3 Political and Historical Background To Henry V

Page 1 of 39
Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V
Contents
Agincourt in context: the Hundred Years' War.......................................................1
Henry V and the opening of war with France.........................................................6
Marching from Harfleur to Calais:..........................................................................8
Historical research methods: what the chronicles tell us about Agincourt...........12
Real size of the battle.......................................................................................... 16
Killing of the prisoners......................................................................................... 19
Henry's return to England and entry to London...................................................21
Shakespeare and Agincourt.................................................................................23
Kill the poys and the luggage! Were there boys at the battle of Agincourt?......25
Article: Henry V: the cruel king............................................................................ 28
Article: For I am Welsh you know Welshmen, Myth and Reality at Agincourt. .33
Political map of France, 1360

Marzolino/Shutterstock.com
Agincourt in context: the Hundred Years' War

The battle of Agincourt sits within a period called the Hundred Years War.
The name is a misleading one, as it does not refer to a continuous war,
but instead indicates a period of repeated conflict between England and
Page 2 of 39

France between 1337 and 1453. The origins of the struggle went back
centuries.
The origins of conflict
The conflict between England and France began nearly 400 years earlier
when the English were defeated by William, duke of Normandy, at the
battle of Hastings in 1066. The Duke, a significant landowner in France,
invaded England, took power and became king. Thereafter, the kings of
England also owned and ruled over substantial parts of France. This
inevitably led to tension with the kings of France.
By the middle of the twelfth century, King Henry II, through inheritance
and his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, possessed extensive territories
in France, including the duchies of Normandy and Aquitaine, and the
counties of Anjou, Maine and Touraine. Almost all of these territories
were lost during the reign of King John, however, which meant that by
the middle of the thirteenth century, the English only controlled a
diminished area of the duchy of Aquitaine, in the south-west of France. By
the time that Edward III (1327-1377) came to the throne, English territory
in France mostly centred on the cities of Bordeaux and Bayonne in the
region of Gascony.
Map of Aquitaine Artalis/Shutterst
The escalation of tensions

A further complication in Anglo-French relations occurred with the death
of Charles IV of France, in 1328. His closest male heir was his nephew
Edward III (of England), who possessed a claim through his mother,
Isabella, who was a sister of Charles IV. Yet this was disregarded by the
French nobility, who instead crowned a cousin of the dead man as Philip
VI. Edward was not in a strong enough political position at that time to
make his claim on the French crown. Thus, he was forced to offer his
loyalty and submission to Philip VI of France, in 1329.
Page 3 of 39

However, conflict between France and England broke out again in
1337. This was in part due to French support for the Scots, who the
English were at war with at the time, but also due to French aggression.
Philip VI had decided that the duchy of Aquitaine should be taken back
from the English and on the 24th May, he set about sending an army to
invade the duchy.
Although the duchy of Aquitaine (in the South West) was the direct cause
of war between England and France at this time, most of the early fighting
took place in the North of France. The first part of the conflict saw a
number of English victories, such as at the naval battle of Sluys (slois)
in 1340, where an English fleet destroyed a larger French fleet. Six years
later, the first major land battle of the war took place at Crcy in northern
France, where an English army led in person by Edward III was confronted
by a much larger French army, under the command of Philip VI.
The battle of Crecy Everett historical/shutterstock.com
At Crcy the English archers were able to defeat the Genoese

crossbowmen in French employ, due to the much greater rate of fire of the
longbow, and they then achieved success against repeated cavalry
charges by the mounted French men-at-arms. It was a great victory for
Edward IIIs archers and also for his reputation. After this triumph, the
French were far more wary about engaging Edward III in battle.
From Crcy, the English army marched towards Calais. This Northern
French port was strategically important due to its proximity to the English
port of Dover. The English laid siege to the town and after nearly a year,
were able to capture it. This was an important achievement which meant
that until the loss of Calais in the 16th century, the English owned an
important staging point for attacks on France.
Capture of the king
Page 4 of 39

In 1355, after the events in Calais, activities in the conflict moved to
South-West France. Edward of Woodstock, who was Edward IIIs eldest son,
led a grand chevauche or mounted raid into French territory in Aquitaine.
Nicknamed the Black Prince, he won a resounding victory over a far
larger French army and captured its commander, Jean II, the King of
France himself.
Holding the king of France as a prisoner put Edward into a very strong
negotiating position and as a result, the English were very much in the
ascendant by 1359, when Edward III again invaded France with a large
army. A peace treaty was concluded the following year, known as the
treaty of Brtigny. As might be imagined, the terms of this treaty were
very favourable to Edward III. In return for releasing Jean II from captivity
and renouncing his claim to the French throne, it was agreed that Edward
should receive a greatly enlarged duchy of Aquitaine in full sovereignty.
Edward III British Library Board. From Nova Statuta c. 1451. Made
available under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain
Dedication
Victories for France

However, war broke out again in 1369, and
this time, was marked by a succession of
French victories reversing almost all of
the gains previously won by Edward III.
Much of Aquitaine was lost and successive
English armies were unable to regain
ground. This situation continued throughout
the 1370s. Edward III died in 1377 and was
succeeded by his grandson Richard II
(1377-1399), as Richards father, the Black
Prince, had died the previous year.
By the mid-1380s, the political situation in
England had deteriorated and the English
faced the prospect of a French invasion,
with two attempts made in 1385 and 1386. In the event, neither
expedition was launched against England, but it highlighted the countrys
vulnerable state. Indeed, in 1387, Richard IIs authority was challenged by
the Lords Appellant (a group of powerful noblemen) and he was close to
being removed from power. He managed to regain his authority but
recognised that a settlement with France would enhance the stability of
his situation. The Truce of Leulingheman was duly agreed in March 1396
and it was decided that Richard should marry Isabella, daughter of the
king of France, and that the two countries would agree to observe peace
Page 5 of 39

for a period of 28 years. English territory was limited to a small part of the
duchy of Aquitaine and the town of Calais.
A chance for peace?
However, the chance of securing a permanent peace or even 28 years of
peace - between England and France was made more difficult due to the
deposition and murder of Richard II in 1399. Richard was killed by his
cousin, Henry of Bolingbroke, the earl
of Derby, the son of one of his other
uncles, John of Gaunt, duke of
Lancaster. Henry took the throne to
become Henry IV.
Coronation of Henry IV British Library Board. From Chroniques,
Vol. IV, part 2 by Jean Froissart c.1471. Made available under
Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication
The murder of Richard II was seen by

the French as an aggressive act
against them. They felt that it
signalled a clear desire to resume
hostilities and so despite the truce,
the French launched attacks on
Aquitaine and Calais in the early 1400s.
As well as conflict with France, Henry IVs reign was also marked by the
outbreak of major rebellions in the north of England, led by the Percy
family, and in Wales, by Owain Glendower. At the battle of Shrewsbury in
1403, a royal army led by Henry IV was confronted by a rebel army
commanded by Henry Hotspur Percy. The royalists were ultimately
victorious, and England and Wales were largely at peace by the death of
Henry IV in 1413.
In France meanwhile, the situation was very different: King Charles VI had
begun to experience serious bouts of insanity and different groups were
vying for power. Civil war had broken out between two groups known as
the Armagnac and Burgundian factions and France was in turmoil. This
meant that the new English king, Henry V, was in an excellent position to
intervene in French affairs.
The stage was set for a campaign to regain English lands in France.
Page 6 of 39
Henry V and the opening of war with France
Prince Henry
The British Library Board. Image taken from The Regiment of Princes by Thomas Hoccleve
(c.1411-32). Made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain
Dedication
The future Henry V was born at the gatehouse of Monmouth Castle on16
September 1386, which was owned by his grandfather John of Gaunt,
duke of Lancaster, third son of Edward III.
Early life
As a member of a junior branch of the royal family it was not expected
that Henry would ever become king. His prospects were transformed,
however, by the actions of his father, Henry of Bolingbroke, earl of Derby,
who usurped the throne in 1399. The new Henry IV, in common with
his predecessors, continued to call himself king of France even though
by this time the English held only one area of France, Gascony, and the
town of Calais.
Coronation of Henry IV British Library Board. From Chroniques by Jehan Froissart, c.1483. Made available under Creative
Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication
As the new kings eldest son, Prince Henry was created Prince of Wales,
Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester, as well as Duke of Aquitaine and Duke
of Lancaster. He played an important role in his fathers reign,
Page 7 of 39

participating in military campaigns to subdue the Welsh rebellion led by
Owain Glyndr, where he learned much about siege warfare and the
difficulties of feeding an army in hostile territory. He gained battle
experience at Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403, leading the vanguard of the
royal army against Henry Percy (Hotspur) and other English rebels. He was
wounded in the face by an arrow at this engagement: there is no doubt
that he appreciated the effectiveness of the longbow.
Differences between father and son
Henry IVs health problems from 1409 onwards meant that Prince Henry
played an increasingly important role in government. This coincided
with the escalation of civil war in France between the Armagnacs (or
Orleanists) and the Burgundians, fanned by the incapacity of the French
king, Charles VI. Both sides sought English military help in return for
promises of the restoration of English lands in France. In 1411 the prince
sent a force under his friend Thomas, earl of Arundel to assist the
Burgundians, but after his father reasserted control in November, Henry IV
chose to send support to the Armagnacs instead.
Differences in opinion contributed to the strained relationship
between father and son: Prince Henry left the court and was in the
political wilderness. It was therefore the kings second eldest son, Thomas,
duke of Clarence who was given command of an army of 1,000 men-atarms and 3,000 archers and who landed in Normandy intending to join
with the Armagnac princes. But the French parties were reconciled with
each other, and ended up simply buying the duke of Clarence off.
Henry as king
Henry V succeeded his father as king on 21 March 1413 at the age of
25. He was keen to make an impact and to redeem his reputation. He
sought to take advantage of political divisions in France to secure
territorial and financial concessions. It was for this reason that an
embassy was sent to France in the summer of 1414.
Page 8 of 39

