I love the history surrounding Agincoirt and the 100yr war. Bernard Cornwell's historical fiction novels set during this war are some of my favorite books.
Yep, all the countries in Europe from Roman times..fought for land, borders, feeding each other..keeping going..history is so cool. Read how France did get going..start with the Merovingian dynasty and go on..all the countries fascinating
If you guys enjoy this story, you all have to read Agincourt/Azincourt by Bernard Cornwell!! It's historical fiction novel about a character that fights in this battle as an archer. I learned more about English longbows and archery in that book than anywhere else lol Plus, Bernard Cornwell is one of the greatest historical-fiction writers of all-time.
@@barbaralamson7450 You're very welcome Barbara. On a slightly less historical note, I also HIGHLY recommend his King Arthur trilogy. I truly believe it to be the best version of the King Arthur myth ever written down.
Only men of a certain status were generally counted, a “man at arms” being the lowest rank counted. There were probably many more soldiers of common rank that weren’t counted, perhaps because they didn’t have their own weapons and armor. This, of course, applies to both sides.
Also, the 'experts' here think they know everything! The English 'nobility' was few and thin on Henry V's side, the number of barons, princes even from Germany, etc. top nobility on the French side was overwhelmingly many more than the English side which was more like a roaming foraging party, not a major war party. The French, alarmed at Henry's successes called upon all their top nobility to try to stop him. Compare this to the number of high nobility and barons, etc. fighting each other in England! These major battles killed as many 'nobles' as the Agincourt battle killed French nobility.
The bloody War of the Roses decimated the English nobility every bit as harshly as the English archers killed in France. And that war happened because the King of England married the Princess of a crazy king in France and she gave birth to a crazy son whose utter disconnect from reality led to the War of the Roses and England lost every inch of French territory in the following chaos and destruction inside England, itself.
Someone always changes the rules/logic so they can rewrite history. Napolean wasn't short, Washington didn't cross the Delaware, Popcorn hasn't always been buttered...
Sometimes I hate history. After my friend, driving a brand-new Buick, hit a tree headon and we both survived, I found that being housebound with major bone breaks meant having tutors, which meant I could actually study history. THAT's an awfully big deal when you are an American getting public education. I learned about Agincourt, The War of the Roses, and all sorts of things about the American War of Independence that I'm fairly certain I would never have appreciated had I not had our basketball coach/history teacher coming to hear my oral reports. What a good sport! And also, I might never have found Jodi Taylor, an English writer who based her main character around Agincourt.
Basketball coach being the history teacher! That is so funny and on point! Middle school and high school Basketball coaches were both the history teachers who could care less about history. It’s like they just checked off the federal governments checklist and moved on without a care about it. It’s sad really.
Thomas B Chastain wrote a detailed family history of the Plantagenet (sorry I slaughtered it) dynasty of England, and excellent read. Edward Gibbons Decline and fall of the Roman Empire will give you the answer to any questions about Rome. And Sir Steven Runciman wrote a history of the crusades. These three I cannot highly recommend enough for you. They are all action packed.
I jump to watch anything that Tim is involved with...he is an incredible and superb scholar and archaeologist...Just as Sue Black and her team are as well.
I always enjoy learning from Dr. Malin, she’s a true expert and professional. Most documentaries only give material written and presented by actors, like Tony Robinson.
Appreciate the new takes on old givens. So much of our collective history is wrapped up in folk tales and accounts written centuries later. By using other branches of science, we can actually realize the reality of history.
@Ludo M i don’t live in the UK, and this is part of history lessons in my country too..! But of course our victories over the English are far more known, including sailing undiscovered over the Theems, to set fire to 13 ships and stealing the Royal Charles and got out without a scratch. Our moments of glory right there. Only 500 years ago Haha.
This program was posted up years ago after this program 1st aired. And I watched it many times…. But now someone has re-posted it with a cool image to click on when scrolling through topics. Wonder why?
