Wondered if there had ever been an archaeological investigation of the battle site.Thought provoking documentary.Hope there has been a full metal detection survey of what is believed to be the battlefield.Which i understand has been done on a Middleages English battle site.Also what provided imformation relating to the much earlier battle site of the Tutenburgher Forest per the silver baggage cart or carts.
There were surveys, and they did find artefacts from various periods, but almost nothing from the period and no arrows or armours. The archeologists have also no clue where the French deads are buried. The exact location of the battle is probably not where it is traditionally placed.
Dan Jones has just released a book a few days ago on Henry V, he was interesting to listen to as he said that Henry was skilled and lucky ,a difficult combination to beat , and that had always been a question I pondered,how much was luck and what percentage was shrewd battle moves , something that can never really be answered sadly
I know what you're saying & I do agree but if they find the grave pits & they find armour buried with the men it's possible they could find a coat of arms. Who knows maybe put names to the nobles whose banner the men fought under, that could open up some new avenues of inquiry?
davy gan drowned in a puddle, the weight of his helmet too heavy to raise his head.. poem i wrote about the poys and the luggage . capt fluellen using his welsh leek as a cudgel.
I thought the exact same thing but I've just noticed that there is a part two. I haven't watched it yet but it's definitely the same Archaeologist & a continuation of this video. Fingers crossed we get some answers.
Bows shot straight at the foe, not at the sky. Most Frenchmen wore helmets and held shields, so the arrows didn't make a big difference at battle, but they did hurt the Frenchmen who did not hold shields, and those whose shields were either small or thin.
Actually they shot at the feet and lower legs according to Charles VII in a recently discovered letter written after Formingy. Funny you don't hear much about that bunfight.
@@lordeden2732 They always are the most trustworthy. I heard they traded with the Zulu and therefore had shields made of African cowhide’s. Luckily I know now that that info is most unreliable.
@@andrewholdaway813 No, I'm not happy at all with such condescension and inaccuracy. There were far more than a "few" Welsh at Agincourt, even in terms of the raw numbers. In comparative terms, the Welsh bowmen were rather numerous, given the relative population sizes of Wales and England. The fairest and most accurate thing to say is that they were _British_ archers, because - as a collective - they were categorically NOT all English.
So now we are suggesting medieval french and English recorders can count. Most English troops rarely got paid and would have foraged for food, so financial records will give little clue, also they were decimated by diseases. The french army would have grown as it marched as it always did ,Yet here is some one centuries later trying to re write it,
I get really sick of this modern interpretation that the armies were evenly matched and that, essentially, the English were lucky! No! The French still massively outnumbered the English, and, on their own soil, they were outwitted, out flanked and utterly beaten by a stronger, mightier for of less men! English historians need to step up and stop being so Leftish about their history. England were a force to be reckoned with. They were a tiny island capable of immense power, throughout written history. It is simply wrong to diminish and dumb that down on the precepts of political correctness. History has happened. Atrocity happens. War is evil, yet The English are simply not the villains they’re portrayed to be in the grand scheme of things and people would do well to study history the world over before making assumptions based on modern interpretation. It’s very easy for the magician to point the finger to the audience, while simultaneously hiding the truth from those absorbed in the show.
Henry kew he had to defeat the French in detail (bit by bit) due to their numerical and logistical superiority. He lured them into a killing-ground and killed them.
You beat me to it, @ce. As soon as I saw the woman I guessed it would be another hit job. When she said, "I made it my mission" my guess was proven correct.
The whole campaign that lead up to Agincourt was in fact a failed mission for the English. Henry never got to claim the French crown. On top of that England ultimately lost the hundred years war anyway. Sounds like you just want to believe your own version of events. Reality is nobody actually knows the definitive details of numbers on either side, or how the battle really played out.
Ann Curry has used historical records with sound methodology to form an estimate of the size of the French army, unlike less informed "estimates" from earlier historians. Historians publish their research which is peer reviewed by other historians and their professional pride is very much at stake. I'd love an explanation of how her methodology is leftist. What I don't need an explanation of is how certain fragile individuals seem to live vicariously through other people's exploits and also seem to bizarrely gain a sense of pride from having been born in a nearby place to these people. Not only that, but they take any denigration of those exploits personally and whine about Wokeness or snowflakes. It utterly mystifies me, but, I suppose if I was an individual who was physically intimidated by other men then I may need to take solace in the fantasy that I'm a descendent of a warrior race.
