Agincourt

Rating:
Summary: Good History of a Remarkable Battle
Review: Agincourt by Christopher Hibbert is a worthwhile overview of the campaign than led to and included the battle of Agincourt. Hibbert does a fine job recreating the events that led to the battle as well as the battle itself. However, the authors penchant for utilizing quotes solely in french is to say the least annoying. That aside, the strength of the book is the events that lead to the battle.

If one did not know the outcome of the battle before reading the book, Henry's victory at Agincourt would have come as a complete surprise. The English Army was much smaller when it arrived in France, and as each day progressed it was further depleted by battle, illness and the need to garrison towns. The French Army, which was several times the size of the English Army, had strung out the English Army. The English Army was short on food, deep in enemy country and was experiencing low morale.

What turned the tide, was the superior generalship of Henry V, the impatience of the French heavy cavalry, and the superior quality of English weaponry, particularly the long bow. The latter, gave the English the ability to make the French pay heavily for their impatience. Hibbert's writes in a very readable manner, and the book is recommended for one who wants a basic understanding of this portion of the Hundred Years War.

Rating:
Summary: Henry V: a great hero or lucky thug?
Review: Although succinct, Christopher Hibbert's account of Henry V's campaign in France in 1415, culminating in the amazing Battle of Agincourt, remains a fascinating read for serious students of history. Agincourt consists of ten short chapters, beginning with the preparations for Henry V's expedition to France, the siege of Harfleur, the crossing of the Somme River, the battle of Agincourt itself, and the aftermath of the battle. There are several sketch maps, which while conveying the basic data, but no more. The author also includes five appendices: genealogical tables for the French and English kings, one of Henry V's campaign contracts, Henry V's retinue, Henry V's ordinances of war and Henry's challenge to the Dauphin. I have read other accounts of Agincourt, but there is little doubt that Hibbert's writing style, command of relevant sources and analysis makes this one of the best modern accounts available. Most important, the author challenges the reader to assess Henry V's character and skill in light of all the facts, good and bad.

A distinguishing feature of this account is the author's use of statistics to reinforce his narrative; for example, the author notes the huge amount of horses that were taken with the English expedition - about 25,000 (for an army that had only 10,000 fighting men). Also, Hibbert details the costly financial side of the expedition - the English army was becoming professional and expensive - and Henry V was forced to pawn some of his crowns to gain the sums required. Hibbert also discusses the English military preparations in great detail and notes that Henry required all of his troops to wear a large red St George's cross on front and back for identification - a first.

Hibbert's discussion of the entire 1415 Campaign is incisive and is surprisingly open to criticism of Henry V, which is amazing given the traditional hero worship accorded the young king. Since the great victory at Agincourt and Shakespeare's version of it, Henry V has ridden off into history as the "the greatest Englishman of his time" and "England's greatest soldier." However, an objective reader - bearing in mind moral and cultural differences of the 15th Century - will find it hard to admire Henry V in this account. Henry V was so determined to invade France and assert his dubious claims on territory there that he continually rejected French efforts at negotiation (the French made very generous offers, which he would have been a greater king to accept). Hibbert includes one odd letter Henry V wrote to the French king demanding that the French concede his ridiculous claims and, "in the name of the merciful bowels of Jesus Christ to do us justice." Instead of a hero, Henry V appears more like a glory-hound or land-hungry thug.

Henry's generalship is also in question for three reasons: Harfleur, the Somme crossing and choice of battle at Agincourt. After landing in France, Henry spent weeks besieging Harfleur, costing his army many casualties due to illness. Once he had Harfleur, the victory was hollow because it didn't lead to any useful result - just one more position to defend in France - and Henry opted to march toward Calais hoping for something more substantial to turn up. Henry's plan to cross the Somme was blocked by a fast-moving French advance guard and Hibbert notes that the English king was "outgeneraled" in the first phase of the campaign. Hibbert's description of the incredibly awkward English crossing at the Voyenne ford is surely no indication of great generalship and one wonders what might have occurred if the nearby French army had caught the English in mid-crossing. Even at Agincourt, the French initially appeared to hold the advantage by getting ahead of Henry and blocking his path to Calais with an army four times the size of his own tired, depleted force. If the French did not attack, but merely blockaded the small English army, Henry would have been in a desperate position. Instead, Henry used the French command confusion to move up his army and sting the reluctant French into a poorly executed frontal attack that ended in disaster. To be sure, Hibbert points out that Henry was a brave soldier, in the thick of the fight, and that his bold, confident attitude spurred his troops to victory. The French army, although large in size, suffered from divided command, whereas the small English army enjoyed unity of command.