Curry has been largely discredited vis her estimation of army sizes - French records are sparse, so you certainly can't extrapolate from them with any real confidence. There are clear primary source lists that give 100+ lords and bannerets (including 3 dukes), 3000 other knights, and 2500+ men-at-arms not wearing heraldic identification as killed at Agincourt. A further 2 dukes, 4 counts and about 700 other knights are recorded by - name - as prisoners. Anyone who knows anything about Medieval French armies would realize that an army that included 5 dukes and over 100 other lords and bannerets would be able to muster 30,000 men minimum. Curry seems unaware that, for each knight, a squire (armed and equipped the same) and a page (also mounted and armed) would have gone into battle with the lords and knights. Should have found a more credible expert for this doc.
I think the size of the battle field played apart, long tappering, heavey muddy under foot, lots of heavy armored knights, etc, lighter foot soliders who could escaped the invaders
Having coincidentally read some of Anne Curry's work while looking into this subject, I believe she may have been, to a certain degree, misrepresented by the writers of this documentary. At the very least, she doesn't come off as the type to say "The rolls say X, so there must be X people". I wonder whether her talking about the size of the armies during the actual interview had more "but"s and uncertainties that were cut for the documentary for writing and pacing purposes. After all, this documentary is not a scientific journal, and should be expected to be at the very least less nuanced than one.
I agree, I was furious when she pretended both armies were the same size. Not only were there most of the top French nobility there but also from Germany and the Low Lands! Funniest thing, though, was the fact that many 'royals' were killed on the French side and then France became STRONGER while the British King who won...went home with his French Princess and she produced an insane son and the many intact nobles in England (all relatives of King Henry V) went to war with each other viciously and murderously and the horrors of the War of the Roses and the deaths of the Princes in the Tower and the hunchback king Richard...was the final outcome of the 'victory' in France.
It's not just about bravery, it's also about glory. The men didn't have an idea that they were fighting for their lives ... How vacuous can some of these commentaries get?
According to records I have a Grandfather Ancestor named Piers Leigh who fought there in Henry’s Army. He was badly wounded there but later died near Paris
It is a classic case of overconfidence and that led to their defeat. They totally discounted the English Longbow. Prior to this, a mounted knight was exceptionally strong. They looked across the battlefield and saw a lack of the mounted knights in the English lines. They did not realize that the longbow totally negated the advantage of the knights. Thus, they confidently charged into their defeat.
@@brianeleighton the French were well aware of English tactics having been defeated at Crecy. They also had competent leadership, who were very experienced in war. It seems they couldn’t control the noblemen who did exactly what they didn’t want them to do multiple times. Overconfidence by the noblemen played a major role.
@@barnsnoble3105 That's right. Their senior commanders were experienced and competent. Their younger, less experienced subordinates couldn't contain themselves.
The English marched straight toward them, provoked them by firing arrows at them from 400m, and hoped they would engage on terms suitable for the English. They should have stood still. Longbows aren't that effective from that range.
@@barnsnoble3105 yes, agree. The guy in charge was of lower status than the nobles. This happened at Bannockburn too, when the nobles conducted unsupported cavalry charges with disastrous results.
Just a little aside. If you are of 100% English lineage and born in 1980, you had 14 male great grandparents 17 times removed at Agincourt. I had 7 because half of my family is scots/Irish, so I would have been well represented at Bannockburn. :)
Apparently, the French forgot about the Battle of Crecy, some 70 years earlier. In Crecy, as in Agincourt, English archers decimated the French ranks, allowing another overwhelming English rout.
As if these times was not horrible enough. Living to your 25th birthday was quite a blessing (reader being the judge)itself. Marching around with bleeding feet, fouled food and water. The smell of cheese from your infected friends. My god have we gotten blunt in minds.
I’m a bit puzzled by Professor Curry’s idea that the two armies were similar & proportional in terms of class composition. If Henry V had a fighting force of 7000 archers and 1500 men at arms (plus baggage train), how is that akin to an army of 1400 mounted knights, 5000 archers and crossbowmen, plus a further 5-8,000 French UN mounted knights & men at arms? Archers were lightly armoured, had backup weapons for their bows & arrows, and were taken from the lower class & rural populations. So, like so many English armies, the victors of Agincourt indeed were predominantly “ordinary Tommies”, unless I’m misunderstanding something.
This documentary is completely unhelpful, especially the part wbere the two men have a l-o-n-g conversation. Could have wrapped the whole documentary up in 5 minutes-"We looked and found nothing. Good night."
