Talk:Battle of Agincourt/Archive 1

A Frenchman obviously wrote it
I'm surprised to see this article printed in English. A Frenchman obviously wrote it.
 * I agree. What is meant by battle in this sentence?: "It is probable that the usual three 'battles' were drawn up in line, each with its archers on the flanks and the dismounted men-at-arms in the centre;" ThePedanticPrick 23:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * In this context battle means a battalion or division, a major part of the army formed under a sub-commander. It is the correct medieval English term (in modern spelling). Note, however, that the diagrams of the battle are ludicrous: the English are supposed to have 1000 men-at-arms and 6000 archers... now compare the area of the oblong battles of men-at-arms to the triangles of archers. Those men-at-arms must be gigantically bloated fatties. dbrwr 23:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What gives you this impression? TeunSpaans 05:35 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Henry V was hardly a 'war criminal' - for a start there was nothing approaching any form of 'international law' at the time. I'm removing that phrase. If anyone has a problem then we can discuss it. Chrism 10:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * While it's debatable whether he was a war criminal, it's foolish to suggest there was no hint of international law at the time. See Christine de Pizan's discussion of just war and the treatment of prisoners in the Book of Deeds of Arms and of Chivalry. -Andy

Someone removeedHistory -- Military history -- List of battles -- History of France -- History of England and put it as "see also:". I am not saying it's bad idea, but since i was begging for a very long time that people will use it, and already few dozens of battles are having that format, i tend to think people should discuss this before changing!!! szopen

The sketch says "Crosbowmen" instead of "Crossbowmen". Lee J Haywood 20:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The article lists Crispin's Day as October 24. According to the Catholic Calendar of Feast Days, it is October 25. Secondly, the article is displayed as a selected anniversary for the 25th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.91.129.20 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 October 2005  (UTC)

A modified explanation of the battle
I am not happy with the section it expreses a POV from a TV programme. The tests that they did were made to make their point:
 * The draw weight of the bows used may or may not have been correct.
 * The bodkin arrow heads which they used were one of many designs.
 * It assumed that the majority of armour was steel of consistent quality and that the arrow heads were iron.

It is not that I disagree with the argument put forward by the programme that many French men may have been killed in a crush on a muddy field, but I do not think that alleged ineffectiveness of the long bow should be emphasises without more tests unless the limits of the tests are mentioned in the article. Philip Baird Shearer 23:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Very glad to see this changed. I'm fed up with wacky revisionist therories being given credence in wikipedia simply because somebody read something in the paper and then decided to stick it in the article. adamsan 13:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I hate to be the one to tell you this, but almost everything in the wikipedia is the direct result of someone reading something somewhere, and then deciding to stick it in an article. If you want something changed, you better have a precise, objective definition of "wacky" prepared, along with reasons supported by facts.  --24.118.77.253 05:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I hate to have to tell you this but there's a difference between adding half-remembered details of a TV programme and synthesising the conclusions of authoritative books and articles on a subject. The editor who presents the refutation of the alternative view in the article gives reasons supported by facts whilst the originator of the wacky theory only relies on unattributed "recent experiments". If you want to back up the alternative theory I suggest you take your own advice and find some evidence. adamsan 08:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have some comments to make on the question of the efficacy of the longbow, and the tests carried out at the University of Reading.

In fact, the tests, like most such tests, used no bows at all. The use of mechanical apparatus is standard in these kinds of tests to ensure that every 'shot' is as much like the others as possible.

The bodkin head used was based upon one actually found at the battlesite by archaeologists, so we know that this design was one used on the day.

The point about the armour is valid. Older armours may well have been present on the field, and we know that iron mail and coats of plates would be vulnerable to the arrowheads of the day. Steel arrowheads could have been made, but since this would multiply the cost of an arrow sixfold, it wasn't often done. The arrowheads recovered at the battle site are certainly of iron.

There is another point which needs to be made ; the tests were all done at 90 degrees, instead of the standard 30 degrees usually used, so they overstate the actual penetrating power of the arrowheads considerably.

In fact, there is little doubt about the growing inability of the longbow to penetrate 15th century armour in either the sources or the experimental archaeological studies. By the time of Verneuil in 1424, the new armours were in such widespread use that the French knights seemed invulnerable to the English arrows. Archers could still kill men at arms with shots at their exposed faces - by one account, this is how James IV died at Flodden - but the glory days were over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.202.124 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 October 2004  (UTC)

Along with the error in angle of the shot there was errors or factors ignored in regards to the armor. It was flat and did not appear to have been wrought, thus making it alot stronger; they assumed that all armor was 2mm thick all over, it was not; they assumed all French had access to the best armor, while the nobles did many of their entourage would not have; they assumed all armor was battle armor, yet in the same show they give evidence for elaborate show armor being used, with concerns for aesthetics the armor would not have been designed for maximum protection; and in my opinion most importantly the test was done with the sheet flat on another object, without space to dent the armor all the force had to be absorbed by the arrowhead vastly reducing its penetrating ability. -veridis

I would invite Anne Curry to test her theory by suiting up in some 15th century french armor and taking a few shots from an English longbow. If she thinks the most casualties were inflicted by crushing and trampling, comparing it to a football riot, maybe she should attend a match. Crushes don't kill 1/3 of those involved, no matter how big they are. Not in a football crowd, or a concert, or a battle. - Kafziel 13:34, 13 July 2005


 * In the "The Great Warbow" by Dr. Mattew Strickland and Robert Hardy, Pub Sutton, 2005, ISBN 0750931671 report on page 17 that the largest weigh group among the bows on the Mary Rose bows were between 68-72.5 kg (150-160 lbs). Previous to the research on the Mary Rose, known longbows from a much smaller sample, and using victorian estamates of strenth on some, had draw weight which were thought to be 32-46kg (60-100 lbs); (see longbows). The weight of longbow arrows prior to the Mary Rose excavations was thought to be 52 grams, which was an invention of members of the British longbow society, (page 414) it is now known that the shafts  were on average  .80m (2'6) long and 0.01 (0.5) diameter (page 10) with a weight of between 100-115 grams (page 31).  In case there is doubt about the size of  the arrows there is one surviving arrow from another source which is kept in Westminster Abbey and is of a type to be loosed from a 68kg longbow (page 32).


 * As Robert Hardy write on page 414 "Those who deny or decry the effectiveness of the great warbow of the later Middle Ages deceive themselves and others"


 * BTW I do not think that growing inability of the longbow to penetrate 15th century armour" it is theory of Professor Anne Curry. Matthew Strickland in the Great Warbow praises her work on the numbers and organisation of the two armies and reports on page 288 that she says that her research on the records she has amassed will not be completed until about 2020. He goes on to say that thanks to her research the names of nearly all English archers who fought in France between the battle of Agincourt to debarcal at Castillon will be known.
 * --Philip Baird Shearer 01:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw this study on the History Channel last year. They used iron tipped arrows against steel plate armour and it didn’t penetrate. I believe the French charge failed because the combination of events and not just one factor. Death came in many forms to those knights and swordsmen. I’m sure some arrows did find their mark. Some falling horses and throwing the riders into the mud and some hitting soft points or gaps in the armour. I believe the terrain played the most decisive factor as it does in all battles. To say it was only the longbow is wrong. And I say if the English longbow was so effective against steel plate armour at 200 yards why would they eventually use a smoothbore musket which misfired and hardly be accurate at 80 yards. HUSZAR, July 28 2005.

The musket actually had a greater range than the longbow, if used in indirect fire; Hardy and Strickland gloss over this point in Great Warbow, and compare the direct fire range of the gun with the indirect range of the bow, not like with like. Supplies of suitable bowstaves also began to dwindle, making the longbow no longer a cheaply available weapon for the masses. It is also true that as armours improved and longbows had to have a greater draw-weight to achieve penetration, accuracy dropped off greatly - which is why the bows for target shooting that 19th century writers based their studies on did not exceed 50 to 70 lbs draw or so. Lastly, there would come a point where the draw-weight needed to achieve penetration exceeded that which an archer could manage. Crossbows and muskets had no such problems, though they did have others. All of these other factors are covered in Hardy and Strickland.[December 11 2005]

they switched to muskets because it didn't require a lifetimes worth of work to master and it increased the central governments control if every peasant couldn't kill one of their lords if they pissed them of too much —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.82.235 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 September 2005  (UTC)


 * What you saw on the history channel was not iron tipped arrows against steel plate armour but against a plain steel plate placed flat upon a bench. It had not been bent or shaped so was much stronger than armour made of the same plate, it was placed flat so could not distort helping it maintain its structural strength. Look at any piece of metal that has been pierced and you will notice there is a large dent around it, not just a sudden hole. By preventing this denting from happening by using a plate flat on a bench they made it much more resistant. -veridis

With regard to the longbow vs. musket discussion, according to "Napoleonic weapons and tactics" by Philip J. Haythornthwaite, if the longbowmen of this period had been pitted against the armies of Napoleonic times they would certainly have been able to outshoot almost any of them, with the added benefits of targets not being obscured by smoke and a longbow being slightly cheaper than a musket. In fact a leader of the time urged the Brittish gov. to start using longbows again. However as has been said it was rejected on the grounds that a man could be trained to use a musket in a day, while it might take years for a man to become proficient with a longbow plus a longbow's performance could also be effected by wind. Sorry for off topic but it's a fairly interesting discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.232.90 (talk • contribs)  10:34, 5 May 2006  (UTC)

troop count
The troop numbers dont seem to be correct, in the article it says:

Early on the 25th, St Crispin's day, Henry arrayed his little army (about 1000 men-at-arms, 6000 archers, and a few thousands of other foot).

Wich should mean they had about 9000 troops. But in the little summary on the right it says that the english had a troop count of 5,900. Which is the correct numbers?


