The Battle of Agincourt (1415)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2015
- Patreon | historiacivilis.com/patreon
Donate | historiacivilis.com/donate
Merch | historiacivilis.com/merch
Mailing List | historiacivilis.com/mailinglist
Twitter | historiacivilis.com/twitter
Website | historiacivilis.com
Music is "The Life and Death of a Certain K. Zabriskie, Patriarch" by Chris Zabriskie. (chriszabriskie.com/)
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.75[2/2] คุยแบบนี้แล้วจะจบกี่โมงพ่ะย่ะค่ะ!!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N6E8njWH7Zg/mqdefault.jpg)
Someone played medieval 2 total war with easy ai.
I was under the impression that the French prisoners were killed because the English had so many prisoners they thought that they might over power the English.
On the reason why the English killed the prisoners: It was obvious to the English that the prisoners (numbering in the thousands) might be able to successfully revolt and cause damage and the English, at that point, were absolutely NOT going to take any tiny fraction of a risk.
Not just that but he failed to mention some French horsemen made it to the baggage train of the English hence they not only feared being flanked but they were also angry at camp followers being attacked and killed so they massacres the prisoners
"The French will undoubtedly harry our retreat- we must make haste to a transport ship so our King Henry could see beloved England"
But Henry V was on horse than,with some knights arround.In this video its written that English didnt have knights.
Petar Nićiforović
Well, you would get curbstomped in AoE2 if you had the actual numbers as things like muddy fields don't matter
Just watched a documentary on this. The French planned (the night before) to flank with Cavalry, but were unable due to the woods. The English had taken a solid position. After taunting the French, the cavalry charged without being ordered to do so (pride). The cavalry was quickly obliterated.
The French, bound by a knight's code of honor, dare not withdraw, so they moved forward despite the battle field being quite unfavorable and having lost cavalry support. The English were simply a hired army, no knight's code of honor. Pride wasn't an issue for them so they were prepared to fight differently.
The battle field was muddy/boggy, which caused duress and disarray for the French who were heavily armored and also many lines deep with only front lines being able to do any useful fighting while taking continuous arrows. They were so prone to attack that the archers went for hand to hand combat and beat them. Note that cross bows don't have range that matches a long bow. Cross bows are better for short distances with the goal of penetrating armor.
Some French reinforcements arrived and the English King took a blow to his crown. They were now being attacked from the rear. Although the many French prisoners were disarmed, they could have potentially rioted enmasse, and attacked from the rear, which would have been disastrous for the English. The English king ordered all prisoners killed except for those of most high value.
It seems there's a lot of details to this battle.
sooooooo muuuuuch text!
+klancy kennedy Most historical sources show warbows (including real, not Victorian, longbows) primarily used straight on; no angle. That means closer ranges; at that range, it can go through armor, especially the untempered stuff they had at Agincourt and before. Then, they might taunt the enemy at a range by loosing a few arrows; and of course, we all have heard of the famous indiscipline of the otherwise fantastic French Heavy cavalry. Then, the closer up volleys would be horrendous; and imagine, a few thousand arrows every few seconds. Absolutely demoralizing; even if your armor is tempered, seeing the soldiers around you drop dead... and then not to mention horses.... yikes.
Also, wooden stakes and mean looking soldiers with bills and pikes are pretty annoying even if you are in armor. Let's not forget, English archers also carried other weapons.
they killed the prisoners because they were outnumbered, but also those French that had fallen behind had caught up. There were just to many to guard also.
Henry V was such a badass.
As an avid Total War player I can say.... Damn those french were rookies
Amazing that cavalry was still in service by WWI.
Do more battle videos. They're amazing!
You missed a major detail the English camp was attacked by the French that is why they slaughtered the prisoners
There's a number of aspects that was not covered well, or not covered at all in this video. First, as many has pointed out, the longbow could not pierce armour at long range. At point blank, maybe. It could possibly wound or kill horses. Note that longbowmen could fire 6 arrows per MINUTE. That's 6000 arrows per MINUTE. If it pierced armour easily at range, the French would be dead before the kettle boiled.
