Talk:Battle of Agincourt/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Battlefield

Excavations in areas nearby by Tim Sutherland in 2007 and 2013 have as yet yielded no additional evidence of an alternate location. http://www.agincourt600.com/2015/06/09/where-was-agincourt-fought/ Anarchangel (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This is referred to in the article and a paper by Sutherland summarising his work cited. Monstrelet (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. The article says "The approximate location of the battle has never been in dispute and the place remains relatively unaltered after 600 years". But also: "The actual location of the battle is not known" and "[...]the lack of archaeological evidence at this traditional site". So, do we know the location of the battle or not?Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 20:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The battlefield is agreed to be close to the village of Azincourt. It is generally agreed that the English camp before the battle was at Maisoncelles. So the approximate location is known. The problem comes in deciding the exact location. Most writers accept a site to the East of Azincourt, though differing about exactly where the battlelines were drawn. However, there is a lack of evidence of battle debris or graves in this area, so some doubt it is correct. Other suggestions have in the 21st century been made as to alternative locations around Azincourt, though so far none of these has revealed evidence of battle debris either. This is what the article means about the exact location being unknown. Hope this clarifies? Monstrelet (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, although perhaps it would be the case to clarify it a bit in the article itself. Maybe "precise" instead of "actual" or something?Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Done Monstrelet (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Banners

Agincourt banners

Here's an 1833 reconstruction of the various banners flown at Agincourt. I could upload a de-skewed version of the image, if there's any interest... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Morstede

Hello!

I have added a couple of sentences and a link for Thomas Morstede in the 'Campaign' section of this article. Thomas Morstede was the chief surgeon for the battle contracted by Henry V. Carole Rawcliffe in 'Medicine and Society in Later Medieval England' mentions how Morstede 'raised, equipped and led' a company of surgeons during the Agincourt Campaign. I found it interested that there had not been any mention of surgeons or physicians in this article, as they were present and very much needed at the Battle of Agincourt as well as many others in the period. I also found it important to mention that makers of surgical instruments were present at the battle as well as just surgeons. This is because metal had previously been a trade for surgeons to survive, the fact that it was now being used for surgical instruments shows the rise of surgeons and the profession as a whole in Late Medieval England. Please read the couple of sentences I added and also check out the Wikipedia page I made for Thomas Morstede. Thank You!

ChocolateOrange1 (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This is very interesting, I had no idea, thank you for adding this, it expands quite nicely another aspect of the battle of Agincourt.EliteArcher88 (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

English numbers question

Curry’s view on the numbers of English is in the minority by historians yet has been given precedence, why is that exactly? Further, Konig Books has fairly recently written a Curry/Barker Agincourt comparison and found that Curry has vastly under-counted French numbers. I think we need to revert the article to the previous long-standing version which states the overwhelming historian opinion and discusses Curry’s revisionist approach within the article. Actually, why was that long-standing and agreed-upon version removed? Roland Of Yew (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The answer to why it was removed can be seen in the edit summaries. You are certainly able to challenge it but do try to retain the sourcing and maintain the same narrative as the relevant article section, because this is a controversial area. The Konig books review is rather slight - I wouldn't use it as an RS. Monstrelet (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• ’challenge it’? An editor has changed the long agreed, hotly contested edit without debate, I am simply reverting the article to the agreed upon edit. I recommend you read the talk archives on this issue, the ‘English/French strength’ has absolutely been done to death and attempts to alter it after so much debate and effort could be viewed by some as mischievous.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: I had changed the absurd 12–36 k range to the more manageable and sourced 14–15/25 k (10k men-at-arms + 4–5 k miscellaneous foot). No historian aside from Curry really disputes the 14–15 k figure; the only point of contention is whether to count the c. 10,000 gros varlets as combatants, which, if done so, increases the total number to 25k. I reverted to the other version, and if you still disagree I'm willing to discuss it. Avis11 (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• With respect, you cannot use WP:OR, we must abide by the long standing ‘English numbers’ edits. Every now and again editors come along to the English article and try to edit/revert agreed upon edits. I recommend that editors new to the article read the talk archives, this was a very hotly contested debate that took years to resolve. Therefore, editors cannot just come along and alter the agreed upon edits on a whim. Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: Neither Curry's estimates about English or French troops at Agincourt match those of the other authors. She is a total outlier. Julie Barker's 6,000 vs 36,000 is just as nonsensical. It is basically a copy-paste of the Gesta Henrici's figures, which may as well have been the work of Henry V's propanganda. It also echoes the notoriously unreliable Jean de Wavrin's estimates of the English being outnumbered 6 to 1.