@@mickmacgonigle5021 yes, ultimately the English lost the war which had started because of the English ruling dynasty's claims to large territories in France. That dynasty was , in fact , French : the Plantagenets and many of its members such as Richard the Lionheart and Henry II were buried in France in their family dominions. French only declined as the language of the Royal Court and aristocracy as well as of the legal system in England in the 15th century, largely due to the loss of territories in France.
Opening scene of a snow covered field? What? France couldn’t raise an army of 60,000. It wasn’t the arrows that did the damage. Read your history. Not comics.
Really interesting but it's a shame he couldn't find a grave pit. Maybe I'm being naive but I'd have thought that the French Archaeologists would be excited about finding the grave pits & the possibility of Armour & Weapons buried with the slain French & who knows what else? Oh well maybe one day.
The French nobility that took part was mostly from northern France. The bulk of the country was not involved. In terms of numbers the battle of Grunwald in 1410 in northern Poland was far larger. The myth of Agincourt is largely an English obsession.
@@victornewman9904 detailed reports written soon after the actual battle have not survived. Typically, after any battle in christian Europe mass burial pits would be dug to limit the spread of disease. Cremation was rarely used. No burial pits have been found at Agincourt despite detailed searches. By the 19th century battle casualty skeletons would be dug up after a couple of years and crushed into bone meal for use as a fertiliser. This is what happened at Waterloo where British and other skeletal remains ended up being crushed and exported to Britain for sale as fertiliser....Shakespeare used poetic license in his tale Henry V. French casualties, though large, did not prevent France besieging Calais or recruiting new armies which were used to reconquer lost territories. In essence, Agincourt was the English high point of the 100 years war. From then on the French prevailed to ultimate victory by 1453.
@michaelmazowiecki9195 The linguistic term "myth" in this context suggests that the battle did not occur. Bearing in mind that those killed in the failed assault wore expensive, decorative armour and were of noble birth and accompanied by their many servants, and were in the first wave of 10,000 encountered it is likely that signicant numbers were recovered and as per usual practice, buried in their estates' local churches. The armour would have been recycled.
@@victornewman9904 the myth is about its importance and size of opposing armies and political events. Certainly, it has a role in English national definition and historical myth creation as the continual shrinkage of Plantagenet territories in France was only temporarily slowed and English aristocracy lost its French land holdings. However, in France it had a far less significant effect other than in northern areas. It only took another 40 years for England to entirely lose its French holdings other than the port city of Calais.
Aah... not the myth of the arrow storm again ,c'mon guys stop copying. A letter written after the battle of Formingy by Charlie 7 discovered in 1968 tells us the English like to shoot at the feet.....well where else do you aim at 25 yards....a shield??? The longbow was not an offensive weapon, it was like the WW1 watercooled machinegun a defensive weapon and Henry relied on being attacked. The French obliged. If you need to know the answer to arrow v armour examine the battle of Patay 1429. 1500 mounted French knghts and Gen d'armes charged 5000 English bowmen who were caught in the open totaly destroying the capability of the corps of bowmen for any future engagement. The Butchers bill was 150 French dead and 2500 English dead, this in spite of 40,000 longbow arrows fired at short range. The Longbow has it's limitations against plate and shield. In the final battle at Castillon where we were sent back to the channel ports to collect our duty free the longbow was hardly used.
The thing to remember is that the Hundred Years War was fought mostly in France and was an attempt by English invaders to destroy France as they had also attempted to destroy Scotland
@@mtryambon I have many books(somewhere over 1000)quite a few covering history from the Roman republic to the mid-late 20th century some of which date from the period including Commentarii de Bello Gallico in the original Latin,Sagas from Iceland,histories of the design ethos and strategies of the Royal Navy from 1794 to 2000 plus a few works from the 15th century regarding the wars in France albeit mostly translated so am quite confident in my accuracy when I state that England did try to destroy France as it also tried to destroy Scotland and in fact this common problem that France and Scotland shared is the reason for the oldest military treaty of alliance on the planet dating from 1295 which is still active according to both the French and UK governments.This treaty also led among other things to Scots troops fighting in 1429 to come to the aid of Joan of Arc. Indeed a UK historian Siobhan Talbott after considerable research came to the conclusion that the 1295 treaty known as the Auld Alliance had never been formally revoked plus there was a celebration in 1995 to mark the 700th anniversary.
