Agincourt: Henry V And The Battle That Made England (2007) - Plot & Excerpts
On our military history tour of France, Christian and I plan to visit the site of the battle of Agincourt, the classic victory of Henry V's army - and especially its archers - over a much larger French host, in 1415. I was of course aware of the broad brush of this battle, but it had been a long time since I examined any details. Luckily, my (very long) books-to-be-read list had this Agincourt title on it!A book only on the Battle of Agincourt itself would be brief - and so this book undertakes a broader approach. It's split into three sections. The first covers the lead up to the battle, and was wonderfully interesting. This included not only the political context - on the English side, the seizure of the throne by Henry IV and the development of Henry V as his more able successor; on the French side, the divisiveness caused by Charles VI's insanity - but also the details of preparation for the invasion. It will sound boring as I write it, but the sections on raising and equipping the invasion army, funding it, amassing it, terms of indenture, etc., are really fascinating. I had no idea, for example, that a war of this sort required the king to basically pawn much of the royal treasury (jewels, etc) as security for funds borrowed for the campaign. It really made clear what a loss would have meant for the English crown. And, of course, there are discussions on chivalry (still a very real force at the time), the bow itself, etc. I learned that one of the defining authors of the day, on matters cultural, chivalric, and military - was an extraordinary Italian woman: Christine de Pizan. The only challenge of the first section is that to truly understand the context would require much deeper knowledge of the intricacies of the inter-relationships of the English aristocracy, and that can't be done in a book of this size (360 pages excluding footnotes). The author maintains what I consider to be an irritating norm of writing about this period - using given names as well as titles interchangeably: just as one example, referring to Thomas Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, as both "Thomas Fitzalan" and "Arundel" at various references. Pick one, or use both consistently. This habit is not unique to this author...it's just irritating to me.The second section covers the campaign - and not just Agincourt the battle. The invasion, the siege and capitulation of Harfleur, the challenge of finding a place to cross the Somme, and finally the battle itself. All are discussed in detail. And the author, Barker, does a wonderful job of conveying just how desperate the English situation was. The loss of many men at Harfleur (mostly to dysentery), the lack of food, the weather. Not for the first time, nor the last, did the mud of torrential rains affect fighting in this part of the world. The battle itself was described well, no mean feat given the variations and ambiguity within the primary source material. The lack of clear leadership on the French side (with neither the crazed king nor the dauphin present), the failure of the French to take advantage of the English repositioning their archers when Henry V decided to initiate an advance, and the carnage - all are described thoroughly and from all angles. Finally, the book covers the immediate aftermath, in what I found to be a slightly rushed denouement. The impact to the French nobility, the reaction of the English populace, the use of the battle as propaganda to build support for Henry's subsequent re-conquest of Normandy in 1417 - all are there. But for this section, it seems that the author and her editors could not decide how much to include. To me, it was enough to whet the appetite, not enough to be satisfying. Still interesting enough, though.I liked the book a lot - it's a fairly quick read and I learned a lot. My only real quibble is that Barker's admiration for Henry V shines through a little too often. He was no doubt a very able king, both militarily and administratively; but when one finishes this book, one risks having the impression that this paragon of chivalry did no wrong. In the author's eyes, only Henry was confident in victory, only Henry had the foresight to make the right choices, etc. A bit tedious. This is, in fact, the same "virtuous" man who starved 1000s of women and children to death in the siege of Rouen a few years later - trapped between the lines after the city had forced the refugees out (brutal actions even given the time and context). It's not egregious, but overall the author esteems Henry V just a little too much for my tastes.Overall, though, a great book for anyone (is there anyone else?) wanting to learn a bit about Agincourt and this part of the 100 years war.
Meticulously researched, which is both its highest accomplishment and my biggest criticism.On one hand, Barker recreates not just the battle and the larger campaign in incredible detail, but also what life was like as the Age of Chivalry came to its end. We learn about the English financial calendar, French court life, medieval hunting practices, Welsh rebellions, fifteenth century religious movements, arrow production (best bow-staves were cut from a single piece of straight-grained yew, imported from Spain, Italy or Scandinavia), blacksmithing trivia, and assorted other miscellanea. All of which I loved!The first third of this book is page-turning history. Not just background and set-up, the opening section recreates the conditions that not just lead up to the Hundred Year War, but how and why Henry happened and why it matters.For someone who first learned his English history from the plays of Shakespeare, there is some great, great stuff. We learn that the famous tennis ball envoy didn't really happen but how it became a popular myth. We learn that the real Falstaff was actually a Lollard radical who plotted assassination and revolution. Sir Thomas Erpingham (Shakespeare’s “good old knight”) did serve well. And as for the St. Crispian Day speech, well, read it again.But sometimes Barker's detailed research slows the story down. In researching a bureaucracy, we get a bureaucrat's report. Long lists of who contributed how much money, how much they got paid back, how much they owed. Act 3, the final section on the aftermath, is, to me, the driest bit. Long lists of who died, who was captured, how much the ransom was, who paid it. This is a minor quibble by an armchair historian who prefers narrative over raw facts. Other readers may prefer it.Overall: recommended for fans of Medieval history, English history, Shakespeare History Plays.Here's my favorite piece of trivia: Henry II, in the twelfth century, had been so fond of the favourite party trick of one of his minstrels that he gave him a thirty-acre estate in Suffolk, on the sole condition that he and his heirs repeated it in the royal presence every Christmas. When one learns that the minstrel was known as Roland le Fartere and that the trick was to make a leap, a whistle and a fart, one can understand why his descendants had alienated the estate by the 1330s.