I understand this kind of things always devolve into national biases being both a Belgian and French citizen myself. But we must stay objective and partial. Ian Mortimer, Clifford J. Rogers and Jonathan Sumption (to a lesser extent) actually brought up the underlying issues which have made consistency impossible when discussing the numbers at Agincourt, giving proper estimates and dispatching the troops per type of units and all. They represent far more reliable sources about the strength of both forces than some of the French sources stating no more than 10,000 to 15,000 people maximum present on the French side at the battle or Curry's numbers... or even Barker's "estimates", which are not estimates but her just regurgitating contemporary estimates and odds. (Jules Agathias (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC))

Thanks Jules Agathias. If the numbers at Agincourt were not so contentious, the large section in the article wouldn't be there. It is impossible to speak with certainty when significant authorities disagree - to achieve NPOV we must have space to unpack the issues and the arguments advanced. On the note about national biases, we need to be aware of a "traditional" narrative in English writing, which is only recently being more critically examined. We do not use much French historical writing in the article, which might give a different perspective, albeit equally influenced by national concerns. The French wiki page has no problems with the idea of 10-15000 French v. 8000 English and there is no long section on numbers there, just a couple of sentences. This is perhaps a bit lax but shows different perspectives in play. Monstrelet (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jules Agathias: @Monstrelet:What about Wavrin or Encyclopaedia Britanicca’s numbers, are you just going to ignore those as well? I just don’t understand why eyewitness reports (well documented I might add) are being ignored while a outlier revisionist historian has been given so much so much weight. Further, once again I have to ask, why were these new contentious edits added over a highly contested issue (that has long been resolved) with no absolutely debate?Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Britannica is brief, outdated and inferior to the sources already used here. Eyewitness reports are WP:PRIMARY sources, and just b/c the author was there to see the event it doesn't mean his numbers are correct. Le Fèvre and Waurin, both eyewitnesses, give partially or totally wrong numbers of that which they witnessed. Avis11 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jules Agathias: Barker actually doesn't bother, perhaps rightly, giving a specific estimate, saying simply that the French might've had 4 to 6 times as many men if the lower estimate of 6,000 is accepted for the English. The lower figure is plausible if varlets are considered, which she clearly does, mentioning a third line (rearguard) formed by servants, though the form gros varlets itself is not used in her book. She also references Waurin for the 6x but doesn't take what he says 100% at face value. Avis11 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: I don't know where you got that I did original research, I clearly said my changes were well supported by sources. Avis11 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Avis11: You used OR when you calculated Curry’s figures according to your observations the numbers were not published by a historian which brings me back to my original point, why it is so much weight being given to this one revisionist? why is an equal weight not being given to Barker, Krug, Turner, Mitchell or Rogers for example? Curry (as correctly stated by @Jules Agathias:) is the outlier while the vast majority of historians favours the larger number. ‘The Hundred Years War: Different Vista’s’ (Brill) was authored by over 20 historians all of whom counter Curry’s claim yet both of you have given far too much weight to this one historian. This is why I put the ‘counter opinion’ on English strength within the scope of the article giving the opinion less weight and more balance as the long-standing article reflected but was edited without debate.Roland Of Yew (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: I think it might help your case if you could explain which works you refer to. The article lists nothing by Krug, Turner or Mitchell. Dr. Ilana Krug is a medieval historian but not, AFAIK, a period specialist. I'm unclear who Turner and Mitchell are. Of the other two , Barker is essentially a popular historian but is already quoted extensively. Rogers is a published academic heavily quoted in the article. Why do their views count more than the period expert Anne Curry? Why must her view be expunged? Monstrelet (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Roland Of Yew: I didn't calculate anything. Rogers, Mortimer and Sumption all agree that the French had 10k men-at-arms and 4–5k miscellaneous infantry. Curry gives 8k & 4k. Barker doesn't really give a specific figure, simply saying the French might've had 4–6x as many men as the English. The gros varlets appear to be the sole reason why the estimates are so far apart from each other: Barker and Rogers count them as combatants, whereas Mortimer, Sumption and Curry don't. Saying the French had 14–15k professional troops and up to 10k armed servants agrees at least in part with all of these historians. Avis11 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The "servants" issue is complicated by what different people are talking about. Most agree pages were non-combatants and each man-at-arms would have one. However, if the French army was organised into three man lances, which authorities like Contamine and Schnerb believe they were, then, in addition to the page, there would be a "gros varlet" - an armed combatant. This assumption is followed by Rogers. So the issue is not whether the pages were combatants but how many gros varlets were present. An "up to" approach best reflects this uncertainty, IMO. Monstrelet (utalk) 09:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Monstrelet: You're talking about the Compagnie d'ordonnance, right? The reorganization of the French army by Charles VII in the 1430's with the French gendarmes being units composed of lances fournies and franc-archers. This basically marked the French army's transition from medieval feudal levies to a standing army in the late medieval period. That reorganization occured two decades after Agincourt. (Jules Agathias (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC))