This is just her opinion, guess work. She doesn't know how many were lost to illness, how many made yhat massive march. Why do they feel like its ok to belittle what was a great victory ✌
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
We should be proud of our history if we don't look back we can't go forward,🏴🏴🇬🇧🏴
Great post, thank you.
Wondered if there had ever been an archaeological investigation of the battle site.Thought provoking documentary.Hope there has been a full metal detection survey of what is believed to be the battlefield.Which i understand has been done on a Middleages English battle site.Also what provided imformation relating to the much earlier battle site of the Tutenburgher Forest per the silver baggage cart or carts.
There were surveys, and they did find artefacts from various periods, but almost nothing from the period and no arrows or armours. The archeologists have also no clue where the French deads are buried. The exact location of the battle is probably not where it is traditionally placed.
An interesting commentary on a battle that remains an active part of both French and English history. Thank you.
Dan Jones has just released a book a few days ago on Henry V, he was interesting to listen to as he said that Henry was skilled and lucky ,a difficult combination to beat , and that had always been a question I pondered,how much was luck and what percentage was shrewd battle moves , something that can never really be answered sadly
There is just not enough "original information" left to really understand what happened that day. Its history...
I know what you're saying & I do agree but if they find the grave pits & they find armour buried with the men it's possible they could find a coat of arms. Who knows maybe put names to the nobles whose banner the men fought under, that could open up some new avenues of inquiry?
davy gan drowned in a puddle, the weight of his helmet too heavy to raise his head.. poem i wrote about the poys and the luggage . capt fluellen using his welsh leek as a cudgel.
What about the Crecy war in1337, has there been eny documentary on that ?
I wish there was. That's my favourite battle, I've read books on that and Poitiers, but never any documentaries about them.
Interesting, but rather inconclusive
I thought the exact same thing but I've just noticed that there is a part two. I haven't watched it yet but it's definitely the same Archaeologist & a continuation of this video. Fingers crossed we get some answers.
No mention of the Welsh contingent who played an integral part and also saved the life of HenryV
Bows shot straight at the foe, not at the sky.
Most Frenchmen wore helmets and held shields, so the arrows didn't make a big difference at battle, but they did hurt the Frenchmen who did not hold shields, and those whose shields were either small or thin.
Actually they shot at the feet and lower legs according to Charles VII in a recently discovered letter written after Formingy. Funny you don't hear much about that bunfight.
😂 Oké……😂
Love hearing from eye witnesses
@@lordeden2732 its logic
@@lordeden2732 They always are the most trustworthy.
I heard they traded with the Zulu and therefore had shields made of African cowhide’s.
Luckily I know now that that info is most unreliable.
Just be honest the English were brutal and well trained with no mercy for the enemy proud to be an Englishman
Interesting documentary, although I did get irritated by the constant reference to "English" archers, when around 500 of the archers were Welshmen.
Yeah, but they were there just to make up the numbers!
@@somebloke13 They played an important role, and - for a small country like Wales - 500 longbowmen was a comparatively large number.
@@ftumschk
OK '...and a few from Wales' happy now?
@@andrewholdaway813 No, I'm not happy at all with such condescension and inaccuracy. There were far more than a "few" Welsh at Agincourt, even in terms of the raw numbers. In comparative terms, the Welsh bowmen were rather numerous, given the relative population sizes of Wales and England.
The fairest and most accurate thing to say is that they were _British_ archers, because - as a collective - they were categorically NOT all English.
About 600 Welsh bowmen
Another trashing of one of the most important events in English history.
The music is too loud.