 * Excellent question/point! No one really knows. I've seen figures all over the place for the strength of both armies and casualties also. I've edited the battlebox to reflect this. The English may have had as few as 5,000 or as many as 9, possibly even 10,000. The French as few as 12,000 or even over 30,000. The most likely, scenario, to my mind, is somewhere in between, with the English having circa 7,000 and the French circa 20,000 (Which Sir Charles Oman also saw as most likely). Henry had a small force of 2-300 select mounted knights to serve as his bodyguard and persoanal retenue. In some accounts they saw action with the King, in others they and King Hal just sat back, in others still they are'nt mentioned at all. Were they included in the "Men-at-Arms" figures? Some accounts also mention on the French side, several hundred of their knights who had swore a blood oath to seek out King Henry and slay him on the field (the "regicides"). But whether they existed as an organized unit or were the creation of later historians/storytellers is as well unknown. Given all these variations and estimates, We know about as much about Agincourt as we do the Battle of Hastings, fought in the same month 349 years earlier.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:45, 26

August 2005 (UTC)

It is most likly that Enguerrand the Monstrelet gave the correct numbers, since he would have no motive of faking them, and he gives them only 38 years afterwards. Its also the most plausible and logical nummbers. I believe 900 men-at-arms is too few either way. An interesting way to measure this could be to check if the area can have 900 men formed up into at a line of at least 2-3 men thick. If not the english would had to have more men. And also an archer is no match for a heavy infantry in hand-to-hand combat. However if the English had 13000 or 5000 archers the french losses would been massive as they moved to the alleged english 900-men line, as they would face 5000 - 13000 arrows sevral times each minutte. But 900 men is just to few, you would need at least 1500 to make a stand. Battle expert

38 years is actually quite a long time when there is so little in the way of previous written records to refer back to. A lot of the people who had been at the battle would have been dead. Also the biggest problem with Enguerrand's figures is they seem far too high for the English. Even Anne Curry, who has been revising the odds in the victory down as much as she can, doesn't think the English had more than about 8,000. It's generally accepted that Henry only landed with an army of about 12,000. The biggest arguments are about how many of these were in a fit state at Agincourt, with the low estimate being about 6,000 (this was the 'standard' figure for a long time, e.g. it's used in the Encyclopedia Britannica) and the high estimate being about 9,000. I've not aware of a modern historian who thinks the English had 13,000 at Agincourt.

As to the line of English men-at-arms, as I understand it they were packed quite tightly, with archers on each flank protected by palings. The palings would have been less of an obstacle to knights on foot than knights on horseback, but you also have to remember that medieval knights were quite hung up on honour. You get honour (and booty) from hacking down enemy knights, not enemy commoners. Also, although there are arguments about how effective longbows were against full plate, they certainly had a far better chance of penetrating at point-blank range, so it would have been a brave knight who walked slowly, in the mud, around some wooden stakes while being shot at from a couple of metres. On the other hand, the longbowmen couldn't safely shoot at the French men-at-arms if they were engaged hand-to-hand with the English men-at-arms, for fear of hitting their own troops. The French men-at-arms apparently seem to have just engaged the English men-at-arms, on the same frontage as the English (which caused them all sorts of problems because of congestion), and ignored the longbowmen until they were rushed from the sides (when the English men-at-arms were pushed back). The suggestion is that because of a) the fatigue of the French men-at-arms after walking in thick mud wearing full plate b) the casualties they had already taken from bowfire c) the greater agility of the unarmoured longbowmen in the mud and d) the fact that the French were so tightly packed they couldn't fight properly, that the intervention of some of the longbowmen in the melee was sufficient to turn the tide against the French.

--Merlinme 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, sorry, I think it's the Hutchinson encylopedia which gives the figures as 6,000 for the English. The online 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Henry arrayed his little army (about r000 men-at-arms, 6000 archers, and a few thousands of other foot...". r000 is a rather annoying figure, I assume caused by bad scanning! 1,000 would fit with other versions. The total number is significantly more than 6,000, however the same article also says of the French: "They were at least four times more numerous than the English, but restricted by the nature of the ground to the same extent of front". (If you're curious, a lot of the account of the battle in the current Wikipedia article is lifted almost verbatim from the 1911 EB.) Alternatively you can go with Anne Curry's research, which broadly agree with the EB for the English, but put the French army as far smaller (12,000) than any other source that I am aware of.

--Merlinme 13:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Gutenberg's version of the EB1911 does say "...(about 1000 men-at-arms,..."
 * —wwoods 19:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Siege of Harfleur length
In: "The siege of Harfleur took longer than expected (six weeks)."

Does "six weeks" refer to the length of time the siege was expected to take, or to the length of time actually taken for the siege? --abhi 11:55, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)


 * good point. I have expanded the siege text to include dates. Away team turned up on August 13th, took two days to change, kick off was on the 18th. One month later on September 18th, the away team were going to win in a penalty shoot out, so the home team agreed to loose, (as they were worried about the behaviour of the away team fans) unless the police turned up by the 22nd. As the police did not turn up, the home team went down to the pub leaving the changing rooms to the away team. For some reason which is not clear the away team hung about for two weeks until the 8th of October when they decided to head for home, trying to evade arrest from the police on the way.


 * Take you pick the game started on the 13th of August and ended on the 8th of October just under 2 months. Or if it is playing time than it is 18th of August until 18th of September just over 4 weeks. It would seem to me that the siege lasted about as long as one would expect if it was contested. I guess that Henry had hoped for none contest, in which case it would have been over in days. It is not clear to me why he waited over two weeks after the seige ended before setting off for Calais. Perhapse some one who does can add the details to the siege page. Philip Baird Shearer 00:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of minor change
I just changed the wording of the paragraph about Henry's speech for I consider the word "great" rather inexpressive and inappropriately judgmental. Dedalus 22:19, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've just pulled the word 'skilfully' from "The Campaign" section relating to d'Albret's activities as this is a value judgement and it is unverifiable at present. If the author wants to put it back in with some citations of historians who support this contetion I don't have a problem with that. Cheers, --Leau 09:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Delbruck's account
I'm surprised that no one has referred to Hanbs Delbruck's analysis of the battle in Geschichte der Kriegskunst. He argues that the size of the French army has been exaggerated by the medieval historians to make Henry V looks more heroic. Why, he asks, would an army with a massive superiority in numbers take up a position where it could not use that advantage to outflank its opponent? Instead, the French took up a position between two wooded areas, which no one would do if they did not need to protect their own flanks. A larger army would have taken up positions some way to the rear of those chosen historically, where there were open fields to each side. Moreover, since we now have the French plan of battle, we can see that their whole plan of campaign depended upon flank attacks upon the English. On the day, they deployed their troops differently, which leads one to suppose that there must have been some pressing reason so to do. Lack of numbers present with the field army, as opposed to having been promised, or marching to join the army explain this behaviour.

From this, and from a study of the actual space available to deploy the French army, he dismisses any idea of a 25 000 man force. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.202.124 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 October 2004  (UTC)


 * While it is a credible theory one must realise the the field at Agincourt was the most suitable in the immediate vicinity and it was this area where the French armies caught up to/intercepted the English. The opening cavalry charges directed at the flanks and eventual flanking around the forest indicate that the French were still aware of the advantage outflanking could hold for them and indeed that they had the numbers to outflank the English

-veridis
 * The figures for the French army were indeed exagerated. I have edited the article recently to provide new figures coming from a very serious research recently published by an English medieval historian. Hardouin 2 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)


 * Delbruck also provides outlandishly large figures for Roman armies. Numbers few historians or serious military students take seriously. Delbruck is interesting reading, but he was a German nationalist and a revisionist. As such I give him no more credence than I do David Irving . --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

A slightly off-topic question
I remember hearing that some English families use a peculiar abbreviation-like form of middle name to denote that they have an ancestor that fought at Agincourt. Can anyone refresh my memory by telling me what that "abbreviation" is, and what it stands for? Too Old 17:15, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Incomplete archives
User Center-for-Medieval-Studies undermines Prof. Anne Curry's findings, arguing that the "incomplete nature of the records, especially on the French side" makes it difficult to estimate troop strength. I fear this is just another case of historical consevatism, or inability to accept new findings that debunk previously held beliefs. As far as I know, and I know a fair bit about French archives, all historians agree that French archives are the most voluminous and best preserved in the world, so I don't see why talking about bad archives, "especially on the French side". The Archives Nationales in Paris keep all the royal archives dating from before the Revolution, and these archives are extremely complete. The French Revolution and various wars did not damage the central government archives at all. For instance, I know for sure that the Archives Nationales possess all the records of the Parlement de Paris from 1254 to 1790 without a single missing year or month. If Center-for-Medieval-Studies has specific proofs that French finance records from the early 15th century are somewhat missing or incomplete, he/she should produce these proofs, because otherwise everything lead to believe that these records have survived time. I don't believe someone with the reputation of Anne Curry would have engaged in such a thorough research debunking a popular myth without some guarantee that the records are beyond dispute. Hardouin 5 July 2005 13:39 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that Wikipedia is not the correct forum for declaring that Prof. Curry's theories are, or are not, correct. It is appropriate to state new ideas and to describe the controversy, but we should strive to remain viewpoint-neutral. It seems to me that the statements in the current revision (16:17, 5 July 2005), that this theory has yet to be fully scrutinized by the scientific community, are respectful of Prof. Curry's ideas while retaining the proper degree of scientific skepticism. --BlueMoonlet 6 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)
 * The problem is, these are not "theories", these are facts backed by documents. Hardouin 7 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)
 * But the analysis of the documents has not been widely scrutinized, much less accepted, by the general scientific community. Until that happens, a good encyclopedia should not uncritically declare it to be true.  --BlueMoonlet 7 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. If we had to take every new theory as certain fact we'd be in chaos. It is quite normal for two opposing sides of an argument to have historic 'documents' they don't prove an argument in and of themselves. Give it some time for proper peer review and counter arguments. As a general comment on all military 'records' of that age a healthy degree of scepticism is due. Military records are notorious for showing how many people were on the 'state' parole but frequently bad at telling us how many actually fought. You can lose huge numbers as sick/wounded/deserters/stragglers just as you can gain from direct recruitment or indirect attachment of friendly forces.Alci12

A biased opinion
I think Anne Currys theory may have some truth behind it. It is not the first time an English king has used propaganda to bolster his reputatuion. (Such as Richard the Lionheart). I think that it is possible the numbers have become warped over the years, but i disagree about the exact figures she has given. I think they're a theory, nothing more. Anne's theory may also be biased in some other way, as often is with "experts". I do also have one other peice of information which i am adding, which is an account i have read of the battle. (I read it in an old history book entitiled "the sceptered isle") is that although the French armor was on the whole too strong to be peirced by Bodkin Arrows, the horses were mostly unarmored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.10.121.83 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

-- I agree, I have read Anne Curry's book and it appears to be based on theories. Theories that have been proven wrong, I managed to watch a programme that interviewed a roit control officer, who stated that there was no possible way for the French to become famously tightly packed with the numbers that Curry states. This implies 2 things: 1 The Vangaurd was even bigger than what Curry stated (Curry supports the Vangaurd was enlarged). Or 2 The Number of French were vastly bigger, a view that is supported by most historians and 'reliable' sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.170.96 (talk • contribs).

