Siege of Harfleur, 1415 AD ⚔️ Battle of Agincourt (Part 1 / 2) ⚔️ A Baptism of Fire 

When will part 2 come out?

@@emmanuelfernandez04 About a week.

@@HistoryMarche I'm gonna take a quick shower, and than come out to watch your vids. Keep going. Hope you reach 5 million subscribers someday. Can you btw focus on some battles in Southeast Asia? It would pretty nice if you gave that region a bit love.

Brilliant as always. May I ask the song at the end of the video?

@@HistoryMarche Ok Thank You and Merry Christmas

🤔

🤔

🤔

🤔

@@mvmed12 🤔

That French pronunciation of Charles would have pleased Mark. 🧐

I wish Mark Felton wouldn't be a plagiarising scumbag with bad sourcing, maybe I'd actually enjoy his videos then. Google Mark Felton badhistory if you want proof, sadly I can't link in the YT comments.

@@اسماعيلضياء-ظ1ب dork

@@Icetubexd omg. You are correct....a lot of sources too

Yeah, that was the politest way possible to hint at how horrific dysentery can be.

Thank you very much :)

I am forcing myself to wait until I can watch part 2 at the same time..... too hard!

@@TheAbundantDuck Get your popcorn ( or snack of choice ) ready...

Glad you enjoyed it!

Harfleur doesn't fit into the Shakespearean epos, a few French repelling a large Anglo-Welsh army with canons for a month while inflicting many casualties. Had the French Ost completely avoid the battle, this expedition would have been a complete failure.

My thoughts exactly

@@HistoryMarche---😊👍

Indeed, Poitiers was my first video. Back to the roots! :D

Thank you sir.

Thank you! Cheers!

You're not the only one! Cheers!

Az új V. Henrik filmben az ostrom ez lenne, de mint látni, köze sincs annak a valósághoz... Abban a filmben az ostrom minimalista, és pontatlan is. Egyáltalán nem látni lőporos fegyvereket benne...

@@kristofantal8801 Ezt most erre a videóra érted?

@@miklosszanyi620 A Netflixesre értem...

@@kristofantal8801 Ja, én azt nem láttam. Okés, köszi a helybeigazítást, így már értem, hát igen, elég kevés olyan film/sorozat van, ami történelmileg hiteles, bár ez valamelyest a nézettség rovására menne.

@@miklosszanyi620 Nyilván nem erre a videóra gondoltam, ez profi! :) :D

Hey Dan. Armchair also has a new video.

Im confused since I remember not seeing cannons on The King.

me too, but they didn't relate the course of the campaign right, like the assault on the first castle, and like all the knight were using armor there were no light troops , only heavy and archers

The King is based on Shakespeare not history

The siege in that movie was almost a nothing... No siege guns, no mining, minimalistic...

With our NUT Marxists - no chance!

Welcome back!

@@HistoryMarche thank you. I love the videos. Keep up the great work

Thank you sir. Welcome to the channel.

@@HistoryMarche You are welcome guys, I love it that as of late I've really enjoyed studying and reading into history and to see so many channels on here which are friendly and educational is wicked, anyway hope you all have a lovely Christmas and a happy new year too guys

Thanks KHK. Agreed on the division of France. While I didn't mention it in the story, I wanted to hint on the map that France wasn't nearly as unified as it is today.

love the little details in all your videos, a great choice!

Much appreciated!

😊 thank you

Plot twist, they lost

Thank you so much 😀

Thanks! 👍 Indeed, the use of gunpowder on this scale changed the game for the English.

@Suraj Kumar to mujhe subscribe kr le

Thanks and welcome

It's not that simple... The circumstances were different. It is not entirely era dependent, but rather country, people or state dependent. Even in ancient times, not everyone could move armies of 50,000 to 100,000 in the field... The Romans did, but the Roman Empire was a centralized, well-organized world empire. This is not an isolated case (see East Asia). Europe consisted of many decentralized states of different sizes. The political, social, economic, financial system was different. Incidentally, it was from the 15th century onwards that things began to change slowly. This was in the late Middle Ages, and by this time feudalism was slowly declining. By the way, this is a siege, not a battle... :)

Great book.

I’ve read the warlord chronicles and Saxon chronicles by Bernard Cornwall, they’re fantastic and he’s a great writer. Had no idea he wrote one about Agincourt, need to check it out.

i am reading it right now. It's a great book so far.

Thank you so much 😀

Thanks for the visit

Thank you so much!

Offspring from this man will have god-like stats, think Genius, Diligent, Shrewd, at the very least.