English demands included a marriage between Henry and one of the
daughters of Charles VI, as well as the restitution of the terms of the
treaty of Brtigny of 1360 (whereby Edward III had been conceded
extensive lands in south-western France in return for renouncing his claim
to the French throne). But the negotiations came to nought and Henry
announced his intention in parliament of November 1414 to
launch an invasion. Although he was persuaded to send another
embassy, the French remained intransigent, especially after a further
reconciliation between Armagnacs and Burgundians. In the
meantime, Henry began military preparations, with bows, arrows,
guns and other equipment stockpiled for a forthcoming expedition.
At the end of April 1415, the nobility and gentry entered into contracts
(known as indentures) to provide troops for a twelve-month
campaign. Henry was already bent on the systematic conquest of
Normandy although the intended destination was kept secret to deceive
French observers. The army mustered in the Southampton area from early
July onwards and ships were gathered to transport the force to France.
This was the first army that had been led to France by an English monarch
since Edward IIIs (Henrys great-grandfather) expedition of 1359
Marching from Harfleur to Calais:
Henry's March through France 1415

University of Southampton
The march towards Calais

After the capture of Harfleur the decision was taken by Henry and his
council to abandon the campaign of conquest and march the army
overland to English-held Calais. There is some evidence of the debate
Page 9 of 39

which preceded this decision. It reminds us that Henry drew on advice
from his commanders and also that his campaign was not going as
successfully as he had hoped.
Reasons behind returning to England after Harfleur
According to Tito Livio Frulovisi, the author of the Vita Henrici Quinti(The
Life of Henry V) written in the late 1430s, the kings brother, Thomas,
duke of Clarence, argued that it would be to the greater glory of the king
(translation from Curry, 2009, p.56) that the army should be transported
by sea back to England from Harfleur, as the French were gathering in
large numbers and their own ranks had been depleted during the siege.
Henry was said to have replied that he wished to visit the territories
which were his by inheritance as king of France. Furthermore that
he trusted in God to protect the army and wished to avoid the claim that
he had taken flight on account of my fear and had thus abandoned my
right (to the French throne) (ibid, p.56). Another consideration, although
not mentioned by the chronicles, was the greater availability of shipping
at Calais to transport the army back to England.
The army left Harfleur on 8 October on its march to Calais, which
coincided with the second quarter of service for the army, which started
on 6-7 October. Henry may have been mindful of the fact that he had not
had enough cash to pay his soldiers for the second quarter but had had to
give them jewels as security for future payment. Therefore there was
financial sense in cutting the campaign short and returning to England.
The dangers of an overland route
The English intended to reach the safety of Calais as soon as physically
possible: the chronicle Gesta Henrici Quinti (translated in Taylor and
Roskell [eds] 1975) spoke of an expected eight days but that would need
the army to march very quickly. Henry did not aim to make any further
conquests. There were risks in an overland route, too and these risks were
brought home soon after the army left Harfleur, with the English suffering
one death and having three soldiers taken prisoner in a skirmish as they
passed the town of Montivilliers. We also know that some of the army
fanned out towards Fcamp, and there were further losses there.
Negotiated safe passage
By 11 October the main part of the army had reached Arques on the River
Bthune, an unwalled settlement but which was overlooked by a castle to
the south of the river. The anonymous author of the Gesta states that
Henry drew up his forces in battle array before the castle, with the
defenders firing their guns in response. There was to be no attack on the
Page 10 of 39

town, however, with the inhabitants striking an agreement whereby in
return for victuals and free passage across the river, their town would be
spared from being sacked. This agreement also had the great advantage
the English could cross the River Bthune with ease without being delayed
by a potentially costly siege. The English army was obviously too large for
any town to offer meaningful resistance and a similar negotiation and
agreement was made at the town of Eu on 12 October.
On 13 October, the army marched near to Abbeville intending to cross
the River Somme at the ford at Blanchetaque. But Henry had been told
that a large French army had already gathered on the northern bank.
Therefore he did not chance a crossing: taking a large army across a river
was always a dangerously exposed manoeuvre. It does seem that some
French troops had already managed to get ahead of Henry and had good
intelligence of his route.
Searching for a river crossing
Henry and his army were therefore obliged to move inland to search for an
undefended crossing point on the Somme. This proved to be difficult as
the French were determined to block their passage by destroying bridges
and guarding fords. As a result of this the English were forced to make a
significant detour by following the course of the river upstream.
This delay meant that the army began to run low on food, with their ability
to live off the land hindered by the French who deliberately wasted the
territory to deny it to the enemy. The army appears to have avoided the
city of Amiens by marching southwards to Boves on 16 October (3 miles to
the south-east of the city), whose inhabitants negotiated a settlement
with the English, which included the provision of food. The following day a
skirmish occurred outside the garrisoned town of Corbie, with the English
able to drive off the attackers. Following this the English army moved
south-eastwards towards Nesle. At this point French forces were
concentrating in Pronne.
Intelligence of a possible French attack
The French army had been tracking the English from the north bank of
the Somme and were already contemplating battle. According to
theGesta Henry had gleaned something of their plans from prisoners. That
had prompted his order near Corbie that all the archers should provide
themselves with a stake six-feet-long and sharpened at both
ends. They were to plant these stakes in front of them against the cavalry
attack which the French were intending to give.
In the 1980s Dr Christopher Phillpotts discovered a French plan of battle in
the British Library (BL Cotton Caligula D V, folios 43v-44r). The
Page 11 of 39

commanders mentioned in it suggest this was a plan for a battle nearer
the Somme, not for Agincourt itself. This document states that the French
intended to organise their army into two battles of dismounted men-atarms preceded by companies of gens de trait (crossbowmen and
longbowmen). Cavalry were also to be placed on the wings of the battles
with the intention of driving off the English archers. We do not know when
and how the plan came into an English archival collection but it is
interesting to speculate that it had already fallen into English hands
during the Somme march and was the stimulus for Henrys order
concerning the stakes.
The French tactics at Agincourt followed the same plan of overriding the
English archers, but, as we shall see, there were reasons why on that
occasion it did not prove effective.
On 19 October the English army was finally able to cross the River
Somme, most likely near Bethencourt to the south of Pronne. This had
needed a diversion of almost 80 miles since the aborted crossing at
Blanchetaque. According to the author of the Gesta, Henry had sent out
scouts who discovered two narrow causeways by which to make the
crossing. The French had broken the causeways in an attempt to prevent
the English from using them, but the latter were able to cross in single file
to establish a bridgehead on the other side.
Crossing the Somme river
Henry then ordered that the causeways should be repaired with materials
such as wood and straw. This greatly increased the speed at which the
army still large and with many horses and much equipment could pass
over the Somme, an important consideration as the English were
vulnerable as they crossed, but it is still likely to have taken hours.
The crossing of the Somme was a significant event as it allowed the
English to get back on course towards Calais and meant that the French
commanders had less time to gather troops to oppose the invaders. On
the following day, on 20 October, French heralds were sent to Henry to
inform him that they would offer battle to the English before they could
reach Calais.
The Burgundian chronicler Enguerrand de Monstrelet also records that a
council took place in Rouen on the same day, with Charles VI, the Dauphin
and many of the French nobility present, where the decision to confront
the English on the battlefield was decided. It is possible that Aubigny-en
Artois was the proposed location of the battle, but that Henry did all he
could to avoid moving in that direction. Therefore he ended up
being intercepted instead at Agincourt.
Page 12 of 39

The English army continued on its march towards Calais, whilst the French
continued to mobilise their forces. That there were skirmishes is
suggested by the fact that some English soldiers were taken prisoner on
21 and 23 October: this is revealed in the post campaign accounting
materials. The English crossed the River Ternoise at Blangy on 24 October.
The Gesta then states that as the English ascended the hill on the other
side they observed the grim looking ranks of the French army (ibid,
p.32) further up the valley. Henry therefore drew up his army in battle
array, expecting the French would give battle that day. The Gesta and
other chronicles place his battle speech and other preparations on that
day.
However, the French did not show any intention of engaging, because
they were still waiting for troops to arrive. Therefore at nightfall Henry
stood his army down and went to camp at Maisoncelle. The French
camped at Ruisseauville.
Between them lay a plain between the villages of Azincourt and
Tramecourt. It was there that the battle was to be fought on the following
day.
Historical research methods: what the chronicles tell us

about Agincourt
A chronicle - from Chroniques, Vol. IV, part 2 by Jean Froissart c.1471