Some confusion
Might be just me misunderstanding it, but the following lines kind of contradict eachother:

"The English archers being thrown forward in wedge-shaped salients with spikes in the ground to cause a horse charge to veer off, almost exactly as at the Battle of Crécy"

and

"The archers dug-in pointed wooden stakes called palings, at an angle, to ward off cavalry charges, and opened the engagement with flights of arrows. It should be noted that these palings were an innovation. At Crécy and Poitiers, two other similar battles between the French and the English, the archers had not had them." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.237.177 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 December 2005   (UTC)

Not Danegeld
I removed the remarks about Danegeld. Ransom is not an example of Danegeld, nor was this a technique of extortion practiced by english kings. Danegeld was brought to England by the Danes, and is thought to be a type of tribute. -CW (70.26.11.45 15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

The English kings for several centuries practiced extortion by invading France and then being paid to go away. This has nothing to do with the paying of ransom for captured nobility. Danegeld can be used figrative expression of speach for this type of behaviour as well as its litural meaning. As Kipling put it:
 * And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
 * And the people who ask it explain
 * That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
 * And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

--Philip Baird Shearer 16:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The comparison between Danegeld and randsom for captured knights is truly absurd. Danegeld was money given to the Danes to that they would not raid England. Asking for money in return for returning captured nobles is something completely diffrent. I'll delete the lines concerning danegeld. Krastain 21:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the ranson for captured knights. It has to do with the King of France paying the English King to go away. Payments could be made in several ways, either cash, in kind, or property. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not ransom?
The article currently states that one purpose of Henry's campaign was to capture French noblemen, "either for ransom or to extort money from the French king in exchange for their return." It seems to me that these are two ways of saying the same thing. This should be corrected by someone who thinks he or she knows the writer's actual meaning. I'd also like to see some supporting evidence for the notion that this was one of King Henry's personal motives, rather than just an incentive for his army. pmr 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Another fact
Twelve French knights took oath that that day (the day of the clash at Azincourt) they would either kill King Henry or fall in battle. What happened is that only one of them came near Henry and broke his crown with his sword in one place. The original crown (with evidence of this, with the swordmark and all) is kept in Westminster Abbey. 'Tis true! :)

I'm surprised that in the article there is no mention about this event that actually took place during the battle.

So... if someone would enter this into the text, I would be grateful. My knowledge of English is not that good, so I wouldn't leave that job to me.

Thanx anyway!

Yankovich 19:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Campaign
The paragraph "The Campaign" does not reflect the historical realities of the time. Specifically what lands were rules by either the King of France and the King of England (and others) are not explained. There are many other areas where the article could be improved substantially, I just read the first para and felt the need to fire off this, so who knows what I'll be like when I've finished the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.241.101 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 18 April 2006  (UTC)

Inconsistency regarding the use of palings at the Battle of Crecy
Under "The battle", the first paragraph contains this sentence:

"The English archers being thrown forward in wedge-shaped salients with spikes in the ground to cause a horse charge to veer off, almost exactly as at the Battle of Crécy."

The fourth paragraph contains these statements, in direct contradiction: "Near 400 yards from the French line the archers dug-in pointed wooden stakes called palings, at an angle, to ward off cavalry charges, and opened the engagement with a single flight of arrows. It should be noted that these palings were an innovation. At Crécy and Poitiers, two other similar battles between the French and the English, the archers had not had them."

In the article on the "Battle of Crécy", there is this statement: "the English built a system of ditches, pits and caltrops to maim and bring down the enemy cavalry."

No mention of the palings, but it doesn't rule out their possible use. I don't know which one is correct, but if I find out I'll come back and correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.74.6.173 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 April 2006   (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that too. Whoever has this article on their watchlist please fix this contradiction! 195.90.9.88 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if palings were not used at Crecy (1346) and Poitiers (1356), this hardly proves that they were an innovation at Agincourt (1415). What about all the intervening battles? pmr 14:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

First Paragraph
This (2nd) sentence should be rewritten in my opinion: "The battle was fought on a rainy day, the feast day of Saint Crispin, between the English and Welsh army of King Henry V and the French army of King Charles VI." The mention of feast day and rainy day make it seem awkward.Godloveslamb 02:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Factually, the real problem with the sentence is that it does not convey that it had been raining for more than just that day. I'm sure if the battle were fought with only the moisture of a sun shower on the ground, then there would have been a different weather dynamic at play.


 * I changed the version in which the second sentence ended "...the Hundred Years' War on a rainy day," which implied a very long day indeed. I left the rain out of this sentence, since the paragraph is only the introduction.  The discussion of the battle points up the effect that rain (and especially the condition of the ground) had on the battle.  — OtherDave 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stylistically, parenthetically inserting "the feast day of Saint Crispin" as a sort of appositive is highly problematic, but, hey, the guy took the time to put his paper up on the site, so more power to him.67.87.6.214

lack of sources
This article really needs to cite which sources are being used, in particular for the hard numbers on troops strengths, which keep changing. -- Stbalbach 15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Casualties
Can we be a little more decisive about the issue of casualties? I recognise it's a difficult issue, but could we at least suggest a range? Henry may have been trying to conceal the scale of the English losses, but surely we can do better than 'English losses were lower than the French'. The old Encyclopedia Britannica puts English casualties at 450; if we're going to disagree with this, then I think we have to cite reliable sources. There is a world of difference between a battle in which there were 5,000 French casualties and 500 English, and a battle in which there were 5,000 French casualties and, say, 4,000 English, which the article seems to imply at the moment. Given that, certainly after taking into account those killed and captured in the aftermath of the battle, I don't think anyone would dispute that the French lost quite badly, I'm going to take the liberty of modifying the text to say that the English losses were much lower than the French.

--145.221.52.69 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)--145.221.52.70 13:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Keegan, in The Face of Battle, says "English casualties had been few: the Duke of York...and the Earl of Suffolk were the only notable fatalities. The wounded numbered only some hundreds..." He adds that the English wounds would have been mainly lacerations and fractures, which if not fatal could be treated. Many of the French, by contrast, would have suffered penetration wounds from arrows or other weapons thrust through weak points in armor. Such wounds led more quickly to serious infection. Those with severe wounds who survived the battle but remained on the field overnight were likely killed the following day, if they had not already died. Keegan says that the bishop of Arras engaged peasants to bury the dead at the site, and adds "they are said to have buried about 6,000 altogether." — OtherDave 13:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When you say 'The old Enyclopedia Britannica' are you implying that different versions of the EB have different figures?

89.241.5.57 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Weighell
 * Yes: the 1911 version of Encyclopædia Britannica offers about 113 English dead, while the current version suggests "less than 450".--Old Moonraker 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)== Sources for numbers and casualties ==

It appears to be a losing battle to keep the figures consistent, so I suggest we adopt a range approach. i.e. The English army was between 6,000 and 9,000.

If people are going to change these to their own favourite version, could they at least please tell the rest of us where to find these figures, and (more importantly) why we should believe these more than any other figures. While I recognise the Enyclopedia Britannica is not a definitive source, it's quite noticeable that it quotes the French army as 20-30,000, which is 2/3 of the figure we have today (36,000).

--Merlinme 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a lot of edits to the numbers. I've settled on 6,000 for the English (which virtually everyone except Anne Curry uses) and 20-30,000 for the French, with notes to see the 'Modern re-assessment' where the controversy is discussed in more detail.

I have no doubt that someone will come along and change this to the figures they saw in a TV programme a few years ago, but we can but try. I'd like to add the "Controverisal" template to the numbers and casualties section, but I've just tried it, and it makes a mess if the Battle Box, so I've left it out.

--Merlinme 16:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to the article if there were a separate section on troop numbers and casualties, with the Controversial tag. The fact is the sources don't agree, and I think it's correct to tell the reader this. It might also help stop all the to-ing and fro-ing with different numbers being used. Suggested format:

"A Note on Troop Numbers and Casualties"

Controversial tag

Discussion of the different numbers used. Give sources for the different numbers. Explain why one particular set of numbers is used in the article. [Alternatively, we could try and avoid using numbers elsewhere in the article. Or we could use a range of numbers elsewhere in the article.]

A lot of the material from 'A modern re-assessment' could be moved here, because in my opinion 'A modern re-assessment' should be all about Curry's attempt to establish the numbers using things like records of payment. The other sections (discussing numbers more generally) could be moved to the new section.

The "Note" should go near the top, so people read it early on, and don't start changing the numbers in the Battle Box.

--Merlinme 09:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a new chapter on the discussion of the sources--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit by Ignacio Arrizabalaga is an impressive piece of work and a valuable contribution. To this reader, however, there is a suggestion of original research (the contributor declares himself an historian on his talk page) and an indication of the modern sources would enhance the value. Some very minor wikification of links, WP:MOS etc is also required. This is not a carping criticism: a contribution from an other than British historian was requested and this seems to be one. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely fascinating stuff. However I am afraid I agree with Old Moonraker, some of this is surely original research. Unless a secondary source can be provided for the paragraph "Discussion of the sources", it's going to have to go, as this is surely an opinion on the material in the primary sources. I don't personally have a problem with using primary sources (as long as they can be checked), but we cannot then draw our own conclusions from them, or this is Original Research.


 * Also, I've put a dubious next to "Assuming a similar size to the English retinues"- that's a massive assumption! Who makes it, Anne Curry, or us? If it's Curry, we need a citation. If it's us, then I'm afraid it will have to be removed. Similarly, when we are disagreeing with modern historians (about to what extent the 6,000 blocking the Somme was an advance party), then this must be backed up with sources, or it's Original Research. Apart from anything else, it doesn't make sense- even Anne Curry argues that the French army was 12,000, so 6,000 is only half the size of the final army.


 * The stuff about archers in the English army was also fascinating- the implication seems to be that there were far fewer longbowmen in the army than traditionally thought. Is there anything more on this in secondary sources? --Merlinme (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have provided secondary sources for all the stuff marked as dubious. As for the 12.000 given by Curry, that is the maximum possible size, as recorded in the documentary sources, but as in the case of the size of the English army, she does not account for the more than likely losses through disease and esertion through the campaign. Furthermore, she admits that part of the French forces remained at Rouen with the King and the Dauphin, forces that are included in the total of 12.000. In fact she doesn´t stop to seriously discuss the size of the French army at the battle, because as the sources clearly tell that a good part of the French army was never actually engaged in battle, the discussion is "Inmaterial" (p.257).--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anecdote about Henry V
I'm leaving this in because it's a good story and I don't think it does any harm, as long as people realise it's a story. However I've taken out the bit about how the king fought more bravely than anyone else, because I can't find a source for it (and neither could anybody else, the "citation needed" has been there for a couple of weeks), and it sounds rather implausible. The King fought more bravely than any of the other 30,000 or so people in the battle? Said who? How on earth would you prove it? If it's supported at all in original sources, I would imagine it must have been said by one of the King's courtiers, or possibly an English storyteller. Neither would be an unbiased source.

Please put it back in if you can come up with a plausible source for the claim.

--Merlinme 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bowshot
The battle section says "Within extreme bowshot from the French line (400 yards), the archers dug in pointed wooden stakes called palings, at an angle, to ward off cavalry charges, and opened the engagement with a barrage of arrows."