No. I think the Ordonnances in force for Agincourt were the 1374 ones, which did mandate companies but not in the formal form of the later ones (from 1440s and after)but they may all have been a dead letter by this point. Contamine dates the move to three from two man lances in French armies to the 1380s, probably coming from the experiences of French mercenaries in Italy, which had had three man lances from 1360s. Schnerb also clearly agrees with Contamine about the three man lance in use at Agincourt. Personally, I think we need to be cautious in assuming every man-at-arms had a gros varlet, but it likely the majority did. Monstrelet (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Mock Trial

I have deleted the section on the 2010 mock trial, which apparently found Henry V guilty of war crimes, if judged on modern standards. This has no place in a historical record. Charles VI banished Jews from France and married a minor. What would that make him by modern standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glachlan (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have restored the section. It was well evidenced by citation and was an example of an entertainment based on events of the battle. It demonstrated the cultural influence of the battle continues to the present day. It should not be seen as any moral judgement. It is also utterly irrelevant what Charles VI policies outside of the military sphere were.Monstrelet (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed the section. By all means start a section on the cultural influence of the battle. Grandstanding moral judgements like this, no matter how ‘well-referenced’ have no place in a document of record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glachlan (talk • contribs) 05:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted again. Do not remove this without some consensus again. Monstrelet (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This "mock trial" nonsense has no place in a historical record. Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.70.242 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The "mock trial" section is in popular representations. It describes a theatrical event. It has nothing to do with the "historical record" but rather the cultural resonances of the battle in contemporary society. This doesn't mean it should be kept but let it be critiqued for what it is. Monstrelet (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources section (original_research?)

See Archive 1: Primary sources section (original_research?) for previous discussion.

G or Z?

"English speakers found it easier to pronounce "Agincourt" with a "g" instead of the original "z" "

I do wonder if this is true. No reference is given. Another explanation is just as easily that factually the letters G, Z and Y are very easily confused in the writing of the period. Cassandra.

Shouldn't it be "an English victory..."

Instead of: Azincourt [azɛ̃kuʁ]) was one of the English victories in the Hundred Years' War should it be: Azincourt [azɛ̃kuʁ]) was an English victory in the Hundred Years' War

"one of the English victories" implies, but doesn't state, the English lost the Hundred Years' War.