Talk:Battle of Agincourt/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Yes It's St. Crispin's day

But it's also his brother saint Crispian's day as well. They are jointly the patron saints of cobblers and shoemakers. Can we include him in the lead-in as well as Crispin? Jatrius (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't see why not to include him as well, but St. Crispian was apparently the greater of the two saints - why, in the first place, Crispin is mentioned over Crispian. --"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research." (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent article in The Week

I thought regular contributors to this article would be pleased/ amused to know that large parts are quoted nearly verbatim in a recent article in British news digest weekly The Week. My wife gets the magazine and pointed it out to me because she said it sounded very similar to what I'd said to her about Agincourt. I don't have the article in front of me, but I thought about 1/3 of it came from this article. As I remember the following sentence is nearly identical: "[Juliet Barker] prefers the figures given by Jehan Waurin (a Burgundian in the French army) who is relatively detailed about the French army, and suggests figures of about 6,000 for the English and 36,000 for the French, "based on {Waurin's} suggestion that the French were six times more numerous than the English". The sentence no longer exists in exactly that form in the current Wikipedia article, but it was there before 15th November.

Unfortunately neither we nor Wikipedia get a credit. I guess that's the nature of making a free encylopedia. --Merlinme (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"The best articles from home and abroad" they claim. Indeed! --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:'Re-assesment' paragraph

I have submitted a sentence begging the question that the entirety of academia asked of Dr Curry on publication of her book 'Agincourt A New History' as to why both French and pan-european chroniclers present at the battle would vastly inflate French numbers, this is not under OR but a serious observation which is neither conclusion nor original research but needs to be part of the piece giving the reader the opportunity to understand the implications of her book. Twobells (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion here. One of your sources is a novel, and fiction doesn't count, and the other doesn't say anything like what you have attributed to it: "Whatever the numbers, the event shocked the entire world due to the disparity between the sides involved." You have removed the {{or}} tag, now with an explanation here, which is right, but I'm afraid {{Failed verification}} applies instead. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I need to understand what you find wrong, are you suggesting that Europe wasn't shocked to it's core by the event's of that day?Twobells (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC) The Face of Battle by John Keegan is the link I am looking forTwobells (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid having now read your edits I don't agree with them. The French chroniclers disagree wildly on the numbers of men involved, and all the numbers used by all the chroniclers have to be taken with a pinch of salt. The Burgundians, for example, generally considered among the more reliable sources, overestimate the size of the armies by something like double. One of the French chroniclers claimed that the English outnumbered the French. Another claimed the French only outnumbered the English by 50% (which would be consistent with Curry).

You certainly can't use a novel review to refute this. I would suggest that the main reason for the shock the battle caused was the massive number of French noblemen killed. You haven't provided reiable sources which support your statements. --Merlinme (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Too much weight to Curry

I am editing the infopane to 'singular modern re-assessment' so as the viewer will be aware that only Dr Curry makes these 're-assessments' no other International historian agrees with her.Twobells (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a MOS:LINK, which now doesn't work. It'll have to go back. BTW, there's an earlier discussion about original research and Curry here that you might find helpful. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, no it doesn't have to go back, you cannot stick the label 'modern re-assessment' when only ONE historian agrees with that theory and the vast majority do not, it will have to be altered or removedTwobells (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, is it actually true that "no other International historian agrees with her"? What about the recent French conference on Agincourt? I don't know the full details, but from what I read they seemed to be relying quite heavily on Curry's work. --Merlinme (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen photographs and read what the banners said and heard all about that so-called conference and its disgraceful xenophobic language, however Dr Curry is the only BoA expert historian who currently believes her figures no other BoA historical expert agrees with her, She is alone.Twobells (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Agincourt conference is a desperate attempt to rewrite history." [Dr Juliet Barker]

I assume you mean "no other English historian has publicly agreed with her theories". Mainly because they haven't had a chance to do their own research and prove or disprove her theories. Until that happens (which may take twenty years), you simply can't make such massive generalisations about what other international historians do or don't believe. Especially French ones. --Merlinme (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about?

THREE different research papers came out between 2004 & 2007 from which four books appeared, if you want to go by dates Dr Barker's research was the most recent and it is only Dr Curry who suggests the numbers were not as recorded by Pan-European and English chroniclers. As for 'English', let me make it quite clear NO historian agrees with Dr Curry no matter what nationality it says on their passportTwobells (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean Dr. Juliet Barker. You're not demonstrating a particularly careful grasp of the facts. --Merlinme (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

? sorry what do you mean?Twobells (talk)

The quote which you originally attributed to Dr. Julian Barker, thereby getting the sex of one of our two main modern sources wrong? You've now corrected it, but it does tend to create the impression that you're typing without thinking. --Merlinme (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I am disabled and typing is very difficult for me, I often make spelling mistakes, I am sorry Twobells (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the sentence about "only Dr. Curry says this", as you've not provided a source to back this up, and I find it hard to believe all of the French historians at the recent conference disagreed with her on the numbers. I've attempted to keep the point that nearly all the chroniclers disagree with her, although having not read her book I'm a bit hamstrung in supporting the statement that she doesn't successfully explain this. To be honest it could be argued that it's our opinion that she doesn't successfully explain this.

An alternative approach might be to move Barker's response (that Curry's version makes a nonsense of the eyewitness accounts) to a more prominent place in the section, which I assume is the point that you're getting at. I might have a look at doing this tomorrow. --Merlinme (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Citecheck tag

I'm not one of the usual editors of this article, so please consider my reading to be a 'fresh perspective', if there is such a thing. To me this section appears to place 'way too much emphasis on one single viewpoint. Is this a fringe viewpoint or one supported by a body of substantiating work? The references cited tend to support the former thesis rather than the latter.

Reference 31 appears to be written by Curry, rather than any secondary source. Are there any reputable secondary (I.E. non self published) sources to support Curry's viewpoint? Reference 32 appears to be a Sunday Times supplement written by the arts editor. There is a brief quote from historian Richard Holmes concerning her numbers, but what exactly does that quote mean? There isn't enough information to validate her opinion. What have other historians written? If Curry's work is meaningful there should be sufficient references giving adequate reason to support its notability.

If they aren't sufficient references establishing Curry's notability and the notability of her opinion then the material about her work should be deleted. These two references are insufficient in a field of study where there are tens of thousands of references available. Regards to all.Trilobitealive (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag was removed by User:Gaius Octavius Princeps in the course of several edits which vastly improved this section. Well done!Trilobitealive (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry personally led his men into battle?

I cannot see anywhere the fact that Henry personally led his men into battle which was atypical of monarchs outside of England, I see the sentence stating the Constable led his men so surely that far greater fact deserves a mention or is that too being called into question?Twobells (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with that (Henry does seem to have got directly involved in the hand to hand fighting). You would need a source to support the statement that at the time this was unusual outside England, though. I was under the impression that the main reason the French King didn't command his own troops was because he was mentally ill. --Merlinme (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Henry Was Involved In Fighting

I have seen various references to Henry being involved in the fighting both in book and documentary. In fact at one point during a late french attack a piece of the crown around Henrys helmet was hacked off.

Modern Reassessment

This section is totally unecessary. It is clear from previous sections - containing much of this material - that there is debate about these issues. It is repetitive and overly long.99.245.37.46 (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting a comment here does not give you the right to revert your change! That is not a discussion.

On the specific issue, yes, many of the issues are mentioned in passing earlier on, and the article could probably benefit from tidying these up to avoid repetition. However there are a large number of issues raised by Curry's work which don't fit very well into a general discussion about the battle. I'm slightly ambivalent about spending such a long time discussing one historian, but the fact is she's one of the acknowledged modern experts on the field, which puts us in a difficult position when she is at odds with most historians writing before and currently. Her book has frequently been mentioned by people making edits to the article, and also appears to have heavily influenced the recent French conference on Agincourt. I don't see any sensible way to discuss the issues raised (without making the main article full of caveats along the lines of "Curry disagrees but is currently on her own but used different sources") without putting this in its own section. If anything, I'd prefer to reduce the number of caveats we have, perhaps referring the reader to this section where appropriate. --Merlinme (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is probably more directly relevant than WP:BOLD, by the way. Here it specifically says: "Try to avoid reverting a revert yourself. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted, or to try to get the reverting party to unrevert themselves, and/or get them to make an edit themselves." I'm a Most Interested Person, and I'm happy to discuss; but reverting is not an argument. --Merlinme (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think this section belongs, then please remove all duplicate reference to her work in previous sections in the article. Pretty simple.99.245.37.46 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll even wait a few days.99.245.37.46 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's extremely generous of you! I will of course assume you meant that in good faith, but please try to avoid saying that other people spending their time altering articles to make them the way you want them is "simple".

Given that I do have other things to do with my life, like work and see my family, this is a case where it would be appropriate to be WP:BOLD. That is, how about you make the changes? (It may also make you appreciate how it can be quite time-consuming to make substantial edits which improve one aspect of the article without introducing other problems.) I can then make any revisions I think are necessary, you can respond, and so on.

It's this sort of collaborative revision which is what Wikipedia is all about. In general, constructive editing is more appreciated than taking out large chunks. Being Bold is fine, but please exercise more caution when cutting entire sections from established articles. --Merlinme (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'ver reduced the size of the Curry caveat, with a referral to the main section. If you think this can be further improved, please make a constructive edit. --Merlinme (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop lecturing regarding Wikipedia. I'll refer you to WP:OWN. Still FAR too much credence to a SINGLE text. And to put that one source in a section called "Modern Reassessment" ... well, it's too much. I still don't see ANY reason for this to be there, considering it's ALL referenced in-line. Can you provide a good reason to do so? If not, I still favour deletion. I will not edit for the time being, but will wait to hear a good reason why this section belongs at all.99.245.37.46 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop raising the temperature of the debate! You clearly know your way around, despite being an IP. If I can assume good faith when, to be honest, you're being quite aggressive, why can't you?