John Keegan, in The Face of Battle, says that "extreme bowshot" is traditionally calculated at 300 yards. "That is a tremendous carry for a bow, however" he says, "and 250 yard would be a more realistic judgement of the distance....If, however, [Henry's] archer flanks were thrown a little forward, his center would have been farther off....something between 250 and 300 yards is a reasonable bracket..."

— OtherDave 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Peers Legh and his dog
What is this ridiculus story about a dog warding a dead body for hours in the middle of a battle? Is there a reliable source for this (other then some history of fighting dogs), a contemporary text maybe? Krastain 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

5000 prisoners massacred by the English
Surely this deserves a paragraph and a heading in contents, particularlt when such notation is given to someone's dog, for goodness sake. XSebX 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Modern reassessment section
I've rewritten this somewhat, it had become a bit of a mess. Apart from minor errors which crept in, and some superfluous material, Ashmoo had deleted a lot of the text about Anne Curry. According to Ashmoo's comments, it's not Wikipedia's business to make predictions (I assume about which historian will be proved correct).

I take the point, but removing a couple of paragraphs about Curry completely changed the balance of this section, until it became a bit unclear why it was called 'a modern reassessment'. Also we have to have some way of saying that Curry may well be right, but currently her research is unsupported by other people.

This would all get a bit easier if I got around to creating my paragraph on casualties. I will do at some point, honest. Then the Modern Reassessment section can be much more focused on what Curry said.

--Merlinme 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Curry's numbers are highly unprobable. With a brilliant field commander leading a tried and proven English army, wasting the country and threatening Paris itself, the French (with a male population outnumbering England's as much as 8 to 1) could put an army in the field larger than 12,000. If we look at the rising of La Vendee in the 18th century, we see that a small province of France put at least three times Curry's numbers in the field. Were all the leaders of France at the time of Agincourt the laziest group of princes ever collected, they could still raise over 12,000 men. LoreTj (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Image of battle formation
The image of the battle formation does not match the description that is given in the text and seems to be very misleading. Thefuguestate 11:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reaching consensus on where we should put the fact a significant proportion of the "English" army was Welsh
As far as I can see it:

argument for: it's true (although it would be nice to see a reference and an estimate of the exact proportion)

argument against: it's a bit distracting when trying to understand the article. A large proportion of the French army may well have been Italian for all I know; how relevant is this?

The suggestion was that the reference to the Welsh would be better placed later in the article-perhaps when discussing the armies in detail?- rather than in the opening 'campaign' section.

Any thoughts appreciated.

--Merlinme 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Henry was very severely wounded by an arrow from a Welsh archer at the Battle of Shrewsbury, during the rebellion of Welsh prince Owen Glendower. The story of how his absolvitory and inclusive policies later enabled him to recruit Welsh soldiers into his army, with complete confidence, is notable and worth including somewhere. However, it's not really part of the story of Agincourt. Many of the original indentures for the supply of troops to the campaign are preserved, as are the exchequer rolls recording who received money to pay wages, so there is probably some published research identifying which parts of the realm supplied what troops. Unfortunately I haven't been able to trace any of this, but given the emphasis in England at the time on the training of archers I would be surprised if a "significant proportion" at Agincourt were Welsh. --Old Moonraker 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is very little in history that isn't disputed and making a ridged statement requires ridged facts, otherwise we need to be more nuanced and further expand an idea with historiographical references. -- Stbalbach 15:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Was the longbow instrumental in winning Agincourt?
Personally I think the answer is a resounding "Yes", but if someone can explain to me why this might not be the case, I'm happy to have the discussion.

--Merlinme 16:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see from above there are some different views on the subject. Also there is the question if the English really was that inferior in numbers. Also the Battlefield Detectives: Agincourt's Dark Secrets had dubts about the role of the longbow.. It may still be the longbowmen that contributed to the English victory, but not the longbow, bur rather short swords, hammers and such close range weapons. OK, these shows get ratings by presenting "new findings", but it can't just be dismissed. // Liftarn

None of this is new, though. We have had enormous trouble with the Agincourt article incorporating Curry's work. I have immense respect for the research she's done, however it's surely clear that this is deliberate revisionism. To use a quote from the link you gave: '“The figures have been exaggerated over the centuries for patriotic reasons,” said Curry, whose book Agincourt: A New History will be published next month. “It was a myth constructed around Henry to build up his reputation as a king.”' She called it 'a new history' and then gave good soundbites, shortly before her book was published. And good luck to her, but surely it's clear that there is an agenda; and just because it's revisionist, doesn't mean it's right.

The fact is she disagrees with just about every other historian who's looked at it, and also the contemporary (admittedly rather unreliable) sources, including the French sources. That doesn't mean she's wrong, but it does mean we should be cautious in accepting everything she says, especially when the book was only published a couple of years ago. I would be very surprised if someone didn't publish a book within the next twenty years which strenuously disagrees with her. With that in mind, it seems sensible to use the previous consensus on numbers when writing the article, but explain the controversy in a separate section, which is what we've done.

As for the effectiveness of the longbow, I do find this rather strange. Undoubtedly armour had moved on since Crecy; but why were the English even bothering to fire if they were completely ineffective! Much is made of the fact that longbows could not penetrate 2mm thick steel plate; but the fact is that not all the French would have been wearing full plate armour, it would not all have been of a uniformly high quality, and even when it was high quality, there were still places (e.g. joints) where arrows could penetrate. The horses were also worse protected than their riders. Medieval English archers carried approximately 48 arrows. They fired a few to start the battle, and then would presumably have been firing at nearly maximum speed through the French cavalry charge and then the men-at-arms advance. The cavalry charge was by all accounts a disaster. Bearing in mind how heavily armoured they were and the mud, the men-at-arms would have been advancing at little more than a jog for the last 100 yards (when the English would have hoped their arrows would be effective). If we say it took them 20-30 seconds to close that distance, that's enough time for the longbowmen to fire four or five shots into the scrum, or approximately 25,000 arrows. This would have been repeated several times as different French waves approached and then retreated. This would have been daunting, to say the least, and the footing would not have been made any easier when the men-at-arms were continuously being buffeted by arrows. The fact that the French were still able to engage the English line suggests strongly that the longbow was not as lethal as it had been, but it seems extraordinary to me to suggest that it caused no casualties at all. If even 1% of 50,000 arrows found a chink in the armour, that's 500 casualties out of 6,000. If 5% of 100,000 arrows hit something significant, that's 5,000 casualties out of 6,000.

Obviously this is all wild speculation. I have no idea how you would prove things one way or the other. But I certainly don't see why the revisionist account is obviously correct.

Incidentally, the link you gave to Battlefield Detectives I think is rather misleading. It seems to imply in the bottom diagram that the English had more men-at-arms than longbowmen, when in fact there were approximately 4 times more longbowmen than men-at-arms.

With all this in mind, I struggle to see why you would disagree that the consensus view is that the longbow helped the English to overcome superior numbers at Agincourt. I am highly dubious that the far greater numbers of French men-at-arms would have been beaten (even with the mud, the crowd, and the longbowmen attacking them with their handweapons), if their advance had not been disrupted by the longbow fire.

--Merlinme 19:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just two positions like a) the longbow singlehandedly won the battle or b) the longbow was utterly useless. The truth is probably somewhere inbetween with many different factors affecting the outcome of the battle. SO the bold thatement about the role of the longbow surely needs a proper source. Especially when there are conflicting views. // Liftarn

The statement is that the longbow 'helped the English compensate for their inferior numbers'. It is not: 'the longbow singlehandedly won Agincourt for the English'. I am not even sure that you are disagreeing that the longbow HELPED the English compensate for inferior numbers of (at least) 1.5-1, with most historians going with higher figures. With this in mind, I am therefore going to remove your "citation needed" from that sentence in the introduction.

--Merlinme 10:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I say that the longbow itself had nothing to do with the victory. There are other factors that are far more important. // Liftarn

Well then I guess we will have to continue to disagree. You are supporting a revisionist position, I am not. I simply do not see how you can ignore the weapon used by approximately 4/5 of the winning side when considering factors which helped the winning side overcome a significant disadvantage in numbers. You appear to be implying that the English would have still won the battle if the longbowmen had been armed with nothing but hand weapons, and I don't think that is supported by the evidence. If between six and nine thousand heavily armed and armoured French men-at-arms (in the first line) had walked up to the English lines and engaged 1,000 English men-at-arms, then I do not see how the intervention of 5,000 lightly armed soldiers would have been enough to compensate, even allowing for the crush and the mud. It was the men-at-arms' job to fight in a melee, the longbowmen were not particularly trained for this. There is no suggestion that the English men-at-arms were significantly better trained, led or equipped than the French. So either you think the longbow helped the English to win, or you essentially think that 5,000 unarmoured, untrained men were able to overwhelm a larger sized force of professional and well-equipped soldiers, with minimal casualties.

I agree with your earlier statement that "The truth is probably somewhere inbetween with many different factors affecting the outcome of the battle". You may have noticed that I have now changed the account of the fighting to emphasise that advances in armour allowed the French to close, even under a hail of fire. However to say "the longbow itself had nothing to do with the victory" seems far too strong.

--Merlinme 13:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the controversial statement with the factual one that longbowmen made up the vast majority of the English army. Personally I think you can draw the conclusion from this that the longbow helped in achieving the victory, but you are welcome to draw different conclusions if you wish.

--Merlinme 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Page 18 of "The Great War Bow" Strickland and Hardy talk through the modern tests and write:
 * ... proving what exactly? That we did not consistently destroy French and Scottish armies, as long as the archers were properly deployed for battle, and that the archers on opposing sides in the Wars of the Roses did not consistently destroy each other and gave rise to appalling death-tolls? The sad fact is that if an archer today can command a 90lb bow not a 150lb one, he seems unable to accept that fact that his forebears thoroughly outclassed him. And the disbelievers speak loud and long, and you will doubtless come across their opinions in the majority of written, spoken and televised versions of 'old, unhappy, far-off things and battles long ago'. Of course you will not penetrate a plate helmet or any other piece of plate-armour, whether made in the year 2000 or the year 1400, if your bow has not the strength to do it, and if your arrow is nor designed to penetrate it.
 * --Philip Baird Shearer 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One important thing on the effectiveness of the bows and arrows used by the English and their effect in battle, is that if the article was written before the excavation of the Mary Rose is likely to underestimate the draw weights of the medieval English longbow. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that forensic archeology proved that the arrowheads used at the time were incable of penetrating plate mail worn by the French soldiers and that a majority of the fatalities can be attributed to incapability to move due to the consistency of the soil. This was aired on a History Channel special on the Battle of Agincourt. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.244.12 (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrain
There are a couple of references to a defile, or gorge, constraining the French advance, whereas the action took place in a shallow valley; it was woodland that had the funnelling effect. (The form of the land can be confirmed on Google Earth, although the woodland is now much reduced in favor of agriculture of course). Subject to other editors' views, I propose to change this. --Old Moonraker 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd noticed myself that most of the accounts actually refer to the woods constraining movement rather than the sides of a gorge as such. I'd somewhat uncritically kept the accounts of a "defile" because I assumed someone had put it in for a reason and I didn't have anything which directly contradicted it. Also the implication of the Battlefield Detectives site (where they use contour mapping to analyse how the area available to the French declined) is that the contours of the landscape do matter.

