Henry V’s Payroll Cuts Agincourt Myth Down to Size (French/English ratio wildly exaggerated)

The Sunday Times ^ | May 29, 2005 | Richard Brooks

[quidnunc]

The scale of Henry V’s triumph at Agincourt, which has been feted as one of the greatest victories in British military history, has been exaggerated for almost six centuries, a new book is to reveal.

The English and Welsh were still outnumbered, according to Anne Curry, professor of medieval history at Southampton University — but only by a factor of three to two. For the last 50 years historians have believed the odds were at least four to one.

Curry is the first academic to untangle the true scale of Henry’s victory in 1415 by sifting through original enrolment records at the National Archives in London and the French Bibliothèque Nationale.

“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.”

Curry discovered there were more English and Welsh troops than previously thought, and far fewer on the French side. She was able to count the number of soldiers on both sides accurately because all were paid recruits. Their names and wages were recorded. She calculates that total numbers were about 8,000 on Henry’s side and 12,000 on the French.

-snip-

[FreedomPoster]

I don't know if that's true or not, but it certainly ought to be.

[muir_redwoods]

How about the casualties on both sides.? Is it still true that the number of English/Welsh deaths can be numbered in the dozens and the French lost thousands?

[Ciexyz]

we numerate but still not as many as the frogs.

hehehe!

[tet68]

The Face of Battle is quite good, Keegan is a military historian and as such is quite aware of the shortcomings
of military historians and the ways they look at battle.
He goes into good detail about the adversaries, the lethality of their weapons and methods, and reasons behind
how these confrontations turned the way they did.

The Agincourt tapestries show bodies piled 5 and 6 high,
which would have required the contestants to actually climb
over the wounded, dying and dead to be able to continue the struggle, Keegan recognizes that in reality the bodies were probably only 2 or 3 deep, with horses carcasses mixed in.
Still a difficult place to keep your footing, and with a
wall of other knights pressing on your back to get into
battle, forcing you forward over the bodies into the swords
and pikes, axes of the foe.

Glad I live now.

[ZULU]

So what.

The British still beat a larger force of Frenchmen, and I'm sure the number of heavily armed on the French side exceeded the number of heavily armed kbights on the British side, putting a humble peasant armed with a missle weapon on the same footing as a wealthy arisotcrat loaded down with expesnice armour and constant training.

It will be interesting to read this book and see if this just another piece of revisionist history.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I read the Face of Battle...some of the most interesting battlefield analysis I had read up to that point...good book.

[Unknown Freeper]

"Once more" bump

[SampleMan]

The rain was also a factor for the archers. Rain wet strings are not as powerful as dry strings. When it rained, the English archers removed their strings and cloaked them. The French archers were mainly crossbowman, less trained, and less able to protect the strings of the small powerful crossbows, or to cover them. When the rain cleared, the English retained full capability.

[Strategerist]

It will be interesting to read this book and see if this just another piece of revisionist history.

In these old battles it's routine for the historians of a side to wildly exaggerate the strength of their enemies, whether the battle is won or lost.

You need to go to primary sources as this historian did to get the true matchup.

Good example are the Mongols; they were outnumbered, often drastically, in pretty much every battle they fought; they won through superior organization, training, and discipline.

However, the various peoples who got their butts kicked claimed they were overrun by huge forces of Mongols because of their embarassment at losing; when the Mongols entered Europe they were outnumbered in every battle and won every battle overwhelmingly (Europe was only spared by the Great Khan dying and the law that his sons had to return to Mongolia to elect a new Khan).

Thus the term "horde" which was merely a Mongol term for a military unit has come to mean "a huge mass of people".

[Strategerist]

More like they continue to attempt to establish a French version of victory in which surrendering is the same thing as winning.

The French lost most of the battles, but ended up winning this war (the 100 Years War) big-time.

[Enchante]

This internet legend is debunked at Snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.htm

One implausible aspect which Snopes does not mention is that this supposed origin of "F--- You" depends upon the aural perception and interpretation of the FRENCH survivors of Agincourt -- but why on earth would the ENGLISH language come to absorb a phrase supposedly mis-remembered by the French???

[GVnana]

Nasty stuff, indeed. The historians have made much about the vast slaughter of the French nobility. Another interesting point that was brought out in the History Channel's program was the motive of ransom. They theorized that the French were naturally aiming at the English nobility for captives. But the French were physically trapped. (Also in that program, soil samples were taken from Agincourt and the stuff was a sticky, gluey mess -- impossible to maintain a footing.)

Once the English bowsmen had them on the ground, they made short work of the French with hammers and knives. Also, toward the end of the battle, Henry had ordered no captives, and put an end to whomever remained.

[Vigilanteman]

You would have to debunk a humorous legend with facts! You must be one of those unfair conservatives. After all, if we feel it happened, it did. < / sarcasm>

[Enchante]

So sorry, didn't mean to rain on the party. I was completely taken in at first, and then had to do a web search to see what else I could find out.... coulda kept my skepticism to myself, I suppose.

[solzhenitsyn]

Thanks for the great link, the_daug. Something caught my eye there:

"The French were paid by "booty" therefore their objectives were driven by reaching the enemy and robbing the corpses. The English were professional soldiers and did not have the same impetus to make a hasty attack."

If the French were paid by "booty", what are we to make of the claim that the French could be enumerated by their payroll records?

[glorgau]

Does this mean the French won?

see french military victories

[GSlob]

"Here is my question: Were the French knights paid recruits? This doesn't fit in with what a knight was."
Post-Agincourt French lancers were both paid by the king and of noble rank, but that started with Charles VII, IIRC. The pre-Agincourt ones would not have been paid by the king in centralized fashion, but by their feudal superiors, thus I'd expect the French military payroll of 1415 to be grossly disorganized and difficult to sum up. Warlords like John of Hainault would have come with their own bands of knights, and I doubt that these would be included in French payroll accounts. Since the French lost, he would have been unlikely to send an invoice for his services.

[Holden Magroin]

"Hey, baby, my guys were outnumbered 4 to 1 at the Battle of Agincourt!"

[Da_Shrimp]

One leftover legend from Agincourt is that the French threatened to cut off the middle finger of every English longbowman, the essential finger for guiding the arrow to its target. The famous English longbows were made from the Yew tree and without this finger, the English would no longer be able to pluck their bows. After the battle was over, the English gave the French the finger and told them they could still pluck Yew. In the foggy air of Agincourt and to the French ear, unfortunately, the "pl" sounded like "F" and, thus, we are left with that crude expression and gesture even today.

A common misconception. It was actually two fingers the French cut off, hence in England the 'pluck yew' insult is made with the two fingers in a v-shape, knuckles toward the person you intend to insult (ie, the opposite way to a victory sign.

[SunkenCiv]

A Blast from the Past.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)