British Library Board. Made available under Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain
Dedication
Another type of source that we have for the Agincourt campaign is the
chronicle, essentially narrative accounts with events in chronological
order.
Page 13 of 39
There was a long tradition of such history writing in medieval Europe,

especially in religious circles since churchmen were the most literate
members of society and well read in the bible, classical and earlier
medieval works. In the fourteenth century we also see the rise of the
vernacular chronicle, most notably the Chroniques of Jean de Froissart,
written in French, which celebrated chivalric deeds by recounting them (as
well as making a few up!). In the first half of the fifteenth century the first
chronicles in English started to appear, such as the Brut, which traced
the origins of England back to its legendary Trojan foundation, and the
Chronicles of London which organised the material by the mayoral year,
always inserting the name of the mayor and sheriffs.
Remember that there was no printing at this point. All of the
texts we have were written out by hand. Whilst, for example, the
Brut chronicle exists in multiple copies, the Gesta Henrici Quinti (deemed
the best account of the campaign of 1415) exists only in two copies. In
most cases the chronicles were only ever intended to be read by a very
small number of people, such as the writers monastic community or a
noble household. Most writers were also wholly dependent upon second
hand information. A good example is Thomas Walsingham, a monk at the
Benedictine monastery of St Albans. He wrote various chronicles,
continuing the tradition of his religious house for historical writing, but for
the war in France he was dependent upon the information he picked up
from visitors to the monastery and stories circulating.
Agincourt in the chronicles
The battle of Agincourt was an important event in English, French and
European history which meant that it is discussed in many chronicle
accounts written within 50 years of the event. These differ on national
lines. In brief, English chronicles focus on the amazing nature of the
victory and Gods support for the English whereas French and Burgundian
chronicles, such as the Histoire de Charles VI (c.1415-22) written by a
monk at St Denis (which had a tradition of historical writing like St Albans)
and the Chronique dEnguerran de Monstrelet (1447), written by a Picard
author, seek to apportion blame for the defeat.
We also need to be aware of when the text was written. Walsingham and
the Monk (or Religieux) of St Denis were writing quite close to the event
but Monstrelets chronicle dates to the 1440s as a continuation of
Froissarts Chroniques. Hindsight, especially Henry Vs acceptance as heir
and regent of France in the treaty of Troyes of 1420, affected the way
French writers wrote about Agincourt.
Page 14 of 39

Comparing accounts of Henry Vs life
In the late 1430s two important Latin lives of Henry V were written in
England looking back to the golden age of his reign, at a time when
English affairs in France were going less well: the Vita Henrici Quinti (Life
of Henry V) by Tito Livio Frulovisi, who was connected to the kings last
surviving brother, Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, and who wrote at the
commission of the duke, and the anonymous Vita et Gesta Henrici
Quinti(Life and Deeds of Henry V, often called the Pseudo-Elmham, as it
was once thought to be the work of Thomas Elmham. This latter chronicle
should not be confused with the earlier, similarly named work: the Gesta
Henrici Quinti by an anonymous author). Both the Vita Henrici
Quintiand the Vita et Gesta Henrici Quinti praised Henry V to the
hilt, but the Vita Henrici Quinti gave a more sympathetic view of Duke
Humphrey. Take, for example, the account of the duke at the battle. Note
how the first gives a rather more flattering portrayal of the duke.
a) Tito Livio, Vita Henrici quinti:
During this great assault the most serene brother of the king, Humphrey
duke of Gloucester fought bravely and without caution. Having been
pierced by the point of a sword, he was thrown to the ground half dead.
His brother the king himself put his feet astride the legs of Humphrey. For
the renowned duke fell with his head against the kings feet but with his
feet to the enemy. In this position the king fought most courageously for a
long time so that his brother might be carried safely away from the enemy
to his own men. (Curry, 2009, p. 69).
b) Pseudo-Elmham, Vita et Gesta Henrici Quinti:
Also the noble duke of Gloucester, the Kings brother, pushing forward
perhaps too vigorously on his horse into the conflict, was grievously
wounded and cast down to the earth by the blows of the French; for whose
protection the King being determined, bravely leapt against the enemy,
defended him with his own body, and snatched and guarded him from the
enemy, sustaining dangers scarcely possible to be borne. (Ibid, p.73)
Take note of how both these accounts expand on the narrative provided in
the Gesta Henrici Quinti, the account of the campaign written in 1417 by
an anonymous priest who was actually present on the campaign:
And our duke of Gloucester, Humphrey, the kings youngest brother, a
brave prince, like as he gave, in part received. Fighting in the kings
`battle, he was seriously wounded. And no wonder among so many
furiously wielded swords, spears, and axes! After his arrival at Calais,
however he soon recovered, God be praised. (ibid, p.39)
This is an eyewitness account but we can see that the story was
circulating in England soon after the battle, since it is also found in the
Liber Metricus of 1418, written by Thomas Elmham, a monk of St
Page 15 of 39

Augustines Canterbury. Interestingly, Henry V stayed at his abbey en
route from Dover to London in November 1415 after the campaign.
The brother of the king, the noble Duke Humphrey, was wounded in the
groin. Gore flowed down from the sword. Having fallen to the ground, the
king stood over him to assist him. He was in this battle the defender of his
brother. (ibid, p.49)
Historians use chronicles with caution
Chronicle accounts of the battle of Agincourt are fascinating but we need
to use them with caution. They often provide differing accounts of the
same event, and that presents considerable challenges for the historian.
It is tempting just to heap up their narratives together but when they give
differing versions, we have a problem. Also chroniclers had little idea of
the reality of numbers but tended to use figures for effect. Many different
figures are given, for instance, for army sizes, French dead and prisoners,
some of which are totally unrealistic.
In general English sources tend to ascribe larger numbers to the French
than do French writers. Two French chroniclers even say the French army
was smaller than the English army.
The advantages and disadvantages of using this type of source can be
illustrated by examining the surviving accounts from the period, where the
writer claims that they were present at the battle, which each provide
evidence of varying interest and quality.
Eye witness 1
The anonymous author of the Gesta Henrici Quinti (1417) appears to have
been a member of a priestly order attached to the royal household. His
main purpose in writing the chronicle, which runs from Henry Vs
coronation on 9 April until November 1416, was to glorify the king as a
devout Christian prince blessed by the approval of God.
The author took part in the expedition and so provides a comprehensive
account of the campaign up until the day of the battle. He states he was
at present at the battlefield but was confined to the rear of the English
army as he was then sitting on a horse among the baggage at the rear
of the battle (ibid, p.35). Therefore, despite being at Agincourt, he was
undoubtedly reliant on the second-hand accounts of other participants in
the engagement. Also the narrative actually includes a great deal of
religious invocation which is not surprising given the priestly origins of the
author and his purpose. This often overwhelms the military detail.
You can get a flavour of this by looking at a translation into English from
Latin of the Gestas narrative of the battle (see below).
Eye witness 2
Page 16 of 39

Another apparent eye witness account of the battle is provided by John
Hardyngs Chronicle (first version 1457 and second version 1464).
Hardyng was born in the north of England, possibly Northumberland, in
1378. By his own testimony, he claimed to have served with Sir Robert
Umfraville on the 1415 campaign to France. Yet no evidence has been
found for his participation in the expedition from the surviving muster
rolls, and he only mentions his presence in the second version of his
chronicle. It is questionable therefore whether he actually served
on the campaign at all. Furthermore both versions were written up
more than thirty years after the battle, about which they have very little
to say.
Eye witnesses 3 and 4
Two further accounts are provided by writers from Picardy, Jean Waurin
and Jean Le Fvre (1444-1460s). According to Waurin he was fifteen at
the time of the battle with the French army, whereas Fvre was nineteen
and with the English army. It appears that Le Fvre was in the service of
the heralds, whilst it is unclear whether Waurin was a combatant or not.
Both men, however, wrote their chronicles at least thirty years after the
battle, and drew heavily upon the work of another chronicler, Enguerran
de Monstrelet, whose work was finished in 1447. This problem of
borrowing, together with the desire of the authors to present a proBurgundian account of events, means that their testimony also needs to
be treated with care. But they provide the best account in terms of
military content.
Work by later historians
Another problem is how historians of the sixteenth century, especially
Edward Hall and Raphael Holinshed, used such medieval chronicles as
they could access in order to write their histories. Holinsheds work of
1577 and 1587 was used by Shakespeare.
But both Hall and Holinshed gave their work a sixteenth-century flavour
and we should always go back to the chronicles of the period rather than
relying on these later works.
Page 17 of 39
Real size of the battle
Charles VI of France leading his army to Calais

British Library Board. From Chroniques by Jean Froissart (c.1471). Made available under the
Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication
The French army at Agincourt