Provided you're changing the article based on an analysis of the map and the contours of the land I have no problem with you emphasising the woodland over the gorge. However if we do this then it must raise some questionmarks over the Battlefield Detectives work. Do you have access to maps of the area? How significant are the contours that can be seen on the Battlefield Detectives link?

--Merlinme 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm keen to do this because of WP:NOR, I'm afraid – a visit to the battlefield while passing through the area: it's still easily identifiable on the ground from the positions of the villages of Tramacourt and Azincourt. It's all quite flat and the contours do not seem significant to the modern eye (although my "battlefield expert" on the day was a former cold war tank commander – not necessarily representative of a C15 soldier's viewpoint!). This picture from flckr is nicely representative.


 * Obviously I'll need some surer sourcing than this before I add to the page; it's harder to prove than something isn't there than show where it is! I'm trying to find my modern map of the area; this might do as a reliable source if I can lay my hands on it, otherwise I'll hold back until I can cite something. Old Moonraker 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just had a quick look at the 1911 EB, and lo and behold, that's where the word "defile" comes from. The original quote is: "The battle was fought in the defile formed by the wood of Agincourt and that of Tramecourt." This has been muddied by someone helpfully explaining that defile = gorge. Looking it up in the dictionary, I think it's probably rather more likely (given the context) that defile is being used in the sense of "narrow passage". It's also noticeable that the EB 1911 makes no mention whatsoever of the ground available to the French narrowing.

Where this leaves the Battlefield Detectives work I'm not completely sure. Not for the first time on Wikipedia, castles may have been erected on shaky foundations!

In any case, I don't think you modifying the article to emphasise the woods vs. the non-existent gorge would be Original Research at all, if anything it would tally better with other versions. Please go ahead. To start with I'm going to change the link for defile because I think it's deeply misleading.

--Merlinme 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Ive been able to use the Battlefields Detectives "book to accompany the series" as one of the sources, as it describes woodland, not contours, as providing the containment of the battlefield. --Old Moonraker 10:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Longbows and horses
Some excellent work done to the article to remove the defile/ gorge/ woodland confusion. However, I'm not sure about the sentence:

"Keegan (1976) argues that the weapons' main effect was on the horses: only armoured on the head, many could become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation shots used as the charge started."

Given that 90% of the French knights attacked on foot, is this really relevant?

--Merlinme 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was a bit dubious about dipping a toe into the long-running longbow debate! I cited Keegan for the above sentence, but Barker too, while certainly not disputing the figures you offer, lays emphasis on the significance of the French cavalry charge and the effect of arrows on the horses. I've now expanded this slightly to include her point: how the returning horses added to the confusion and press of the advancing men-at-arms of their own side.   --Old Moonraker 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it reads better now.

--Merlinme 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They're all good changes, but I've rearranged the text to make it easier to follow the chronology, i.e. mounted charge (and retreat) first, followed by men-at-arms advance (which was probably disrupted by knights' retreat).

--Merlinme 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping with the chronology makes it much clearer - it's an improvement. Old Moonraker 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Azincourt, not Agincourt.
First of all, please change the name in the title ! It's AZINCOURT, not Agincourt. Marc Fortier-Beaulieu. France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.44.33 (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Welsh, not English, longbows
86.20.45.15 14:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Cymraeg:

Whilst there were English using the longbow, there was a large number of Welshmen that had been conscripted. The longbow was the Welsh Longbow, not the English longbow. The English conscripted Welsh longbowmen into their army because they had experienced it's effectiveness during the Anglo-Norman invasion of Wales.

French massacre of the English baggage children 89.241.5.57 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Weighell
Apart from the rather obvious attempts to downgrade the English success of this battle there seems to be no mention whatsoever of the massacre by the French of the English baggage attendants that is supposed to have been the cause of the later English decision to massacre the French prisoners.

Opening of the Battle
I always thought that the battle opened with Genoese crossbowmen advancing and firing at the English line,only to be driven back by the faster firing rate of the English archers. The crossbowmen retreated and were slaughter by the first French division because they were thought cowards for retreating - but this is not mentioned in the account given —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.68.19 (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're thinking of the Battle of Crecy. --Merlinme 09:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Redressing obvious bias and supposition as 'fact'
I couldn't believe what I was seeing when I read this article, it is extrememly poor in comparison to the many other excellent wiki pieces, the obvious bias against the english in the piece as well as including Curry's work which not one single international contemporary agrees with!

The whole article left a bad taste in my mouth, the most OBVIOUS petty attacks and ridiculous theories in place of known fact [from every concrete source] were avoided and in its place the most awful revisionism. Attacks on Henry V personally about the killing of the prisoners while avoiding the murdering of little children behind the lines by Agincourt's men just one example, its just a disgrace. Also, the subsequent historical facts about Henry V has no place in this piece, but rather here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_of_England

I have edited out the worst and can only hope that someone who is a little more neutral can submit a more balanced piece....

"What is your fascination with my secret closet of mysteries?" Twobells 20:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on this article. A couple of points though: please don't mark all your edits as "minor" (the only edits I mark as minor are where I'm correcting spelling and grammar), and always try to remember to leave an edit comment, it makes life a lot easier for other editors to see what's been changed and why; and please try to avoid editorialising (i.e. reaching your own conclusions). Wikipedia is here to (as far as possible) report fact, and the only opinions that should be expressed are those quoted from other people. I'm afraid I've reverted your opening paragraph in full, as I really couldn't see why it was better. Henry may well have said that he was invading France for security, but that doesn't necessarily make it so, or at least, not the only reason. Hitler would have said he was invading Russia for security.


 * There may have been some bias against the English previously, and handling Curry's book has always been difficult, so I've left in significant parts of your edits, although I would like to see a quote that Henry's slaughter of the wounded was considered merciful (or de rigeur, for that matter). I'm not a medieval history expert but I don't remember it happening after other battles. I thought it was more along the lines that contemporaries didn't particularly criticise him for it; but I don't remember them saying he was doing the wounded a favour.


 * A few other minor points- the Wikipedia style guide says essentially that whichever English spelling is used should be consistent. Articles about Britain and British history are generally spelled using British spelling, i.e. honour, travelled, etc., although I realise you may not necessarily know all the differences. You can sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (the "~" symbol) or using the formatting button 10th from the left above the editing box. And the way to link to other articles is just to put the name of the article in double square brackets, not to to give the URL, i.e. Battle of Agincourt, not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt. Thanks (and I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, active Wikipedians are always welcomed). --Merlinme 09:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't know the whys and wherefore's of the wiki syntax and what is acceptable by it, but I had to attempt to redress both the OBVIOUS bias of the piece and it's inaccuracies. My edit shows that I used the four tildes and while the time is shown the id isn't.

I have also to suggest that under 'situation' the numbers involved were both reliable on average and consistant, it is only Curry's work that suggested otherwise, yes there was some inconsistancy between the French figures and the English but that is par for the course, so I will go ahead and edit the piece to show that.

I believe that any discussion on Curry's work belongs at the bottom and not in the main piece as it is based in the entirety on supposition as opposed to know fact. I have to say I do hate modernist revision when it is not based on historical evidence. My next task will be to see what other wiki articles say about English History and the nationalities involved of the people writing them and whether they have the strength of character to withhold bias in favour of the reality. Twobells 09:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I cannot seem to find La Bataille D'Agincourt in the .fr wikipedia, can someone send me a link please? Twobells 09:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The French spelling is Azincourt, hence fr:Bataille d'Azincourt --Old Moonraker 10:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the link, it was most illuminating. Twobells 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to Anne Curry's troop count
Comments above have "Anne Curry...revising the odds in the victory down as much as she can". The professor's ongoing revision has now crept into the WP article, with her suggestion of 9000 English seemingly contradicting her estimate of 7000, in the same paragraph. I intend to give this a very minor tidy but, as it seems to be a much-discussed topic, may I solicit other editors' views before starting? Old Moonraker 15:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A fix by User:Aryaman13 has repaired the worst problems: thanks. --Old Moonraker 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting edits- it may well be correct that French scholars are leaning towards Curry's figures. [Well, they would wouldn't they? Twobells (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)]However I've asked for citations, as we need to be pointed towards the sources so we can make a judgement as to their weight (and whether they've been accurately reported). --Merlinme 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is noticeable that the French Wiki article puts the low end of the size of French army as 25,000, not 12,000. I'm not entirely sure how much notice should be taken of this, as I think the French Wiki relies on the English Wiki to some extent, and certainly they both rely quite heavily on the 1911 Britannica. However it's still interesting that if French scholars are questioning the numbers of French involved, this doesn't seem to have reached the French Wiki yet.


 * I keep meaning to put Juliet Barker's response to Curry's figures in the article, I'll do it tonight if I remember. Basically Barker argues that given the questionable accuracy of the available contemporary records (in particular, are they complete?), Curry's method of reconstructing the numbers based on them is dubious. Also, any account which puts the numbers at less than (say) 3-1 seems to make a mockery of all the contemporary accounts, all of which describe the English as heavily outnumbered, which surely isn't 3:2. Of course, as with all battles before the modern period it's almost impossible to know for sure one way or the other, but I've never been particularly convinced by Curry's arguments (at the end of the day, it was in her interest to be revisionist, because it generates controversy and increases book sales). None of the other medieval French sources put the French numbers so low, and it's unclear to me why they would want to exaggerate the extent of their disaster. I'm not particularly convinced by Barkers 6-1 figure either, which seems high, but how are we to be sure? All we can really do is reflect the range of views among historians. Which is why it would be interesting if some French historians now think the French numbers were lower- but we need citations. --Merlinme 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now added in Barker's comments on Curry's research. This is the only response I'm aware of by a significant historian, although there probably is something else in a journal somewhere.