So now we are suggesting medieval french and English recorders can count. Most English troops rarely got paid and would have foraged for food, so financial records will give little clue, also they were decimated by diseases. The french army would have grown as it marched as it always did ,Yet here is some one centuries later trying to re write it,
I get really sick of this modern interpretation that the armies were evenly matched and that, essentially, the English were lucky! No! The French still massively outnumbered the English, and, on their own soil, they were outwitted, out flanked and utterly beaten by a stronger, mightier for of less men!
English historians need to step up and stop being so Leftish about their history. England were a force to be reckoned with. They were a tiny island capable of immense power, throughout written history. It is simply wrong to diminish and dumb that down on the precepts of political correctness.
History has happened. Atrocity happens. War is evil, yet The English are simply not the villains they’re portrayed to be in the grand scheme of things and people would do well to study history the world over before making assumptions based on modern interpretation.
It’s very easy for the magician to point the finger to the audience, while simultaneously hiding the truth from those absorbed in the show.
Henry kew he had to defeat the French in detail (bit by bit) due to their numerical and logistical superiority. He lured them into a killing-ground and killed them.
You beat me to it, @ce. As soon as I saw the woman I guessed it would be another hit job. When she said, "I made it my mission" my guess was proven correct.
The whole campaign that lead up to Agincourt was in fact a failed mission for the English.
Henry never got to claim the French crown.
On top of that England ultimately lost the hundred years war anyway.
Sounds like you just want to believe your own version of events. Reality is nobody actually knows the definitive details of numbers on either side, or how the battle really played out.
@@ricardojaye305 You are right. Henry was even forced to defeat the French again near Paris and marry into the French royal family.
Ann Curry has used historical records with sound methodology to form an estimate of the size of the French army, unlike less informed "estimates" from earlier historians. Historians publish their research which is peer reviewed by other historians and their professional pride is very much at stake. I'd love an explanation of how her methodology is leftist. What I don't need an explanation of is how certain fragile individuals seem to live vicariously through other people's exploits and also seem to bizarrely gain a sense of pride from having been born in a nearby place to these people. Not only that, but they take any denigration of those exploits personally and whine about Wokeness or snowflakes. It utterly mystifies me, but, I suppose if I was an individual who was physically intimidated by other men then I may need to take solace in the fantasy that I'm a descendent of a warrior race.
... 🎵🎵...""… YOUR GOING HOME IN A 🏴 AMBULANCE... ""🎵🎵 4:29 😂😂😂
Now now 😅
Please drop the music and remember how to pronounce medi-eval. Not " medeeval".
i don't like how they try and pull apart an English victory , there's always a reason why we won because of mud etc
Henry V chose the battlefield so as to favor his smaller numbers and enable a defensive battle
Ah! You lost the war
@@mickmacgonigle5021 yes, ultimately the English lost the war which had started because of the English ruling dynasty's claims to large territories in France. That dynasty was , in fact , French : the Plantagenets and many of its members such as Richard the Lionheart and Henry II were buried in France in their family dominions. French only declined as the language of the Royal Court and aristocracy as well as of the legal system in England in the 15th century, largely due to the loss of territories in France.
He might have sounded a little more enthusiastic when he discovered the 1838. 😅
He encapsulated all of our collective excitement right there.
Sorry to the channel but this documentary was completely underwhelming.
What about the Battle
Opening scene of a snow covered field? What?
France couldn’t raise an army of 60,000. It wasn’t the arrows that did the damage. Read your history. Not comics.
First one!
Yes like Formigny or Castillon !
@@Thomas-uu9ex 💩
Really interesting but it's a shame he couldn't find a grave pit. Maybe I'm being naive but I'd have thought that the French Archaeologists would be excited about finding the grave pits & the possibility of Armour & Weapons buried with the slain French & who knows what else? Oh well maybe one day.
Most of the French dead were aristocrats and their families would have recovered their bodies
The French nobility that took part was mostly from northern France. The bulk of the country was not involved. In terms of numbers the battle of Grunwald in 1410 in northern Poland was far larger. The myth of Agincourt is largely an English obsession.
"Myth?"
