Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Agincourt article

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Agincourt article

    From new issue of British Journal of Military History (free online)


    Technological Determinisms of Victory at the Battle of Agincourt

  • #2
    Azincourt is a pure product of a sore British historical propagenda ,who invented this pseudo-English victory , cause your defeat at Trafalgar makes you hateful .

    Thanks for this extremely interesting link Carpe !
    That rug really tied the room together

    Comment


    • #3
      I still rate this .



      One element that does appear to be emerging, is that most French nobles at
      least wore mail, rather than total plate armour, and that would have been enough to both weigh down the soldier, and not give the protection it might be expected to give against slashing weapon.
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #4
        I have openly questioned English casualties at agincourt before, and recieved no satisfactory replies to date.

        Further, how can an army that slinks off to Calais and boards transports for Britain, when the stated purpose of the campaign was to lay a "rightful" claim to that same territory, claim to be a victory?

        sitting in england, chroniclers of the day would have been hard pressed to write of a tactical victory at Agincourt, followed by a strategic defeat on the continent.

        Solution? Draw up Agincourt as a much larger victory than it actually was. Claim moral ascendency, and sit on your island without coming back to the continent.

        How is this a victory?

        For that matter, where are all the French bodies buried at agincourt? Nothing like 7,000 have ever been found.

        Im with Sebbie on this one. Agincourt needs a big rexamination, rather than attributing English losses to the chroniclers. Lets have a good old fashioned archeaological dig of the entire site, with a few modern tools, and determine the facts.

        For the number of armoured French knights involved alone, the lack of steel tipped "bodkins" available, (around 5 per archer at best), there is not much evidence for an "arrow storm" at all.

        The lay of the land at the field is not such a big hill to traverse either. English advantages from that slight rise in the topography have been much exageratted as well.

        And its generally English poster's that see the accounts as gospel. Most of them were written long after the battle. Very few eyewitness accounts from people on the field.
        My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

        Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
        GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
        Lincoln-Douglas Debates

        Comment


        • #5
          I was joking Drusus .I don't give a rat's ass to our defeat at Waterloo , so you can easily imagine what i am thinking about Azincourt !
          Pretentious and heavy french cavalry defeated by athletic archers .Sounds good to me .
          That rug really tied the room together

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
            Azincourt is a pure product of a sore British historical propagenda ,who invented this pseudo-English victory , cause your defeat at Trafalgar makes you hateful .

            Thanks for this extremely interesting link Carpe !
            Ah, don't the French prefer to just call it the 'Picardy Affair'?

            Blame it on the Vikings who first shoehorned their way into Northern France, and then into England, and who then wanted to maintain control and wealth on both sides of 'La Manche'.

            One of my ancestors is William 'The Bastard' 'The Conqueror' - so blame my family if you like.

            Indeed, much myth and embellishment has been added, such as the 'two finger salute' of the archers. Having said that, most countries embellish and edit their history. It has only fairly recently been acknowledged that a significant minority of the British ships at Trafalgar were in part crewed by 'foreigners', including French and Spanish - this included Victory.
            Last edited by Wooden Wonder; 11 Feb 16, 10:51.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
              I have openly questioned English casualties at agincourt before, and recieved no satisfactory replies to date.

              Further, how can an army that slinks off to Calais and boards transports for Britain, when the stated purpose of the campaign was to lay a "rightful" claim to that same territory, claim to be a victory?

              sitting in england, chroniclers of the day would have been hard pressed to write of a tactical victory at Agincourt, followed by a strategic defeat on the continent.

              Solution? Draw up Agincourt as a much larger victory than it actually was. Claim moral ascendency, and sit on your island without coming back to the continent.

              How is this a victory?

              For that matter, where are all the French bodies buried at agincourt? Nothing like 7,000 have ever been found.

              Im with Sebbie on this one. Agincourt needs a big rexamination, rather than attributing English losses to the chroniclers. Lets have a good old fashioned archeaological dig of the entire site, with a few modern tools, and determine the facts.

              For the number of armoured French knights involved alone, the lack of steel tipped "bodkins" available, (around 5 per archer at best), there is not much evidence for an "arrow storm" at all.

              The lay of the land at the field is not such a big hill to traverse either. English advantages from that slight rise in the topography have been much exageratted as well.

              And its generally English poster's that see the accounts as gospel. Most of them were written long after the battle. Very few eyewitness accounts from people on the field.
              The game changed in France after Agincourt, and England had a large part of France under direct control, ie the North plus Aquitaine.



              Just as Agincourt created a favourable set of circumstances for the English, there were similar favourable set of conditions that France, could and did exploit, to reclaim all those lands.