 * perhaps my memory is wrong, but my recollection is that anne curry is irish. can anybody confirm this? bruce bruce (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A problem when considering controversial research soon after it has been published is that the peer review process is not really complete for another ten or fifteen years. Even Barker's response is more of a "gut feeling" than a considered rebuttal, but I think her comments on the incompleteness of the records and keeping the numbers consistent with contemporary accounts are valuable. --Merlinme 19:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The section is fixed again, considerably better than it was before. Great job! --Old Moonraker 20:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) --Merlinme 10:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Henry's inspired choice of position"
Given that, as I understand it, the battle was fought at Agincourt because the French were blocking the English route to Calais, is it really sensible to talk about Henry's choice of terrain? Other than not trying to go round the French, and perhaps moving his men forward slightly, it's unclear to me that he chose the position of the battle at all. The battle was fought pretty much where the French chose to fight it. --Merlinme 10:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so now its not that the English won due to their tactical abilities at incredible odds but that the french lost due to the lacks of theirs? Every positive comment made in this piece about the English is either deleted or edited in such a way as to try and take away the reality of the occasion, I think that is sad, small-minded and transparentTwobells (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're just using rhetoric. If you can explain how Henry chose the terrain, then we can talk about putting it back in. --Merlinme (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hibbert could be cited here, although he doesn't really support the contention, and certainly not the somewhat extravagant wording. It's more a case of Henry making the the best tactical deployment given the topography with which he was presented. He writes: "During the night Henry had sent some of his knights forward to survey the field and he had already decided how best to make use of its advantages". The "constricted position adopted by the French" had been decided already, through lack of foresight on their part. On the whole, deletion seems best. --Old Moonraker 11:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources section (original research?)
The more I think about, this section (or large parts of it, anyway), the more I think that unfortunately it must qualify as Original Research. The problem is that decisions have been made about which sources are considered correct. For example, the 5,900 figure is preferred over Curry's figure or The Great Chronicle of London's figure. The 5,900 figure may well be the most accurate, but to make that decision ourselves (without backing from secondary sources) is Original Research. We have interpreted the evidence. Although the 5,900 figure is fairly well accepted, some people do disagree (e.g. the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica thinks the numbers were nearer 10,000). So why have we chosen 5,900 from the primary sources? In the absence of the a muster roll, using the primary sources, you come up with Curry's figure. Anything less than that is speculation. Plausible speculation; but we're not allowed to speculate like this without independent backing.

Similarly with the French figures (and perhaps worse, given the higher level of dispute among historians). By giving the Herald's detailed figures, we give them credibility. To do this is to ignore the fact that virtually no significant historian (British historian, anyway), thinks his figures are sensible. To choose his figures rather than those of the Burgundians, or the British records, or the guesstimates used by British historians (e.g. the 36,000 figure used by Barker, or the similar figure used by the 1911 EB), is to interpet the evidence. It's also to ignore the fact that no eyewitness thought the odds were less than 3-1.

I'm afraid therefore that unless independent backing can be found for the writing in this section, large sections will have to be removed.

--Merlinme (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don´t see why we can choose one from many different secondary sources, but not one from primary sources. Anyway, you can choose a secondary source that select your favourite primary source. For instance, Philippe Contamine in Guerre, état et société à la fin du Moyen Age, Etudes sur les armée des rois de France, 1337-1494 (Paris, 1972) backed the Herald of Berry as the source for numbers in the battle, while Charles Oman in The Art of War in the Middle Ages AD 378-1515, (Cornwall University Press, London, 1953)accepted the 5.900 put forward by the Gesta Henrici Quinti, so you can use those very respected scholars to back your claim.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So the solution is to quote from a representative sample of secondary sources. It's certainly not to guide the reader to the 'correct' primary source based on our analysis.


 * I still think Barker is a reasonable source, as she's published her book very recently and it's based on current research. As of course is Curry, but the article has to reflect the fact that what Curry says is controversial. But I'm aware that the article is somewhat one-sided at the moment, I would be very happy to add more references based on other historians, assuming their work is respected and not out of date. --Merlinme (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth quoting the Original Research policy in detail:


 * "To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should

only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable from another source."


 * So in other words, unless our analysis is quoted directly from another source, it has to go.
 * When quoting secondary sources we should reflect the most respected views (and reflect controversy where it exists), but that's a separate question. Interpretation of primary sources is expressly forbidden: because it presents our own analysis as more important than other sources; and because a reader cannot verify what we are saying by turning to respected sources. As far as possible Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the current state of knowledge among respected sources, not our own opinons.--Merlinme (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this section as it was unsourced and it was WP:OR --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A rather drastic edit to make without discussion! I've pasted it below, as there was a lot of interesting stuff here. I agree a lot was original research, but it might be possible to save some of it. --Merlinme (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 >== Discussion of the primary sources ==

Original research The narrative sources can be grouped into three fields: 1) The English writers, all of them favourable to Henry V, of whom the anonymous writer of the Gesta Henrici Quinti is the most important source, as the only English account written by an eyewitness and the basis for many of the other English sources.  2) The Burgundians, who provide a less favourable picture of the English, but the main targets of their criticism are the Armagnac lords, who are portrayed as incompetent and cowardly; their heroes are the Burgundian noblemen that fought and died in the battle. Jean LeFevre de Saint Remy and Jehan de Wavrin are the main sources, both eyewitnesses, while Enguerrand de Monstrelet follows closely Wavrin. In total they provide a more detailed narrative of the battle. 3) Finally, the French sources. There is no eyewitness among them. Jean Juvenal des Ursins, secretary of King Charles VI and later Chancellor of King Charles VII is the best source for the campaign, but heavily biased in favour of the Armagnacs, while Jacques le Bouvier, Herald of Berri, provides the most detailed account of the French forces in the battle that we have.  >===The English Army===   The numbers given in the English sources for Agincourt range from 5,900 (Gesta Henrici Quinti) to 10,000 (The Great Chronicle of London). The Burgundians all give numbers over 10,000, and the French even higher (Des Ursins gives the English army leaving Harfleur as 38,000 strong).   The muster roll for the English army to be embarked to France on July 1st show a total of 11,791 soldiers, with 2,316 men-at arms and 9,475 archers. A total of 320 retinues had been indented, including 26 Peers and 57 Knights Bannerets and Bachelors. There is no additional muster roll for the campaign, however there is documentary evidence for the losses in the siege of Harfleur, that amounted to 38 dead and 1,330 invalided home sick by sea. Also, 1,200 men were detached to garrison Harfleur, a number given in the Gesta and confirmed by a muster roll of the garrison in 1416, so at most, the English army at Agincourt could be 9,223 strong. However there is no muster roll for the army immediately preceding the battle, so it is possible that at Agincourt disease and desertion had reduced the troop total to the 5,900 given by the Gesta Henrici Quinti. The documentary evidence also provides a good insight into the composition of the English army. The Retinues of the Peers were the largest in the army, and were composed of the household plus smaller retinues provided by knights and squires. For instance, the Duke of Clarence assembled a retinue of 960 men, of which he provided 149 men directly, with the remainder provided in the retinues of 11 knights and 59 squires. Another important question is that, while it is clear that a man-at-arms was a warrior of high social status that fought with heavy armour, it is not so clear what an archer was. Basically, an archer was someone of lesser social status that received the pay of an archer (half of that of a man-at-arms). Servants are many times included in the retinues as archers, especially those of the household of Peers, for instance in the retinue of Lord Scrope his steward, his baker and even his barber were listed as archers. Even those that were real warriors would not necessarily armed with a bow, but instead were billmen or armed with any other polearm (see J.E.Morris, Mounted Infantry in Mediaeval Warfare (Oxford 1914)) Another feature of archers is that unless specified they mustered with a horse. Men-at arms regularly mustered with at least two horses, while higher noblemen are listed with many more horses, the Earl Marshal for instance is listed with 24 horses. Men-at-arms are also accompanied by at least one page each. A special case was the recruitment in Wales, Lancashire and Cheshire. In Cheshire 247 archers were raised from the hundreds and paid by local taxes. From Lancashire 500 archers were recruited, divided in companies 50 strong under command of a local knight or squire. In Wales archers were recruited only in the South, as the loyalty of North Wales was suspect, the total number was 500, of them 473 foot archers. The muster roll also list 560 independent support men, including 120 miners, 124 carpenters, 150 stonemasons, 40 smiths, 60 waggoners and 120 labourers. 30 German gunners are also listed, although the number of guns is not given. >===The French Army=== The English sources give a range of numbers from 60,000 (Gesta Henrici Quinti) to 140,000 (Thomas Walsingham) and no detail about its composition. The Burgundians all claim a French army of 50,000. Waurin says that there were 8,000 men at arms, 4,000 archers and 1,500 crossbowmen in the vanguard, a similar number in the second line (the main battle), two mounted wings of 800 and 600 mounted men-at-arms, (a total of approximately 28,400), with the remainder in the rearguard. Wavrin and Monstrelet say the French outnumbered the English 6 to 1, while LeFevre says 3 to 1. (Juliet Barker derives her 36,000 figure from Waurin's statement that the French outnumbered the English by six times.) Neither 3-1 nor 6-1 corresponds exactly with the actual numbers given by the Burgundians (50,000 French and 10,000+ for the English). By far the most detailed account of the French order of battle that we have is that of the Herald of Berry (writing 38 years after the battle). He was interested in who was in command of which forces, and his account is the closest to an order of battle of the French army that we have. His figures are noticeably lower than those given in other sources. According to the Herald of Berry: Van Battle: 4,800 Main Battle: 3,000 (plus some hundreds of late arrivals) Right Wing: 600 Left wing: 600 That gives a grand total of c.10,000. (He does not give any figure for the third line described by Waurin.) The documentary evidence for the French army is much less detailed. Anne Curry has found evidence for 230 retinues in the pay of the French Chambre des Comptes &mdash;French equivalent of the Exchequer (Anne Curry, Agincourt, A new History p.108). Detailed numbers of the men in each one are not given, but assuming a similar size to the English retinues, it would mean at least 6,000 men (Anne Curry, Agincourt, A new History p.108). Curry adds that in a meeting of the Royal Council on August 31 it was decided to levy 24,000 livres tournois in order to raise an army of 6,000 escuiers and 3,000 gens de trait (Anne Curry, Agincourt, A new History p.106). The French army that moved from Rouen to block the pass of Henry of the river Somme is numbered by the Burgundian sources at 6,000, while there is evidence for some troops remaining at Rouen with the king and the Dauphin. Some modern historians have argued that the 6,000 French were only an advance force, to be later joined by the main army with a much larger force, however Anne Curry argues that there is nothing in the sources to support that, only the Duke of Orleans and the Duke of Bourbon are said to have arrived later from Rouen, with a maximum of around 2,500 men (Anne Curry, Agincourt, A new History p.227-228). The King issued a royal decree on 20th September to call as many troops as possible to the army, blaming the local nobility's "negligence and delays" for the loss of Harfleur (Barker, 2005, p.240), but it is unclear how many additional forces joined the French army over the following month before the battle. The documentary sources also provide some additional details about the French army. The retinues were paid individually, differently from the English system in which the Peers received the pay for the entire company, and then paid the captains of the individual retinues. From the French retinues in which composition is given we see that, unlike the English, some are composed totally by escuiers (the French equivalent of men-at-arms). As the English archers, the French gens de trait are a mixed group, including some archers (in the sense of bowmen), crossbowmen, but overall a large proportion of servants (valets) with a military role, they would serve as a sort of lightly armoured men-at-arms. The documentary sources show that the French army was then composed mainly of men-at-arms style soldiers, with a small provision of archers and crossbowmen, which fits with the very limited role they play in all the narrative accounts. >===Analysis of the sources===
 * Constable d’Albret (3,000)
 * Duke of Bourbon (1,200)
 * Duke of Orleans (600)
 * Count of Nevers: (1,200)
 * Duke of Bar (600)
 * Count of Marle (400)
 * Count of Eu (300)
 * Count of Vaudemont (300)
 * The Count of Roucy (200)
 * The Duke of Brabant and the barons of Hainault with some hundreds.
 * Richemont (600)
 * Count of Vendôme (600).