If you have valid improvements to make, make them. But I still disagree with deletion of the section. And beyond the initial statement of why you don't want the section to be there, you haven't really advanced any further arguments, or attempted to engage with the points I made about the importance of Curry's book to the modern debate, or made any edits beyond deleting the entire section, or suggested a compromise.

It has been previously suggested that we entitle the section "A" Modern Reassessment, to emphasise that it is essentially the work of one person, albeit one of the acknowledged living experts in the field. Would that make you any more or less happy? --Merlinme (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed some of your edits, 99.245.37.46, I've become curious whether you are in fact the same editor as User Twobells. Could you confirm if this is the case please? Thanks. --Merlinme (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no good reason to keep this section, as all of the information is contained in earlier sections of the article. If there's a good reason to keep it, I'm all for it. But Undue Weight seems to be really clear, here. Please provide a good reason to keep it, or it should be deleted.99.245.37.46 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that there's no response to the question "what was your previous account". I do find it interesting that one of the very first edits you make is to delete a large section that User Twobells has been trying to get rid of for two years.

While I am happy to discuss making improvements to the section, I am not happy to have it deleted, for the same reasons we've been discussing for the last two years. The section gives significantly less weight to Curry than it used to, which I think on the whole is probably a good thing. However I think we cannot ignore the work of one of the main living experts in the field. It is not a minority position in the sense that anyone has disproved her (although Barker is on the record as disagreeing); it is more that no-one has had a chance to research a considered response yet. Because of this, I think it's important to recognise a valid and well researched alternative position, while recognising that it is controversial. --Merlinme (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One wonders whether you have some relation to Curry. I'd be interested to sniff around to see if you violate COI. Anyway, you haven't provided any good reason to keep it, and everything in it is referenced in the text. Nobody is going to be able to DISPROVE anybody in these kinds of historical discussions, so that's a moot point which I'll ignore. I'm being bold, and deleting it. Please post good reasons to keep such a large section referencing ONE historian before reverting my edit, when those arguments are better presented inline (and are, in fact).99.245.37.46 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, you're Twobells, aren't you? You haven't denied it, despite several opportunities to. You've been trying to get rid of this section for two years. You have at no point advanced new arguments, or engaged with my arguments. Having failed to win the arguments, you're resorting to cutting large chunks of cited text from the article about one of the most important books to come out on Agincourt in the last few years. Please stop. --Merlinme (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the ludicrous suggestion that I am in any way connected to Curry, you're extremely welcome to spend as long as you like researching the connection. There isn't one. Is this what it's come to? Personal attacks and aspersions on another editor's character? --Merlinme (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Merlinme: what on earth are you on about? Just because many others suggest the article is biased towards Curry doesn't mean they are one and the same person! I demand an apology in writing here, this is the first time I have edited the piece for ages and your heated discussions with 99.245.37.46 have NOTHING to do with me. My IP begins: 82.*.*.* I will now log out to prove it and update the piece.Twobells (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not target me (twobells)with other editors!82.8.176.38 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC) The piece is now far more balanced putting Curry's work in context with the vast majority of other modern academics.82.8.176.38 (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

firing v. shooting

I know it's a minor point, but shouldn't archers be 'shooting'? Firing is for firearms. Usagitsuki (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that actually true? I'm not entirely sure, but a quick web search seemed to show them used more or less interchangeably, including on archery forums. I looked it up in a couple of dictionaries, and fire seemed to be given as an option for non firearms, e.g. "fire(SHOOT) to cause a weapon to shoot bullets, arrows or missiles." Arrows are specifically mentioned as an option, and in fact fire gives SHOOT as a synonym. --Merlinme (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They are used interchangeably usually, but for archery it doesn't fit with the etymology of 'fire'. It's probably just me trying to stem an inevitable tide. When the Orc in Lord of the Rings shouts 'fire!' to his archers, I always want to shout back 'where?' Usagitsuki (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was 'loose' but thats probably me being naive.....Willski72 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The technical term used by archers today is 'loose'. The action is to open the hand and loose the string and arrow. The string is held by the 4 fingers with the arrow between the index and middle finger. The ancient command seems to have been 'wholly together, LOOSE!' however, it is difficult to confirm the exact words.Miletus (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The OED defines 'fire' (subdefs 12-15) as:

To apply fire to (a charge of gunpowder) in order to cause its explosion; to discharge or let off (a gun, firework, etc.), explode (a mine, etc.). Also, to fire off.

causal. To cause to discharge a fire-arm.

To discharge a gun or other fire-arm; to shoot. Const. at, upon, into, etc.

To eject or propel (a missile) from a gun or other fire-arm. to fire away: to consume (ammunition) by firing.

To propel or discharge (a missile) as from a gun.

[here's where we get the arrows:]

'The Persian archers firing on them all the while.'

'A boy having fired a brick at her.'

'If you want something to eat, fire a stone through a window.'

The 'Persian archers' quote is from 1708, so I think it is a little late to stem the tide. But even so, 'fired an arrow' seems wrong to me except poetically. 'Shot' would seem to be the basic term. Though, technically, we don't 'fire' guns anymore either. kwami (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To "Fire" is more related to the use of guns/gunpowder, and wasn't adopted until the use of such became more common, especially later in the Hundred Years War when cannons became common use in siege warfare. I would have to imagine that "Loose!" or "Shoot!" was a more likely command; although I haven't done research specific to this, only making inferences from what I know. --"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research." (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

References need fixing

There's a lot of references for this article, but it's a somewhat odd mix of notes, textual references and parenthetical refs and a somewhat confusing bibliography. Please settle on one type of referencing and don't mix references with further reading. If notes are used, please consider using only shorthand notes (ei Barker, 2005, pp. 13) and writing the full info in a separate list of sources. Writing out full publication info in one note and shorthand for all the others just makes it harder to read and makes the article much more difficult to edit.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The main reason the style is inconsistent is that the references were added by different people at different times, which is an inevitable problem when writing a collaborative encyclopedia. To make them consistent is not always obvious, if you don't have easy access to all the sources. For example, I could probably find the "Barker(2005)" (not added by me) reference and make it into an inline citation with page reference, but so far I haven't found the time. I don't have a copy of Hibbert's "Great Battles" at all, which makes it more or less impossible for me to tidy up any references to that.

Anyway, is it really that confusing? The main style is for inline citations with page references, including a few longer quotes in the main body. I agree the Bibliography is a bit haphazard as it doesn't include two of the most important sources used in the text. That's fairly easy to sort out, but it would be helpful if you could provide specific examples of references which you would like improved. Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC

Page specifications are often desirable, but they're not an absolute requirement. It depends on how a source is used. For example, if you're just introducing a source, then "Author (year)" is quite sufficient. Note though, that merely mentioning that author X has theory Y on situation Z can be done in text, without either notes or parenthases. However, once you choose one or the other citation style, you should stick to it. If you're looking for references, you expect to find them in one format or another. So mixing reference styles is potentially quite confusing, if not just mildly annoying. :-) Generally, standardized refs are also considered a requirement for quality articles, which I believe this article aspires to be.

The specific examples that could be improved are:

• Note 2 has very little info and seems to be a somewhat inappropriate as a source. It's someone private homepage with rather unspecific references to secondary sources; basically a tertiary source of somewhat dubious reliability.
• 20 and 32 have "Staff" as authors. If that means what I think it does, ie "staff of an institution", it seems like pretty redundant info. If it's someone actually named "Staff", a first name would be good. The link in note 20 leads to a dead page.
• Note 7 could use ISBN info or that the full publication info is moved to the bibliography section.
• Keep an eye out for refs that need minor cleanup. For example those that have no space between "p(p)." and page number(s). Also, there only needs to be one "p." for each individual source, not one per page specification. I fixed some of these myself.
• There's a mix in the article between regular <ref></ref> with plain text notes and those with {{cite}} templates. I personally recommend ditching those templates since they inject large amounts of excessive code that make it harder to edit the article, especially for newbies or those who simply aren't comfortable with huge swaths of template parameters. It's basically just as easy to sort plain text info into a standard order and achieve the same result. That choice should be made by the main contributor(s), though, not an outside commentator like me.

I also have a concern about note a, where it says that there's a modern tendency to pronounce Agincourt in modern French. Making such a statement based on a just one pronunciation dictionary and an interview with one author seems like it could amount to origina research. I'll bet that it's still a lot more common to pronounce it the old-fashioned "English" way. And it's also a bit of an odd choice to start trying to be true to French, since I seriously doubt that Barker would pronounce Paris as [paʁi:]. Either way, it might be a good idea to avoid taking sides in this issue altogether and simply stating that the English pronunciation isn't the only option these days.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's clearer. Of course we aspire to make this a quality article, but largely it's a matter of "best efforts" and "time permitting". :-) Personally I've tended to focus on getting a readable summary of the course of the battle, using mainly modern sources. Better references would be nice, but I'm neither an academic nor a professional Wikipedian, so standardising the reference style tends to be quite a long way down the list of "things I would like to do if I had a weekend to improve the article". Anyway, all constructive criticism is appreciated, and your more specific commments are helpful, thanks. If you have specific ideas on making improvements (I notice you've made some already), it's probably simpler just to make the changes, and the rest of us can disagree if we have strong views. Be WP:BOLD and all that.

On the specific issue of pronunciation, personally I pronounce it closer to the "French" pronunciation than the "English" (i.e. g as in the j in jeudi, silent t in court, "A-jin-core".). As to why, I have no idea, I assume that's how a history teacher I had a couple of decades ago pronounced it.

