Agincourt or Azincourt? Victory, Defeat and the War of 1415 - Dr Helen Castor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- In the year of the battle's 600th anniversary, Agincourt remains one of the most resonant names in the roll-call of English military history: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Thanks to Shakespeare, the triumphant tale is embedded in our national psyche: the astonishing victory against overwhelming odds of Henry V's 'happy few' over the flower of French chivalry. But if we cry God for Harry, England and St George, we tell only half the story. What of those who cried God for Charles, France and St Denis?
The battle is set in its fifteenth-century context - when the outcome of military conflict was understood as the result of God's will - and unravels the implications of two contrasting narratives: English victory at Agincourt, and French defeat on the field they knew as Azincourt.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Generally speaking, horses will NOT run onto spears, pikes, or wooden stakes. That's why the stakes were there. The intention of a cavalry charge was NOT to physically run over the massed archers--horses aren't good at that either. Cavalry charges are made to get the other guys to run away, then to pursue and kill them as they disperse and flee. Charges had failed at Crecy and Poitiers, and the French were perfectly aware of this. They gave it a shot anyway, with a relatively small number of troops--'cause why not?--but I cannot believe it was a critical part of their plan. They were counting on their infantry and the ability of their armor to withstand the English bow--and no, the bodkin could not regularly penetrate plate and gambeson to anything close to a lethal depth. (If it had had that capability the battle would never have happened. The French elite were neither suicidal nor unaware of the capabilities of the weapons and armor of their day.) It could easily kill you, of course, should you raise your visor for a decent breath of air or to see what was going on around you--just ask Henry himself about that.
The threat of arrows was very real to horses and thus to anyone riding the horse if it went down. Very important. It could force advancing infantry to march with visors down, or heads down--essentially blind, particularly for the guys in back, and to hear commands would of course be utterly impossible. Add to that getting funneled into the incredibly sticky, exhausting, dangerous mud in that particular field, and you have all you need for a catastrophe. The greatest failure of French leadership was to fight that battle at all in that field. Allowed Henry to choose the ground and apparently no proper battlefield reconnaissance. Once the first rank led off there was no possibility of calling the thing off or controlling the battle. I think most of the French casualties died under the feet and bodies of their own comrades, which would explain why the English suffered so lightly. It might also explain the view of the outcome as a miracle. What might you think as the frightful mass of men who were coming to kill you just started to fall down en masse and die without landing a blow?
This is by far superior to 99,9% of all the fancy documentaries presented on the telly. Thank you very much for providing this fascinating and informative lecture.
This is because the subject presented is filtered through scriptwriters, editors, producers, managers, etc. Often the presenter might be an expert on a similar subject, but the TV programme's subject is out of that presenter's field. Ditto the scriptwriter(s). I always attended lectures at university given by guest lecturers, because for an hour or more you knew you were in the hands of a leading expert, talking about what they wanted to talk about. And you had an opportunity to ask them questions at the end.
A dazzling lecture. I was enthralled from beginning to end. So looking forward to hearing more of these.
Helen Castor, quality as normal.
"Thoroughly informative lecture,very well laid out and explained.
Tremendously educational and informative ! Outstanding !" I only can confirm these enthousiastical statements. Thank You for offering us the chance to have heard and be able to hear anew & anew this peace of excellency !
These lectures should, in my opinion, be far better attended. Nice work, professor!
Such an enthralling, impressive lecture. This is my 3rd revisit.
I was actually hoping to find something like this that I would never have had a chance to attend in person... Looks like I got very lucky. Thank you for sharing this.
Thoroughly informative lecture, well done Professor.
Wonderful lecture ... many thanks.
she tells the story really well
I think it is perhaps worth noting that Shakespeare's account of the battle of Agincourt/Azincourt by itself is nationalistic, not considering the reasons for the victory, but rather relishing it.
peter jensen Yes, to please his audience, mentors and the ruling dynasty.
Absolutely fascinating!
Tremendously educational and informative lecture! Outstanding in every way.
Great lecture.
brilliant! thank you!
Excellent, thank you.
Very well laid out and explained. I've never much been interested in this history, but I found this lecture to be quite captivating and informative. Thank you!
Every documentary iv seen about this battle glazes over these facts. Amazingly presented. Thank you.
Nothing mentioned about the putting to death of non - ransomable French prisoners, and how that was a politic measure rather than an atrocity ?
English had to do it. There were more French prisoners that English warriors and a second wave of French calvary continued to attack. French prisoners could re-engage.
Had they not been " ransomable," they would not have been taken prisoner.
On that bridge of the meeting of 2 French nobbles (pun intended ded), Was there a misunderstanding, along the lines " I know we have many axes to grind, and we should bury the hatchet".
Was that an oops moment?
"Like who will rid me of this Priest?" A misfortunate end to Thomas A'Becket.
The 100 years war: the battle of two french dynasty
Nice job in WWII, France.
Lucid entertaining educational exceptional insightful she's hired!
I know a French woman who had a relative that died on the French side.
I had a 19+ great grandfather Sir William Thomas Guillem Herbert that fought with Henry V. Lived in the Raglan Castle.
Next episode, Bouvines Battle.
why aren't there more history on the media...
No storms of arrows... you don't waste all your arrows... and no they didn't pierce plate armor... the archers shot accurately with very powerful bows making every shot count... getting hit in the face was not an accident...
Who is she? This is incredible
a lot of this sounds, sadly, familiar.
A horse is too smart to impale himself on a sharpened stake... the stakes sharp end was in the ground and the stake served merely to stop the archers from getting run over... this lady makes a lot of mistakes and repeats a lot of mythology contrary to what she claimed in the beginning...
If ur father in law is insane make sure you have a back up queen
Tomato Taumato
Yeah yeah we all know of the British victory at Agincourt against the odds but you do`nt need to make such a "song and dance" about it because History is full of examples where other "Davids" triumphed over "Goliaths" and changed the course of history
Who cares what the French call it, they lost.