British Losses


I am not British and do not know the history; that is why I am asking this: Is it historically true that the English only suffered about 30 losses compared to 10,000 French?

How can the gods speak to us til we have faces?
C.S. Lewis

reply

It's exaggerated in Shakespeare's play. Historically the English loss was about 115 men vs. 12,000 for the French. (Although who knows what the numbers really were - the winners write the history, after all.)

There has also been new historical evidence (e.g., King Henry's payroll for his soldiers) that shows that the English were nowhere near as outnumbered by the French as tradition has it. Supposedly the French advantage was only 3 to 2, not 5 to 1.

reply

Thanks so much!

How can the gods speak to us til we have faces?
C.S. Lewis

reply

Although the English did exaggerate the disparity between their losses and the French, it is still a fact that the French casualties at Agincourt far outnumbered the English.

The battle took place in the fall, after heavy rainfall, on a field that was so soaked, it was rather like a swamp. The French charged the English first with their cavalry, composed of heavily plated knights. As they were trying to make it across the field, their horses got stuck in the mud, and the knights, once unseated, were helpless because of their heavy armor. The English then charged right on top of them. Moreover, because the cavalry was an elite unit, comprised of noblemen followed by their personal retainers -- in losing the cavalry, the French army lost its leadership, and found itself in extreme confusion. This made for even greater casualties on the part of the French.

reply

The geography of the terrain the French charged across negated their advantage in numbers. The English were battle hardened, even the lowliest soldier would have been capable of beating a French noble in 1 on 1 combat, so this, combined with the deadly longbow resulted in the French defeat and a horrendously large but unknown casualty rate.

Try not to use 'British'. The British nation did not exist until 1707 with the act of Union between England and Scotland. During the time of this battle, Scotland was allied to the French and was at war with England (for the most part).

reply

nearby of the battlefield from Agincourt you will find a little museum,inside with the coat of arms from the french nobles killed on the battlefield.

from those days of the battles is the victory sign;two fingers forming an V,upholds his arm into the sky.
it means that the archer still got the 2 fingers to shot an arrow from his bow.
french nobles often cut those two fingers of english archers.

excuse my bad english
;)

greatings from germany

reply

The Victory "V" is made with the palm of the hand facing outwards, the "V" the English use as an insult (pretty much meaning *beep* off) is made with the palm of the hand facing inward, similar gesture but two different meanings and it was the insulting "V" not the victory "V" that is rumoured to have originated in the 100 years war... basically as a gloat that the English Longbowmen still had the two fingers that as Collodium states the French used to love to cut off if they ever caught an English Archer.



[Truth is the first casualty in Hollywood's war]

reply

That's a myth, by the way. Here's something from the Urban Legends Web Page on a similar legend:

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

The invention of color photography is a mistake from which the movies have never wholly recovered.

reply

That's a myth, by the way. Here's something from the Urban Legends Web Page on a similar legend:


Yeah, hence why I said rumoured, there's no actual proof

[Truth is the first casualty in Hollywood's war]

reply

Just because some overly intellectual snob decides to analyse something she obviously does'nt understand (it's 2 fingers in England - TWO) really does'nt mean you should disregard what every Englishman knows from an early age : the "Two Fingered Salute" is a Battle Insult used especially against the French . This is common knowledge handed down over the generations - instinctive even - and you will still see it in use in any playground you care to visit .


That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . .

reply

Actually, it was during the second world war that the two fingered salute became an insult - if you look at some of the earlier Winston Churchill's V for Victory gestures, you can see that to start with your hand could be either way round, but at some point during that war palm inwards was became a rude gesture. So it hasn't been handed down through that many generations.

And think about it logically - if you had an enemy soldier at your mercy, you would either kill him or keep him prisoner. You wouldn't send him back into battle missing a couple of fingers - for one thing, he could still weild a mace, axe, sword, lance etc.


I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...

reply

Again - you don't know what you are talking about . Prisoners were often ransomed & returned , minus bow string fingers for obvious (OBVIOUS !) reasons if they were suspected of being Longbowmen , ie of a certain musculature . Winston Churchill , if he did do the fingers out V , was continuing a tradition , not starting one .

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .

reply

It has been proved multiple times over that the story regarding archers' fingers is sheer whimsy. I suspect it is you who do not know the facts in this case.



I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...

reply

How has it been proved ? Just accept the obvious when it is in front of you .