It may be that as more English people learn French, so they tend to adopt a French pronunciation. To take an extreme example, you don't hear too many people talking about "Wipers" for "Ypres", which was common in the First World War. I doubt that Tommies actually thought it was pronounced like that, but it probably reflected difficulty in knowing how to pronounce French place names. In the case of Agincourt, I agree that to avoid a suggestion of WP:OR we should avoid sweeping statements which can't be proved one way or the other. --Merlinme (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a major issue, but the "Staff" usage in footnotes, deleted in this edit, is exampled in Wikipedia:Citing sources#References. It demonstrates that omitting the author's name isn't an oversight. I'm assuming that the suggestion that Staff's "...first name would be good" isn't to be taken seriously. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The example in WP:CITE is of "University of Chicago Press Staff. (2003) The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition. University Of Chicago Press." The indicates a particular department within the University of Chicago. Since we're talking about a very important and influential book, I'm assuming this is somewhat of a dedicated part of the university. It's something of an exception and is not really comparable to the routine addition of "XXX Staff" as author of publications of universities with no specified author

As for first names, it was just an attempt to cover all bases. It wasn't intended as a joke. I didn't know if it was actually referring to the staff of an institution or someone with that last name.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference from James Glanz

Heavy reliance has been placed on a reference to James Glanz's article in the New York Times to alter the figures in this article. As Glanz's piece is no more than a blown up report of the controversy surrounding Curry's work — "historians themselves begin fighting" — it cannot possibly be used as a WP:RS. It's laughable to do so, except that almost overnight (UK time) the careful considerations of many editors have been wiped from the article and replaced by lightweight reporting. An early revert is needed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've recently had a baby. There have been a lot of changes; could you summarise please and we can discuss what should stay and what should go? Thanks, merlin. --Merlinme (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Meanwhile, I was on holiday and a few reversions were made while I was away: perhaps some of my concerns may have been addressed. I will look at it again, fairly soon. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Having now actually read the NY Times piece, what most strikes me about it is that it doesn't back Curry. All it really does is record the controversy, even quoting an American historian (Rogers) who agrees with the traditional figures, not Curry. Gaius Octavius Princeps seems to have done a good job protecting the basic thrust of the WP article (which also records the controversy). I haven't been through the changes in detail. I still don't understand why we've lost all the quotes, but they may be to some extent a matter of taste. I'll ask him if he wants to contribute to the discussion here. --Merlinme (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Ok, I've had a quick look, and two things are immediately apparent: why are we using a reference to Curry from a newspaper article, rather than from her recent book? And why did we lose the quote from the original source about what armour the French men-at-arms wore? I may be in a minority of one, but I personally thought it was a lot more interesting and descriptive than "heavy armour". --Merlinme (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made a few changes. I can live without the quote about the armour (arguably it breaks up the narrative), however I really do think that readers should be told where the chronicle numbers for the different sides and casualties come from. It's a very specific secondary source, i.e. Curry's "Sources and Interpretations".

The Curry section needs rewriting somewhat, it's now presented as this big debate between Curry and Barker, which simply isn't the case; it's just that Barker is the most recent (non-Curry) historian to have written a book on the battle. I'll have a go at that next. --Merlinme (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a lot happier with the balance and coherence of the article now. I need to tidy up a few of the refs at some point, but are there any more substantial changes needed? --Merlinme (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added Ian Mortimer's views on the numbers question. He looks at her argument critically and comes out broadly in support of the "Big English/Small French hypothesis.Monstrelet (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The map

Just noticed that the description of the English formation in the text and that given on the map aren't the same. For the sake of consistency, one or other should change. Or there should be more emphasis on the different hypotheses. Monstrelet (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes to numbers

I've recently got hold of a copy of Mortimer's new book and changed the article accordingly. He adjusts Curry's figures by a few hundred here or there but he's much closer to them than he is to Barker. Modern historians generally accept that the French had about 10,000 men-at-arms, whereas the English only 1,000 to 1,500 men-at-arms, which may be where the idea that the English were outnumbered 6 to one came from. The other main suggestion is that the the much greater number of servants the French would have had (because of the much greater number of men-at-arms) would have made their encampment appear about three times bigger, which may be where the twenty to thirty thousand figure and three to one odds comes from. Whether these servants should all be considered strict non-combatants is open to debate, but as I've noted in the text, in a sense it doesn't make an awful lot of difference how many troops other than men-at-arms the French had, as the battle was fought almost entirely between the French men-at-arms and the English army, with the rest of the French army basically watching at the back. --Merlinme (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that we look for a more stylistically appropriate way of listing the various number estimates in the info box. It would be better to express the competing breakdowns in a parallel way, not list one in detail and just total the other. If we reduce the two estimates to a table of components and not a block of text, we will get something both more elegant and easier for readers to understand. For example, if we listed the English under headings men-at-arms, archers, military servants, total we can produce a figure range against each, each figure referenced to the appropriate reference. And the reason I am not boldly doing this is because Merlinmehas asked that we discuss first and not wade in. Monstrelet (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I preferred Mortimer's figures because he's the most recent, and also because he's had a chance to critically assess Curry's work (and he is quite critical of her methods in a couple of places). His figures are not as extreme as Curry's, but even after the criticism, he's still much closer to her than he is to what he describes as the "old school" of, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't really like using Barker's figures because I think they're probably even more wrong than Curry. To use the 6,000 figure (which is the lowest anyone has ever come up with for the English; it's the lowest even among English contemporary accounts) and then say the French were 36,000 strong, because Waurin said they were 6 times as large; well that just seems bonkers to me, not least because Le Fevre (also an eyewitness in the English army), who uses very similar figures, says the English were outnumbered by 3 times. So on that basis you could just as reasonably say the French army was 18,000 strong (which would in fact be much closer to the most recent modern estimates of the size of the actual number of fighting troops in the French army). Or you could adopt the 1911 Britannica approach, which is probably more realistic for the English at a total of approximately ten thousand, and says the French outnumbered them at least four times, which may be about right as estimates of the total size of the two encampments.

To be fair to Barker she says the English were probably outnumbered at least four to one (much as the 1911 Britannica), however she does basically go for a 36,000 figure for the French and odds of six to one, and that's the way she's always reported. One of the things that has confused this debate is that people have taken Barker as representative of the "old school", and I don't think she is, really. I could well be wrong, but I'm not aware of a reference to the 36,000 figure before Barker. She's probably as much as guilty of exaggeration as Curry is. I don't claim to have read every book on the subject, but according to Mortimer the old school would probably have the English outnumbered about 4 to one, which is certainly what both old and modern editions of the Britannica say, even if they disagree on how many English were there.

However I realise this is a controversial area, and if we are going to have different sets of figures, then I suppose we might as well have the two referenced modern extremes (i.e. Barker and Curry), and direct the reader to the "Numbers at Agincourt" section. The info box is too long now; a better approach would be to list the sets of numbers with the See Also. It seems a shame to lose Mortimer from the info box, as he's probably more right than either, but it seems silly to have three sets of figures (where would you stop?)

I'll do it myself if I have time over the next few days, but feel free to give it a go first if you wish. One handy trick I noticed from other info boxes is to use ~ as shorthand for approximately, e.g. ~36,000 for the French (according to Barker).--Merlinme (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's the figures from the text in ranges

English Men-at arms 1000-1500, archers 5-7000, military servants etc. up to 1500 Total 6,000-10,000 French Men-at-arms 10,000 (of whom 1,200-1,400 mounted), Crossbowmen and other Infantry, 2,000-16,000,Military servants up to 10,000 Total 12,000-36,000.

The military servants are the sticking point. They certainly existed but only Mortimer estimates totals for them. Using his rationale (one servant per man-at-arms) we can retrospectively apply it to the low estimate but it doesn't represent the published figure. We also can't just split it as combatant/non-combatant. We know for certain that gros varlets had a battlefield function because it turns up on the Somme Plan. More thought required.

The other stylistic thing we can do is remove the rather Cecil B de Mille sounding "untold thousands". Compare the number of the men-at-arms with the totals and you can "tell" the number of infantry.

The other numbers thing is, should we provide a clearer casualty range? At the moment, the figure estimates don't relate to the figures for army totals.Monstrelet (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Content and structure issues

Rather than barge in and make changes, I'd like to raise a few issues on content and structure. Firstly, the discussion of recent controversies over numbers is thorough and pretty even handed. However, there is no discussion of the last great Agincourt controversy about English deployment. This could be refered to in the main text. Or it could be placed in an appendix like section as numbers is. Or alongside the the numbers section in a "Modern Controversies" section. Any thoughts on this? The other comments are more straightforward. The article doesn't provide the command structure of the two sides, which requires a bit of a rewrite to the "Situation" section. The other is a more minor niggle - that the archers stakes are not consistently described. Referring to "palings" is a bit confusing - in modern English a paling is part of a fence, which may give the wrong impression.Monstrelet (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In general with this article there are only two or three regular editors, and we're more than happy to have additional help. If there are particular ideas you have, I'd suggest making the changes you want and then we can improve as necessary. Be WP:BOLD. The big exception is obviously the numbers, which as I'm sure you're aware, has caused endless controversy, so should probably be discussed on the talk page first. --Merlinme (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fictional accounts

The quality of this section needs some attention. Within the popular culture guidelines under WP:MILPOP , it is legitimate to have a section on cultural references here - Agincourt is probably one of the few Medieval battles of which there remains any popular knowledge. That knowledge comes primarily from Shakespeare's depiction in Henry V and the well known films of the same. Frankly, though, a couple of stray comments on novels don't cut it (and I know I'm responsible for one of them). So do we seek to create something stronger on portrayals of the battle and popular culture or do we remove this section? Monstrelet (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cut the cruft then strengthen, rather than remove it all together. If it gets really good, it could be spun off into a new article! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of these sorts of sections, but sometimes they can be interesting to a reader, for example where there's a strong link to an important work directly inspired by the topic of the article. Also if they are removed they tend to be added back in, so it can be simpler to try to keep quality control rather than excluding it altogether. If we are going to have it, then I agree the text should be more than a trivia list of literary works etc. which mention Agincourt. --Merlinme (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Fighting

