rampant throughout France.
A young, strong monarch like Henry V was only too happy to take advantage of the situation and began to make some demands on Charles, namely: money, recognition of English dominion of certain French lands, and the hand of the French Princess, Catherine of Valois in marriage. The two sides went back and forth over negotiations, but could not come to an agreement. When negotiations failed, Henry V reignited the Hundred Years War.
The Campaign:
Henry set sail for France in August 1415 with an army of around 14,000 men. The northern city of Harfleur was sacked after a long siege, and Henry moved to the east through Normandy. This was not the wisest decision. While it was meant to be a show of force and a message to the French that their king could not protect them, it was now October and the campaigning season was coming to a close. In the meantime, Henry's army weakened by the usual casualties of the time: disease. Additionally, Henry was quickly followed on his march by the gathering French army, which outnumbered his own by as much as 4-1, or as little as 2-1, if some recent work is to be believed.
Composition of the Forces:
The French army, under the nominal command of the Constable of France, Charles d'Albret, was a balanced force composed of noble men-at-arms, crossbowmen, and mounted knights. The English army on the other hand, was composed primarily of longbowmen- around 3/4 of the army. In the center of the English line, Henry V stood prominently, with a crown welded to his helmet, making himself a target for every French soldier on the battlefield.
 |
| Henry V, in his crowned helmet, by Harry Payne |
Time, that crucial intangible that can't be trained or deployed by a general, was on the side of the French. The English army's condition was deteriorating, and the French blocked their avenue of retreat back to England. Furthermore, the prospect of reinforcements to the French was very real. With this in mind, Henry knew that he needed to make the opening movements and provoke the French into an attack.
The Battle:
 |
| Map of the battle, with lines by Andrei nacu |
Henry's first move was to take his line and move it forward, to within longbow range. Henry's line moved its stakes to defend against a French advance, hammered them into the ground, and began to shoot volleys of arrows at the French line.
The cavalier attitude of the French nobility now showed itself, and this above all else was to be Henry's biggest advantage. The volley of arrows provoked the French knights, completely unassisted, into a charge. Henry's position was well-defended: his army was situated behind the stakes at his front that were supremely effective in repelling horses, between woods that would protect its flanks. The French knights simply held the English archers in contempt, totally forgetful of the crushing victories they achieved under Edward III and the Black Prince (Crecy and Poitiers) less than a century before. They fully expected them to break and flee before a massive, thundering charge of horse.
Phase I:
It is also here that an important medieval myth is busted. The longbow was not a magical weapon that could easily penetrate the full plate armor that the noblest French knights would have worn at the time. Experiments done by Mike Loades and others suggest that it was only at extremely close range (around 30 meters or less), that an arrow could penetrate a breastplate of the period. It was instead the lightly-armored horses that would have been the primary target of the English archers. A far bigger and easier target to hit, the longbows did their job to perfection. The cavalry charge was a disaster, and the wounded, panicked horses turned the already muddy ground into a slush, all the while disrupting the advancing foot soldiers behind them.
Phase II:
The French men-at-arms, in their heavy plate armor, advanced through the mud and sludge of the field, slowly toward the English line, under a heavy barrage of arrows. The march (which would have been around three football fields in length) must have been exhausting to the heavily-armored warriors, who would have been stuck in the mud, having to exert great effort to even move forward, not to mention the density of the crowd on the field that added even further complications.
The result became an almost Cannae-like situation, with the French being completely unable to maneuver and simply waiting to become casualties, while the much lighter and more mobile English troops could do their grisly work with almost no resistance. The situation of the campaign was turned on its head in the battle itself- the English were fresh, and the French were terribly exhausted. It was indeed, like a turkey shoot to the English.
At some point, the English baggage train was attacked, but this was only a minor nuisance and did not affect the outcome of the battle.
The Slaughter:
It was here that the most infamous act of the battle occurred, and where as the legends go: "chivalry died." The amount of French prisoners taken in the second phase of the battle was astounding. Fearful that the prisoners would aid the enemy in the event of another attack, Henry had most put to the sword.
Tactically, this was in fact the right thing to do, and Henry is not faulted by Monstrelet or other chroniclers of the time for doing so. He could not risk that the prisoners would rise up and attack his army in the event of another French advance.
Aftermath:
Henry returned home to England, as one might expect, a hero, seen by all as a warrior who snatched victory from the jaws of certain defeat and death. This is a powerful image that has lasted down to this day, and challenges to it have understandably been fiercely resisted. The romance spun by Shakespeare and the importance of the battle to the English national consciousness cannot be overstated.
The victory for its time was decisive. It rapidly united the country and quashed any questions as to the right of Henry's line to the throne- for a time. No greater sign of favor from God could be seen in the eyes of a medieval man or woman. In the meantime, France continued to deteriorate into civil war and dynastic rivalry, and in just a few years, Henry had his claim to the throne of France recognized by Charles VI, in favor even over his own son, and gave the English king the hand of his daughter, Catherine of Valois, in marriage.
What had been a miracle for the English seemed to decisively tip the balance of power into their favor, until Joan of Arc arrived on the scene and took her place in history by breaking the Siege of Orleans in 1429, in what was an equal miracle.
Assessment:
The French really did more to defeat themselves in this battle than the Englishmen in arms under their glorious king did. Through their callous disregard of the English longbowmen, the strong position of the English army, and the muddy, confined terrain that would work against them, it would indeed have taken a miracle for them to achieve victory that day.
Tactically, the battle highlighted the continued and increasing importance of ranged weapons and combined arms tactics. It can in many ways be seen as a further step towards the coming Pike and Shot era of warfare, with missile troops firing volleys toward the enemy combined with a smaller portion of melee troops to defend them from a cavalry charge. Though the role of the longbow against armor has been overstated, it was still a supremely effective weapon that was faster to reload than the crossbow and had a longer reach. Ironically, the French, who had a more balanced army, totally failed to use the combined arms tactics that the English used to great effect.
Perhaps the real take-away from Agincourt was not that chivalry was dead, but rather that a new man on the battlefield was gathering far more respect: the common soldier, who could not be ignored as inferior. This was a lesson Joan of Arc and other warriors to come would not forget.
Happy Saint Crispin's Day! Battle of Agincourt Hundred Years War England France Shakespeare
No comments:
Post a Comment