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .

reply

The obvious being that it wasn't used until the twentieth century. Knucklehead.


I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...

reply

Ah - personal abuse - the last refuge of the ignorant . You ran out of plausible ideas a long time ago so now you are repeating the same fallacy in the vain hope that someone will believe you because perhaps they have not been paying attention . You have no evidence to support your cynical denial of what is actually quite a cool cultural reference from our very rich history . This makes you no better than a Vandal destroying Rome out of sheer jealousy .

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .

reply

Because you're not being at all insulting, and of course you aren't repeating the same thing over and over. It would be a cool cultural reference if it were true, that's why it was made up in the first place. And as far as I am aware, it is for you to prove it true, not for me to prove it false.


I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...

reply

I have . Like i said , prisoners were ransomed & returned in those days. Do some research . Also , why do i have to prove what everyone already knows is true ?

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .

reply

There is a difference between knowing a fact and being told a myth by your mate.


I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...

reply

Or indeed reading nonsense on 'Snopes' and presenting it as fact ..... Anyway :

"It has been proved multiple times over that the story regarding archers' fingers is sheer whimsy. I suspect it is you who do not know the facts in this case."

Your quote i believe . So , seeing as it was you who claimed to have the proof , this discussion cannot move forward until you reveal it . Ha .


That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .

reply

What has Snopes to do with anything?

I suggest you see Stephen Fry's musings on the subject. It came up in QI one time. And on another TV programme, I think it was about the history of words and phrases, they referred to this particular gesture and gave an excellent and concise explanation as to it's actual origins. Look it up. Don't just go by word of mouth. And why is it that you do not seem to comprehend the fact that the gesture was not used until about 500 years after Agincourt? It's like saying that the phrase 'lol' actually originated in the court of Henry VIII when court jesters used codes in their speech to get the correct response from the courtiers.


I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...

reply

Jean Le Fevre (c. 1395 - June 16, 1468) refers to it actually , as do many others in the middle ages . There are even photo's of working class people in 19th century using the gesture in the manner of which we speak - little bit before Churchill mmm ? My original post was in response to 'hairy lime' putting up a link to that boll ocks on 'snopes' which you definitely read because you lifted most of it as your 'facts'. Don't deny it , it is all there too see . Stephen Fry - although i love him to bits - is a famous B U L L S H I T T E R of the Oscar Wilde school of intellectual wit - if you don't know it all make it up as long as it's funny !

I find your tenacious downhill struggle against reason fascinating - lets go out for a drink sometime , i live in London if you are nearby x

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .

reply

"The English were battle hardened, even the lowliest soldier would have been capable of beating a French noble in 1 on 1 combat,"

And the French Nobility, trained from childhood in the art of war and having spent their whole lives embroiled in the "100 Years War" weren't battle hardened???
In 1 on 1 combat, the French Noble would have swatted the lowly soldier aside without a second glance. The English won by channeling the French into organised blocks of men at arms while the archers laid down a hail of arrows before falling on the French flanks.

reply

Your reasoning is sound, but unclear. You need to understand that by 1415 noblemen were wearing plate armor on top of chainmail and quilted cotton coats to help stop penetrating arrows. This made all men who wore such armor very slow in their movements.

So in reality, would a common man trained to use a bow be able to defeat a baron trained from birth with a sword? Probably not. However, that baron is wearing about 66lbs of armor, and still using his sword. While the common bowmen is not wearing armor at all and uses whatever weapon can penetrate the joints of a suit of armor. Remember, Henry V ordered his longbowmen to drop their bow and attack the french in flank twice at Agincourt. Read Christopher Hibbert's book, Agincourt, if you get the chance and you will learn a great deal.

More often then not as is the case at Agincourt, the Frnech nobility died when they were knocked off their feet and suffocated in the liquid mud that was the ground at Agincourt. Their armor would have caused an inverse vacuum effect when they fell, and this would have kept them in the position they fell. Leaving them unable to pull themselves up. And since there was a battle going on, these men would be one their own for a long time. Most died on the ground, not by arrows or by wounds.

reply

"So in reality, would a common man trained to use a bow be able to defeat a baron trained from birth with a sword? Probably not."

Actually, yes. The French were totally obsessed by the calavry charge (indeed, their heavy knights were superior in skill and armament to the English knights, by a lot of accounts), but the English longbowmen could fire about 20 arrows a minute and the longbow could easily drive an arrow straight through the plate, mail and padding worn by the French nobles. The French archers did not use the longbow, so the armour that had been developed by nobles fighting internal disputes had never had to face up to the disciplined and, above all, lethal rain of arrows the English could bring to bear. Historical references talk of the sky being turned black by the clouds of arrows fired by the English...