This article was recently reviewed for B-class status by the MILHIST task force and found wanting on referencing in some areas. I've re-read it with this in mind and the weakest section appears to be on the fighting itself. I found this section a bit hard to get to grips with in retrospect and so, for the sake of greater accessibility, I've broken it down into the main phases/incidents. This will also help others to review the sections and see where important facts about the battle go unreferenced Monstrelet (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a big improvement and I will see what references I can find, as others now will I'm sure. But, Start class? Milhist sometimes seem very harsh in their assessments (examples upon request). --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I've made one minor change. I've been meaning to have another go at the article for a while, however I've recently moved house and not had time. Personally I've never had the time and energy to get an article beyond start class. There comes a certain point where it seems to be more about following the correct forms over content and accuracy. Anyway, if the only issue is references (which seems to be the case), that should be fairly easy to correct. --Merlinme (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Battlefield Today

Online images seem to show the battle site still in agricultural use. Who owns the property, and how accessible is it to interested visitors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.218.122 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

High Court Rules for French at Agincourt

I was just wondering if there are any views from editors regarding the degree of relevance of the stunt described in this edit. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As a theatrical production, based not on evidence but on Shakespeare's play, it is certainly in the wrong place. It doesn't have anything to add about the actual incident but I would be willing to keep in the popular culture section as it demonstrates modern resonances of the story. If we willing to have an obscure sci-fi novel in there to show a modern take, I'd say this is more relevant. Proposal : Keep but move to popular culture sectionMonstrelet (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've just moved it, but didn't see this discussion, apologies. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The original contributer, Patsw, has just reverted it[1] If either of you two or anyone else disagrees feel free to move it again. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Patsw claims in the edit summary that the mock trial was carried out under laws of the time and based on historical evidence. This is not the impression given by the source, which clearly refers to a modern legal setting and the only evidential references quoted are Shakespeare. It may be that Patsw saw the original production and knows reference was made to these things, but would need to find an alternative reference. I will contact him/her to join this discussion but I'm still not seeing anything that justifies this being placed in the historical narrative. Monstrelet (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would object in the strongest possible terms to this being part of the narrative.

• The reference is to an article about a TV programme, written in language that I actually find it quite hard to tell when we're talking about something real and when we're talking about the programme. When it says, for example: "The ruling was a huge triumph for the French Civil Liberties Union, which had pressed the cause of the French POWs and their families unsuccessfully through a Global War Crimes Tribunal, the District Court of Agincourt and the Court of Appeals before the high court made its ruling," does this mean that the FCLU brought this case in three real courts and lost every time?
• Patsw refers to the "laws of war at the time". Laws of war, such as they exist at all when nation states are fighting for their existence, have been built up based on international conventions, such as the Geneva Conventions. I would be startled, to say the least, if anyone could point to such a thing existing in 1415. The closest example I can think of would be some Papal Decree or other, but I'm not aware of any. The Pope didn't like Christians fighting each other, but that didn't stop it happening all the time.
• It's also worth pointing out that it was fairly routine to kill captured commoners. What was unusual about Henry V's order was that it was nobility who were killed, when normally they would have been held for ransom.
• Henry's decision would not have been popular among other nobles, for whom death in warfare was a normally a relatively unlikely outcome; there is some evidence that his chroniclers attempted to skirt around the fact that he gave the order, presumably to protect his reputation; but no contemporary, French or otherwise, said that he should have been put on trial for it. I'm not even sure a medieval man would have understood the concept of putting the English King on trial for killing French prisoners. It may not have been "cricket", if he'd done a few more things like that he would have affected his reputation and made enemies, but I don't think any contemporary would have argued it was illegal.
• The verdict was given against Henry on the basis of "“evolving standards of civilization”. What does that actually mean? It sounds to me like the judges felt that in a modern court they should apply modern standards. I would agree with that. I think the Geneva Coventions are a very good thing. However I think it's ridiculous to apply them to an action in a battle which happened 600 years ago; an action which while probably frowned upon at the time, was also probably considered justifiable in the circumstances. --Merlinme (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the back story is a fictional construct to give contemporary resonance. Presumably, part of the purpose of the production was to reflect on modern war crimes trials and the much-debated idea of the immunity of heads of state. I think this reinforces the place of the production in popular culture - I wouldn't want to lose it entirely. I have looked at how a similar production on trying Richard III for the murder of the Princes in the Tower has been handled at Richard III and it is placed in a section on reputation, not in the historical narrative. Interestingly, they only pick up on the US fictional trial and not the earlier British one. Monstrelet (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the trial is worth including (under popular culture); I agree it can be an interesting exercise to consider how it reflects on modern standards; but as such it doesn't belong in an account of the narrative, and I'm not sure it even belongs in a "was it illegal" section. The fact is that no court at the time would have convicted Henry of anything at all, if it had even been possible to find a court that was prepared to try him. And no real modern court would hear the case either, not least because it was so long ago. Where, after all, do you stop? Should we apportion damages in relation to Boudicca's rebellion? As such I think the question of whether it was illegal is either: "No" or: "It's meaningless to try to apply modern standards". The issues of the immunity of heads of state, and war crimes committed by modern armies, are far too big to be covered in a paragraph on a controversial battle which happened 600 years ago. --Merlinme (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that a discussion of the legality would be better looking at it from a contemporary legal basis - they had one, both chivalric and moral. IMO, the modern theatrical event holds up a modern mirror on distant events;legitimate, interesting but not history.Monstrelet (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with its placement in the fiction section. I have added a link to the video itself in CSPAN and a summary from the National Law Review. patsw (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those extra references. There seems to have been quite a bit of humour involved, which wasn't picked up in the first reference as clearly. I also note the "evolving civilisation" quote is elsewhere given as "evolving civil society" - rather different in meaning. Glad we have reached a consensus on this. Monstrelet (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I watched the C-Span video, very interesting/funny, but am I correct in saying they're examining Shakespeare's Henry V and not the actual Henry V? Perhaps this segment would be better suited on the Henry V (play) article. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also the segment states it was "A mock trial", however throughout the video they refer to it as a civil suit and also make reference to a "war crimes" tribunal that found Henry V innocent. I feel this segment needs to be expanded. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Per a lack of response on my above suggestion I'm moving this entry to the Henry V (play) article because all three sources confirm these events were based on Shakespeare's play, written nearly 200 years after the battle. I also note the omission of the outcome of three prior fictional trials that ruled in favour of the English, the Global War Crimes Tribunal, the District Court of Agincourt and the Court of Appeals. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the above, we had agreed to keep this, so I've restored it for the time being. By all means reference it in the Henry V article, where you might be able to expand on it more than is relevant here. As to the prior fictional trials, I did not think they had actually happened but were part of the backstory for the play, but I could be wrong. I wouldn't be for expanding this section any further - it is simply there to reflect on going interest in the Agincourt story, rather than having any historical value. So my vote would be keep a brief reference. Monstrelet (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The trial drew heavily from a play, written by a bloke called Shakespeare, nearly 200 years after the event.[2]

I know the previous fictional trials didn't take place, they were however the basis for this also fictional trial. To display the result of one fictional trial, whilst omitting the result of three other fictional trials is non-neutral. Also the omission of certain details such as the audience vote award this production more validity than it deserves. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a danger here of giving this play too much weight. It is clear that some react to it as if it somehow has some legitimacy, that somehow it shows Henry V is a war criminal. This isn't credible. As you have said Ryan, it seems to draw at least some of its evidence from the fiction of Shakespeare. It makes no attempt at all to reflect on the laws of war as they stood in 1415. What is interesting is it uses the events of history to hold up a mirror to present events i.e. legitimacy of wars, international war crimes trials. In terms of the "validity" it sits in a section next to a paragraph describing an episode from an obscure sci-fi novel, which should be sufficient commentary on the importance of it to the historical narrative. Monstrelet (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Conceded, but would you consider adding in some of the stuff I reworded? Ryan4314 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Had a go but don't want to expand too much further. OK with you? Monstrelet (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Accepted, nice doing business with you. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Situation section question

This may seem a minor point, but in the Battle/Situation section, 6th paragraph, it states: "The English longbowmen would have been considered inferior in a fight, both because they were commoners and because they wore far less armour."

My issues with this are twofold. 1) I generally take issues with suppositions like "would have been" in place of something like "was". Is this an assumption, or a fact? Are we assuming that this would have been the attitude, or do we really mean this WAS the attitude, and if so, is it backed up by citation?

2) Is this an accurate statement? Especially since Agincourt is hardly the first battle of the Hundred Years War to demonstrate the advantage and power of the longbow (Crecy, many decades previous, illustrated that just well, being fairly similar to Agincourt in many regards). If the statement is intended to mean that a SINGLE longbowman would be considered inferior to an armored knight, or that longbowmen in general were considered societally inferior, then it should probably be clarified. Given the masses of longbowmen employed by the English, and their decisive advantage over a large portion of the conflict, I'm not sure if the original statement reflects the values placed on them at the time, as written.