              It should be noted that this war was not a war between nations as such, but a civil war with nobles from the same families fighting each other.

              As for English losses, watch the vid I posted above. It explains why the French lost so dramatically, and why the casualties were so one sided.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #8
                Was the mailed knights more likely to be wounded by arrows or were they just as good as armor?
                SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                  I have openly questioned English casualties at agincourt before, and recieved no satisfactory replies to date.

                  Further, how can an army that slinks off to Calais and boards transports for Britain, when the stated purpose of the campaign was to lay a "rightful" claim to that same territory, claim to be a victory?

                  sitting in england, chroniclers of the day would have been hard pressed to write of a tactical victory at Agincourt, followed by a strategic defeat on the continent.

                  Solution? Draw up Agincourt as a much larger victory than it actually was. Claim moral ascendency, and sit on your island without coming back to the continent.

                  How is this a victory?

                  For that matter, where are all the French bodies buried at agincourt? Nothing like 7,000 have ever been found.

                  Im with Sebbie on this one. Agincourt needs a big rexamination, rather than attributing English losses to the chroniclers. Lets have a good old fashioned archeaological dig of the entire site, with a few modern tools, and determine the facts.

                  For the number of armoured French knights involved alone, the lack of steel tipped "bodkins" available, (around 5 per archer at best), there is not much evidence for an "arrow storm" at all.

                  The lay of the land at the field is not such a big hill to traverse either. English advantages from that slight rise in the topography have been much exageratted as well.

                  And its generally English poster's that see the accounts as gospel. Most of them were written long after the battle. Very few eyewitness accounts from people on the field.
                  We had this discussion some time ago and it was you who came out with a rediculous casualy figure and couldn't back it up.

                  As for the numbers of dead. Many were burned, and many others taken away to be buried.

                  Just two examples:

                  How many remains have been found at Towton, the scene where as many as 30,000 may have been killed?

                  How many remains have there been found at Crecy?

                  How come only one spur and a few arrow-heads have been found At Agincourt?

                  First. Many human and animal remains from battlefields were used as fertilizer after being crushed then spread over the fields. 2) As I have stated above. Many were individually taken away from the battlefield or piled into pits and burned in great pyres. Others would have been disinterred by animals and their bones scattered.

                  Secondly: As for relics of the battle. The armour that wasn't ordered to be burned was salvaged by the victors who sold most of it at Calais. Any other items would have been taken away by those who recovered the bodies of their loved ones/lords. The worst thing for the battlefield Archaeologist though, is/was the thoroughness of the post-battle looters, who were very efficient at picking the area clean. Thus the dearth of Agincourt (and other sites) finds....Oh! And 600 years.

                  A link to the previous discussion.

                  http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...rt#post3124474

                  Paul
                  Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 11 Feb 16, 16:18.
                  ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                  All human ills he can subdue,
                  Or with a bauble or medal
                  Can win mans heart for you;
                  And many a blessing know to stew
                  To make a megloamaniac bright;
                  Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                  The Pixie is a little shite.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks for the reply Pul,

                    Casualty figures were directly from the chronicles, and Professor Anne Curry, whom many British poster "pooh pooh" simply because her figures don't quite 'mesh' with their less studied understanding.

                    Noodle Nick has already alluded to the fact that BOTH sides had due cause to exaggerate French losses. The english for obvious reasons, and the French to ridicule their own predominant faction in control of the crown, as part of their ongoing efforts to make each other's factions something less in each other's eyes.

                    I return to the attack here because there still exists lots of doubt. A force of 1,400 odd men at arms, not all of them armoured, is not going to come away with the triffling casualties described on a field of combat involving many thousands of enemies. Even given that the French came forward in a mob, thats still a lot of swinging metal, and a lot of danger, and the english were tired, underfed, waterlogged, diseased with various afflictions that were spreading quite nicely through the ranks. Weren't some of the Archers without trousers simply for their dysentary?

                    Much of the army's arrows would have been used up at the siege of Harfleur. 25,000 bodkins will last about 2 minutes, and the rest of the arrows have not the penrative power to do much more than kill horses, or make the French knights "bend".

                    Have any of you English ever put on a genuine period armour suit, and gone out into a muddy field to see exactly how your mobility is affected. Unhorsed knights are quite able to rise unassisted. They only have trouble mounting a horse.

                    One statistic that MIGHT breath life into the English view was the amount of armour taken on the field. But the chroniclers record that most of it was put into a barn for storage and then burnt, rendering it useless, and unrecorded.

                    I am an outsider with no national pride on the line to color my view.
                    My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                    Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                    GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                    Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Noodle Nick has already alluded to the fact that BOTH sides had due cause to exaggerate French losses. The english for obvious reasons, and the French to ridicule their own predominant faction in control of the crown, as part of their ongoing efforts to make each other's factions something less in each other's eyes.