In this article, Anne discusses the strengths and weaknesses of
the French army at Agincourt.
As a leading French scholar of military matters in this period Bertrand
Schnerb, professor at the University of Lille, has observed, The French
army that fought at Agincourt has been much less well studied by scholars
than the English army this is probably due to a lack of sources and to
the fact that a defeated army is less attractive than a victorious one
(Schnerb, 2015).
The popular view, at least amongst popular writers in England, is that the
French army was exceptionally large, incompetent and leaderless. There is
some truth in the last description. The English benefited considerably from
the presence of Henry V in person. By contrast neither King Charles VI, nor
his eldest son the Dauphin, were present: a decision was taken at Rouen
on 20 October that neither should be involved in any battle. This reminds
us not simply of Charless mental problems but also of French fear that the
English might win and capture the king or his son, as they had captured
John II at Poitiers in 1356.
French perceptions of the English
The French did not underestimate English military prowess in the early
stages of the campaign. Henry had invaded with a large army and they
had not been able to raise an army large enough and quickly enough to
challenge him at Harfleur. As time went on, and they had him on the run,
then they made the decision to intercept him and bring him to battle. The
French battle plan found by Christopher Phillpotts in the British Library in
1984 was for an engagement somewhere along the Somme. It was drawn
Page 18 of 39

up by Marshal Boucicaut, Constable dAlbret, the duke of Alenon and
Arthur, count of Richemont. However, by the time of the actual battle the
dukes of Orlans and Bourbon had also joined the army. As the nephew of
the king it was the twenty-one year old and inexperienced Orlans who
was in command on the day. Chronicles suggest that the older
commanders (implicitly Boucicaut and dAlbret) advised against giving
battle, but the young hotheads ignored their advice.
Structure of the French Army
In many ways the French army was very similar to its English counterpart.
It was largely made up of companies raised by individual lords, with their
households as the core: we know that more than 25 of the chamberlains
of the duke of Orlans were killed in the battle. It was none the less a
royal army. In late August an order went out that all men should wear a
white cross on a dark background: this paralleled the English order that all
should wear the red cross of St George. Its men-at-arms were armoured
and equipped in a very similar way to the English men-at-arms: it is a
myth that they had heavier armour which weighed them down in the
battle and contributed to their defeat.
British Library Board. From Recueil des croniques dEngleterre by Jean of Wavrin (c.1480). Made available under the Creative
Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication
In neither country, however, was there a standing army save for troops
held in garrison. Therefore troops had to be raised for the occasion. This
put the French at a disadvantage as they could only operate in response
mode to the English invasion. As in the English case, troops expected pay
and therefore we can glean something of the French army from the
financial records, which include musters taken to check that troops had
turned out. The problem is that so much less survives than on the English
side, as Schnerb noted. But we know that the French had raised a tax to
support an army of 6,000 men-at-arms and 3,000 gens de trait (meaning
crossbowmen and longbowmen). This reminds us that the French army,
like the English, was funded out of taxation: one French chronicler, the
Bourgeois of Paris (who, despite the name was a member of the clergy)
commented that Charles had levied the heaviest tax that had ever been
Page 19 of 39

seen in the whole age of man. This is somewhat of an exaggeration but
we can see the wisdom of hindsight here. As the chronicler added, the tax
did no good for the kingdom of France. The French lost the battle.
Differences between the English and French armies
The army to be supported by the tax emphasises an important difference
indeed the key difference between the French and English armies.
Whilst Henrys army had large numbers and proportions of archers
compared with men-at-arms (four to one at outset, probably five to one at
the battle), the reverse was the case for the French. This was nothing new.
The French always had more men-at-arms than bowmen. There was a
large pool of nobility and gentry to draw on. Such men, along with others
accustomed to frequent or serve in wars were exempt from taxation in
return for providing military service to the crown. Even though they
expected pay, they were summoned to royal service by the semonce des
nobles which was proclaimed through the baillis and seneschals, the
French equivalent of sheriffs in England.
A summons was issued on 28 August in the wake of the English landing,
ordering troops to Rouen to the presence of the Dauphin although the
latter did not come to the city till 10 October. Over 230 companies of men
can be found in surviving pay documents and musters by early October,
totalling around 6,000 men. The summons dated 20 September,
addressed to the bailli of Amiens, is given in full in the chronicle of
Enguerrand de Monstrelet. The text also added a requirement for royal
towns (known as the bonnes villes) to send cannons and other engines of
war. Towns also had urban militias largely comprising crossbowmen: we
know that some of these were present at Agincourt, although they seem
to have been little used. We know that after the battle townsmen, such as
those of St Omer, the nearest large town to the battlefield, went to the
field to collect their cannons and equipment.
Whilst in English armies most captains brought both men-at-arms and
archers, in France retinues tended to have one type of troop only. As in
England, however, companies ranged in size from less than ten men
upwards. The duke of Berry had 1,000 men-at-arms and 500 gens de trait
under his command on 30 September although the duke himself, aged 75,
did not serve at the battle in person. The duke of Orlans and the duke of
Burgundy were both asked to provide 500 men-at-arms and 300 archers.
Initially, given the recent state of war between these dukes, both were
told not to come in person but simply to send troops. At the end of the
day, however, there was a change of royal mind over the involvement of
Orlans. The two brothers of the duke of Burgundy, the duke of Brabant
and count of Nevers, were both killed at the battle, and there were several
Burgundian captains present. Many troops came from Picardy, Artois and
Page 20 of 39

Upper Normandy. In some cases several members of the same family died
together at the battle.
The French army at Agincourt
It is impossible to know for certain how large the French army was at the
battle but the figures given in chronicles are too high, as they are for all
battles of the period. Where we have full financial records, as for an army
raised by Charles VI in 1414, we see a strength of 14,500 but with the
king not present in person we might expect the size to be lower. A plan
made at Rouen on 20 October and reported by the chronicler Jean Juvenal
des Ursins envisaged three French battles, with Boucicaut, the duke of
Bourbon and Guichard Dauphin in the vanguard, the dukes of Orlans,
Alenon and Brittany in the main battle along with the constable dAlbret,
and a rearguard containing the duke of Bar, count of Vaudmont, the
count of Charolais and the count of Nevers. The wings were to be
commanded by Arthur de Richemont and Tanneguy du Chastel, the prvot
of Paris, with the cavalry to break the archers under Clignet de Brabant
and Jean, sire de Ligne, seneschal of Hainault. But we know that several of
these commanders were not present (Brittany, Charolais, du Chastel). The
French also needed to see to the defence of Paris against the possible
threat of the duke of Burgundy. Some commanders, such as the duke of
Brittany, did not arrive in time. The duke of Brabant arrived late in the day.
It appears that the French delayed the battle until 25 October as they
were still hoping for more troops to arrive.
A total of 12,000 or so is therefore not unlikely, although some recent
writers have put the figure slightly higher. We know that the French
formed a very large vanguard of around 5,000 men. They hoped to
overwhelm the smaller number of English men-at-arms but reckoned
without the effect of the arrow storm which slowed down their advance.
Not enough men were found to join the cavalry charge against the archers
a sign of weak command. And indeed, it appears that the divisions in the
rear fled the field without engaging.
Agincourt is therefore a reminder of the fact that unless all men
engage, the actual size of an army does not matter.
Killing of the prisoners

For modern observers, one of the best known and most notorious events during
the battle of Agincourt is the massacre of at least some of the French prisoners
by their English captors at the end of the first phase of fighting. These men had
been taken captive after being defeated in the melee.
Ransom
Page 21 of 39

When fighting ceased the king ordered his men to search the heaps of dead for
further possible prisoners. By this time, such captives had a clear expectation
that they would be ransomed by the victorious English. The capture of prisoners
for ransom was a well-established principle by the early fifteenth century, with
high ranking captives being especially sought after. The most notable earlier
example in the Hundred Years War is the capture of the French king John II, at the
battle of Poitiers in 1356. John was brought to England and his large ransom
enough to remove the need for direct taxation for several years - formed part of
the treaty of Brtigny of 1360 which gave Edward III substantial lands in south
west France in full sovereignty.
The potential financial gains that could be made from the ransoming of high
ranking and wealthy prisoners was a powerful incentive for soldiers to serve in
this period. The English Crown also stood to benefit from this process. Following
established procedures, the indentures for the 1415 campaign specified that the
king was entitled to a third of the ransoms. Captains would also be entitled to a
share of the ransoms gained by troops under their command. Any high ranking
prisoners were to be handed over to him in return for the captor being given
some compensation.
Therefore on the face of it, it would seem counter-intuitive for a commander to
order the killing of prisoners since he was depriving himself as well as his
soldiers of potential income. The key to understanding the event lies in Henrys
fears that the French were intending a new attack. His own army was no longer
in battle array therefore he had to take drastic action.
Reasons for Henrys actions
According to the author of the Gesta Henrici Quinti (The Deeds of Henry V) the
killings occurred because a shout went up (Curry, 2009, p.37) amongst the
English that the French were reforming to launch another attack. This was said to
have resulted in the deaths of almost all of the prisoners, except those of the
highest rank, to prevent them from taking up arms against their captors in the
confusion of fresh fighting. The fear of a French attack is the reason given in
almost all other chronicles, whether English or French, although there is some
variation on who was leading the new attack. There is also some vagueness on
whether any negotiations occurred. In some accounts there is a suggestion that
Henry sent a herald to the French. In others, the French see the killing and
therefore decide not to attack again. Only one account, that of the French
chronicler Pierre de Fenin attributes the massacre as a reaction to a French
attack on the English baggage train.
A detailed account of what happened is provided by Ghillebert de Lannoy,
lord of Willerval, who was taken prisoner at the battle. He was 29 years old at
the time and was from the area, with lordship being in the Pas-de-Calais 31 miles
to the south-east of Azincourt. Lannoy was chamberlain to Philip, count of
Charolais, the eldest son of John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy. Both of these
men were not present at the battle but many of their followers did fight in the
French ranks. His testimony states that:
In 1415 I was at the battle of Ruisseauville where I was wounded in the knee and
the head, and I laid with the dead. But when the bodies were searched through, I
Page 22 of 39