The numbers which the documentary sources provide for the size of the professional armies is very consistent, and some (Curry, also see Phillippe Contamine, La Guerre au moyen âge (Paris 1980)), have argued that they are more reliable than narrative accounts. For instance, the army of Henry V could be compared to that raised by Henry IV in 1400 against Scotland, that numbered 13,085 men. Equally, the army raised by Charles VI against Burgundy in 1414, that numbered 14,500, could be compared to the forces raised in 1415 (it should be noted here the financial difficulties the French experienced in 1415 as a result of the previous campaign that hindered their efforts to raise a new army). However other historians have preferred the eyewitness accounts, none of which put the odds at less than 3:1; Juliet Barker has argued that the documentary sources are too incomplete to be able to conclude (as Curry does) that the odds were only 4:3.


 * I've undone one edit by you, regarding the numbers quoted by primary sources; the Original Research policy (quoted above) specifically allows "descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". Saying which primary sources claim which numbers for each side for the battle is fine, therefore. I'll have a look at attributing the numbers more specifically; but the WP:OR policy does not have a blanket exclusion for the use of primary sources, just for interpretation of them. --Merlinme (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have cut it again:
 * to write this it needs a secondary source that says as much otherwise it is WP:OR. How do we know the facts asserted? It is similar to the problem highlighted by RS --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think you're being rather aggressive with your edits. If this is an example of WP:BOLD, you seem to be missing out the "discuss" part. Wikipedia is supposed to be about building consensus, yes? In the case of this particular edit, multiple secondary sources say very similar things; the numbers claimed are easily verifiable. I will dig out my copy of Barker if you absolutely insist no primary sources; but that is not actually what the WP:OR says. Use of primary sources is permitted as long as it's verifiable. --Merlinme (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment changes to WP:PROVEIT are under discussion and are frequently made so it is far from stable. Something that has recently been removed is a quote from Jimbo which I happen to agree with: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons". The first large block of text has been hanging around since before you made your comments at the start of this section nearly half a year ago. It should have been deleted (or moved here) last year.

With regards to WP:PSTS and the sentences that start "The primary sources themselves..."
 * "The primary sources themselves generally do not agree on the numbers of the combatants involved" One can not know that without WP:OR. It is easy to prove if two primary sources are provided (which they are not at the moment), but even if they are provided it can be argued that it falls foul of WP:SYN. As it is trivial to prove providing sources are given then it is not such a problem, however in many (most?) battles sources differ as to the number of combatants so what is this sentence trying to say?
 * "They range from 6,000 to 12,000 for the English and from 5,000 to 100,000 for the French." This is not possible to support because to know that one would have to be an expert on the subject (because one can not know if one had found all the sources unless one is an expert) so it is not verifiable by "anyone—without specialist knowledge", and so it has to be confirmed by a secondary source (which needs to be cited). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, at least we're having the discussion now. I know the view you're putting forward has some support on Wikipedia. I personally don't 100% agree with it (and I don't think I'm alone). The problem with it for me is that it leads to something of a citation fetish. I mean, if I say: "The Second World War lasted from 1939 to 1945", do I need a reference for that? For a start, it could be disputed; some people might say you should start it from the start of the Sino-Japanese war, for example. So are we really going to then ask for a citation for "The Battle of Hastings took place in 1066"? A complete refusal to use primary material, and also just accept that some things are well established, leads to some slightly ludicrous results, in my opinion. With regard to the specific quote we're dealing with, if it's changed to a list of primary sources and the numbers they give, is that allowed? It's surely easily verifiable. And to then say "As can be seen the numbers do not agree" is not synthesis; it's logic, for goodness sake. 6,000 does not equal 36,000 does not equal 50,000. I find it mystifying the idea that even logical restatements of clearly verifiable facts would need to be removed. --Merlinme (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have not read the World War II article recently! There is no harm is citing primary sources were appropriate for example see Battle of Waterloo:
 * ''Wellington recorded in his dispatches that "at about ten o'clock [Napoleon] commenced a furious attack upon our post at Hougoumont".[35] Other sources state that this attack was at about 11:30.[36] The historian Andrew Roberts notes that "It is a curious fact about the Battle of Waterloo that no one is absolutely certain when it actually began".[37]

That is a direct quote from a primary source that does nothing more than it is supposed to do, and is a quote that I added to that article. If you look through the very long discussions about WP:PSTS in the archives you will see that I was active in those discussions using Wellington as a primary source for the Battle of Waterloo as an example. It was I who insisted that the phrasing be changed so that primary sources could be used to an analytic judgement. This was necessary because some were interpreting the previously ambiguous wording to mean that primary sources should not be used like this. The example I used was Wellington's analysis that the battle was "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life."

Now back to these two sentences. The problem is not so much the first sentence although as I said what is the point of it? The specific problem with the fist sentence is the word "generally" how does one know it to be true unless someone (an expert) tells us it is? The major problem is the second sentence because there is no way a list of primary sources can conclusively be shown to be exhaustive (and hence show the full range of the numbers in the primary sources) -- unless a secondary source says it is -- and to claim it is is a full range without a secondary source to support the statement is WP:OR. So as one has to use a secondary source to state what the range is there is no need to cite primary sources over the range and as soon as a secondary source is used to cite a range the first sentence becomes redundant because the second sentence supported by a secondary source implies that the first sentence is true. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, well in that case we have more common ground than I thought (and it's a fair point that I hadn't read the Second World War article!) The reason I support the inclusion of a statement along the lines of "the primary sources differ in their estimates" is simply to help explain to the reader why this area is so controversial among modern historians. Is something along the lines of the following reasonable? "Primary sources give a wide range of estimates of the size of the armies; for example, source X states that the English army was 5,900, source Y states that the English army was 50,000, and source Z states that the English army was 100,000. Modern historians have given different figures for the battle depending on which source they considered most reliable, or in some cases have used a different method. For example, Barker gives a figure of 36,000 for the French, based on a figure of 6,000 for the English (from source X) and Waurin's estimate that the English were outnumbered by six times [citation here]. Rather than relying on contemporary estimates of the total size of the armies, Anne Curry has attempted to reconstruct the size of the armies based on such contemporary records as the wages bills and supply records, and come up with a figure of 8,000 for the English and 13,000 for the French". Something along those lines anyway. The intention is to explain to the reader a) why this is controversial and b) why estimates among modern historians can vary so dramatically (by a factor of several times). --Merlinme (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Providing the new text is cited it is much better. But as the original sources (unlike those of the Napoleonic Wars) of this period will be opaque to most modern readers it is much better that the interpretation of the numbers in the sentence "Primary sources ..." is from a reliable secondary source rather than the original primary source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How many men would have arrived from the call to arms?
I think the biggest issue with the numbers for the French as used by Curry (and which we seem to be saying are even lower, if anything), is that a) no eye-witness thought the odds were less than 3-1 and b) we don't have a clear figure for the call-to-arms. I don't see any particular reason to dispute that the French raised a professional army of between ten and fifteen thousand. However the question is surely how many militia turned up. To take a roughly similar example (and yes, I know they're several hundred years apart and in different countries), when Harold fought William at the Battle of Hastings, most historians estimate half his army (of about 8,000) came from the fyrd in the southern counties, i.e. the call-to-arms of the local militia. Bearing in mind that William didn't land until 28th September, and the battle was fought on 14th October, that means several thousand troops were raised in an absolute maximum of two weeks (probably nearer one week). The maximum estimated male population of England was about 2 million, whereas I believe it would have been perhaps four times that for France at the time. Henry had been in northern France for over two months by the time of Agincourt; so if the call-to-arms only went out a week beforehand, there should still have been plenty of people who thought it might come and could muster at short notice. So an extra 16,000 troops does not seem inconceivable.

Would the Herald have bothered giving the numbers for the militia? For that matter, how much effect would they have had on the battle? A large number of men seem to have watched the failed advance of the men-at-arms and then fled; presumably the militia would have been over-represented in this 'rearguard'.

Anyway, this is all speculation, but I'm doing it simply to point out that you can come up with several fairly plausible explanations for the sources and numbers if you wish. But we're not allowed to do this; we must have clear backing (without our own interpretation) from good sources.

--Merlinme (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 2 different things here, the semonce des nobles called all the nobility of the region to arms, while the baillis were to put the defenses of the towns ready and to muster troops at a given point, where they were to receive their pay. As for speculation, mind the following. In August 28 the semonce des nobles was called in Normandy, and baillis were also ordered to assemble troops in Rouen. The siege of Harfleur lasted until 22 September, so in a full month, together with the troops raised by the King, they were unable to muster a force big anough to relieve the city, not even to disturb the English siege works or to stop the English foraging parties.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But this is speculation- and that's my whole point. No-one knows how many men answered the muster. No-one is really sure how many men were in the French army. So, we should say that no-one is really sure.


 * We can suggest some possibilities, based on respected historians (and I would be very happy to see other historians here apart from Barker, I'm aware that at the moment, the article reflects that I'm one of the most active editors and I happen to have a copy of her book). What we can't do is analyse the primary sources ourselves and say that source x is more credible than source y- especially when this is controversial among historians. If it's not clear, we should reflect the controversy, not say who we think is correct. --Merlinme (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit: Situation
I just added a little bit about the condition of English forces to the Situation section. The article contains little to no information on the "nitty-gritty" of battle. The physical, mental and spiritual condition of the combatants are important factors in any combat. PRSturm (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agincourt Documentary on the ABC Australia 17 Jan 2008
Just watched the Agincourt Documentary on the ABC Australia 17 Jan 2008, stated it had new first hand evidence to back up story, included the 2 finger salute as happening, is this so? Does anyone know who produced this doucumentary and when?