                      I return to the attack here because there still exists lots of doubt. A force of 1,400 odd men at arms, not all of them armoured, is not going to come away with the triffling casualties described on a field of combat involving many thousands of enemies. Even given that the French came forward in a mob, thats still a lot of swinging metal, and a lot of danger, and the english were tired, underfed, waterlogged, diseased with various afflictions that were spreading quite nicely through the ranks. Weren't some of the Archers without trousers simply for their dysentary?
                      First of all! what are the sources for "men at arms, not all of them armoured" from? Seeing as there is no account as to who had what armour to make such a statement.

                      You mean 'Hose' not 'trousers' The leg parts were separate and held to the top of the leg by means of thongs, so could be rolled down so they could crap where they stood. Most of the archers were bare foot too for better grip

                      Much of the army's arrows would have been used up at the siege of Harfleur. 25,000 bodkins will last about 2 minutes, and the rest of the arrows have not the penrative power to do much more than kill horses, or make the French knights "bend".
                      Again 'as I asked in the thread above' Where do you get the the number for the amount of arrows used during the campaign or even the battle for that matter?

                      Have any of you English ever put on a genuine period armour suit, and gone out into a muddy field to see exactly how your mobility is affected. Unhorsed knights are quite able to rise unassisted. They only have trouble mounting a horse.
                      I have a dislike for reenactors but I honestly can't see any of them falling from a warhorse at a trot in full armour, onto muddy ground and denting/cracking their expensive attire or even risking broken ribs or worse injuries. Nor would I expect them to face a hail of arrows at long range or steel bodkin, aimed shots at close range.

                      One statistic that MIGHT breath life into the English view was the amount of armour taken on the field. But the chroniclers record that most of it was put into a barn for storage and then burnt, rendering it useless, and unrecorded.
                      Are you/have you read my posts? Methinks not!

                      I am an outsider with no national pride on the line to color my view.
                      National pride has nothing to do with it and putting up such a statement doesn't win arguments!

                      Curry (which highlights her selective historical mind-set) doesn't hold with the 'English' casualties (as you do!) at being around 1,500 because if she did (as I outlined in the link above), she would have had to agree with the same Source's claims for French dead, which is a lot more than the 7-8,000 that I'm happy with.

                      Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                      Thanks for the reply Pul,

                      Casualty figures were directly from the chronicles, and Professor Anne Curry, whom many British poster "pooh pooh" simply because her figures don't quite 'mesh' with their less studied understanding.
                      See above! It's Curry's assessment. Her figures on all aspects fit an agenda. You should branch out and have a read of the more modern tomes of the battle. She is the product of 1960's-70's university historical revisionism.

                      Paul
                      Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 11 Feb 16, 23:27.
                      ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                      All human ills he can subdue,
                      Or with a bauble or medal
                      Can win mans heart for you;
                      And many a blessing know to stew
                      To make a megloamaniac bright;
                      Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                      The Pixie is a little shite.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Round and round we go. This will never be solved..

                        All the evidence is gone. Burnt, buried, or simply lost to the mists of time.

                        If we are to believe the chroniclers at face value, the French just stood there and let the English hack them down.

                        French arrogance coupled with english superiority of Faith?

                        That gets a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from me as well.
                        My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                        Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                        GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                        Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                          Round and round we go. This will never be solved..

                          All the evidence is gone. Burnt, buried, or simply lost to the mists of time.

                          If we are to believe the chroniclers at face value, the French just stood there and let the English hack them down.

                          French arrogance coupled with english superiority of Faith?

                          That gets a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz from me as well.
                          Oh good! Go back to sleep and dream your sweet dreams of of wishful nonsense.

                          zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
                          The only part of your posts that needs no sourcing.

                          Paul
                          ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                          All human ills he can subdue,
                          Or with a bauble or medal
                          Can win mans heart for you;
                          And many a blessing know to stew
                          To make a megloamaniac bright;
                          Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                          The Pixie is a little shite.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Wishful nonsense?

                            7,000 knights to 30 of your own plus a few extras is WISHFUL nonsense!

                            When was the last time sir Paul, that you saw 7,000 people together in one spot.

                            Think about it. Think what 7000 bodies would look like, think of the EFFORT required to get them there in a field, and then ask yourself if the english arent exagerrating 'somewhat"!

                            You expert opinion is otherwise noted, Paul, and I'll defer to it as well.
                            My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                            Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                            GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                            Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well Drusus a similar famous battle ended up much the same.

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn
                              Credo quia absurdum.


                              Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X