was taken prisoner, being wounded and helpless (impotens), and kept under
guard for while. I was then led to a house nearby with 10 or 12 other prisoners
who were all wounded. And there, when the duke of Brabant was making a new
attack, a shout went up that everyone should kill his prisoners. So that this might
be effected all the quicker, they set fire to the house where we were. By the
grace of God, I dragged myself a few feet away from the fire. There I was when
the English returned, so I was taken prisoner again and sold to Sir John Cornwall,
thinking that I was someone of high status since, thank God, I was well accoutred
when I was taken the first time according to the standards of the time. So I was
taken to Calais and thence to England until they discovered who I was, at which
point I was put to ransom for 1,200 golden crowns (cus) along with a horse of
100 francs. When I left my master, Sir John Cornwall, he gave me 20 nobles to
purchase a new suit of armour (harnas). (Potvin, 1878, pp 49-50)
We know that the duke of Brabant arrived late for the battle, so this account is
credible. A number of other French prisoners were not killed, such as the major
prisoners, headed by Charles, duke of Orlans. He was kept prisoner in England
for twenty-four years, which included a stint in the Tower of London. Altogether it
has been possible so far to identify 320 prisoners taken alive and ransomed. Only
the most prominent prisoners were taken back to England and held until their
ransoms could be paid, which included Charles, duke of Orlans (a nephew of
Charles VI); Jean de Clermont, duke of Bourbon; Louis de Bourbon, count of
Vendme; Charles of Artois, count of Eu (all three of royal descent); Arthur of
Brittany, count of Richemont (brother of the duke of Brittany); and the marshal of
France, Jean II le Meingre, called Boucicaut.
How many others were killed as a result of Henrys order cannot be known. The
killing of prisoners is not unique to Agincourt. It is notable that no contemporary
commentators criticised Henry for his action at Agincourt. It was seen at the time
as an action generated by military necessity.
Henry's return to England and entry to London

The Chronicle of London states that Henry arrived back in England on 16
November at Dover and then made his way towards London. He was no longer
accompanied by the army, which had been stood down at Calais and transported
in stages to different ports, such as Sandwich, Dover, Portsmouth and
Southampton.
As he re-entered England the king was accompanied by a relatively small
entourage and his most important prisoners, such as Charles, duke of Orlans
and Louis, Count of Vendme. The Brut chronicle then states that Henry went to
Barham Down, where he was greeted by members of the Cinque Ports. Henrys
entourage then moved onto Canterbury where he made an offering at the shrine
of Thomas Becket, before proceeding onto to Eltham Palace on the outskirts of
London prior to his entry into the city. This was an orchestrated affair which the
City of London had been preparing in anticipation of the kings return. It
Page 23 of 39

paralleled the entry of the Black Prince into London on 24 May 1357, with the
French king John II and other leading prisoners from the battle of Poitiers. The
point of such entries was to emphasise the importance and status of London as
well as that of the monarchy.
On 23 November 1415, Henry entered the city of London in triumph with the
Corporation of London putting on extravagant displays of pageantry to celebrate
the kings victory. Such events were few and far between and it is not surprising
that the entry made a deep impression on contemporaries, with the chronicler
Walsingham stating that the reception of the king was so brilliant and varied that
it would require a special treatise to record it adequately.
Henrys procession through London University of Southampton
According to the Gesta Henrici Quinti, the king was greeted outside the city at
Blackheath by 20,000 citizens on horseback wearing red clothes together with
red and white hoods. At 10 oclock the king came into their midst wearing a
gown of purple, with the Londoners congratulating him on the victory he had
achieved and praising God. The citizens then headed to London with the king, his
small retinue and his most important French prisoners.
Evidently the corporation and citizens of London had been busy since receiving
news of the victory as they had constructed special displays symbolising the
importance of London as well as Henrys kingship.
At the south entrance to London Bridge he was confronted by two enormous
figures bearing the royal arms.
And, all around them, projecting from the ramparts, staffs bearing the royal
arms and trumpets, clarions, and horns ringing out in multiple harmony
embellished the tower, and the face of it bore this choice and appropriate legend
inscribed on the wall: Civitas Regis Iusticie (City of the King of Justice). (Gesta
Henrici Quinti translation in Taylor and Roskell, [eds] 1975, p.103).
As the king made his way further along the bridge as far as the little
drawbridge, he would have seen two pillars with the appearance of towers on
either side of the bridge, each built of wood and covered with linen cloth painted
to resemble stonework. The pillar on the right had the figure of an antelope with
Page 24 of 39

a shield of the royal arms and a royal sceptre. On the other pillar was a lion
holding a staff with the royal standard unfurled.
Directly in front of the king was another pillar which contained a figure of St
George in armour except his head which contained gems, set in a canopied
niche. Behind the statue was a crimson tapestry with his heraldic arms on
shields. The tower itself had the message written on it Fluminis impetus letificat
civitatem dei (There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God ).
In the house next to and behind the tower choirs of boys dressed as angels sang
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini (Blessed is he that comes in the name of
the Lord) [ibid, p.104-5).
A second choir, dressed as prophets of the Old Testament, were present at
Cornhill where they chanted Cantate domino canticum novum, Alleluia. Quia
mirabilia fecit. (Sing to the Lord a new song, Alleluia, because he has done
marvellous things) and released a flock of little birds of which some descended
on to the kings breast, some settled upon his shoulders, and some circled
around in twisted flight (ibid, p.106-7).
From there the kings entourage proceeded to the tower of the conduit at the
entrance to Cheapside. This was covered by a green cover bearing the
escutcheons of the citys arms. Under an awning were old men dressed as the
Apostles, who on the kings approach in perfect time sang the psalm Salvasti
enim in nos de affligentibus nos, et odientes nos confudisti (But it is thou that
has saved us from our enemies, and have put them to confusion that hate us).
They then gave to the king round leaves of silver, wafers of bread and wine from
the conduits that they might receive him with bread and wine just as
Melchizedek did Abraham when he returned with victory from the slaughter of
the four kings (ibid, p. 108-9).
An account of the pageantry from here onwards is provided by Usk (see GivenWilson [ed] 1997, pp 261-2), again showing the structures and pageants which
the City of London had arranged:
At the cross in the middle of Cheap, reaching from one side to the other, as far
as the church of St. Peter, was a threestoreyed building mounted by a
remarkable series of ladders, to which towers and bulwarks and the coats of
arms of the kingdom and its princes were attached, the whole thing being
constructed from planks, a remarkable example of the skills of both carpenters
and painters; it was covered with a large linen sheet decorated in lapidary
colours, so that it looked like a wall made of porphyry, marble, and ivory, and on
it were written the words, Things glorious are said of thee, thou city of the Lord;
and it was completely filled with models of angels, singers and organs. Six
citizens, magnificently dressed, came out of its iron gates carrying two basins
made of gold and filled with gold, which were offered to the king. As he
approached the lower conduit, chanting virgins came dancing to meet him,
accompanied by choirs and drums and golden viols, just as in King Davids time,
after the slaying of Goliath. What more can I say? The city wore its brightest
aspect, and happiness filled the people-and rightly so. At St Pauls the king
Page 25 of 39

dismounted and went devoutly forward to make offerings at the Holy Cross, the
tomb of St Erkenwald, and the high altar, before moving on from there to dine at
Westminster.
The Gesta Henrici Quinti states that such was the dense crowd of spectators in
the city that the mounted procession had difficulty getting through to
Westminster. The king wore a simple gown of purple, not armour, and the story
that his helmet, damaged in the battle, was displayed is a later myth.
On the day after the pageants, according to the Chronicle of London, the mayor
and the aldermen of London went to the king at Westminster and presented him
with two basins of gold worth 500 which contained gold worth a further 1,000.
Then a requiem was held at St Pauls Cathedral by order of the king.
Shakespeare and Agincourt
Agincourt continued to be remembered in the years after the battle, as

can be seen by the large number of English and French chronicles
throughout the fifteenth century. A literary tradition also developed with
the emergence of a number of poems which celebrated the memory of
Agincourt. Initially this was because the war in France was continued after
the death of Henry V in 1422, but even after the final expulsion of the
English from the continent in 1453 (with the exception of Calais), its
legacy played an important part in Englands domestic politics during the
Wars of the Roses.
Agincourt in Tudor times
In the sixteenth century the memory of Agincourt continued to be relevant
due to continuing Anglo-French conflict. Henry VIII invaded France in 1513
and in 1513-14, the First English Life of Henry V was written. It was
Page 26 of 39

dedicated to Henry VIII, and it encouraged him to make war on the French
to emulate his glorious ancestor.
By the mid sixteenth century there was much interest in the medieval
past, especially to prove that the Tudors had redeemed England from the
civil wars of the fifteenth century. This is particularly apparent in the work
of Edward Hall (The Union of the Two Illustre Families of Lancaster and
York, 1542), whose account of Agincourt was copied in Raphael Holinshed
(Holinsheds Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, 1586-7).
Hall invented new details for dramatic effect, such as the addition of a
battle speech by one of the French commanders, Charles DAlbret,
Constable of France. These Tudor accounts also included anachronisms,
such as the presence of billmen, hand-gunners and cavalry on the English
side. The fact that such Tudor works were printed meant that they were
widely reproduced and reached a much wider audience than the fifteenth
century chronicles.
Shakespeares Henry V
It was William Shakespeares play, Henry V (1599), which ensured that
Agincourt would continue to be remembered in the popular imagination. It
was not, however, the first play which includes the battle. History plays
were popular in the late sixteenth century, with a slightly earlier work, The
Famous Victories of Henry V: Containing the Honourable battle of
Agincourt (1583-7), pitting a multi-ethnic French force of 100,000,
including Brabanters, Danes and Hainaulters, against a much smaller
English army of 14,000 men.
Shakespeares inspiration for his play also appears to have been
motivated, at least in part, by fears of invasion, provoked by the peace
made between France and Spain in 1598-9, and patriotic sentiment stirred
by the campaign of Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, against rebels in
Ireland in 1599. It also completed his cycle of history plays, as the other
works, comprising Richard II, Henry IV, parts 1-2, Henry VI, parts 1-3 and
Richard III, had been written by 1597.
Shakespeares influences
Shakespeares interpretation of Agincourt was heavily influenced by the
sixteenth-century accounts of the battle (we know that he read
Holinshed), but he also added many embellishments of his own. This
includes the invention of a number of characters which appealed to a
contemporary audience: the most obvious are the representatives of the
four nations: Henry V certainly did not have Scotsmen in his army since
the Scots were in alliance with the French.
Page 27 of 39