@@victornewman9904 detailed reports written soon after the actual battle have not survived. Typically, after any battle in christian Europe mass burial pits would be dug to limit the spread of disease. Cremation was rarely used. No burial pits have been found at Agincourt despite detailed searches. By the 19th century battle casualty skeletons would be dug up after a couple of years and crushed into bone meal for use as a fertiliser. This is what happened at Waterloo where British and other skeletal remains ended up being crushed and exported to Britain for sale as fertiliser....Shakespeare used poetic license in his tale Henry V. French casualties, though large, did not prevent France besieging Calais or recruiting new armies which were used to reconquer lost territories. In essence, Agincourt was the English high point of the 100 years war. From then on the French prevailed to ultimate victory by 1453.
@michaelmazowiecki9195 The linguistic term "myth" in this context suggests that the battle did not occur. Bearing in mind that those killed in the failed assault wore expensive, decorative armour and were of noble birth and accompanied by their many servants, and were in the first wave of 10,000 encountered it is likely that signicant numbers were recovered and as per usual practice, buried in their estates' local churches. The armour would have been recycled.
@@victornewman9904 the myth is about its importance and size of opposing armies and political events. Certainly, it has a role in English national definition and historical myth creation as the continual shrinkage of Plantagenet territories in France was only temporarily slowed and English aristocracy lost its French land holdings. However, in France it had a far less significant effect other than in northern areas. It only took another 40 years for England to entirely lose its French holdings other than the port city of Calais.
@@michaelmazowiecki9195 True.
How woke is this video
And all of that because of one 1818 year "mom's archeologist" diggin for his pleasure 😤
English 1 French 0
Aah... not the myth of the arrow storm again ,c'mon guys stop copying. A letter written after the battle of Formingy by Charlie 7 discovered in 1968 tells us the English like to shoot at the feet.....well where else do you aim at 25 yards....a shield???
The longbow was not an offensive weapon, it was like the WW1 watercooled machinegun a defensive weapon and Henry relied on being attacked. The French obliged. If you need to know the answer to arrow v armour examine the battle of Patay 1429. 1500 mounted French knghts and Gen d'armes charged 5000 English bowmen who were caught in the open totaly destroying the capability of the corps of bowmen for any future engagement.
The Butchers bill was 150 French dead and 2500 English dead, this in spite of 40,000 longbow arrows fired at short range.
The Longbow has it's limitations against plate and shield. In the final battle at Castillon where we were sent back to the channel ports to collect our duty free the longbow was hardly used.
The thing to remember is that the Hundred Years War was fought mostly in France and was an attempt by English invaders to destroy France as they had also attempted to destroy Scotland
You could try picking up a book
@@mtryambon I have many books(somewhere over 1000)quite a few covering history from the Roman republic to the mid-late 20th century some of which date from the period including Commentarii de Bello Gallico in the original Latin,Sagas from Iceland,histories of the design ethos and strategies of the Royal Navy from 1794 to 2000 plus a few works from the 15th century regarding the wars in France albeit mostly translated so am quite confident in my accuracy when I state that England did try to destroy France as it also tried to destroy Scotland and in fact this common problem that France and Scotland shared is the reason for the oldest military treaty of alliance on the planet dating from 1295 which is still active according to both the French and UK governments.This treaty also led among other things to Scots troops fighting in 1429 to come to the aid of Joan of Arc. Indeed a UK historian Siobhan Talbott after considerable research came to the conclusion that the 1295 treaty known as the Auld Alliance had never been formally revoked plus there was a celebration in 1995 to mark the 700th anniversary.
Blame William the Conqueror.
This is just her opinion, guess work. She doesn't know how many were lost to illness, how many made yhat massive march.
Why do they feel like its ok to belittle what was a great victory ✌
Another english attempt to restore their pride... Stop annoying the world, get on with Brexit guys. This is what matters right now...
You're not French by any chance?😂🤣😂
@@Anglo_Saxon1 do one on Castillon battle😉
Frog
@@T2DaO 👌🏻
Um, who won?
Oh FFS - - can't you at least SPELL 'MEDIAEVAL' correctly.....!?!?!?!?!?! Jeeeesus.
don’t worry about it .. george Harrison said hysterical instead of historical when talking about the beatles legacy.. 🤪