You mentioned the mud and how the armoured Frenchmen struggled with it, but you left out something crucial. Physics. If a man in full plate fell over on normal ground, he could just stand back up, not a problem, the armour isn't that heavy. But in mud it's VERY different. Ever had your shoe stuck in mud? The "suction" force between the mud and the plate is very high (one of the reasons why you sometimes see infantry and cavalry with a coat of arms over their armour. Not only is it pretty, it also helps in this regard.), and they just couldn't get up. The English infantry could possibly suffer from the same problem, but the longbowmen had cloth armour (or leather) and cloth shoes. They didn't stick in the mud at all!
Another quick point about the longbowmen. You said they engaged in hand to hand combat, and that's true. But you said they grabbed swords, and this is most likely not true. They were equipped with mallets and axes to facilitate the erection of wooden stakes. Plate is very strong against swords, not so strong against a lead mallet. The longbowmen could walk around in the mud and clobber "beached" Frenchmen.
Another MASSIVE point about this battle is something that we saw happen in the video, but you didn't tell us why. Why did the French infantry march on the centre of the English line? They had more then enough men to engage the whole line and butcher the archers. But instead the French stood bunched up in the middle, was hit by arrows, fell over, did nothing. The reason for this was money. A captured longbowman was not worth a lot, but infantry was a decent enough pay, and there was still a King to be taken, along with officers and maybe a noble or two. The French thought the battle was basically won, and rushed to capture the most valuable prisoners.
Generally a good job on explaining the battle, but these 4 points are pretty important. Otherwise, keep up the good work : )
Actually, the notion of the importance of the cavalry charge is largely due to chroniclers pandering to their noble paymasters. The fact that cavalry could not prevail against a disciplined infantry force was not new. Even at Hastings, cavalry only prevailed because the anglo-saxon shield wall lost discipline. Then you have the Battle of the Golden Spurs in Kortrijk/Courtrai and various "adventures" of the Catalan Grand Company. Cavalry charges were very much dependent on specific environment and undisciplined troops.
Actually, some local french brigands attacked England's supply caravan. Henry however thought it was a reinforcement army and couldn't afford to lose the prisoners, so he told his knights to kill them. Being knights, they refused to but the English army was composed mostly of peasant longbowmen who were essentially "scum." It didn't bother them so they executed the captured knights. Unfortunately for both sides, they were just brigands so the French Nobility lost most of its members and the English lost a lot of ransom money.
I would appreciate if you can make some Sassanid/Byzantine battles against Rashidun. Also some Goth, Hun, and Viking battles too.
I played this in M2TW
Everything about your battle videos are awesome, please keep making them
I have subbed in hopes of many more interesting battle breakdown videos.
Dude seriously, please make more video's these are amazing and very informative!
These videos are great, I hope you do more.
These battle videos are great!
Azincourt by Bernard Cornwell tells this battle and the events leading up to it in a great first hand recount (told by an English archer) if anyone wants to know more about it.
Why is this only the second video of yours I've watched and why I wasn't subscribed to you sooner are historical mysteries. Good job all around man, good job!
I didn't really find the idea of longbow projectile weapons being a new and further developed as the reason for this being the end of medieval times.. The longbow had existed for a very long time in medieval times and it was actually the crossbow that were to be the longbows successor due to the minimum training needed and comparable reach and punch, although at the cost of firing rate. It was all about crossbows, halberds and bills along with the rare longswords used by Landsknechts among others.
***** Keep in mind the feudal system at the time where peasants were levied into armies.
Ask yourself how long it would take to train a professional longbowman compared to a crossbowman.
Nearly anyone could just be handed a crossbow and start firing immediately.
And yes, Doppelsöldner were Landsknechte.
Longswords are also two handed unless you speak of a "hand--and-a-half sword" or "bastard sword" which was even more rare and only really used by highest nobility in the late medieval times and early renaissance.
Bastard swords were long blades, balanced enough for one to hold it with one hand although they were often used with both hands for greater effect or from horseback as their length came in handy when mounted.