What do You think about Agincourt: Henry V And The Battle That Made England (2007)?
In general, I have difficulty reading history, but a lot of that comes, I think, from being forced to read incredibly dull history texts in school as a child, and being forced to memories names and dates. As opposed to The Guns Of August, I actually enjoyed this book. Perhaps it's because I like pre-modern history more than WWI. Perhaps this author just communicates in a way that appeals to me more. She did go into a lot of depth about the mechanics of making the invasion of France work, including detailed descriptions of how much men-at-arms were paid, how much provisions cost, sizes and varieties of ships, and hundreds of other details, which on the surface seems rather boring, but somehow she made it interesting to me. I learned that knights in full plate did not, in general, carry shields, which of course goes against the portrayal in almost every fantasy novel or D&D game. She covered the extent to which both sides invoked the right of God on their side. I was surprised the pervasiveness of this extremely devout language, though in retrospect I should not have been. I'm not going to ever be a huge history buff, but a book like this is encouraging.
—Baal Of
This was another of my 'essay reads' which has sat on my shelf for years but only started when needed for an assignment. I have not yet read the book in its entirety , but I am already engrossed. What I like best about this book is the way the author devotes as much attention to the background and planning stages of the campaign, as the battle and campaign in France itself. Chapters entitled 'The Diplomatic Effort' and 'Scots and Plots' reveal the broader political situation in Britain and France during Henry's reign and role of diplomacy and sometimes simple scheming in the years before the battle. One chapter in particular 'A King's apprenticeship' explores the early career of King Henry as well as some of the events and figures which influenced, formed and shaped his character, views, attitudes and motivations.The view of Henry presented here is a decidedly sympathetic (and sometimes apologetic) one, but considering how Henry has been vilified by some recent historians, this does not seem entirely unjustified-and Barker is not entirely uncritical King Henry. Perhaps the analysis of Henry's actions in the context of his situation, environment and time period is necessary to a more objective appreciation of his actions and reign. As much as Medieval notions of just war, or wars of conquest may be unpalatable or unappealing to modern sensibilities, it does seem important to appreciate such things as common or normative for this time period, as well as understanding the different way in which Medieval people might have viewed them. If the author of Agincourt can go some way towards doing this, I have no issue with it.Alongside 'Good King Harry' many other figures come to play , great and small, peasants and nobles, French and English. Whilst mentioning or exploring some aspect of their roles or important actions these figures are 'fleshed out' to gave some fascinating insights into the workings of 15th century politics and society as well as glimpses of the wider Medieval world in which those who went to Agincourt lived. One of the most fascinating biographies was that of Henry V's surgeon, Thomas Bradmore, which provided some intriguing insights into his profession during this period, and the account of an operation performed on the young Prince Henry appears to cast doubt on notions about the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of Medieval medicine.So readers of 'Agincourt' will learn about nobles, princes and Kings, about the intrigue, posturing and the workings of Medieval power politics, but coloring the narrative are surgeons, archers, and clergymen- the more humble and ordinary folk who played some part in the famous campaign and battle.
—anna
This book was published around the same time as of Anne Curry's Agincourt: A New History. While Curry is considered an expert on the subject, she gives alot of attention to historiography and I find her writing a bit dry.Barker's book is much more readable; if I wasn't in a rush to finish off a university term paper I really would've liked to properly read this cover to cover. It covers not only the Agincourt campaign, but also serves a short biography of Henry V and delves into some of the Armagnac-Burgundian issues dividing France at the time. Barker isn't afraid to go off on interesting tangents, such as explaining the difficulty in establishing what date Henry's army left Harfleur.While this book is still very favorable to Henry V, I felt it comes across better than Hibbert's Agincourt. That book is four decades older and half the length of this one; it also comes across as too much of a glorification of Henry.
—Josh Liller