Many of the most famous quotes attributed to the battle, such as We few,
we happy few, we band of brothers from the St Crispins Day speech
given by Henry V, and Shame, and eternal shame, nothing but
shame! uttered by the duke of Bourbon, were also invented by
Shakespeare for dramatic effect. The battle itself moreover is only treated
in passing in the play, with the role of the English archers entirely omitted.
In fact there are no archers at all in the play. Yet the overall patriotic
message of the play has been a rallying call for nationalists ever since its
creation.
Shakespeares play in later years
Henry V was not performed much in the seventeenth century, but a
succession of conflicts between Britain and France from the 1740s
onwards helped to maintain its relevance. By the mid nineteenth century
it was very popular and often staged in an elaborate way, with the king on
a real horse, and the French watching dancing girls on the eve of battle a
way of getting more women into the play as well as showing the
decadence of the French.
The appeal of the play has been further enhanced due to the success of
the film adaptations of Laurence Olivier (1944) and Kenneth
Branagh(1989), as well the BBC television film in The Hollow Crown
series, starring Tom Hiddleston (2012). These films, in contrast to the
original play, include lengthy battle sequences with hundreds of extras
starring as combatants. Their interpretations of the battle differ
noticeably, however. The Olivier version (filmed in Ireland during the
Second World War) presents a lavish and colourful overview of the
battlefield with very little mud or gore, or even blood. The Branagh
version is noticeably darker and grimmer in its portrayal of the battle, with
a heavy focus on the melee, the fates and fears of individual soldiers, as
well as the human cost of war: by 1989 the impact of Vietnam was
affecting how Agincourt was viewed. Branagh explicitly stated that he
wanted to show the horrors of war.
Page 28 of 39
Kill the poys and the luggage! Were there boys at the
battle of Agincourt?
By Professor Anne Curry

Act 4 scene 7 of Shakespeares Henry V begins with the Welsh captain
Llewellyn (otherwise known as Fluellen) uttering the famous words Kill the
poys and the luggage! Tis expressly against the law of arms. Tis as arrant
a piece of knavery mark you now, as can be offert, in your conscience
now, is it not? The English captain Gower replies Tis certain. Theres not a
boy left alive and the cowardly rascals that ran from the battle hadone
this slaughter. Besides, they have burned and carried away all that was in
the kings tent, wherefore the king most worthily hath caused every
soldier to cut his prisoners throat.
Oliviers film of 1944 portrays the French setting fire to the camp,
culminating in the site of a dead boy. In Kenneth Branaghs film of the play
in 1989 extra poignancy is gained by the king picking up Boy (a character
linking back to the kings erstwhile tavern companions in Falstaffs
company) and carrying him on his shoulder as the post-battle scene plays
out.
The fifteenth-century chronicle accounts mention an attack on the
baggage but do not associate with it any killings, of boys or of anyone
else. The French are described as taking away horses and goods. In some
accounts specific items are alleged, including one of Henrys crowns or a
sword which had belonged to King Arthur. Administrative records confirm
that items were indeed taken from the English camp since royal officials
were exonerated for their loss.
Page 29 of 39

Only one chronicle account, that of Pierre Fenin, has the raid on the
baggage as the reason for Henrys order to kill the prisoners. All the
others explain it as arising out of his being informed that a new French
force was approaching. Even Fenin does not mention the killing of anyone
in the camp: a couple of local men launched an attack on the baggage of
the English making great affray. As a result the English feared that the
French would come upon them to do them harm. Thus the English killed
many of the prisoners they had.
Not until Polydore Vergil wrote his Anglica Historia in 1513 was there a
suggestion made that in addition to making off with booty the French
killed those who had been left to guard the camp. He does not say they
were boys but young men enter the story for the first time thanks to
Polydore. When an alarmed messenger brought the news to the king and
the clamour was heard of young men (iuvenes) and others who on the
arrival of the enemy had taken to their heels and were shouting that the
soldiers goods were being snatched and carried off in all directions, the
king was afraid that the enemy might be gathered together from their
scattered flight and renew the battle, and therefore ordered the killing of
the prisoners. Edward Hall was certainly inspired by reading this account
and in his own work of 1542 follows the same line, although having
lackeys and boys running away from the camp and doing the shouting.
Holinsheds chronicle simply copies the wording in Hall.
It was Shakespeares own dramatic invention that boys were actually
killed (as well as luggage as Andy Gurr puts it, Llewellyn makes a joke
that jolts the word out of its initial shock value (Henry V (New Cambridge
Shakespeare), p. 177).
But were there boys with the English army? We know from a shipping
account for the return from Calais to England of the retinue of the earl of
Oxford that most men-at-arms had a page with them (TNA E 101/46/36,
m. 3) but how old they were is not certain. There were many menial
servants present, especially with the royal household. The term garcon
appears in the administrative records but we need to be careful here since
it was used for low ranking servants generally, not simply young men.
Over 10 per cent of the peers serving in English royal armies from 1369 to
1453 had military service before they were 16. Indeed fourteen peers in
this period had their first military experience aged 12 or, in a few cases,
even younger. (A.R. Bell, A. Curry, A.King & D. Simpkin, The Soldier in
Later Medieval England (OUP, 2013), p. 26) Henry, earl of Somerset was
present on the 1415 campaign in the retinue of his step father, the duke
of Clarence, despite being just under 14 years old (TNA E 101/45/4 m. 1).
Page 30 of 39

Although Clarence was invalided home from Harfleur, Somerset seems to
have been present on the whole campaign. A study of the careers of menat-arms of non-noble birth also suggests it was not uncommon for them to
begin their military service as archers in their early teens. William Trywhit,
for instance, who was present on the Agincourt campaign and who did not
die until 1451, seems first to have seen service as an archer in 1383-5
when he can only have been a young teenager.
The military role of young teenagers is also implied in a clause in a set of
military ordinances issued by Henry V later in his reign, ordering that no
one should capture a child under 14 years old unless he was the son of a
lord, a gentleman or a captain. That said, the French writer Christine de
Pisan had commented in her treatise on warfare written around 1408-10
that a child cannot and should not rightfully be imprisonedfor it is
evident that the child is innocent and not guilty in anything connected
with war. Even if the child was an orphan and rich in his own right, he
should not pay a ransom if he was under age. Unfortunately she did not
give any definition of the actual age but she did add that such a law was
not well observed at the time. (The Book of Deeds of Arms and of
Chivalry, ed. C. Willard, Pennsylvania State Univ Press, 1999, p. 177).
So there could well have been boys present with the English army, both as
servants and even potential soldiers. It would not be unreasonable to
suppose that they would be left in the camp rather than exposed to the
full dangers of what was expected to be a hard and bloody battle. But it
took Shakespeares imagination to have the killing of boys as the specific
impact of the attack on the camp. Even so, the Bard hedged his bets on
the reasons for the kings order to kill the prisoners since a few lines
before Llewellyns words Henry speaks But hark what new alarm is this
same? The French have reinforced their scattered men. Then every soldier
kill his prisoners.
Article: Henry V: the cruel king