Other than that, great article! One of my favorite battles..Jbower47 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's very hard to know exactly what was going through the minds of French knights, but certainly, they were very eager to close with the enemy. To some extent this is just common sense; if you have a sword or lance (spear) but no bow, you want to get close to the people who are shooting at you. You back your superior training and armour to defeat them when you get there, or why on earth are you fighting them at all (if you can't defeat them at range and you can't defeat them in close?). It would probably however be more accurate to say something like the French men-at-arms were eager to close with the English men-at-arms (who they grossly outnumbered). They backed their armour to allow them to close (which it did), and they did actually push the English men-at-arms and threaten Henry. It was probably a surprise to them when the longbowmen joined in the melee. They probably expected the longbowmen to stop firing when the melee started, and to keep out of the hand-to-hand fighting, or if they joined in, their influence could be ignored. They probably expected the longbowmen to surrender or run away if the men-at-arms were defeated (which is essentially what happened on the French side, admittedly in an army with a far larger proportion who were men-at-arms. The longbowmen were also already in the thick of it and stood to lose their lives if the battle was lost, whereas the rest of the French troops would have had to decide to close to battle, through bowfire, and they were not as heavily armoured as the men-at-arms.) It is however almost impossible to know any of this.
• Certainly the longbowmen would have been considered socially inferior (they were all commoners) and almost certainly inferior in a melee as well. The English battleplan always revolved around keeping the longbowmen out of hand-to-hand fighting, hence the stakes (or pits etc. at Crecy). The French battleplan always revolved around closing the distance, as they had superior numbers of melee troops, and inferior missile troops. The French made a desultory attempt at getting their crossbowmen and archers involved, but they were probably outnumbered and certainly outclassed by the thousands of longbowmen the English used. Certainly French overconfidence and disorganisation played its part in their failure to use their missile troops, as did the narrowness of the terrain (which stopped them deploying as originally intended), but they would presumably have been aware that English longbows had devastated the Genoese crossbowmen at Crecy. Against less than full plate the longbow could penetrate, and having greater numbers of longbowmen and a much greater rate of fire meant that the Genoese took heavy casualties (although they would presumably have been fewer if they had been able to use their pavises). The effect of the longbow on Agincourt was probably mostly indirect, in the effect it had on French tactics. The French did not use their missile troops; the French advanced in disorder because they wanted to stop the English firing, and the advance was disrupted by the buffeting they received from arrows; the French advanced mainly on foot, probably because they knew that the English could shoot down a mass cavalry charge (and it's hard to get horses to charge a prepared heavy infantry position anyway); the (disorganised) cavalry charge was a disaster. The direct effect of the longbow on Agincourt seems to have been quite slight; remarkably few casualties seem to have been caused to the French men-at-arms as they advanced on foot through the mud.
• When I get a moment I'll try changing the section along these lines, i.e. emphasise the French men-at-arms were eager to get out of bowfire and close with the enemy (particularly the English men-at-arms, who were worth big ransoms).--Merlinme (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. I certainly don't disagree with the assessment, I just wanted to make sure we either clarified what we were saying or backed it up with citation (as "common sense" is subjective:)). I think as long as we clarified that the their "inferiority" was in regard to melee prowess, rather than a general inferiority, as you discussed, then we're spot on. I'm not sure, though, that "direct" effect is the same thing as overall effect. The use of longbowmen, as you stated, made a drastic difference to the French tactics, essentially winning the battle for the English by forcing a ludicrous slog toward the English lines, negating the sizable advantage of heavy cavalry. Regardless, great to hear people are still active on this article, since it's so well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbower47 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking for a good ref to cite on the French contempt for English archers. It is mentioned in passing by Keegan but in a manner which implies he feels unsure of it. Burne is more robust in his use of it, so could be used, but he is not speaking in exactly the same context. Does anyone something that specifically states the case as given in the article? Monstrelet (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Barker says something along those lines, I'll see if I can find something. --Merlinme (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the stakes

A recent edit removed the reference to the Battle of Nicopolis being the inspiration for the stakes, on the grounds that stakes had been used prior to this and that the source quoted does not back the assertion. I have reverted this because the Nicopolis theory does exist, even if the referencing is incorrect. My reading also suggests that the stakes were an innovation for the English in the Agincourt campaign. If anyone has a better source for the Nicopolis theory or one that supports use of stakes by the English before Agincourt, please correct this section of the text Monstrelet (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref fixed. Bennett is on the academic staff of the RMA--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin of The bird ???

I had heard that the Battle of Agincourt, or to be more exact, the after effects of it, was an additional source from which "The bird" gesture originated from. (i.e.: Not just the older Roman reference all by itself.) Truth or not?
LP-mn (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As the article says, this is probably a myth. There is certainly no concrete evidence for it. Monstrelet (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Confused, trying to learn, enlighten me please

I'm an American taking a recent interest in European history; pls forgive my ignorance. Did "France", or the "Kingdom of France", exist at the time of this battle or during the Hundred Years War? The main article on the conflict states that French nationalism resulted from the war. The main article on the war does not list the belligerents as 'England v. France', as this one does. So which is it? Was there a "Kingdom of France", or wasn't there? Steve Bishop, 10:30, 25 Jan 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.7.186.2 (talk)

Yes, there was a Kingdom of France and a Kingdom of England. However, France was a fragile structure, with probably more regional than national loyalty. The establishment of a strong central authority and a sense of France as the primary identity in the 15th. century is a major theme in French history. Monstrelet (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

George Edward Stewart III, Lord of Shetland

The above is listed as a casualty of the battle in the article. A Scot at Agincourt would be of interest, so I decided to find out more and perhaps fix the redlink. However, I can find no reference to him. I also find that the Stewarts did not become lords of Shetland until the 16th. century (in 1415, Shetland was Norwegian, although the Sinclair Earls of Orkney held the lordship at times in the 15th. century). Does anyone have any firm referenced information about this man and his participation in the battle? If not, I suggest he be removed. Monstrelet (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the diff for the insertion, produced by Wikiblame. It doesn't look like the original contributor will be coming by to defend it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Going for B class?

A discussion at English longbow has raised the possibility of having a go for B class again. As a preliminary, I've tagged what I think are the obvious fails in terms of citation. There aren't actually that many (he said encouragingly). I think there are a number of main issues:

• Notable casualties is unreferenced. I think all but the Stewart one is true but the list is incomplete - what rank do we go down to? When I have a minute I'll divide them into English and French for ease of use.
• Popular culture is better than these things sometimes are but not great. Some topics have separate popular culture articles, just linked from the main page. Might be worth doing that here.
• We need to decide how we do our bibliography. If it's supposed to be a reading list, it's incomplete. At minimum, it needs a tidy.
• Links to other pages - some duplicate links in the text and the Nagashino one is a bit iffy (unless there is a linking reference)
• The way we've done the info box is a bit clumsy and would probably be picked up in a B class review. Could we use links to the number section more effectively to tidy?
• Finally, a quick copy edit wouldn't come amiss to take out the repetition in places.

Like eating an elephant, do it a bit at a time :)Monstrelet (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've never really liked the current info box, but haven't had the time and energy to fight for an alternative approach. I would prefer a range of modern estimates of the size of the armies, i.e. from Curry (low) to Barker (high), with a referral to the "Numbers" section. Arguably Mortimer's numbers are more believable than Curry's, but it's not immediately obvious to me why we don't just report both ends of the spectrum and refer to the main section.
• Thanks for adding the various citation needed tags, I think nearly all of them are pretty straightforward, it's just a questions of finding the time to go through the relevant books and get good references. A couple of places I've been a bit lazy quoting primary sources, but they can generally be referenced via Curry or whatever. A couple of other assertions are not my edits, interestingly including the question about why Henry decided to go to Calais; one book I've read recently suggested it was essentially a matter of "face", he wanted to show his own power and French impotence. It's not incredibly obvious why he left one port (Harfleur) to march a long way to another port (Calais), if the plan was just to "re-equip over the winter".
• I've deleted Nagashino, not quite sure when it crept in, to be honest.
• I'd suggest looking at popular culture and the bibliography when we've sorted out more substantial issues, unless someone else has the time and wishes to sort them out earlier. --Merlinme (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put the numbers box in what I think is a much more sensible format. I've fixed all remaining "citations needed" except for the casualties; I'll perhaps have a go at the casualties later this weekend.

What else is left to do? I agree it would benefit from a copy edit, although I think the best way to remove the repetition would be to restructure the section headings, so it will be a fair amount of work. I'll have a go when I have a chance, assuming no-one else has got there first. --Merlinme (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Might be worth a peer review, see if anyone could comment on copyedit and structure? I'm still looking for sources to quote on French casualties but I think part of the problem is that passing editors have added some quite obscure ones, rather than just the obvious. We may have to trim this to just "headline" casualties. Also, ideally when I have time, I'd like to have a little more on the controversy of the English deployment, which is mentioned in passing but is probably one of the two major academic controversies about the battle (along with the numbers)Monstrelet (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be certainly worth turning the Notable casualties list section into regular prose, perhaps incorporating the relevant names who aren't already mentioned into the section on the Aftermath.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Barker has an entire chapter called "The Roll of the Dead", I really don't think it would be hard to base the casualties section around that (either prose or as a list). It's just a question of finding the time, which as of yet I haven't.

Re: the exact deployment of the archers, it's not something which enormously interests me; they were probably deployed mainly on the flanks, with some in between the men-at-arms, and some in the wood, but the primary sources aren't very clear and I agree there is a fair amount of debate in the secondary sources. If you want to summarise the debate Monstrelet feel free. The obvious section to put it is the English deployment, unless perhaps we want to keep controversies separate to make the article easier to read.

Shall we ask for a peer review? One of the main things I'd like to get feedback on is a good structure for the sections. At the moment we're slightly half-and-half between ordering chronologically and by subject, which is what leads to a certain amount of the repetition. For example I added in the stuff about Henry's speeches to the deployment section because that's where they were before, but in fact they would probably make more sense in a clear chronological section. Really I think there should be a new chronological section about the eve of the battle, as quite a lot happened in the 24 hours before which is more or less glided over now.--Merlinme (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Peer review sounds fine, along with the suggestion on casualties. The deployment controversy can wait - I don't think it affects the coverage, but it does seem a bit unbalanced to focus so much on the numbers controversy and scarecly mention the other current one.Monstrelet (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The main reason the numbers issue has such prominence is because it has attracted so many edits. When Curry's book and Barker's book were published at roughly the same time it caused something of a long-term edit war between the 6-1 and the 4-3 crowds. I agree the archers' deployment is a matter of some debate, but it's not something which tends to excite passions among Wikipedians in the same way as the numbers issue. The current form of the article has been relatively stable by covering the numbers issue in some depth, hopefully covering all sides fairly. Personally I think that although Curry has a point, she is something of a deliberate controversialist, and I don't like the way Barker came up with her numbers at all (to be fair, she mainly says it's impossible to come up with an accurate estimate for the size of the French army, in particular). That two of the most recently published books have their issues (and contradict each other) hasn't helped in finding a balance between the secondary sources without considering the issue at length. --Merlinme (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realise the controversy drove the large numbers section - I even contributed. I think Rogers covers it pretty well in his 2008 article and if we were writing it from scratch I'd probably give his view more prominence but it seems pretty stable now, so lets keep it that way. We do need to be careful that, just because a topic hasn't excited our editors, we don't miss it. Curry's view on numbers got quite wide popular coverage whereas the archer deployment controversy is probably more confined to military historians. The wider discussion on longbow tactics it is part of probably belong at English Longbow though and how you would reflect it without covering the backstory I'm not sure. As I said, I wouldn't see it as a priority before moving forward - if it turns up in peer review, then maybe we need to look at itMonstrelet (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable casualties