It happens occasionally in archeology. You don't always find what you are looking for. However that doesn't detract from the fact it was an interesting documentary on a fairly controversial and rather well known subject. You didn't like it but that's your opinion and opinions are not facts. Don't try to downplay it based on that alone. They followed in another's footsteps. It's hard to follow the facts when they were mixed up and twisted over time
@@derrickguffey4775 Oh, I'm sorry. This was the number one blockbuster at the theater and drew the biggest audience since the super bowl!! Seriously, though, you are correct, that sometimes in archeology you find nothing. With that said, instead of the title that they did use, instead they should have named it "Two Guys Having a Really Long Boring Conversation.." The video also should have come with a disclaimer that "an intense need for interest in medieval history and a healthy dose of No-Doz was required."
@@The_Dudester arrogance does not become you your screen name though does reveal something about you. Haughty and prideful. Again qualities in a person that are less than desirable. If you think you could in fact produce a better documentary then why haven't you. Where is your RU-vid channel pray tell. Until you can do better then it's best not to criticize
My own Brit side of the family was at the Battle of Hastings as one of the invaders back then. We went around the earth, invading this and that. Some ended up in the New World, too. Multiple sons in the lower nobility had to find some place to invade and take over since they inherited no lands in England as was the custom.
Your great grandfather 17 times removed. You have 2,000 of those. There were only around 700,000 male adults in England at the time, and just under 1.5 % of them were at Agincourt. All other things being equal, 14 of your direct but distant male bloodline were at Agincourt. And 7 of mine because I have 2 irish/Scots male great grandparents
The KINGDOM OF FRANCE won the Hundred Years' War. Agincourt is just one battle romanticized by English historians. It was a war between French noble houses and one of them just happened to be rulers of England. What was at stake was the throne of France claimed by an "English" king whose father belonged to the French Plantagenet dynasty ruling in England and whose mother, the Queen of England, was the daughter of a Capetian King of France. If the rulers of England that time were not French, there would be no "English" claim to the French throne at all.
This is true of course, but by this time the English royal House no longer thought of itself as French. This happened as a direct result of the hundred years war. Edward I d. 1407 was the first English king since the Norman Conquest not to speak French.
Long ago I learned that there was never any form of peace treaty after Agincourt - so that technically speaking, England and France are still at war! Actually I assume that there are many battles and wars which start and end without declarations of war and peace treaties... but interesting for someone to research, maybe?
That’s like counting the Commissioned Officers and not counting any of the enlisted. It was like the Airforce where the Officers went to battle and enlisted don’t have wings. One noble thing is that the aristocracy who owned the land went to fight themselves rather than sending in the peasants to do that fighting considering that it was their own interest rather than the plebs and surfs
My grandmother was from France and was very patriotic about France and the French and all things French as a Ww2 survivor and the ss always looking for her father in hiding with the French resistance. I’m surprised they lasted the years as a separate country. They lived to much for joy and didn’t get the good end of many historical events because of arrogance and self indulgence and the cost of to many wars and defeats plus inner turmoils.
I cannot imagine the suffering and hardship these guys went through both in battle and just life in general during this time. I read a book a while back (I think called the Face of Battle) that did an in depth study of all the chronicles and sources of the Battle of Agincourt and I remember it said a good amount of knights on both sides were suffering from dysentery but because of the time consuming effort to remove and put armor back on, they just had to relieve themselves inside their armor. Another thing I remember from the book was that a lot of the combatants got drunk before the battle to calm the nerves.
Um, drinking and fighting have been hand in glove since the invention of swords and booze! Yup. For real! Muslims had to do this with drugs since booze was verboten. Then everyone else discovered this, too. So both are enablers. See, you DON'T FEEL PAIN. Trust me on this.
If you are still interested in the subject, I recommend checking out "Arrows vs Armour" by the RU-vid channel Tod's Workshop. In the video they use historically accurate armour, arrows as well as longbow in order to test the piercing capabilities of arrows as they would have been during the Battle of Agincourt. A very interesting watch.
It could pierce armour close-up. It was more a psychological weapon against armour, but if you weren't wearing good armour, it was devastating, especially as the archers put the arrowhead in the soil, which made sure the wound would go septic. That was deliberate by the way.