Few English monarchs enjoy a loftier reputation than the hero of
Agincourt. Yet, says Ian Mortimer, the real Henry V was a cold, aloof man,
prone to acts of breathtaking cruelty and arrogance.
This article was first published in BBC History Magazine
Tuesday 2nd September 2014
Page 31 of 39
The
and the
ready
of Caen
Henry
heavy artillery had damaged the town walls

moat had been filled with bundles of sticks,
for the final onslaught. But still the inhabitants
refused to surrender. By 4 September 1417
V and his army had been besieging the
Norman town for 17 days. It only remained for
the king to launch an all-out attack.
That morning Henry heard three masses in his pavilion and ordered the
advance. The army assaulted the town on three sides, using scalingladders to climb the walls. As the trumpets blared and the troops rushed
forward, the inhabitants fought desperately, throwing down rocks, boiling
water and burning oil from the battlements, and shooting bows and
crossbows, before reaching for their swords and taking up the hand-tohand struggle.
Their efforts were in vain. The kings brother, the Duke of Clarence, broke
the resistance of the townsmen on his side of Caen, and the fighting
moved into the streets. When the struggle was over, Henry ordered that
every male over the age of 12 be killed or so claimed a Venetian
chronicler. Eighteen hundred men and boys were put to death. A
Dominican friar demanded of Henry how he could justify such killing.
Henry replied in perhaps the most chilling tones imaginable: I am the
scourge of God sent to punish the people of God for their sins.
For most English readers, this depiction of Henry V in action is difficult to
accept. Surely Henry was a good man, and a great king? He was the
Prince Hal in ShakespearesHenry IV plays, as well as the charming,
wooing, gracious and triumphant monarch inHenry V. He founded
monasteries, piously heard several masses every day, went on
pilgrimages and contributed to the completion of Westminster Abbey. He
was an English hero in his own lifetime and a legendary figure in later
years.
The influential 20th-century academic KB McFarlane described Henry as
the greatest man who ever ruled England. Hence the modern patriot
instinctively argues that, if there was a massacre at Caen, there must
have been a reason for it, and that attempts to condemn Henry for
ordering the killing are simply a failure to understand the circumstances.
The fact is that the massacre at Caen is just one of many bloody events
that mark out Henry V as one of the cruellest and most cold hearted kings
that England has had. Caen was not his first massacre that had taken
Page 32 of 39

place at Agincourt in 1415, when he had ordered 200 English archers to
cut the throats of a large number of French prisoners. Nor was it his last.
Similarly ruthless acts of brutality against the French took place at
Pontoise (1419), Melun (1420), Rougemont (1421) and Meaux (1422). At
the siege of Rouen in the autumn and winter of 141819, the women and
children who were sent out of the town during the siege found themselves
trapped in the town ditch. Henry forced them to stay there, without food
or shelter, despite the harshness of the weather. As far as he was
concerned, they were the responsibility of the starving townsmen. Like the
people of Caen, it was right that they should suffer for their countrymens
sins.
How did such a man come to be a national hero?
And how come historians have maintained him in
the position for so long? In order to answer these
questions, I decided to write a book eschewing
traditional forms of biography and to concentrate
on the man himself in comprehensive detail. It
seemed to me that, if we arrange everything we
know about Henry over the course of a single
year, we might get a sufficiently precise view of
his character in relation to all the challenges he
faced and so we might understand why he
issued such extreme commands. In this way we might be able to look
beyond the propaganda of the time and the post-Agincourt eulogies of his
greatness, and see the evidence of Henrys activities laid out in relation to
each other.
Henry was never a Prince Hal character. He was never easy-going. He was
serious and pious. When he won a battle against the rebellious Welsh
prince, Owen Glendower, at Grosmont in 1405, he insisted that his men
give the credit not to him but to God. In this we can see how he took on
his fathers philosophy that divine will may be tested by battle. If God had
not wanted the Lancastrians to be kings of England, Henry and his father
would have been defeated and killed at the battle of Shrewsbury (1403).
Instead it was their enemies Henry Hotspur Percy and his uncle the Earl
of Worcester who were defeated and killed. As far as the Lancastrians
were concerned, God had spoken.
Not everyone was convinced. Henry IVs reign was marred by a string of
conspiracies against him. But Henry V saw an opportunity to end that
cycle of rebellion by taking the model of Shrewsbury a step further, and
proving himself victorious in France. If he could show that it was Gods will
Page 33 of 39

that he be king of France no one could doubt his claim to be the rightful
king of England. Besides, if he could demonstrate his prowess in war
against the French, few Englishmen would readily take up arms against
him. They would be intimidated by his martial skill and united in their
hatred of the French. The numerous conspiracies against his dynasty
would finally end.
Immediately after his accession Henry began collecting weaponry,
armour, cannon, gunpowder, bows and arrows ready for the conflict. In
1414 he sent an embassy to demand restitution of all the rights settled on
his great-grandfather, Edward III, in 1360. It was certain that the French
would refuse, as this amounted to the sacrifice of half the kingdom of
France. Henry anticipated this: indeed, the French refusal was to be his
cause for war. So conciliatory were the French, however, that Henry was
forced to send back a second embassy in 1415 to continue negotiations. If
the French were willing to compromise and he was not seen to negotiate
there was a danger that Henry might be viewed as fighting an unjust
war.
Henry had absolutely no intention of settling for peace. As a day-by-day
examination shows, he asked parliament and both convocations of the
church (Canterbury and York) to agree to pay subsidies towards the
forthcoming war even before the second embassy set out. He consulted
with his privy council about the forthcoming campaign before the
ambassadors had even met their counterparts in France. No one forced
the war on him on the contrary, it was a deliberate policy of
warmongering on Henrys part.
Having seen off a last-minute attempt to stage a coup in the name of the
Earl of March, Henry sailed to Normandy with 15,000 men, including at
least 11,200 soldiers, mostly archers in August 1415. First he besieged
the fortified town of Harfleur, bombarding it day and night. It surrendered
on 22 September. Despite losing between 1,370 and 1,900 soldiers at the
siege from dysentery, he decided to march to Calais as planned, and
moreover to tell the French where he was going so they could meet him in
battle.
Most of his fellow commanders considered his judgement suspect, if not
plain wrong. Nevertheless, they followed him. They did so on account of
his remarkable leadership skills, his pious devotion to God, and because
Henry gave them little choice: as the chronicler Jean de Waurin noted,
even a whiff of dissent caused him to have men executed. And though the
march to Calais was beset by bad judgements, their faith in him was
Page 34 of 39

ultimately justified as he led them to victory at the battle of Agincourt on
25 October 1415.
It is in the detail of the year that Henrys cruelty becomes apparent. One
of the reasons why the Earl of March saw fit to take part in the attempted
coup in July 1415 was that Henry had arbitrarily decided to fine the earl
10,000 marks (6,666 13s 4d) for marrying Anne Stafford without his
permission. As the earl himself arguably had a better right to the throne
than Henry, and as this was a disproportionately high fine for the crime of
marrying without royal permission, it is not surprising he was discontented
and joined the plotters. This itself suggests Henrys autocratic style was
extremely divisive.
Stripped and beheaded
Worse, one of Henrys great friends and a trustee of his estates, Lord
Scrope, had met the plotters in an attempt to find out what they were
planning. Even though Scrope had tried to dissuade them, Henry had him
stripped of his membership of the Order of the Garter and beheaded. He
also confiscated all his lands and property. This, coupled with the fines he
later levied on widows for remarrying without permission, suggests a
greedy streak in Henry which was both distasteful to his contemporaries
and unfair. In later years he accused his stepmother Queen Joan of
witchcraft and locked her up in Pevensey Castle in order to seize her
revenue.
As for the men whom Lord Scrope was investigating, false charges of
conspiracy to kill the king were raised against them in order quickly to
bring about their executions. Merely discussing the legitimacy of the
dynasty was not actually treason, as defined by Edward III. Plotting to kill
the king was, and so this became the charge. It is in this light that we can
begin to understand the character of the man who organised the
massacres of men at Agincourt and Caen. The key to it all was his
religious fundamentalism that through war he could demonstrate Gods
approval of his kingship. Repeatedly he threatened the French with the
law of Deuteronomy, punishing them with death for resisting him.
Henrys vision of his own position was that of an autocrat. His ships in
1415 bore the motto une sanz pluis (one and no more). The phrase
comes from a medieval French version of Homers Iliad, and its arrogance
is quite breathtaking: davoir plusieurs seigneurs aucun bien je ny vois /
quun sans plus soit le maistre et quun seul soit le roi (As for having
several lords, I see no good therein / let one and no more be the master,
and that one alone be the king).
Page 35 of 39
Henry had little regard for the men who actually fought for him. The
bodies of the English who died at Agincourt were not given a Christian
burial but were heaped in a barn and burnt. When the surviving soldiers
reached Calais, they were not given food or shelter but were forced to
camp outside the town and give up their hard-won prisoners in exchange
for food. Many were still unpaid three years later when Henrys own
brother was among the men petitioning the king in parliament to pay their
wages.
Of course, Henry was a man of his time, and as long as his
contemporaries could believe that his war was a just one, and that he was
genuinely favoured by God, they supported him. His morality and religious
fervour undoubtedly stood him in good stead. He did nothing which could
be described as self-indulgent or fun. He was widely believed not to have
slept with a woman between his accession in 1413 and his marriage in
1420.
He founded two new monasteries before setting sail for France a
Charterhouse at Sheen and a Brigettine house of nuns at Syon and
regularly attended mass three times a day. And this stern, chaste,
religious outlook is mirrored in his ordinances for the men on his
expeditions in France: they were not to rape Frenchwomen nor thieve or
pillage from churches, not to rob priests or women. One man on the 1415
expedition was caught with a stolen pyx (a container in which the
consecrated bread of the Eucharist is kept) in his sleeve. Henry hanged
him on the spot.
One of the most interesting aspects about Henry in the year 1415
concerns women. Not only did he not sleep with women, he seems to
have avoided them. Of all the many grants he made over the course of
the year, only two were to women. One of the recipients was the woman
who had nursed him in infancy and the other a woman who had looked
after him in childhood.
Of the 40 or more people named in the will he wrote in 1415, only two
were women: his grandmother (the Dowager Countess of Hereford), and
his stepmother Queen Joan and as his later charges of witchcraft against
Joan suggest, his mentioning her was merely a political nicety. As a
contemporary chronicler stated, Henry respected women, but that was all.
Chroniclers noted that the sins he believed he was punishing on Gods
behalf in France included fornication and rapes committed by Frenchmen.
Page 36 of 39