I've just made use of a recent translation of Thomas Walsingham's Chronica (ISBN 1843831449) to source a bit about John Oldcastle. Would Walsingham's list of prominent casualties at Agincourt be acceptable as a source? It benefits from a modern editor's commentary. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's a critical edition, I'd guess so. The English ones could probably be done by linking to their DNB entries.Monstrelet (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Added refs for some of Walsingham's named victims; each has been given a gloss by the modern editor. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up "popular representations

I've had a quick stab at cleaning up the popular representations section. I've removed the unreferenced bits associated with the various novels, and tried to stick with areas where I could find articles/books discussing the popular representation of the battle. See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Altogether more considered. On novels, it may be worth referencing Cornwell because it was an international popular success but the other material was simply a listing. Monstrelet (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I struggled to find a source for a good statement on Cornwell (e.g. something that independently said it was popular and a success): I'd have liked to have mentioned it for exactly those reasons though! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can't see a really good summary of the success of the book, though there is a lot of coverage out there. This review http://calitreview.com/2601 seemed to critique the book and its depiction of the period better than most, which would be useful in more than a superficial mention. Monstrelet (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken Theriot sings a song called "Agincourt." It is 6:17 long and goes into detail about one knight's travails there. I don't know if this is a new song he has written or an old one that Theriot has found. Kdammers (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Errors found on April 12, 2011

As of April 12, 2011 there are several (deliberate) errors in this article. For example, the names of the English and French kings have been switched with each other. Later, the country of China has been substituted for the country of France. These errors need to be corrected. 72.220.207.250 (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC) William Combs

Hi, thanks for your input. I assume you're new to Wikipedia; if you click on the "View History" link at the top right of the article, you can see the most recent changes. If you click on "prev" next to a particular change you can see what changes were made compared to then previous version. If you then click "undo" you can undo any obvious vandalism.

In this particular case the article was vandalised thre times by user 96.26.234.2 between 01:44 and 01:52 GMT on 13th April. The vandalism was corrected by user NawlinWiki at 01:54, i.e. the vandalism was corrected within ten minutes of it occurring.

You too can help fight vandalism, and everyone will be very grateful to you if you do. --Merlinme (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-enactment on the surface of Mars

Is this addition to the "Popular representations" section too far off topic? It doesn't seem to sit easily with the existing content—all references to a famous stage play. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It was in the article earlier. It would really need to be shown that this was a significant classic with a wider cultural resonance outside the sci-fi fan community, I think, unless we re-instate the various references to historical novels and the like Monstrelet (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No, let's not go that far! I'd forgotten that this was one of the casualties of the earlier, much-needed, cleanup. That was decided on the need for a RS to prove relevance, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to change the policy now. Let's give it a few days to see if a source can be found. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Current section has some substance to it. I would not like to go back to a selection of vaguely connected items, as I don't think this is the intention of popular culture sections in these articles. Monstrelet (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

New research

A new study mentioning fatigue aspects at Agincourt

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14204717

How, if at all, should this information be incorporated in the article?Monstrelet (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that. It's quite interesting, although to some extent the science of the bleeding obvious; who would have thought it's tiring to walk while wearing heavy armour? However they have put the whole thing on a more scientific basis, and there are some interesting snippets in the specific details, for example that a medieval knight used significantly more energy walking than a modern soldier would when carrying the same weight, mainly because of the leg armour; as I understand it, each individual leg movement uses more energy when wearing leg armour than if you were carrying the weight on your torso. The armour also apparently makes it necessary to breathe shallowly when out of breath, which would put the tired French at even more of a disadvantage when the melee started. I think it helps make the case that the longbow helped win the battle indirectly, in that the French were wearing very heavy armour and chose to advance on foot rather than on their less well armoured horses, even though the arrows themselves apparently caused relatively few casualties.

The obvious place to add the research would be under Terrain, although the section should be renamed, something like "Factors affecting the outcome of the battle", or perhaps "Terrain and other factors". Having a "see Terrain and other factors" internal link would also hopefully reduce some of the repetition elsewhere, e.g. in The main French assault. --Merlinme (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it right to say that after the Counts of Champagne disappeared, there were only low-tier nobles left in France, not even able of holding a line when the king ordered so? Resulting in 100 years of misery... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.71.223 (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that view based on a particular source? If so, which one? Certainly the French lost a lot of nobles, but it would be misleading to describe it as "decapitation". The nobles would have had heirs, after all. It's also worth remembering that the French had largely kicked the English out of France within forty years; the Siege of Orleans, thirteen years after Agincourt, is generally considered to be a turning point. So if there was any effect it was for closer to ten than a hundred years.

As noted in Battle_of_Agincourt#Aftermath, the most significant impact of all those dead nobles was probably to change the relative balance of power between the Burgundian and Armagnac parties within the French nobility, as so many senior Armagnac members died at Agincourt; the Burgundians on the other hand were far less involved in the defeat and suffered far fewer casualties.--Merlinme (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Nicopolis footnote

The footnote for this ([17] at the time of posting) seems long, but was inserted to validate some disputed material. Could it safely be shortened now? --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way. It is a bit long, but it's the most explicit connection between the two events that I've seen, and it's from a not particularly widely available source. --Merlinme (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not usual practice to include a long footnote among citations, though. The article does have a footnote section - perhaps a move to that would be stylistically appropriate? Monstrelet (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, going with the "new footnote" suggestion. Thanks to all, and review of the wording welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful!

I stumbled on this page by accident, and read the whole thing, purely for recreation. This is one of the best wikipedia pages I've seen. Well done, all! A fascinating read! Thanks for all your work on this; it has promoted self-directed education and fulfilled the wikipedia mission of spreading knowledge for knowledge sake! (Now, after seeing on the talk page that this is considered a "C" class page, I must seek out an "A" class military history page. It's hard to imagine something better than this.) 67.189.247.251 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you for your kind words, much appreciated. Regarding the class of the article, speaking for myself I've generally been more interested in whether the material in the article is accurate and neutral in reflecting what historians think probably happened, rather than necessarily has citations for every sentence and meets the Manual of Style in all respects, which is how you get to one of the higher classes of article. I'm glad you think it does a good job of describing the battle, anyway. --Merlinme (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We were rejected for a higher classification some months ago, so appreciation from a real-world user, which after all is why we're doing this, is very welcome. Thanks for taking the trouble! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Always nice to have feedback, especially positive - thanks for taking the time! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To echo, it is good that the work is appreciated. This article suffers a number of problems in achieving higher classification in WP's eyes, some technical but the general point is the more complex a subject, the harder it is to achieve the higher classifications. It should also be noted that this article is still under active development by a group of editors - we are still building rather than polishing. But I'm glad it is meeting the needs of readers - it's what it is there for, after all. Monstrelet (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Boucicault or d'Albret

Over the last few days, here in the article, these two stalwarts have been battling for command of the French forces. At the time of posting there is an uneasy truce: Boucicault holds sway in the body of the article, d'Albret in the infobox. That's obviously bad for the page's credibility, but I can't decide, from the sources, who was in charge. Isn't there a case that they shared the responsibility? Suggestions welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that they lacked infoboxes during the Hundred Years' War... :) There are various statements out there about them being co-commanders, due to problems in the French chain of command (but the French sources/chronicles aren't great for this engagement, what I remember Anne Curry writing). I'd suggest adding them both in on the infobox. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We are just seeing a problem which has existed since October 1415 - the lack of clarity in the French command structure. Modern authors seem to vary as to who was in charge, d'Albret as Constable or Boucicault as Marshal. In theory, these two, assisted by de Rambures the Master of Crossbowmen, held authority. Unfortunately, the senior Dukes wouldn't just accept their authority (because they were their social inferiors) and had to be co-opted into the command team. This led to a too many cooks situation. As Matthew Bennett has it, the answer to who was in command of the French army is no-one. To get back to the original question though, I think a co-command approach d'Albret/Boucicault best reflects matters and the info box and text should, as always, say the same thing.--Monstrelet (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. --Merlinme (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Odds" ≠ "ratio"

I have restored "odds" to the text, justifying from OED: "odds, n. 2. The amount by which one number or quantity differs from another, or by which one thing exceeds or surpasses, or falls short of…another. The condition or fact of being unequal; disparity in number…". That seems to fit the requirement, exactly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Enguerrand de Monstrelet

Is he an unreliable source? If you read the account provided by the external link, he gives vastly different details from some of the information provided here on this page. For example, regarding the size of their army he says, "Their archers, amounting to at least thirteen thousand, let off a shower of arrows with all their might..." 13,000 of just archers is more than the total given. That would make the size of their army roughly 16,000, or basically double the figure provided.

In regards to the details of the battle he seems to indicate that the French were the ones holding position and the English advancing on their ranks, all the while showering them with arrows. And as far as the baggage train goes, he makes it quite clear that it was an independent act of banditry on the part of Ysambert d'Agincourt, going so far as to claim he gifted a sword to the Count de Charolois in a failed attempt to gain his protection for his deed.