Thor Jørgensen oh i thought you ment those peasants equipped with tools that were forced to fight for there masters with levy
Tom Spruyten No a levy basically means conscription in medieval times of those in the feudal system, unless it's shire levies which makes everyone who is not of nobility susceptible to be "levied" or "conscripted". And levy soldiers are usually at least given a spear, a hatchet/metal knobbed wooden maces and shield, halberd or pike. Basically anything useful that does not use a lot of metal and instead relies on cheap wood.
I love all the battle videos that you do, keep it up.
Never change the music, please!
yes. do more of these
I watched the Julius Caesar one aswell and these are so fascinating, please make more
Hey man, very interesting and well done videos.. Would love to see more like these!
Great stuff!
Love this video! Keep up the good work good sir!
I think focusing on battles would be good because there's not many other channels doing that and it's really interesting
Today marks the 600th Anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt. Thank you for this well-crafted, to-the-point video on this historic battle.
No mud = Henry's army is destroyed and his critics in England, who think he is a foolhardy adventurer, are vindicated.
Historia Civilis
I really liked that you mentioned that numbers are a matter of the debate and suggested us to take them with a grain of salt.
But when it comes to conclusions such as "longbow beats armour", "heavy armour just wasn't what it used to be" and "death of heavy cavalry" you are suddenly less objective, even though those things are a matter of debate and should be taken with a grain of salt as well.
***** Agreed it is also worth noting that many sources cite the reason for the defeat as the unusually muddy ground and the French nobles disregard of their commander who they thought was too common and charging piecemeal into battle.
+Tork789 Although everything is a matter for debate and should always be taken with a grain of salt, they are not subjecive. Each of those three claims 'longbow beating armour', 'less heavy armour' and the 'death of heavy cavalry' are provable facts which are seen consistently and more frequently over the following decades and centuries. It could be a complete coincidence but that is a pointless argument and could be said for anything. But there is proof that these occurred which we can infer from.
+jake n there are stories where a man in armor look like pincushions due to how many arrows in them, imagine if you will a man in full plate he not only had the plate but most likely bolied leather and a silk undershirt
+Andy Wilderness Armour simply became better and more protective after the battle, you do know that the "Full plate armour" we are so familiar with was a late 15th century creation right? Agincourt didn't end heavy armour, it just made them better.
+Andy Wilderness
Cavalry armor was worn up until the 2nd World War.
The heaviest armor should become more and more heavy after easily even after 100 years of Agincourt.
Contemporary witnesses state how surprising it was that arrows were in few circumstances possible to penetrate weak points in the armor *from a very special angle* and *very close distance*, which would not have been able to sustain if the terrain would have been less advantageous.
So all in all, I see zero indication to back up this modern day conception.
thank for the video
Excellent video. Very clear and succinct. Simple animation and great dialogue. Well done. Please keep the battle videos going. You have great insight and a very clear method of explanation!
these videos are absolutely fantastic, these are the sort of videos ive been desprately looking for on youtube. i LOVE military tactics show with overlays and graphics. Subbed
+Brew & Biscuits i would love to see a WW2 channel that does this exact thing!!
Definitely keep up these battle videos, very interesting stuff
Subbed
Wow. These videos are awesome. If you keep this up you're going to be big.
fairly well done animation. Though Agincourt was definitely not the end of the massed cavalry charge in any way. Napoleon used successfully in many battles.
amazing videos... I still have one point where I do not share your opinion, and that´s your third point: actually, cavalry charges didn´t die at the end of the medival era they just lost their abolute dominance; also, this wasn´t because of ranged weapons, which is a common myth, but because of new abilities of the infantry to get them a halt - at Azincourt it were the wires and in other battles it was the rebirth of the Phalanx, the Pikesmen who became much more disciplined.
However, that´s a really small point :)
Please do more!
that was awesome I'm subscribing!
If the Roman turtle formation was the best protective attempt 'gainst arrows (until the advent of armored vehicles), why weren't they used in occasions alike? I know such shields are expensive, but not as expensive as losing a unit I guess, and I know it takes some training to pull the maneuvre with non-professional soldiers, but people are normally heedful if taught something life-saving, so can someone elucidate this matter a bit for me?