@@HistoryMarche Thou art one sarcastic knave!

@@HistoryMarche Yeah, Henry should have banged an Englishwoman, not that French chick.

@@doug6500 Then will be more dumber xD ;)

Anne curry’s french numbers have also been debunked, you really question how much she really cares if she can THAT wrong

Solid comment there. What are your thoughts on the numbers of French?

​@@Taiko-THC349 Go to page 57 in Clifford J. Rogers' article for the French army. Take a look at the footnotes on page 59. Her methodology is skewed. She said the latecomers: Orléans, Bourbon, Nevers and Brabant had 2,500 men together. Berry's herald have this numbers at 3,400. When we take all the late comers: Orléans 600, Bourbon 1,200, Nevers 1,200, Bar 600, Roucy & Braine 200, Brabant with probably 100 men-at-arms and around 300 men-at-arms from Hainault who put themselves under his banner, - we have a total force of 4,200, not 2,500. She's off with 1,700 on her estimates of 8,000 men-at-arms. In addition to this we have individual men-at-arms arriving under no banner - without problem 300 men-at-arms. 10,000 men-at-arms is probably correct. Berry's herald said 10,000 men-at-arms. The Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont said “a good 10,000 men-at-arms.” The Chronique Normande mentions that the French pursued the English with 10,000 men-at-arms. The chronicle of Ruisseauville said the French outnumbered the English men-at-arms by 10 to 1, making it 10,000 men-at-arms. In addition to this we have around 1,800 well armored gros valets, men Anne Curry outright ignores. She did mention 3,000 archers though, but with more men-at-arms there was also more archers and corossbowmen. Monstrelet mentioned 1,500 crossbowmen. The total was probably: 10,000 Men-at-arms 1,800 Well armoured gros valets 8,200 Gros valets 3,000 Archers 1,500 Crossbowmen 10,000 Pages 24,500 total number of combatants 34,500 total number However, 600 men-at-arms and 8,200 gros valets form the 3rd division didn't attack, so we are down to about 15,700 combatants participating in the battle. The archers and crossbowmen were routed after a few volleys, leaving around 1,600 dead and 600 wounded on the battlefield. The cavalry force on the wings also routed with around 800 men-at-arms. They English took around 1,600 men-at-arms as prisoners and killed about 6,600 men-at-arms. So only around 400 of the men-at-arms managed to get out of there, and these were probably well armoured men intended to be part of the cavalry force. However, they were busy with their horses in the rear when the English attacked. Most of them probably joined the 2nd division on foot. The 2nd division was made up of 3,400 low ranking men-at-arms and 1,600 well armoured gros valets. If these 400 well armoured men-at-arms joined the rear of the 2nd division, they had a free rout and would have survived the arrowstorm with few scratches because of their good quality medium carbon steel armour, whereas the rest of the men-at-arms with wrought iron and low-carbon steel plate armour didn't because of debilitating wounds which prevented them from escaping. The English killed: 6,600 Men-at-arms 1,800 Gros valets 1,600 Archers/crossbowmen That is a total of 8,400 well armoured men being killed, mentioned by several sources, such as Le Fèvre with 7-8,000, Waurin with 8,400 and Monstrelet with 8,400, with the two first being eye witnesses. The total number of killed was 10,000, mentioned by Le Fèvre, Monstrelet and Waurin. The reason for why the number of gros valets are estimated to be 1,800 is because the 2nd division was as big as the 1st division and the 2nd division only had 3,400 men-at-arms. For it to be 4,800 men strong, like the 1st division, the rest, some 1,400, had to be gros valets. However, the major magnates had at least 1 well armoured gros valets with them in the 1st division to look after their banner. As a result we get a 5,000 strong 1st division. If the 2nd division was as strong as the 1st division it must have been made up of 3,400 men-at-arms and 1,600 well armoured gros valets. Now we have a total of 1,800 gros valets. In other words, it was hard to distinguish dead low ranking men-at-arms from well armoured gros valets. In addition to this, many of the gros valets were in fact from the nobility, but they were poor and took the role as a servant instead. They were often the 2nd or 3rd son of poor esquires. There are not necessary clear lines here, and we see it in the estimates of Le Fèvre. My estimate is about 200 major magnates, 600 bannerets, 1,000 knight bachelors, 4800 esquires, 3400 poor esquires, 900 well armoured noble gros valets and 900 well armoured gros valets.

But war in space, am I right?

Thank you sir. Much appreciated.

Happy holidays!