I often wonder how many of those poor 🐎🐴 horses perished in battle. They never get any recognition. I mean that is how they traveled right...Wasn't like they rode in on goats.
If Liberty 🗽 has found it's stronghold in the United States , it's front lines and beginning starts with France Viva la revolution Viva la liberty. Protect the birth of freedom
Many Thanks to the Marquis de Lafayette!! He was critical to our own success in the American Revolution! We in the U.S. are, or should be, very grateful for his enthusiasm for our cause!! We are also thankful that Napoleon Bonaparte won his release from prison!! 😃 His support for the American Revolution until it's end in 1783 and his continued desire to obtain Liberty in France before and after his arrest warrant and 5 year imprisonment never wavered!! He continued his passion for Liberalism and Natural Rights after his release... staying true to his principles!! Be Well!!
I can understand why the French people weren't helpful to Woodford, after all they had just suffered another defeat by the English. Woodford may have been a respectful good man, but you don't know what the men he had with him might have been saying to the locals. Although I would think some French archeologists would be interested in such a mystery. They might have more luck.
If you see the amount of arrows fired vs the amount of French deaths ( even if we assume every Frenchmen was killed by an arrow which is far from the case ) I wouldn’t call it a nuclear missile. While the longbow did have a use by injuring the horses and forcing the heavy armored knights to proceed on foot Agincourt was mainly fought hand to hand. The new spike defenses and muddy terrain was the real winner of Agincourt. Especially considering it has already been proven that 1 the longbow would be unable to pierce a knights plate and 2 the longbow was used horizontally at a closer range than initially thought instead of the previously thought long range arched volley. This documentary has quiet a few flaws.
This is last part of. The 100 years war…still France is hell of a lot bigger than England…his son could never reign France and England, maybe Henry could have reigned France and England if he did not die of dysentery in France, but I don’t think so…
The FRENCH did ride down the archers earlier before the battle that's why they were ordered to carry a stake. The rich families sent servants to retrieve the bodies of their dead menfolk to be burred in hallowed ground near their estates.
What's this about? The battle of Agincourt? Or is it about Woodford? Is this an archeological program? Or a drama about the misconceptions about Woodford, and what a fantastic idea he had to follow, for archeoligists?
This makes the English sound like a small band of desperadoes. In reality, this expedition was meticulously planned, staffed and abundantly funded and supplied. I suppose it makes the English seem more glorious to pretend that their chances of winning were small.
In truth it was just like that most of Henry's men were extremely sick at the time and archers historically speak were not known to stand and fight against an on coming charge of heavy cavalry. And it's a fact the English were heavily outnumbered. Even though battlefield numbers may have been exaggerated. And add to that the fact that before this battle arrows had little to no effect on plate armor. It was only with the bodkin arrow and a close range that the French knights armor was punctured and obviously their mounts were also killed decreasing their combat effectiveness almost in half. So the odds were I fact against the English , thought it was a well planned and funded expedition.
So it went from the belief of 20,000 - 40,000 French troops and 1,500 - 5,000 English troops to 12,000 - 15,000 French troops and 9,000 - 12,000 English troops. The French were just as tired and hungry as the English and both had the logistical problems of moving massive amounts of men through long distances. The myth of the English longbow seems to hold though, excellent piece of technology. So simple yet so powerful in delivery.
Why would the French gave up after this supposedly tactical defeat? They could easily raise 20,000 - 30,000 strong army, as Joan of Arc and others did a decade later. IMO the contemporaries view Agincourt as an absolute disaster, enough for them to give up the throne.
@@ihl0700677525 Well in the video the expert even states that raising an army that large (30,000+) was just not plausible at the time. Sure you could easily find 30,000 people in France but not 30,000 able bodied fighting men like she mentioned. You had to teach them to become a soldier as well. They had to learn formations, tactics, logistics, maintain equipment, physically able to carry armor and weapons over great distances.
@@ihl0700677525 The Crusaders army was consisted of many regions, not just France. That’s with all crusades. Also, the majority of people traveling with the crusaders army were peasants used as labor and citizens making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. And they didn’t mobilize 40,000 troops, that’s just the number that were involved during the first crusade, which lasted 3 years. It was a steady stream of Western Europeans for 3 years, not a massive troop build up which France didn’t and couldn’t do at the time of the crusades. So no, the crusades are not proof France could build up such a fighting force.