Anyway, it seems noteworthy as his information is used elsewhere in the account but these apparently contradictory details garner no mention, particularly being that he is a firsthand witness. 204.78.58.135 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Monstrelet is not one of the best sources for Agincourt and historians have usually placed more reliance on others. However, modern interpretations of the battle, on which this article is based, attempt a synthesis from the numerous accounts (this is a very well recorded battle)and on administrative records. These last are particularly important in judging the size of the armies. On the baggage attack, the existence of a French plan (which Monstrelet is unlikely to have known about) stating the French intention to mount an attack on the English baggage at an earlier stage of the campaign must raise a question of how much the raid was simply impromptu banditry. These differing opinions and the weight that historians place on them is reflected in the article.--Monstrelet (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out French Wikipedia article

I think the French wiki article needs some work on the numbers, it seems that the authors live in some sort of consensual fantasy, they have taken the highest English and lowest French numbers possible. Twobells (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have a quick look at the talk page of the French article, you'll see the size of the two armies and their relative casualties has been raised. The article also opines that Curry's numbers are the most reliable , showing admirable internationalism. The info box has a different number of English casualties to the article, which says they were about a hundred ordinary soldiers and 13 knights. If they run their wiki like we run ours, they should harmonise those two figures.

Also interesting is the 19th century battle plan in the text, which shows a wildly divergent English deployment to the modern consensus. It doesn't match the text either. It also shows most of the French army deployed in what was at the time a wood. Quite misleading really and probably ought to be replaced with something more modern, if anyone here is proficient at editing French wikipedia.--Monstrelet (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

English?

The article mentions the beligerants as being the English and French. However surley the Welsh and Cornish should also be mentioned in the key figures box. 94.2.150.254 (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The rules on belligerents in info boxes are, AFAIK, that a belligerent must be an independent participant, as opposed to refering just to the nationality of troops. The Welsh were present as part of the English army, there being no independent Welsh polity at this point. The same would apply to the Cornish (and people from Cheshire and Yorkshire and so on). It is actually more of an issue for the French army, which has contingents from Burgundy and Brittany, which behaved (especially the Burgundians) more like an allied power. Monstrelet (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Killing of Prisoners

I added a synopsis of Keegan's comments concerning this. I am afraid that I trust Keegan on this more than a lot of other authors given his much clearer background as a military historian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.98.251 (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Guichard Dauphin

Guichard Dauphin is currently shown as one of four French commanders in the infobox. The text does not mention him having any command role. Although his rank as Chamberlain or Master of the King's Household would guarantee him access to the "army council" (for want of a better term), he wasn't a military officer and would have been outranked by the Master of Crossbowmen on a battlefield, an officer we don't list in the info box. Is there any reason therefore for him to feature so prominently or should he be deleted? Monstrelet (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I will confess that I had never heard of him. A quick web search doesn't make me a great deal the wiser. He's described as KIA but doesn't even feature as one of the significant casualties in the article (which is slightly surprising, as he's listed by Enguerrand de Monstrelet). Has someone confused him with the Dauphin (as at least one website I found suggested Shakespeare did)? I agree, it seems silly to have such an obscure figure listed as one of the commanders. --Merlinme (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I did the same google search to check his authenticity. Seems quite solid evidence that he was there and died (ending his line, as apparently he had no heir). But no reason to believe he was a senior commander. I'll delete him. Monstrelet (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of shields in the 15th century

By the 15th century, full plate armours were in use, as was the longsword and the weapons needed to defeat plate armour, such as pollaxes and the like. All of which require two hands to use. While arming swords were in use, they still TYPICALLY were not used with shields. By the 15th century the only time shields saw regular use was during tournaments. Ecranche style shields were common for the joust and possibly during initial lance charges, but they were not their to protect the wearer from arrows, rather the lance. Evil.Merlin (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide a citation to go into the article? Hchc2009 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Does it need to go in the article? The only reference to shields was an uncited statement they weren't carried, which has been removed. While I would broadly agree with Evil Merlin, I couldn't speak with referenced certainty on the matter. How significant a point is it? Monstrelet (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not huge, but it would be useful to be able to explain that they didn't have shields, as I suspect many readers wouldn't have guessed that. The current version leaves the shields (or lack of them) hanging. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's broadly correct that they wore plate armour and carried weapons such as lances (spears) which would generally be used with two hands. I'll see if I can find anything in my sources tonight. I remember Barker has quite a detailed section on the armour they wore, she may have something on shields (or lack of). I agree though it's not absolutely necessary if it's not in the article! --Merlinme (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Medieval Warfare, Nicholson (2004) p. 97: "Complete coats of plate were in general use by the early fifteenth century. ... Nor did they need to carry a shield; the armour itself was sufficient." (Verifiable via Amazon "Look Inside".) That seems pretty definitive, I'll look at adding it as a proper reference tonight. --Merlinme (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's surprisingly hard work to get well-sourced information on the weapons which would have been used by the knights and men-at-arms. I used "lances" above because there's a reference in the contemporary sources to the French knights deliberately shortening their lances because they would be using them on foot in a melee. On the other hand, another source says the French knights were too closely packed to use their swords properly. And to complete the confusion, another source refers to Henry's helmet being damaged by an axe, which would presumably be either a halberd or a poll-axe.
Mustered men-at-arms at the time were expected to turn up with full armour and several good horses, plus sword, dagger and lance. Other weapons were undoubtedly used, but as far as I can tell they were provided by the man-at-arms himself, so there was probably little standardisation, and probably a matter of resources and taste as much as anything else. Maces were quite popular, and could be effective against an armoured opponent, but they're quite small in length, and would probably be more of a backup weapon than for dismounting to fight in a melee with enemies using pole weapons.
In general we know a lot more about weapons which were provided by the king, such as the staggering number of arrows which Henry took with him. I think it's reasonable to assume that the French knights (who fought on horseback throughout the period) would all have had lances and swords. Fighting on foot with a lance is perfectly feasible; "lancers" were troops who fought on foot using short lances. There does seem to have been a shift to poll axes and similar during the 15th century, but it's not clear to me how far advanced this would have been in 1415. I'm really not sure how you could definitively answer what other weapons (and in what numbers) the French were using. Archaeology would be helpful, but the only such which I'm aware of for Agincourt was on a very limited scale in the early 19th century. Interestingly that found some lance heads. However it's unclear whether an early 19th century amateur dig would have even been able to correctly identify them as from Agincourt, and whether they would have distinguished between a lance head and a poll axe head. I imagine it would also be hard work to determine whether any given weapon was of French or English make. --Merlinme (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A slight fly in the ointment here. I checked Clifford Rogers account of Agincourt (refered to in full in the article sources), because I recalled he gives quite a bit of thought to weaponry. On page 90, he states that some of the French men-at-arms carried pavises. He bases this on Le Fevre and Waurin. I followed up his quote and, indeed, these two refer to the problems suffered by those men at arms "who had no shields". The word used for shields is pavaix which certainly means pavises but I'm not sure can't also mean shields more generically. However, the fact remains, the sources contrast the fate of men with shields with those without. We cannot say categorically, therefore, that men-at-arms in the battle had no shields. We can, using Rogers as a source, state many didn't carry shields (he is quite clear the majority didn't).Monstrelet (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Monstrelet, I missed this before I finally got round to doing my edit. Feel free to modify the wording if you wish. I don't have the Rogers but it's available via google books and looks really interesting, however I haven't had a chance to look at it properly yet. In terms of weaponry Rogers does seem to envision that the English formation would be three lances/ spears deep, and that the French would also have used their (cut-down) lances/ spears, although he suggests that the first French line might have been armed with axes and shields. The Waurin quote looks pretty definitive that a significant number of the French used shields (although also implying a significant number did not use shields). I've got Sources and Interpretations, I'll see if I can find it in context. --Merlinme (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's on page 160. Unfortunately, the context doesn't add a great deal. Monstrelet (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Illustrations from the period can be interesting, although I think it's reasonable to say they generally show arms and armour of the time of the illustrator rather than the time of the battle they are supposed to be showing. On that subject, this might be relevant: [3] which is supposed to be of the Battle of Auray, in 1364, but was actually made in 1410, i.e. very close to Agincourt. It shows fully armoured men-at-arms with their visors down engaging with their lances and their swords. A lot more lancepoints can be seen than swords, I would assume that the sword was a backup weapon if the enemy got past your lancepoint. By contrast this illustration: [4] is theoretically of the same battle but was made much later, I believe it's from this edition of Froissart: Froissart_of_Louis_of_Gruuthuse_(BnF_Fr_2643-6) from the 1470s. There are a lot of axe heads on show in that illustration, along with lances, swords, longbows, one dagger (for a scramble on the ground) and quite a lot of shields, interestingly enough. So that may support the idea that there was a shift towards pollaxe style weapons during the 15th century. But the 1410 French illustration showing lots of lances and a few swords may well have been about right for Agincourt.--Merlinme (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Welsh at Agincourt

I have today removed a comment allegedly taken from Curry's 2005 Agincourt book that over half the archers in the English army were Welsh. Knowing this to be dubious, I double checked Curry and could not find this statement. In fact, recent research suggests that there were only a few hundred Welsh troops at Agincourt (the army had never contained many and they had suffered badly at Harfleur) - see Andy Chapman's PhD thesis here http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/169897/ .

While the article fairly remarks that there were both English and Welsh archers present, the article should present a balanced view based on scholarship not historic myth. I will attempt, if I have time, to incorporate Charman's research into the article. Monstrelet (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Agincourt in fiction

I removed this addition from the list of references

Lawrence-Young, D. "Arrows Over Agincourt." Fictionalised account of the Battles of Agincourt & Harfleur. 2012 ISBN: 9781849 631228

Obviously not appropriate there but the more recent versions of the article no longer contain anything on novels and other fictional material in the popular representation section. I believe we removed this section because it was filling up with obscure sci-fi novels but does it need reconsidering? Monstrelet (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care that much, to be honest. In my experience with other articles it's quite hard to keep trivia lists to a manageable length, or distinguish particularly significant works from fluff. I therefore tend to favour leaving it all out, although other editors seem to think they're sections worth having. --Merlinme (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The key is having suitable reliable sources. If we can find reliable secondary sources that discuss or analyse the fictionalised accounts of the battle, then I'm in favour of inclusion, using the secondary works as sources - but I'm not aware of many secondary works on the historical fiction (let alone the science fiction writing) surrounding Agincourt. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've found one independent review of Lawrence-Young's book. It is in the Children/Young Adult category. Not great literature then but apparently a good book to introduce younger readers to the HYW. I don't think it therefore fits with the current scheme of the article, as we don't have a Agincourt in Fiction or a Further Reading section. The most reviewed fiction I think is Bernard Cornwell's Azincourt, which was a best seller. This is probably the most notable of the fiction offerings, if we were to add something about books.Monstrelet (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the following from the article to here for further discussion of whether there should be an "in historical fiction" section.