Still, the reader might wonder how the English would have fared if the French had been able to mount effective flank attacks through the woods. Also, the English use of hasty field obstacles - sharpened stakes - raises the issue, what if the French had used obstacles as well? If the French had emplaced obstacles to their front and covered them with artillery and crossbowmen, Henry might not have brought the French to grips. Indeed, a French Fabian strategy in 1415 would have quickly exposed the strategic poverty of Henry's expedition.

Rating:
Summary: Henry V: a great hero or lucky thug?
Review: Although succinct, Christopher Hibbert's account of Henry V's campaign in France in 1415, culminating in the amazing Battle of Agincourt, remains a fascinating read for serious students of history. Agincourt consists of ten short chapters, beginning with the preparations for Henry V's expedition to France, the siege of Harfleur, the crossing of the Somme River, the battle of Agincourt itself, and the aftermath of the battle. There are several sketch maps, which while conveying the basic data, but no more. The author also includes five appendices: genealogical tables for the French and English kings, one of Henry V's campaign contracts, Henry V's retinue, Henry V's ordinances of war and Henry's challenge to the Dauphin. I have read other accounts of Agincourt, but there is little doubt that Hibbert's writing style, command of relevant sources and analysis makes this one of the best modern accounts available. Most important, the author challenges the reader to assess Henry V's character and skill in light of all the facts, good and bad.

A distinguishing feature of this account is the author's use of statistics to reinforce his narrative; for example, the author notes the huge amount of horses that were taken with the English expedition - about 25,000 (for an army that had only 10,000 fighting men). Also, Hibbert details the costly financial side of the expedition - the English army was becoming professional and expensive - and Henry V was forced to pawn some of his crowns to gain the sums required. Hibbert also discusses the English military preparations in great detail and notes that Henry required all of his troops to wear a large red St George's cross on front and back for identification - a first.

Hibbert's discussion of the entire 1415 Campaign is incisive and is surprisingly open to criticism of Henry V, which is amazing given the traditional hero worship accorded the young king. Since the great victory at Agincourt and Shakespeare's version of it, Henry V has ridden off into history as the "the greatest Englishman of his time" and "England's greatest soldier." However, an objective reader - bearing in mind moral and cultural differences of the 15th Century - will find it hard to admire Henry V in this account. Henry V was so determined to invade France and assert his dubious claims on territory there that he continually rejected French efforts at negotiation (the French made very generous offers, which he would have been a greater king to accept). Hibbert includes one odd letter Henry V wrote to the French king demanding that the French concede his ridiculous claims and, "in the name of the merciful bowels of Jesus Christ to do us justice." Instead of a hero, Henry V appears more like a glory-hound or land-hungry thug.

Henry's generalship is also in question for three reasons: Harfleur, the Somme crossing and choice of battle at Agincourt. After landing in France, Henry spent weeks besieging Harfleur, costing his army many casualties due to illness. Once he had Harfleur, the victory was hollow because it didn't lead to any useful result - just one more position to defend in France - and Henry opted to march toward Calais hoping for something more substantial to turn up. Henry's plan to cross the Somme was blocked by a fast-moving French advance guard and Hibbert notes that the English king was "outgeneraled" in the first phase of the campaign. Hibbert's description of the incredibly awkward English crossing at the Voyenne ford is surely no indication of great generalship and one wonders what might have occurred if the nearby French army had caught the English in mid-crossing. Even at Agincourt, the French initially appeared to hold the advantage by getting ahead of Henry and blocking his path to Calais with an army four times the size of his own tired, depleted force. If the French did not attack, but merely blockaded the small English army, Henry would have been in a desperate position. Instead, Henry used the French command confusion to move up his army and sting the reluctant French into a poorly executed frontal attack that ended in disaster. To be sure, Hibbert points out that Henry was a brave soldier, in the thick of the fight, and that his bold, confident attitude spurred his troops to victory. The French army, although large in size, suffered from divided command, whereas the small English army enjoyed unity of command.