David 59.100.146.249 (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know anything about the documentary I'm afraid. I'd be very impressed if they had new evidence about the V sign though. I thought that had been gone over exhaustively. There aren't that many sources. Froissart is the only credible one I'm aware of that it might have been done at Agincourt; and as far as I'm aware he specifies neither which fingers nor that archers were giving the sign. --Merlinme (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Agincourt Documentary
Agincourt Documentary shown on the ABC Australia

Production Details: A Juniper/ARTE France/Gedeon Programmes co-production for Channel Four Television Corporation. Executive Producer Samir Shah, Film Editor Mike Burton and narrated by Jamie Glover. I dont know what year it was produced. Davidphant (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Link --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute stamp
The historical revisionism regarding numbers on each side of the battle still refers to figures that cannot be confirmed therefore they should not be there, plain and simple. Not one single international authority on the Battle Of Agincourt agrees with Curry's claim, because that is the reality the piece does not belong and should be removed, or is wikipedia starting to give prominence also to authors who deny the holocaust to suit their personal belief system?

Also, perhaps someone could explain to me why the French [according to Curry] decided to grossly over-estimate the size of their own forces and shrink the English numbers to further increase their most-hated enemies victory even more? Oh wait, its because they didn't have research computers, google or live in modern times, of course that must be it.

Twobells (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? You're seriously comparing a book by one of the acknowledged experts on the subject to holocaust denial? Curry's figures are disputed, but they're still worth discussing. What are you suggesting instead- that we go with the 36,000 figure? I personally think Curry's figures are probably about right for the professional army, but what's not clear is how many men were sent by the towns etc. --Merlinme (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you totally misunderstood me, I am saying that no theory no matter its content can be awarded a factual base. In regards to the figure of 36,000 I suggest the piece goes with the 3-1 estimate as remarked upon by all sides at the time until we definitively know otherwise revisionism aside. Twobells (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what you're trying to get at with the bit about research computers, by the way. On the point of why the French would exaggerate their own disaster, I've puzzled over that as well. I guess if you're going to have a disaster, it might as well be a disaster of biblical proportions? People tend to routinely overestimate the size of crowds anyway though. It's noticeable that the French seem to have grossly overestimated the size of the English army. Incidentally, do you have references for the other "authoritative" French figures you mentioned in one of your edits? If you do, I'd be curious to know what they said. --Merlinme (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was it's simplistic that chroniclers of the time were not as adept at calculating the numbers involved purely because they lived a 'long time ago' and that revisionists often make that arrogant assumption.Twobells (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please engage in a discussion as to why reporting the conclusions of one of the two significant books to be published in the last few years re: Agincourt is either Original Research or not NPOV? Until you make some sort of argument, I don't see any reason to keep the tags, so I'm removing them. Curry's argument has a very solid factual base, i.e. the original pay records for the French and English armies. Where this is dubious is assuming that the records were up-to-date and complete; but to say her theory has "no factual base" is simply incorrect. Regarding the numbers of the two sides, 3-1 is actually the lowest given by an eyewitness; of the other two eyewitnesses, one gives 6-1 and one gives 10-1. Given that the numbers given don't really add up (50,000 vs. over 10,000 is not 6-1, for example), it's debatable whether the eyewitnesses really meant to give exact figures, as opposed to saying "The English were outnumbered by several times". -Merlinme (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Merlinme, I submit that too much weight is given to Curry's work in contrast to the vast majority of experts who disagree with her. When we both have time we should discuss how to implement her theories into the article without giving it great weight. Best wishes Twobells (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the article as it currently stands, i.e. making it clear that Curry contradicts other Agincourt historians. I'm afraid I don't think putting this in bold qualifies for NPOV though! The following paragraphs quote some other historians, notably Barker's reaction to Curry's book. The (large) section on the primary sources also gives plenty of material for people who are interested, so I think people can make up their own minds. I've added a couple of extra bits to this section, notably to "analysis" section, where I've quoted Barker as saying the documentary sources are incomplete. Please suggest any other improvements you'd like (or just go ahead and make the edits and others can modify if they disagree). --Merlinme (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a little surprised of the use of "expert consensus" argument here, because experts can´t go beyond the sources available, no theory can´t be vaidated without source backing. Now, Curry stands almost alone (Contamine long time ago noticed, for instance, that the Herlad of Berry was by far the best source for French forces) because she alone has researched French documentary sources, until another scholar goes through that new evidence nothing can be said about "expert consensus" since no other expert has gone through those newly found sources.It is like if we were at the time Evans discovered the Palace of Cnossos and we discarded him because at the time the "expert consensus" was that Minoan Crete was a myth--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes- but that doesn't mean Curry is right, either. It means we don't know. Until Curry's work has been analysed in depth (which will probably take another ten years; it might take thirty years), all we can do is reflect the controversy. --Merlinme (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, I was writting against discrediting her work just because of the "she stands alone against the vast majority of experts" argument--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Campaign
I can't find any sources detailing the actual campaign leading to Agincourt. Everything I read seems to concentrate on either Harfleur, the crossing of the Somme, or Agincourt. Can anyone tell me, did the English siege any French towns (other than Harfleur) during the Agincourt Campaign? LoreTj (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware the siege of Harfleur followed by heading for Calais (which led to crossing the Somme and Agincourt) pretty much was the entire campaign. --Merlinme (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The camapign started with the landing of the army, August 13. Then, the siege of Harfleur until October 22. The king left a garrison there, sent home by sea sicks and wounded and departed towards Calais on October 8. On the march the army found several fortified cities, like Arques and Eu, but they were not taken or besieged, instead instead the inhabitants netiated deals in which they were preserved from English attacks in exchange for victuals. The battle was fought on pOctober 25, the army then marched to Calais, were it was disbanded on November 23. That had been already prearranged before the campaign had started, as the army was paid up to that date.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Campaign
See Archive 1: The Campaign for previous discussion. "The English had very little food, had marched 260 miles in two-and-a-half weeks, ..." Should that perhaps be 260 KM? The distance from Le Havre to Calais is shown as 200 KM. Freeman2001 (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you allowing for the detour up the Somme in search of a crossing? Blanchetaque and Agincourt are about 30 miles apart but the English army covered over a hundred miles between the two Monstrelet (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Currently the article says:
 * (pronounced a zhin kuhr, or /ˈeʤənˌkɔrt/)

What is the source that it is pronounced that way in English? I would have thought that the above was French pronunciation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is from the English Pronouncing Dictionary, ISBN 0 521 81693 9, Cambridge University Press:


 * I would include it, but it's so general it doesn't seem to get us very far.


 * --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I've always pronounced the g like a French j, as in "jeudi", i.e. A je in Core. But a more British dge sound, as in Badge, is perfectly understandable, i.e. Adge in Core. I'd not really thought about it that much to be honest. I also can't read phonetic spelling, so the differences being described are not obvious to me. --Merlinme (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I might insert something like "(pronunciation varies: )", followed by the footnote cited above, after all. Would this be too cumbersome for the lead? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a bit intrusive in the lead. Perhaps we could move the whole lot to a footnote? --Merlinme (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. As the English Pronouncing Dictionary only offers English pronunciations, the proper French version (as favoured by User:Merlinme) would also need to go in. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good, well done. I had to strain my eyes to see the difference between versions /ˈæʤɪnˌkɔːt / and /ˈæʤɪnˌkɔːrt/. Is the implication that some English speakers pronounce it Adge-in-cot? --Merlinme (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My edit is a wikified rendition of the source document. There are some sound files here which should demonstrate the differences. If not, my wikification was in error and I need to have another go! --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The French hoped to raise 9,000,000 troops
I think not.

The latter numbers of 12-36000 at Agincourt suggest 9000 to relieve Harfleur, later growing to the higher estimates.

90000 would have been extraordinary considering the numbers cited, and of course 9M men armies would not exist until the XX century.

Comments? If none I'll change it to 9000.

Ardipithecus Maximus (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jumped in and changed it back. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why moonraker has 'jumped in and changed it back'! The estimates given by Australopithecus-Maximus are entirely consistent with the available manpower of the period. Consider, firstly, what was the population of France at that time. This does not include semi-independant principalities which did not support the King and the Dauphin. In an agrarian society, an absolute maximum mobilisation potential of about 2.5% of the total population might be sustainable provided the harvest did not intervene. (eg. Switzerland today cannot sustain, long-term, a mobilisation of 6%) I think that the estimates presented by Ardipithecus are, probably, close to the demographic reality of the period and consistent with figures given in contemporary accounts. Of the recent work done, I find Barker to be wholly persuasive.bruce (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC) june 23rd 2008

Its been 600 years, why are the numbers in the french article on Azincourt so different? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_d%27Azincourt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.225.238 (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They weren't very different, a couple of months ago. Looking at the revision history, it looks like a couple of IP addresses came along and changed all the numbers (presumably based on Curry or similar), without actually citing a source, in March this year. There were endless arguments over the numbers in the English article until we settled on the current compromise. I imagine the French article doesn't attract the same number of eyeballs as the English version, so the numbers tend to reflect whoever last edited it. --Merlinme (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's my edit, complained of by User:Bruce Condell, above (23 June). I reiterate, the French forces did not number nine million. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is surely a misunderstanding; I'm assuming Bruce doesn't think the French raised 9 million. Barker certainly doesn't say that. --Merlinme (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a misunderstanding here. I support the 9000 estimate. (Australopithecus-Giganticus, above) 9 million is a very unlikely figure.bruce (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)25th june 2008


 * The nine thousand figure comes from the Council of Paris meeting of August 31 1415, the council agreed to levy 24.000 livres tournois, enough for an army of 6.000 escuiers (men at arms) and 3.000 gens de trait (archers) vid. Anne Curry, Agincourt a new history page 104--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the Council of Paris was a Royal Council working as an Exchequer Chamber, the money levied was to pay for a professional army. The urban militia of Paris was not mobilized because of several political reasons.
 * The blocking force at the road to Calais is numbered, by different sources, at 6.000.
 * Regarding Curry, she is a very respected scholar, and an especialist on the War of the 100 Years, (100 years' war, Ed)

unlike Barker, that has no academic credential whatsoever. (?Ed.)

If you look for objective estimations, better look for Curry, because she works with documentary evidence, mainly payrolls, that by their own nature are much more objective than narrative sources.
 * Barker, on the other hand, mixes several narrative sources to arrive to those numbers, using the Gesta for the English, and a mix of Burgundian sources for the French.

--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Juliet Barker is not a medievalist academic, in her own words she is a 19th century literature biographer, she did get a doctorate in medieval history back in 1984, but that is all her record as a medievalist up to her book on Agincourt.--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I undertand your disappointment for not being productive yourself, but at least you should try to be more tolerant--Ignacio Arrizabalaga (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The account of the battle is confusing
The section giving the details of the engagement is sometimes repetitious, and jumps back and forth in time and point of view (English perspective vs. French perspective) so often that it is hard to tell which statements apply to which side. Also, the quality of the prose is not quite up to encyclopedia standards.

24.59.0.76 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Martin M. Meiss


 * Please improve it. --Merlinme (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)