Meanwhile, he ordered that if any woman should come within three miles
of his own army, the first time she was merely to be warned. The second
time she was to have her left arm broken.
Henrys contemporaries were in awe of him. He was chaste, pious and
victorious, and in that last aspect he was widely believed to be favoured
by God. That is in essence why the legend of Henry as a great man (as
opposed to a cruel one) has lasted. Contemporaries passed their
awestruck enthusiasm for his kingship on to later generations, and they in
turn saw in him a victorious leader who fought for Englands sake, not his
own or that of God.
Shakespeare altogether smoothed the character, and made him more
amenable. Historical writers in the 19th century praised the kings piety,
and 20th-century writers viewed him as either the Shakespearian hero or
the golden boy of the 15th century.
But an objective view of the man should leave us in no doubt that he was
hugely arrogant, lacked compassion, was distant from women, was
ruthless and cruel on campaign. Golden boy Henry may have been to
some but cold steel would be a more suitable metaphor for most people
who met him.
Article: For I am Welsh you know Welshmen, Myth

and Reality at Agincourt
By Dr Adam Chapman
Your majesty says very true: if your majestie is remembered of it, the
Welshmen did good service in a garden where leeks did grow, wearing
leeks in their Monmouth caps; which, your majesty knows, to this hour is
an honourable badge of the service; and I do believe your majesty takes
no scorn to wear the leek upon Saint Davys day.
Fluellen, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 7
One of the great popular images of the battle of Agincourt is that the
majority of the English archers present were Welshmen doubtless with
leeks in their Monmouth caps and that this great victory could be seen
as much a Welsh victory as an English one. It must be said that
Shakespeare has a hand in this and that the memorable, florid and hottempered Fluellen found in Shakespeares play of Henry V goes some
way to putting the Welsh at the forefront of our imagining of the battle.
Page 37 of 39
The playwright goes further, of course, reminding the audience of Henrys

birth in Wales and having the king wear a leek on St Davids day and to go
so far as to say for I am Welsh you know. Both Fluellen and Henrys selfconscious Welshness owe more to the context in which the play was
written and first performed in 1598-9 in the last years of the reign of
Elizabeth I (d. 1603). Such comic Welshmen were a feature of the Tudor
stage and Elizabeth herself made some play of her Welsh ancestry;
including wearing a leek on St Davids Day. Shakespeares historical
drama was written for his own times and Fluellen, in fact, was explicitly
referring to the service of the Welsh in the time of Edward, the Black
Prince, possibly at the battle of Poitiers (1356).
The popular line that Agincourt was a Welsh ultimately derives from
Shakespeare, but it is pervasive. I was interviewed on BBC Radio Wales
about this once and, having carefully explained the above was reminded
that one Welshman was worth ten Englishmen. The facts, so far as they
are known, do not necessarily sustain this confidence. However, the
troops from Wales are well-documented and tell an interesting story about
Wales in the early fifteenth century.
Wales in 1415
First, Wales, as we think of it today was not how it appeared in the
fifteenth century. It consisted of five counties in the north and west of
Wales Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire, Merioneth, Anglesey and
Caernarfonshire which were under the control of the crown or, when
there was one, the eldest son of the king: the Prince of Wales. Flintshire
was also a royal county, but formed part of the earldom of Chester. The
remainder was divided into around forty independent lordships which,
following their conquest by Norman lords in the twelfth century, had
become the private property of members of the English nobility, the Welsh
March.
Henry V, as grandson of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, had several
Marcher lordships in southern Wales, notably Brecon, Kidwelly (or
Cydweli), Monmouth and Hay. The lands of the principality were under the
kings control in 1415 so Henry V had greater control over the lands of
Wales than any previous medieval ruler and, through his years spent
combating Owain Glyndrs rebellion, greater personal familiarity with
them than any English monarch since Edward II. It was natural that he
would wish to recruit soldiers from these estates but the loyalty of the
Welsh could not be trusted, still less taken for granted. Owain himself was
still at liberty and governmental control of the north or Wales was nothing
Page 38 of 39

like complete and the Lollard rebellion led by Sir John Oldcastle, a
Herefordshire man, had caused fresh fears of rebellion on the part of
Henry and his council in 1415. Against this background it is surprising that
any troops were recruited from Wales at all.
The Soldiers
We know quite a lot about the archers and men-at-arms recruited from
Wales in 1415. We have documents recording all their names, including
the names of those who, for whatever reason, could not serve in person.
In these cases, we have the names of the substitutes they provided
included in muster rolls made at Carmarthen and Brecon on 26 June 1415.
These rolls were made under the supervision of the chamberlain of South
Wales the counties of Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire John
Merbury, who also served as steward of the kings lordship of Brecon.
A mix of troops recruited from southern Wales in 1415. From Brecon and
other Lancaster lordships there were 10 men-at-arms, 14 mounted archers
and 146 foot archers. From the royal shires of South Wales and their
dependent lordships came a further ten men-at-arms and three mounted
archers with 323 foot archers. We know that they were mustered in
Carmarthen administrative centre of the southern part of the principality
of Wales and at Brecon, centre of the duchy of Lancaster estates in
Wales on 26 June. 513 troops were assembled there though it is probable
that as many as forty were seconded to defend south Wales and thus
never left Carmarthen. Two of their leaders were listed among the archers
recruited from Carmarthenshire so it seems likely that the men under their
command came from the same source they were paid for 45 and a half
days from the revenues of John Merbury, the chamberlain of South Wales.
All these troops probably took the same road from Carmarthen, across
south Wales to Brecon and thence to Hereford and south to Southampton.
They certainly passed through Warminster, Wiltshire, since the
townspeople complained that Welsh (and English) soldiers had taken food
without payment.
A further nine men, three men-at-arms, three mounted archers and three
archers on foot were recruited from the small lordship of Kidwelly to the
west of Swansea. The roll documents from which part of which lordship or
from which Commote (a medieval Welsh land unit, very roughly the
equivalent of a Hundred in an English county) each man came from. In the
royal counties, it is likely that each man was subject to a personal
summons or that the community was liable to produce a set number of
men and selected these themselves, since some men saw fit, for whatever
reason, to provide substitutes. Some, we know, were former rebels and it
Page 39 of 39

is probable that many more had also joined Owain Glyndr in rebellion.
They clearly had something very specific legal pardon or the return of
the their lands to gain.
Service in France
If only 460 Welsh soldiers left Wales, their numbers were thinned yet
further by disease at Harfleur. The precise extent of this is not known, like
much else following the fall of Harfleur and the lead-up to the battle but it
is probable that only around 400 of the 513 initially recruited actually
fought at the battle in an army of around 8000. Some of these were
former rebels others had been consistently loyal to the English crown.
None are known to have died at Agincourt, though Dafydd or Davy Gam,
who by merit of his long service to the House of Lancaster indented to
serve with the king directly as a man-at-arms with three archers, did and
he is the only Welshman to be noted by name in any on the contemporary
accounts of the battle and, moreover, in Shakespeares play.
Legacy
The Welsh archers at Agincourt make a good story in myth, but their
importance in reality should not be overplayed. Perhaps only 400 Welsh
archers were present at the battle but, in the context of a ten year
rebellion which had ravaged Wales and the distrust with which Welshmen
continued to be regarded throughout the fifteenth century they were,
theoretically at least, forbidden to hold land or public offices in England for
example it is a wonder that any soldiers were recruited from there at all.
Henry Vs decision was in part pragmatic; he needed the men, but the
evidence suggests that these Welshmen were chosen carefully. Many of
them, prominent rebels like Gruffudd Dwnn, were in need of the kings
good will. Understandably, there was ambivalence at the heart of the
Welsh attitude to the wars in France. Dwnn is an interesting case; he later
served with distinction in France and was made constable of Kidwelly
Castle which he had helped besiege as a rebel.
There is an enormous amount of Welsh language poetic, often chivalric,
literature celebrating and praising the warlike qualities of the Welsh
gentry in the fifteenth century, such as that of Gutor Glyn who was
himself a soldier, but nowhere in the literature that survives is Agincourt
mentioned and nowhere in the literature remembering the battle of
Agincourt in the fifteenth century English, Welsh or French are Welsh
archers mentioned at all.

3 Political and Historical Background To Henry V

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Political and Historical Background To Henry V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 39

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political map of France, 1360

Agincourt in context: the Hundred Years' War

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Map of Aquitaine Artalis/Shutterst

The escalation of tensions

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

At Crcy the English archers were able to defeat the Genoese

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Victories for France

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

The murder of Richard II was seen by

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Henry V and the opening of war with France

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Marching from Harfleur to Calais:

Henry's March through France 1415

The march towards Calais

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Historical research methods: what the chronicles tell us

A chronicle - from Chroniques, Vol. IV, part 2 by Jean Froissart c.1471

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

There was a long tradition of such history writing in medieval Europe,

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Real size of the battle

Charles VI of France leading his army to Calais

The French army at Agincourt

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Killing of the prisoners

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Henry's return to England and entry to London

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Henrys procession through London University of Southampton

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Shakespeare and Agincourt

Agincourt continued to be remembered in the years after the battle, as

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

By Professor Anne Curry

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Article: Henry V: the cruel king

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

heavy artillery had damaged the town walls

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Political and Historical Background Notes on Henry V

Article: For I am Welsh you know Welshmen, Myth