The French knights did not lack courage - they charged and charged again, but were simply so much kebabed horsemeat and skewered nobleman before they even got to the English lines. It was the first time in military history that the noble knights had been made effectively obsolete. The heavy cavalry could still be formidable, but it couldn't just be used as a battering ram to break the line of enemy infantry anymore - skirmishers and archers tended to dictate the battlefield, with infantry clashing in melee and knights used only once the Archers had been either killed or outmanouvered.

Hope that clears things up. Actually, a good (if pulpy) account of what warfare was like in those times can be found in Bernard Cornwell's Thomas of Hookton trilogy: Harlequin, Vagabond and Heretic....

reply

Actually a very small portion of the French force was mounted, and all they really did was make one brief charge before being swatted away.. The French plan of battle consisted of the three "battles" or battalions of infantry, one behind the other, the 1st consisting of dismounted knights and men-at-arms, the second of crossbowmen, and the third of dismounted knights. The cavalry were on the flanks. The French noblemen were so eager to obtain the glory of the victory that they packed into the front battle. Most of the principle noblemen, including the two commanders of the army, were in that first battle. Because the position the English moved up to was several hundred yards narrower than the position at which the French started, they were compressed to such a degree that they found it difficult to even use their weapons. The infantry also totally blocked the line of sight of the crossbowmen, resulting in them being utterly useless throughout the battle. New research has revealed that the new advances in armor-making, notably the use of steel, made the longbow much less effective than it was at the time of Crecy and Poiters. So as someone else stated, the majority of the French were killed when the English archers, with hammers, billhooks and daggers descended on the flanks and knocked them down into the mud. With all the men falling they were soon crushed by their armored comrades. Also, a very large number of Frenchmen were taken prisoner and executed when a small band of Frenchman raided the English baggage train. As to the size of Henry's force, I would remind you that he had approximately 12,000 men when he landed at Harfleur. He lost a number taking that city, had to leave at least several hundred behind as garrison, and the army was struck by a terrible dysentary epidemic while in Harfleur. Then they undertook a very arduous march north, plagued by disentary and by the time of Agincourt totally out of food. If you put all this together it adds up to somewhere around 6,000 men at Agincourt vs 20,000-30,000 Frenchmen.

reply

Yes, the Archers did attack the flanks with hand weapons, yes the weather played and important part, but the two main reasons for English victory were the fact that the English army was battle-hardened by fighting the Scots previously to the Hundred Years War and the fact that the French crossbows were massively out-ranged by the longbows. England had already been at war with Scotland for years before invading France (well, Normandy) whereas, aside from minor skirmishes over the borders of Baronies, etc, the French had not been in a major conflict for quite some time. This made their nobles underestimate the English abilities, gave rise to flawed tactics borne out of arrogance and ultimately they failed to learn hard lessons taught by the longbowmen at Crecy and Poitiers. It was similar to Hitler saying that Napoleon only lost the war due to opening a second front against Russia, then doing precisely the same thing because he felt that Germany was invincible.

reply

Sorry, but I have always had difficulty accepting this claim that 'arrow proof' armour was developed against longbows. The scientiftic principle that a pointed object, with enough pressure and force behind it, can penetrate a flat object just does not seem to fit this assumption.
Hence, arrows fired from most types of bow could penetrate armour, and there were several different types of arrow, with diffrent shaped heads used for the various types of armour that might be encountered in battle.

reply

spent their whole lives embroiled in the "100 Years War"
There hadn't been a significant land battle in decades.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

reply

During the time of this battle, Scotland was allied to the French and was at war with England (for the most part).
There were Scots in both armies, but although historically aligned with France Scotland was neutral at this particular point.

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

reply

"lowliest soldier"

no

reply

There was no such thing as "British" at the time of Agincourt and Henry V. England and Scotland merged together in 1707 to become Great Britain, thus uniting the two peoples as BRITISH.

So there were only ENGLISH losses at Agincourt. THe Scottish at the time would most likely have been FRench allies, not England's.

It still surprises me to this day how people still don't understand the difference between England and Great Britain.

reply

There was no such thing as "British" at the time of Agincourt and Henry V. England and Scotland merged together in 1707 to become Great Britain, thus uniting the two peoples as BRITISH.