Still, the reader might wonder how the English would have fared if the French had been able to mount effective flank attacks through the woods. Also, the English use of hasty field obstacles - sharpened stakes - raises the issue, what if the French had used obstacles as well? If the French had emplaced obstacles to their front and covered them with artillery and crossbowmen, Henry might not have brought the French to grips. Indeed, a French Fabian strategy in 1415 would have quickly exposed the strategic poverty of Henry's expedition.

Rating:
Summary: Needs a different reader
Review: Being a history major, more familiar than the average person with English history, as well as having read all of Shakespeare more than once and still remembering some high school French, I thought this tape was a good acquisition by my small local library. However, in my opinion the choice of reader was unfortunate. David Case's style of reading is the epitome of an upper-class British accent that can only be described as snobbish. I found it very distracting in its singsong quality and his avoidance of the natural places to pause in the text. In addition, the verses of the unattributed song or poem at the beginning of each chapter were nearly incomprehensible. They sounded like they were in Middle English, and Case's reading did little to endear them to me. The same for the quotations in French, which became quite numerous in the later chapters. This tape should have had a notation, "in English and French," to warn listeners that command of spoken (not just written) French was necessary for full enjoyment. Case's French seemed well pronounced, as far as I could tell, but it was never translated (as I assume it was not in the text) and even when he was simply listing the names of the French dead, I could only understand about half of it.

With that said, this is certainly a well-researched book which taught me a good deal about Agincourt that I didn't know. The advertised "incisive portrait of Henry V" was somewhat more obvious than I expected, but this is not a biography so perhaps I was being unreasonable. As a military history it is impeccable.

Rating:
Summary: A classic returns to print
Review: Christoper Hibbert's brief history of the battle of Agincourt on 21 October 1415, a seeming turning point of the Hundred Years' War, was originally published in 1964. This reprint edition is not an update, other than the inclusion of some recent bibliographic entries, but, since the original book was based mainly on the surviving contemporary accounts of the battle, there is little to change that would interest any but the narrowest of specialist. Since the intended audience for this text is the advanced undergraduate or graduate student or the well-versed layperson, and given Hibbert's obvious mastery of the surviving sources, there is little need for revision. Hibbert traces the background of the battle, from the raising of Henry V's army, to the seige of Harfleur on the coast of Normandy, to the desperate march to Calais that led, more or less inadvertantly, to the battle itself. Forced to fight and vastly outnumbered, perhaps as much as six-to-one, Henry took advantge of favorable ground, but was also blessed by old-fashioned French tactics and internal rivalries and divisions among his foes. As at Crecy and Poitiers, the English longbows proved decisive over the heavily armored French, many more of whom were slaughtered after they lost their mounts or their footing on the soggy field and, wearing heavy suits of armor, were unable to get to their feet. Literally several thousand Frenchmen were killed, including an impressive cross-section of the noble class, while the English suffered only a handful of casualties. Having described the battle and the reasons for the English victory, Hibbert briefly outlines the aftermath of the campaign as an exhausted English army retreated to home, even while the road to Paris seemingly lay open. Within five years, Henry V, the English victor at Agincourt, would be dead, and within another thirty it would become obvious that the English claim to the crown of France would never be realized. Whether Henry V was the greatest medieval English warrior-king or a bigoted and cruel prig, and whether the Hundred Years' War itself was a noble venture or a pointless exercise in fading chivalric pride, all must be considered elsewhere, for they are not the focus of Hibbert's book. For those with at least a nodding aquaintaince with medieval history, this is a classic book well worth the read. For those with little background in the subject, it would be a difficult book to appreciate. However, it is nice to see a minor classic text like this returned to print for a new generation of students, and this paperback edition is well worth the modest expense. While the whole of the Hundred Years' War is not considered here, the battle of Agincourt itself is given a full and convincing treatment that has stood the test of time very well and, barring the discovery of some unknown source materials, it unlikely to be superceded.