I'm not altogether sure how strong feelings of nationalism were at this time. This was an era of dynasties and local loyalties. Certainly we know that Scottish nationalism was well nigh nonexistent at Bannockburn. The age of nationalism had not arrived yet.
You maybe wouldn't be typing this comment if people didn't defend whether ideologically or by physical force. Otherwise one civilization that only agrees with "war" would just take over the entire planet and would have never lost control. All species are at some form of war, war is a fact of life. Wars can be pointless, of course, but given the time span of all species some are inevitable.
@@Despond How do wars end? Lots of people die and then the sides finally talk it over and make a settlement. Wouldn't it be better if we would talk to one another about our disputes long before it boiled over into war? Wouldn't that save more lives and aren't lives more important than any of the bullshit we fight over in the world?
He stands with those who believe him the Europe are Catholic the English kicked the Catholics out and were given the blessings of Israel that's how they got to rule the world
Admittedly haven’t watched the whole thing, but she didn’t mention England’s siege of Harfleur that brought about killed, injured, as well as desertion and disease in the aftermath.
Henry sent for reinforcements during the siege to replace losses and the sick. The army that left Harfleur was not disease ridden and bedraggled, but reinforced and freshly supplied. Henry would not have marched around northern France with a decimated sickly army.
How come no one mentions the fact that the French Battle Plan was found out by Henry's army the French plan is not a bad plan bit the Henry's army knowing the plan was able to pick a spot on the battle field to nullify the Calvary if they said it I didn't hear it
YAY - they are wearing gloves. It is so frustrating seeing even trained archeologists handling artefacts (particularly parchments and papers) not wearing gloves - here they are (mostly).
To be fair, gloves aren't always considered the gold standard practice anymore. Many encourage instead thorough hand washing. It's thought that gloves can cause damage as well. They certainly sacrifice dexterity, which is risky with archival materials and artifacts.
If you do the research you'd find out quite a bit about your surname. Though the bow started its long history as a hunting weapon so it could be possible you are descended from a hunter as well
@@derrickguffey4775 Many British names were based on one's occupation. I have Bard members in my family tree, for example. Obviously, one of them was called 'the Bard' and entertained royalty in the Middle Ages.
@@emsnewssupkis6453 that's a fact I'm rather well aware of and I'm my original comment I didn't disagree whatsoever. In fact if you read what I said you'll find I did in fact agree.
@@derrickguffey4775 My other ancestors came from a French Huguenot family named 'Pettit' which is French for 'small businessmen in towns and cities' and when the Queen mother of France ordered the extermination of all Huguenots, he was at sea and couldn't return so he became a pirate and traces of my family's activities in the New World are easy to find because they named every town they created here either 'Lima' or 'Peru' as a inside joke about where the money for this came from originally. Gold and silver the Spanish exported from the Americas were stamped with either name showing where it came from!
I'm guessing the reason little to no excavation has been completed is it's the English wanting to excavate. Also thinking the shame & resentment of the loss is the reason the French don't excavate the site to find their own dead. Some wounds don't heal.
Maybe french don't care... Azincourt was à small battle for the french, and this battle don't allow the english to win the war so we just don't care ^^ It's make me laught to see the english men celebrating again and again a battle that mean nothing in the war... And it's really surprising to see that no french historian are presented to share an other point of view ^^ It's look like propaganda :) So if this battle is so important why Aquitaine Still french today ? And why I can't see on english Chanel the french victory of the hundred year war.... Maybe thinking the shame & resentiment of the loss is the reason the english don't talk about the other battle of the hundred year war...some wounds don't heal...^^
I doubt they see it like that. They probably don't know about it. We English all know Crecy, Agincourt, and Poitiers, because we won them. Castille, Patay etc are less known, but I bet your average French man can name them.
@@luismackenson but seriously; do you know better the battles you won or the battles you lost? Knowledge of the hundred years war is limited to the victories here, and, Agincourt gets special attention because of Shakespeare's Henry V.