Good point DJSmitty, I must have been in a rather tolerant mood when I originally posted here, as that confusion is one of my pet peeves.

So there were only ENGLISH losses at Agincourt. THe Scottish at the time would most likely have been FRench allies, not England's.


There were Welsh losses at Agincourt also, those poor buggers always get neglected lol and the Scottish were indeed allied to the French during some of the 100 years war, they even attempted an invasion of England when the majority of the English army was in France, but the invading Scots were soundly thrashed by a much smaller English army just outside Durham at the Battle of Nevilles Cross... I doubt we'll see Mel Gibson filming that one though.

It still surprises me to this day how people still don't understand the difference between England and Great Britain.


It no longer suprises me anymore, in a lot of countries the history of the British Union wont even get taught about in school, and in the countries where it maybe should the curriculum is too busy focussing on an incomplete and one sided view of their own history and judging by your usual posts, you're fully aware of what I mean by that



[Truth is the first casualty in Hollywood's war]

reply

Hey, the English don't understand it, how can we expect foreigners to?

____________________________
"An inglorious peace is better than a dishonourable war" ~ John Adams

reply

Most of the Longbowmen were Welsh, weren't they?

*********************

The invention of color photography is a mistake from which the movies have never wholly recovered.

reply

No, most of them were English, but there was a portion of Welshmen there.

[Truth is the first casualty in Hollywood's war]

reply

Actually, while longbows were effective for laying down heavy barrages of fire, the poor quality of the iron arrowheads coupled with the thick armor of the French knights made of steel rendered the longbow itself quite useless at Agincourt. It was when the French charge was stopped at the line of stakes the English deployed that the lightly armoured longbowmen were easily able to cut down the French knight attempting to wade through the mud in 70lb armour. While the longbow was effective in many battles, this was not one of them.

reply

Whoever said French Knights were better than English Knights?

The greatest Knight that ever lived was an Englishman by the Name of William Marshall. The problem the English had was that they couldn't field nearly the same amount of Knights as the French. But French knights were in no way more skilled than their English opposites, quite the contrary in fact.

The border wars between and England and Scotland sprouted many hardened and downright blood thirsty Englishmen. The French neglected this fact and their men paid the price.

The Welsh made up small proportions of the English armies, they were usually forced to fight and used as cannon fodder. Bit cruel but there you go.

reply

[deleted]

Bumping another informative thread

reply

"Actually, while longbows were effective for laying down heavy barrages of fire, the poor quality of the iron arrowheads coupled with the thick armor of the French knights made of steel rendered the longbow itself quite useless at Agincourt"

Two Poins:

1. Tests have been carryed out to disprove that theory,

2. A heavily armoured Knight on Horseback consists of both a knight and a Horse, if a horse was struck with an Arrow I doubt that it would still charge head on towards the Enamy undetered.

"On Ilkla Moor Baht'at"
"We come a cob a coalin' "

reply

The thing you have to understand about the Longbow is that it rose and died very quickly for such a superb weapon. The Hundred Years War was the only war it ever dominated (well, the first 75 years anyway). It can create a truly deadly force.
Also, Crossbows are not outranged by Longbows. The rate of fire for the Longbow makes it many times superior.

English Knights were worse then the French IMO only in mounted combat. Most Englishmen were trained to resist Cavalry Charges, and in the 3 Major Battles (Poitiers, Crecy and Agincourt) there was not a single English Cavalry Charge, excluding counter attacks. This meant that an Englishmen had to be a deadly fighter on the ground.

The English Army was extremely battle-hardened, but also incredibly demoralised and very hungry. A failed siege at Harfleur and a few other towns, and a massive French Army closing in.

The simple truth is, the Battle of Agincourt was won by a mix of French Impetuosness (they could of surrounded and starved the English), English Weaponry and Genius, and boggy ground.

I personally think the Modern Reassesment is hogwash. Henry V almost certainly hired hundreds more soldiers as soon as he reached Calais, and the Fench Heralds also wrote accounts.


The thing is, the Longbow was an incredible weapon. It's rate of fire and incredible power was legendary. Many historians said that up until the 1900s, no ranged weapon was superior to it. It simply took decades of practice to become a skilled archer, and Countries did not have the neccesary supply of Archer Culture for this.