In popular historical-fiction, the battle is featured in the books,Harry of Monmouth, by A.M. Maughan,(1965), in Good King Harry, by Denise Giardina (1984) and in Fortune Made His Sword by Martha Rofheart, (1972).

I've not read the Maughan or Giardina books but Rofheart's was previously in the article under its UK title "Cry God for Harry". As we have discussed above, there are issues with lack of critical sources on these books. That said, to talk about the battle in song, theatre and film but make no mention of it in literature seems unbalanced. We might list books without comment but otherwise I am unsure how this might be tackled.Monstrelet (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've had another skim through JSTOR and similar sites (NB: I won't claim that I've made a thorough job of this though); I'm not convinced that Agincourt is featured in the secondary literature as a particularly popular/noteworthy topic for historical literature. There are some reliable/quality sourced reviews of the Azincourt novel, but even then, not very many, and they're generally focused on the author rather than the links between the book and the actual battle, and I'm not coming across much else. In the absence of secondary sources/coverage, I'd be inclined to argue against having an "in historical fiction" section, and certainly against having a "list of books which mention Agincourt" kind of approach, although I'd probably feel neutrally towards a specific reference to Azincourt, since at least it was a best-seller. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that it makes sense for this page to reference the popular fiction written that includes the subject of the article. A decision can be made that there needs to be some critical mention of the Battle in a citation for any novel and that the time frame of any novel should be set in the historical period. Also, some evidence that a novel had a large distribution, such as Cornwell's best seller ranking or being a Main Selection of the Book-of-the Month Club, such as Rofheart's. Being reprinted in many languages and Countries could also attest to a novel being actually popular and not just "published". There is a review of Rofheart's in the NYT's Book Review, by Granville Hicks where he compares Olivier's "Henry V" Agincourt scenes, "...the impression of Agincourt I retain from that movie is colorful and altogether grand. Mrs. Rofheart's battle is grimy as well as extremely bloody." Here also is a review deleving into Rofheart's presentation of Henry's French Campaign/Agincourt section, There should be some representation here of fiction, Cornwell and Rofheart could be a good start.Evananda (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation drive

AustralianRupert has done a sterling job working through the article to point out where he thinks citations are needed to achieve B class status - the least we should aim for before next year's anniversay IMO. AR is a very experienced editor who knows the assessment rules but he is no medievalist. So it is down to those who know the topic to fill the gaps. A quick read through today enabled me to pick off a few citations. Most, if not all, others should be accessible from major sources already used in the article (Curry and Barker primarily, I think. If anyone has the time to put in just a few from either source, it will help push the task along. Monstrelet (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeannet de Poix ou de Tyrel

The above has been placed in the Notable Casualties section and removed. It is alleged he was Admiral of France and killed at Agincourt. In fact he was not Admiral of France until 1418, so didn't die at the battle. His brother (?) Jean V Tyrel de Poix did die at the battle but, although apparently a royal councellor, doesn't seem worth adding to the list. The admiral of France killed at Agincourt would seem to be Clignet de Brabant, though Curry opens the possibility it was the Sire de Dampierre (unnamed). Philippe d'Auxy, Sire de Dampierre was killed at Agincourt. French wikipedia lists the Amiral de France in 1415 as the Jaques de Chatillon, Sire de Dampierre, but with the wrong name wikilinked. Jaques de Chatillon was killed at Agincourt. Anyone able to resolve this? Monstrelet (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Welsh numbers

An editor has entered a comment on Welsh numbers taken from Andy Chapman's PhD thesis refered above and placed it in the numbers section. Unfortunately, it confuses the argument on total numbers being made there and I've removed it. This really should sit in a section giving more detail on the make up of the English army but we currently don't have such a thing. Any thoughts on how to insert this referenced material, which also confronts a seemingly common myth that most of the archers at Agincourt were Welsh? Monstrelet (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Cannons and/or Arquebus Firearms at Agincourt

Hello all, I'm a newbie here, but am a lover of medieval history. Was it not the case that some cannon and/or arquebus firearms were present at the battle? If so, I note the Wikipedia page on the Battle of Agincourt makes no reference to them. Would very much appreciate anyone's thoughts. 2601:182:C200:1ECA:0:0:0:DA7B (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There are at least two references to cannon at Agincourt. One is a set of accounts from Amiens saying the town's cannon was sent to the battle and one unfortunate archer in the Agincourt Roll is killed by a cannon ball. Hand firearms are unlkely at this early date and there seems no mention of them. To make reference to artillery, it would have to be proportionate, as they have no effect on the action and are more of a curiosityMonstrelet (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. Appreciated. I favor mentioning this "curiosity". If the reason for its exclusion is that the cannon(s) were a curiosity and had no effect, then why does Wikipedia mention that the first use of poison gas in World War I was by the French (ethyl bromoacetate). The Wiki page states the amount of gas produced was so small from the gas grenades that the Germans did not even detect their use. Why mention that? Maybe because it's...fascinating. First use of poison gas! Equally fascinating: a cannon was use at Agincourt! At least one guy died from it. But virtually no one knows of it because you guys won't allow it on your Agincourt page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C200:D30B:2523:9DE7:BBB:B0C3 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Schiltrons against cavalry

The article credits the archers with making use of pointed wooden staves, to defend against cavalry. But is that not a simplified version of the hand carried and ground-backed spear that the troops of Wallace and the Bruce used against the English? A formation of men so equipped was called a schiltron, and the story goes that at Bannockburn, in 1314, Robert the Bruce had even trained them to manoeuvre against the enemy. The deadly English archers that had destroyed the Scots line at Falkirk, could do nothing once the Scots had turned the combat into a melee. Their arrows would have killed Scots and English alike, quite possibly more of the latter, there being more of them. DaveyHume (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly special about the use of spears against cavalry by the Scots and even less reason to think that the use of stakes was a makeshift attempt to recreate them.Monstrelet (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Principality of Wales as a combatant.

The combatants parameter in the info box is defined thus :

combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding.

To include smaller groups than the main parties, we do need to have a reason of clarifying things for the reader. Including "Principality of Wales" is misleading because a) it is doubtful it existed as an independent entity at the time b) if it did, it was in open revolt against the English crown and therefore didn't contribute to the English war effort. Inclusion therefore misleads rather than clarifies. Monstrelet (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A Principality of Wales with allegiance to England absolutely did exist at the time. A loyalist principality was created circa 1300 but did not actually become part of the Kingdom of England properly until after 1535. It was administered separately from England as a vassal, almost entirely by Anglo- and Cambro-Normans. But because it was so closely-related to England (the prince was always the heir apparent), any Welsh lords would have been levying on behalf of the English king and not the Welsh prince. For that reason I agree it's probably misleading to make it a separate combatant. BananaBork (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Numbers in info box

Recent tagging has shown an inadequacy in referencing in the info box. This is relying on an essay on a lost website accessed by Wayback. We could do better. Considering the problem more in the round and mindful of a recent discussion of the general issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, I'm afraid that the current numbers sections are cluttered and contain information that the reader should really be sourcing in the contextualised setting of the main article. I would suggest therefore we reduce the text here and cross reference to the appropriate sections in the article and ensure these reflect current scholarship. Thoughts? Monstrelet (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Decisiveness

We seem to have a bit of an edit war going on about the decisiveness or otherwise of the battle. I suspect that it comes down to what constitutes a decisive battle. It was tactically decisive - the French army was destroyed. It was a decisive battle within its campaign context, as the English could complete their march to Calais. But it was strategically indecisive - its main impact was that it re-ignited the French civil war. So which definition are we going for when we describe it as decisive? Monstrelet (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox military conflict/doc.

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

In short, I see one source in the "Aftermath" section describing it as a "militarily decisive" English victory. Perhaps, to make such a claim, the sources (or the number of them) should be a little more unequivocal. While it was clearly a "thorough" victory, "decisive" refers to a "decision" in the "greater scheme of things" such as a campaign and a result that caused the opponent to surrender, capitulate or sue for peace. This is not the case as Henry did not push the point (though it may have been if he had - as I read it). The solution (IMO) is to find more sources to support the claim or leave off "decisive" in the result in the campaign box. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

PS Incase this becomes an "arms race" to find sources for or against, there would need to be a 'consensus' in reliable sources to claim it was decisive. I could quantify this if it comes down to a "chest-thumping contest" but I hope it doesn't. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree that if the battle is to be described as decisive, there should be a clear academic consensus. As I've already said, Agincourt was not strategically decisive by most scholarly views, even if it was operationally decisive in terms of the campaign. Given the complexity of this, which is unsuited to the short format of an info box, maybe "English Victory (see Aftermath)" is the best compromise? Monstrelet (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it "stopped" the French in their tracks but it didn't give the English a "decisive" result. I would suggest, that to be considered "decisive", it must be "decisive" for the victor (IMO). Just looking at things from a slightly different angle ... It also depends on how you define a campaign. Traditionally, they were defined by a campaigning "season". So, in this respect, I will not disagree with you, though in more modern wars, a campaign is fought for a region - so perceptions change in that respect. I could say, that to be decisive, the "winning side" should achieve its objective over and above just winning by a majority or a clear majority (a strategic victory?). The infobox gives clear guidance about splitting the strategic-tactical hair. And yes, the sources are paramount, since this is not WP:OR. I do hope this helps resolve the matter. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, not "decisive", per Infobox Mil doc, per sources, per Cinderella157. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Agincourt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050528061926/http://www.familychronicle.com/agincort.htm to http://www.familychronicle.com/agincort.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410221606/http://familychronicle.com/fc-faq3.html to http://www.familychronicle.com/fc-faq3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)