I think the Poles would disagree about the death of the cavalry charge. Their winged hussars were used to great effect for years.
yea, allllll the way into world war one when they got obliterated in seconds.
Ni Yao ikr
french withdrawing? who would have guessed
Impressive and really well made! Good overview, colorful, clear voice. Very educative!
Battle of the Bastards sent me here. I love it when a battle is won even though the odds are not in your favour.
This is very well done with such simple tools. Subbed.
I'm really enjoying your videos.
this channel is so good
Subbed for more of these battle vids.
Excellent video. The animation of the units and accompanying description of events was great.
I just want to point out that "plate mail" is a confused term. Plate is plate and mail is mail. The latter is made of rings and the former would include the latter. Even so, the term suggests a type of armour not used in Europe at the time.
+Xandros999 Confusing yes I agree, but not incorrect.
I love these
just ringing the "another battle dear OP" bell...
Great video and thank you for putting it together. Although you missed probably the most important part of the battle of Agincourt. The english army was almost entirely composed of men at arms(being peasants) while the French force had a significant number of knights(being nobility of greater or lesser standing). It is why the slaughter took place upon surrender. The french knights thought they would be granted the typical allowance of ransom. This did not happen as the english men at arms did not have to follow a code the chivalric code. I do think you bring up a good point though and a perspective that is interesting and probably valid. The english did not have the man power to guard prisoners and fight the french reserves.
Overall great video and I am thankful for your visual representations of the battle formations.
1:03 Winter is coming
Could you do a video on the battle of Plataea?
I would image they killed the prisoners for the same reason as you said, when watching this I was thinking "Ok, they have prisoners, that is alot of extra weight, especially trying to escape from France, could they be used as bargaining?" In truth, they don't know if there is another army to fight before getting offshore, and controlling that many prisoners might be the death of them. I would have done the same thing if it was life or death. Perhaps if they were close to base, they could take them as prisoners.
"The English invaded France with a small army." The English invaded France with a huge army, 12,000 strong, massive for back then.
Great video man! I gotta know - Have you ever played any of the Total War series?
Well, you've got some good points, but arrows going through plate? Hardly, if you watch the talks with dr Tobias Capwell on the scholagladiatoria channel, you'll see it wasn't quite as you suggest.
Dex4Sure You clearly know nothing of using common sense, if you see someone with a bow and you charge, look at the formation. There is no way that they were hit a lot from the side. Besides, the idea that this is somehow is missile victory overe melee is absolutely ludicrous, nearly all the archers had swords and daggers. Which is evidenced by extant swords and bucklers and the like.
Could you cover the Jacobite Rebellion?
There is a fantastic dramatization of this battle in sci-fi novel; Hyperion. It is a great book, for those interested.
one thing about the losses mate. it was about 550 on english side but correct on the french side. Also i dont think the battle even lasted as long as you say. If i am wrong let me know
Wow. You can see just how freakishly luckily the English got that day in Agincourt. King Henry the 5th, realizing just how lucky he had gotten that day withdrew to England and the two countries lived in peace.
j/k,88 years of fighting later, england lost all their territorial possessions on the continent with the exception of Calais.
Keegan states that one reason why the English may have killed their french prisoners (not something normally done, as everyone except peasantry could be ransomed for money) was that an English reinforcing unit appeared behind at the English units but was mistaken as a flanking French force.
They slaughtered their prisoners because they thought that they were being flanked, and that the prisoners would rise up and massacre the English soldiers once the nonexistent French flanking force reached their rear.
good video, but how does the battles of potiers or crecy fight in this assessment?
Nice!