Rating:
Summary: Needs Some Translations
Review: I found this to be an interesting and easy read with one exception. The Author has a number of quotes that appear only in French. While I would love to say that I speak this fine language I do not, so I missed part of the story. I would hope that if this is released as a second edition this would be corrected.

Rating:
Summary: An Introduction To A Battle
Review: In "Agincourt" Christopher Hibbert gives the reader a view of the battle of Agincourt, along with the preparations and the other portions of the campaign to reclaim King Henry's French inheritance. Although mostly focusing on the English, it does give some introduction to the French forces. When I read that many of the French troops were from Normandy I wondered how many of my ancestors were fighting on that field.

I found this book to give an informative insight into the dynastic quarrels of the 15th century, the challenges of military recruitment, the methods and weapons of combat and the characters involved in this battle. The comparison and contrast between history and Shakespeare's Henry V is interesting. Hibbert's assessment of Henry's character adds depth to the book.

This book is not a comprehensive history of the era by any means, but id does provide a map shot into one moment of it. All in all this merits a high recommendation as an introduction to this historic battle and a mild introduction for the reader with broader interests in the Middle Ages.

Rating:
Summary: This story shall the good man teach his son
Review: The title of this review is from King Henry V by William Shakespeare, and aptly sums up this book.

At Agincourt on 25 October 1415, the English were vastly outnumbered, cold, wet, hungry, on foreign soil and with vastly less equipment; the result was one of the most dominating victories against international terrorism.

France was the dominant military power in Europe, with at least 60,000 troops in the field in 1415. King Henry V brought about 5,500 Englishmen to France in the summer of 1415, in response to the French who had raided the English coast with impunity for years. Think of the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001; likewise, in the early 1400s, Plymouth was burned by French marauders, the Isle of Wight had been raided the following year and later, French forces landed at Milford Haven to support Welsh rebels.

Sound familiar? Well, despite these raids, the French were "negotiating" with the English to settle differences. Negotiating, negotiating and negotiating -- like some nations ignore UN resolution after resolution after resolution. Sound more familiar? Finally, the French got serious: They sent the English envoys back with a gift of tennis balls for the King and told him to play with his balls rather than meddle in matters beyond his capacity. Well, that's the story, anyway. Sorta like Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nations don't go to war, even against blatant evil, without good emotional reasons.

King Henry V had had enough. In November 1414, Bishop Beaufort ofr Windsor told Parliament "the more their King's dominions were extended, the less would their burthens become; and these things performed, great honour and glory would necessarily ensue." Besides, for the English in 1414, fighting and killing Frenchmen was fun.

This isn't the type of book most Americans would read. But, it nicely reflects current American habits of great forbearance, patience and decisive action when the time is ripe. Like Americans now in Iraq, with access to the world's second largest oil reserves, victory meant war could be very profitable. In the time of Henry V, profits came from prisoners of war who were later ransomed back to their homelands.

Like the war on Iraq, King Henry V relied on mobility, speed and hard-hitting weapons. As in 1940 with their Maginot Line, the French relied on armour; the English had the five-foot long yew bows, firing a three-foot arrow with a steel tip that could penetrate a solid oak door that was four inches thick.

But there was another more significant difference. Then, as now, France was elitist; some French knights refused to have anything to do with common soldiers. The strength of the English army was its common soldiers who voluntarily and constantly trained to maintain their proficiency with the longbow. They were the finest infantry in Europe.

