Here is a five part series on Agincourt I found on youTube. There's a second series called "The Battle of Agincourt", but it is by a different group and I have not yet fully watched it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbGxwPHmKh4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjoKx7eyQ84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foQfhJxq14c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3WF7VmJtQg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZvtkSr2rI0

I post this here because I want to see if anyone else spotted some inaccuracies. The series presents the history in an engaging way, with men in garb and costume, with scenes and people OUTSIDE of the battle acted out, but I don't know how much is totally correct.

I DID notice that they called the Martial of France, Jean II le Maingre, a peasant who had become a knight, but from what I read Jean II's father was the Martial before him, which means he would have been born in nobility, correct? I need to analyze the weapons and armor further, didn't quite focus on that as much as the words.

M.

Yeah it has the typical documentary inaccuracies. I watched nearly all of this guys videos some time back..I really liked the one on Jacob's Ford. The second set on Agincourt is in my opinion allot better as it delves into the terrain and other features of the battle in a more forensic fashion.

Saw the first one. Some good stuff in it for sure. By and large most is good and some of the speakers, are great. Quick points that came to mind.

It seems that recently a spin to make the English army look like ruffians and brigands is in. This is just not accurate. As Tobias Said SOME of the men were criminals. Criminals as in they had legal issues, which was not that unusual considering rivalries etc. led to taking (back) property (theft), attacks and at times deaths. This is not all the army though and infact several people have spent time assessing this and most were not.

The idea that archers and soldiers caused huge damage at home is also not true. By and large we have very few incidents like that mentioned in the video from actual official records. Yes at times they got out of hand but Towns like Southampton had a great deal of control over their areas and those passing through. William Soper a local member of government was also the king's clerk of ships. If you came into his town like you owned it you'd likely ended up in the town prison or worse. Town officers had legal rights to arrest anyone in the town breaking laws, including often knights etc.

The idea that English were anyless chivalric is a funny one. The French had thousands of non-knights at Agincourt as well so does that make them non-chivalric? I suspect an English knight and French one would have held similar ideas on chivalry. Just because their were less knights the english are less chivalric?

RPM

Just done with the 2nd one as well.

Both great to watch and show different points of view

Really a good evening show.

regards

Klaus

Who is this"martial boussy-co"? I can't find anything at all about this person - did he even exist?

# 5 is very compelling. Geography+mud+crowd behavior theory--chilling.

Hmmm they say that knight that fell on the muddy ground couldn't get up in his heavy armour...this myth is immortal. :confused:

Video 5/5 shows footage of a modern concert crowd collapsing like dominoes. A few go down and then it spreads outward like a wave. These unarmoured folks are unable to get up immediately because they're locked in by the others. Throw panicked horses, infantry and armour into the mix and it's easy to imagine the fate of anybody who falls. I suspect that's what the writers mean when they say the fallen were unable to rise.

That and in the videos they say that the suction on the smooth surfaces of the plate armour was a major factor..suction more than weight.

yep, I've heard the theory a number of times that the suction of the soft mud combined with the smoothness of the armour likely would have caused a huge problem in regards to standing up. The more smooth the surface the less pockets of air there is between the mud and therefore there is less friction to allow an object to break free and escape. The extra weight of the armour wouldn't have helped but I don't believe this was a repetition of the old myth that knights in full armour couldn't stand up on their own, but that the characteristics of the armour would have been extremely bad for the particular conditions.

The same theory actually applies to making guns work in harsh winter conditions. Often the sliding bolts in guns will freeze in sub-zero temperatures due to snow and/or water getting inside the gun and freezing the smooth surfaces together. Therefore some modern rifles have notches/indentations in the bolt to allow more air pockets and friction so the bolt can be broken free more easily.

Ok.Maybe you are right.

I understand from another TV program that had visited the actual site and done some georgraphical investigation that suggested the ground that the French crossed to get to the English lines actually wasn't uniformally flat.
What they found was that the ground dipped down to both sides which left a narrower central flat area for the troops to advance on - this due to the fact that crowds will tend to avoid such geograhical features. This of course would tend to led to more tightly packed troop concentrations which with the muddy conditions already alluded to, led to very nasty conditions for the French to move on.
All in all it is to the credit of the French that they were able to traverse the ground and initially push the English line back a bit.

Small aside; geographical features would appear to be forgotten or discarded as factors in battle outcomes.
At Crecy it appears there is very large feature, can't recall what it is called, but it is essentially a high bank down which charging horses could not have gone, which funnelled the French knights into a narrower front and no doubt helped to confine their movements and create some chaos when horses went down or went out of control.
At Culloden the troops on Jacobite right charged along to a dip which when they went down into it gave them cover from the Government Army cannon & musket fire and helped them to get to hand-to-hand distance. [This was from the program "Two men in a trench"] The Jacobite left had a further distance to charge over and also had to traverse boggy ground, both factors which led to their not getting close to the Government Army.

Cheers

I think we should be cautious to give the battle up to one factor. The mud was but one factor. I think in the end the average man-at-arms had no problem with the mud but when you add the crowding from arrows and other things you see his odds getting lower. In the end the muck would give archers more time to do their thing at even closer distances than before. Then after a long walk in the mud and arrow rain you get to fight with a fresh English man-at-arms....

RPM

Hey M,

Thanks for the youtube links. That guy's channel is fantastic (DrBogdanovic), with 450 videos and hours of video exclusively on historical matters (Normands, goths, greeks, feudal japan...you name it). Simply brilliant!

I think it would be great to have a subforum dedicated solely to tv documentaries and video btw, instead of browsing past posts back and forth :)

Cheers,

J

No problem. I guess over Thanksgiving break I will take an opportunity to watch what he has; I've only seen a few things.

M.