While I value most of your videos a lot, I must admint that this one is
based on very superficial statements. All of the phenomena attributed
here to Agincourt are much older. The rise of projectile weapons? The
Welsh and English used the longbows with dealdy reasults in the times of
the crusades and (especially) in the former phases of the 100 years war
(Crecy!). Cavalry had been through really hard times since Stirling
Bridge, Courtray and Morgarten. That's more than a century before
Agincourt. Stating that the cavalry charge was dead since then is still
very exaggerated, since it still played an important part in battles in
the 15th century. It's decline came in 16th century, but than it came
back to European battlefields due to Polish winged hussars and later
Gustavus Adolfus. Napoleonic era marked its last, but remarkable heyday. So, to conclude: NO, that battle had nothing to do with turning anything in European history. It is famous mostly due to the influence that Shakespeare had on European culture ;)
only lost 100 men? wow
Hey make more videos please you're good at it
Guys, have a question , which software used to prepare this ?
Can you make a video about the Battle of Waterloo
cool vid
7:00 another message is "Don't lose or it's the noose".....
The french knights helmet made impossible to see the wooden stakes
Not the best representation of this battle that I have seen. Try reading, "Azincourt" by Bernard Cornwall, who took his account of the battle from diverse modern historians and contemporary French and English accounts.
Mad props to the french knights. Their horses must have had a hard time carrying their steel balls.
+Delta21
you mean the healthy cavalry charging at the knackered, starving, vastly outnumbered English?
They were definitely not outnumbered by the french knights who charged at them. If anything, they were the ones who were outnumbered.
Good thing you admited your numbers were approximate. This shows you value historical acuracy.
luv it
Wish this guy was still around
What I've noticed is it seems the militaristic numbers of pre-Roman collapse and post-collapse are totally at odds. Why is it such smaller skirmishes oppose to the sheer militaristic might that was rome?
Anyhow is the last major battle were archers play a dominant role and bring victory. From now on archers will be only on the loosing side no matter were in the world. Ironic. I dare everybody to name a battle after Agincourt were archers played a major role.
More battles please.
Do the battle of Pavia in 1525 or the Gravelines in 1588
IMHO i don't think that Agincourt ended the age of Chivalry on it self. Imho it were the Hussite Uprising and the Ottoman Conquests that ended it who also had a hand in it .
See I would say that from a militaristic standpoint the middle ages ended with the Battle of Grunwald and the following siege of Malbork, often unfortunately overlooked when it comes to history. Fought in 1410, it saw some of the first uses of cannons for instance, during the siege of Malbork.
People always exaggerate the great victory of the english longbow over the french knights at agincourt. They forget that the battle at agincourt was a fighting withdrawal for the english and that the French eventually win the war. The longbow was never used again in a serious war and the cavalry charge was considered the most important weapon up to world war 1.
If Henry V had lived another ten years, I doubt the French would've won.
+Sander Spijkers I have to disagree that the cavalry charge was considered the most important weapon/tactic. That seems to have changed often.
And upon this charge cry, God for Harry, England and St George.
Good recounting of the battle but the conclusions are bogus. Ranged weapons had always been an important part of warfare and given certain circumstances could be crucial as seen here. The generalizations about armor are very flawed. Indeed, longbows have trouble wounding through quality plate, but of course, very few people could afford quality plate. Again, circumstances made the cavalry less effective, but cavalry remained effective for a long time after.
This battle is about terrain and preparation, Good strategy vs poor strategy. Not tech or superweapons as folks often try to make it.
How in the hell did England not lose more men in the hand to hand combat?
Agincourt's Dark Secrets Battlefield Detectives. It's on TH-cam I think it contradicts some of your information about the longbow. I like your videos but some information might not be right.
The problem with the battle was morale and poor tactical decisions by the french. The English made the mistake of dismantling their spikes and advancing, that should have been the moment for the French to engage in a massive cavalry charge towards the archers that were now undefended. The chear amount of impact would have probably broken the English
You should write a book
I thought it was The French vs the Duty of Normandy who invaded England and conquerd it, France thought that it was theirs since Normandy was a dominion? They said no and thus war.
+GlobleTheater Way more complicated. It was actually a war over Guyene, the king of England had bow the knee to the king of France over this territory, but when the king of France took it away the king of England used the fact he was the legit king of France to declare war. The war was a succession war between the Valois and the Plantagenets.
Very well done. Am I mistaken or Agincourt was a French defeat more than an English victory?
Dint the barn where the pow where put in started burning and thay watch it burn with the pow locked inside