The French also had some notable victories between Crecy and Aginciurt. They're just not talked about in England because they spoil our national myth of the invincibility of the longbow. Keegan ascribes their defeat to leaving their positions in treacherous muddy conditions. The men at arms found it hard to keep their footing. The French army broke the cardinal rule medieval warfare. Let your enemy come to you.
@fredericksandelia9648 the French did rather well in the 1380s I believe. The war didn't become terminal until the 1440s. In hindsight the English had no chance. They were fighting a country of 10 million people with a population of 2 million, dependent on disunity in France and an alliance with Burgundy. Henry V. wasn't seeking a decisive engagement in 1415, just to let the French know he hadn't rescinded his claim.
Perhaps if the French had not flown their Oriflamme flag (take no prisoners) so many of them would not have been slaughtered by the cornered English. Bernard Cornwell has an excellent novel "Agincourt" very well worth reading. How timely. Just finished reading the novel in October!!
These numbers ain’t right, on the field the English had about twelve thousand, with their French counterparts having about twenty thousand men, not the about equal these fools say, every source I can think of give that number with about 3000 English being lost by the time the twelve thousand remaking took the field
Well, uh, can we come up and have a look? Of course not! You are English Type! Well what are you then!? I'm French! Why do you think I have this outrageous accent you silly king!
If both armies were roughly the same size, why then was the English army running from the French army? Sounds like a lot of revisionist history coming from those who want to get attention in their field.
@@2l84t At the beginning of the war the English claimed and/or occupied a large portion of France, and even the throne of France. At the end of the war they only held Calais, which they also lost. Both sides fought for power and territory not the "100 Year War Cup" or to marry the beautiful French princess (which happened any way). The English won most of the glamorous battles the French won the war. WINNING- its not how you start its how you finish.
Typical English boasting. Well mr Englishman boast about this, The Anglo Boer war lasted 3 years, The British had 550,000 troops in South Africa to subdue 20,000 farmers 'Boers' and to win the Brits rounded up the Boer women and chidren and put them in concentration camps where they died like flies(expert say about one sixth of the Boer population were wiped out) and it still took the mighty British empire 3 year to defeat a few farmers......... It cost the lives of 250 million people in the construction of the mighty British empire..... think about that .... The Nazis were amatures
With all the recent downplaying I’ve been hearing, of the battle numbers at Towton and Agincourt for instance, it feels a bit to me like historians not giving the capabilities of the Medieval man enough credit.
It's really amazing that France as a country still exists today. They seem to have gotten the short end of the stick during pivotal moments in history that could easily have seen them become part of other countries.
At Patay in 1429 the archers were killed. The French knights began using milanese armour which the arrows couldn't penetrate, and cut them down. From then on, the English struggled in France.
OK documentary - establishes that the facts of Azincourt are not known - nor even the exact location. Could have used some drone footage of the battle field area.
I am American and I love English history it is amazing especially the 100 hundred years war such a fantastic time period from King Edward lll to King Henry 5👑🏴 🏹
@fredericksandelia9648 . The English Kings spoke English by this time. The nobility had French ancestory sure, but they didn't think of themselves as French. National identity wasn't as strong as in our age of nation states. It was much more about your local lord back then. The archers were from England too. You had to practice archery on a Sunday by law at that time. The war didn't start going badly until Charles the Mad died, and England got its own mad king, Henry VI. But objectively, England had little chance of winning with a population of under 2 million against a country of 10 million.
bring in Sir Tony Robinson and the 'Time Team' for their famous 3-day scans and excavations and history people locating documents that shed immense amounts of light on things! Always entertaining, respectful and informative!
It’s completely untrue and ridiculous that the French “thought they were going to a party”. Why make the French sound stupid and naive? They weren’t, their only mistakes were perhaps over-relying on their splendid cavalry and underestimating the number and effectiveness of the English/Welsh long-bow men. “The flower of French Chivalry” was once a good phrase, but it’s been done to death, like “the sands of time”.
After Agincourt, the King married a French Princess whose daddy was insane. His son, Henry VI was born, daddy died in France and baby grew up...INSANE. This led to the infamous War of the Roses wherein the British royals tried to exterminate each other including killing young children, too. Few survived.