In brief, such explanations are the beauty of this book. Obviously, since it was published in 2000, it doesn't cover the attack on the World Trade Center or the War on Iraq. But, many of the themes are recognizable. Hibbert doesn't merely tell us who won at Agincourt -- the French lost about 10,000 dead, the English about 100, and the English wound up with about 1,500 high-ranking noble prisoners -- he offers reasons why.

Victory led to the recovery of all English possessions in France and made King Henry V the leader of all Christendom against the Infidels, at a time when the Crusades against Islam were the epitome of military valour. Instead of leading a Crusade, King Henry V fell ill in the summer of 1422, and died in Vincennes at the age of 34. His heir was a baby-king, with actual rule conducted by a regent; they didn't have his powers of leadership or parliamentary support. In France, faced with English indecision and confusion, Joan of Arc rallied the French and within years everything King Henry V had won was lost.

Rating:
Summary: This story shall the good man teach his son
Review: The title of this review is from King Henry V by William Shakespeare, and aptly sums up this book.

At Agincourt on 25 October 1415, the English were vastly outnumbered, cold, wet, hungry, on foreign soil and with vastly less equipment; the result was one of the most dominating victories against international terrorism.

France was the dominant military power in Europe, with at least 60,000 troops in the field in 1415. King Henry V brought about 5,500 Englishmen to France in the summer of 1415, in response to the French who had raided the English coast with impunity for years. Think of the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001; likewise, in the early 1400s, Plymouth was burned by French marauders, the Isle of Wight had been raided the following year and later, French forces landed at Milford Haven to support Welsh rebels.

Sound familiar? Well, despite these raids, the French were "negotiating" with the English to settle differences. Negotiating, negotiating and negotiating -- like some nations ignore UN resolution after resolution after resolution. Sound more familiar? Finally, the French got serious: They sent the English envoys back with a gift of tennis balls for the King and told him to play with his balls rather than meddle in matters beyond his capacity. Well, that's the story, anyway. Sorta like Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nations don't go to war, even against blatant evil, without good emotional reasons.

King Henry V had had enough. In November 1414, Bishop Beaufort ofr Windsor told Parliament "the more their King's dominions were extended, the less would their burthens become; and these things performed, great honour and glory would necessarily ensue." Besides, for the English in 1414, fighting and killing Frenchmen was fun.

This isn't the type of book most Americans would read. But, it nicely reflects current American habits of great forbearance, patience and decisive action when the time is ripe. Like Americans now in Iraq, with access to the world's second largest oil reserves, victory meant war could be very profitable. In the time of Henry V, profits came from prisoners of war who were later ransomed back to their homelands.

Like the war on Iraq, King Henry V relied on mobility, speed and hard-hitting weapons. As in 1940 with their Maginot Line, the French relied on armour; the English had the five-foot long yew bows, firing a three-foot arrow with a steel tip that could penetrate a solid oak door that was four inches thick.

But there was another more significant difference. Then, as now, France was elitist; some French knights refused to have anything to do with common soldiers. The strength of the English army was its common soldiers who voluntarily and constantly trained to maintain their proficiency with the longbow. They were the finest infantry in Europe.

In brief, such explanations are the beauty of this book. Obviously, since it was published in 2000, it doesn't cover the attack on the World Trade Center or the War on Iraq. But, many of the themes are recognizable. Hibbert doesn't merely tell us who won at Agincourt -- the French lost about 10,000 dead, the English about 100, and the English wound up with about 1,500 high-ranking noble prisoners -- he offers reasons why.

Victory led to the recovery of all English possessions in France and made King Henry V the leader of all Christendom against the Infidels, at a time when the Crusades against Islam were the epitome of military valour. Instead of leading a Crusade, King Henry V fell ill in the summer of 1422, and died in Vincennes at the age of 34. His heir was a baby-king, with actual rule conducted by a regent; they didn't have his powers of leadership or parliamentary support. In France, faced with English indecision and confusion, Joan of Arc rallied the French and within years everything King Henry V had won was lost.