Agincourt controvery 593 years later
You know the story immortalized by Shakespeare’s Henry V: a small force of scrappy but proud Englishmen (we few, we happy few) beat the arrayed force of French nobility on October 25, 1415, St. Crispin’s Day.
Well, some French historians beg to differ, and they’re holding a conference at Medieval History Museum in Agincourt on October 25th, the 593rd anniversary of the battle, to rewrite the history the victors claimed.
First, the few:
In fact, detailed bureaucratic records of French king Charles VI’s army reveal that they were made up of 9000 travelling soldiers, perhaps with another 3000 locals from the Picardy region where the battle took place.
This compares to the total force of 12000 who travelled to France with Henry, although some 3000 were lost during the preceding siege of Harfleur, and through dysentery.
Then, the happy:
Mr Gilliot said notably horrific acts perpetuated by the English included placing prisoners in a barn and setting in on fire, with the permission of Henry V.
When the Duke of Alençon, who commanded the second division of the French army, had failed to put an axe through Henry, he tried to surrender but was killed by the King’s 40-strong bodyguard.
Forty to one. I like them odds.
No British academics were invited to the conference, I can’t imagine why. This isn’t an exclusively French nationalist revision, though. The article cites a British professor Anne Curry who has written a book debunking the pro-England propaganda surrounding Agincourt.
Good god, what next?
Queen Elizabeth is a man! Prince Charles is a faggot! Winston Churchill was full of shit! Shakespeare’s French!
Oh, Shakespeare was definitely a French woman.
As an Army Brat I lived in Orleans, south of Paris for 4 years and spent a year at the Sorbonne but am of Saxon English descent. The victor writes the history and nobody doubts they fought there on that date and that the French went down. The English beat them like a drum, same as at Crecy and Poitiers. The longbowmen used flights of arrows to bunch the French cavalry in the middle of the field where the mud was the deepest. When the horses went down, the riders were killed by English footsoldiers. Even the Brits dismounted. That Picardy mud would drown alot of men in WWI. I like the French but they are understandably sensitive about their fighting ability. You can’t tell them what to do and this ruins military cohesiveness. Between Napoleon I and WWI they lost too many young men and fear other such men rising to urge them to war. But France is where the Europeans fight. In two World Wars they were reduced to eating their pets, farm horses, rats and are touchy about past battles. You can’t blame them.