Well. It's about time.

reply

[deleted]

Wellington (either whilst in the peninsular campaign or the 100 days-i can't remember which) asked if there were any longbow companies available as he knew they had superior range and accuracy over the musket but was told that the skill had died out.

reply

You know there was a saying "Shepherds be but ill archers". Apparently, land enclosures affected the communities where archers were drawn. Most farmers became herdsmen.
And at Agincourt it was possible for the French to have lived a little longer if they probably attacked the English archers from the flanks but they didn't have great military leadership that day against Henry charging just headlong into the English positions.

reply

well the king of france thought he was made of glass-hence the name Charles the mad so he wasn't there and the french were so confident the night before they were wagering on ransoms they thought they'd get the next day. bad leadership and overconfidence are the bane of any fighting force!

reply

At Agincourt the longbows were effective because they were well deployed, and because they were protected by the wooden stakes driven into the ground. There were other battles in which the longbowmen had no protection and they were simply cut down by enemy cavalry.

reply

Second everybody who has complained about Henry's forces being called "British". Of course they were English - in fact there's a whole chunk of dialogue in the "throne room" scene, which got cut from both filmed versions, about the strong probability that there will be a Scottish invasion while Henry is away in France:

KING HENRY V

We must not only arm to invade the French,
But lay down our proportions to defend
Against the Scot, who will make road upon us
With all advantages.

CANTERBURY

They of those marches, gracious sovereign,
Shall be a wall sufficient to defend
Our inland from the pilfering borderers.

KING HENRY V

We do not mean the coursing snatchers only,
But fear the main intendment of the Scot,
Who hath been still a giddy neighbour to us;
For you shall read that my great-grandfather
Never went with his forces into France
But that the Scot on his unfurnish'd kingdom
Came pouring, like the tide into a breach,
With ample and brim fulness of his force,
Galling the gleaned land with hot assays,
Girding with grievous siege castles and towns;
That England, being empty of defence,
Hath shook and trembled at the ill neighbourhood.

CANTERBURY

She hath been then more fear'd than harm'd, my liege;
For hear her but exampled by herself:
When all her chivalry hath been in France
And she a mourning widow of her nobles,
She hath herself not only well defended
But taken and impounded as a stray
The King of Scots; whom she did send to France,
To fill King Edward's fame with prisoner kings
And make her chronicle as rich with praise
As is the ooze and bottom of the sea
With sunken wreck and sunless treasuries.

WESTMORELAND

But there's a saying very old and true,
'If that you will France win,
Then with Scotland first begin:'
For once the eagle England being in prey,
To her unguarded nest the weasel Scot
Comes sneaking and so sucks her princely eggs,
Playing the mouse in absence of the cat,
To tear and havoc more than she can eat.

EXETER

It follows then the cat must stay at home:
Yet that is but a crush'd necessity,
Since we have locks to safeguard necessaries,
And pretty traps to catch the petty thieves.


reply

24 years after the English Victory at Agincourt the English had lost the "100 years war" against France and was kicked out of France except for Calais which was lost in 1558. The great french battlevictories, Castillon and Formigny, near the end of the war is not well known in England.

reply

24 years after the English Victory at Agincourt the English had lost the "100 years war" against France and was kicked out of France except for Calais which was lost in 1558. The great french battlevictories, Castillon and Formigny, near the end of the war is not well known in England.


So it took the French over a century to completely expel foreign invaders. Most of which time they weren't even trying to do so. Let's not pretend that the French have anything other than a laughable martial legacy.

I've lived upon the edge of chance for 20 years or more...
Del Rio's Song

reply

Yes I have heard of that Henry feared a Scots invasion when he left for war as such things had happened before. I did think it rather odd that there was a Scottish commander in Henry's army in the play. I think it is documented that there were Welsh troops, and possibly some Flemish and Gascons in the army too. So they were not all English.

reply

It has been suggested that "Captain Jamy" is a allusion to the young King James I of Scotland, who spend all his youth in England as a hostage, and who did accompany Henry to fight in some of his French wars (though not the Agincourt campaign, as it happens). This was mentioned in the chronicle by Holinshed which was Shakespeare's main source for his history plays.

Alternatively, you could argue that Shakespeare was just future-proofing the play by putting an admirable Scottish character in it: by 1599 it would have been plain to everyone that they would have a Scottish king very soon.

reply

It was the English longbow that made the difference. It out-distanced the Genoese Crossbow by many times and the French were surprised by it.

reply