Agincourt: The Brutal Reality of Medieval Warfare
Like many, I was first drawn to the Battle of Agincourt after watching The King on Netflix, a film that attempts to strip away the romanticized veil of medieval warfare and show its grim, unforgiving reality. The muddy, chaotic, and bloody depiction of Agincourt in the movie piqued my interest, inspiring me to delve deeper into the history behind this legendary battle. What I found was that the film's portrayal, far from exaggerated, only scratched the surface of the brutal realities of medieval combat.
The Battlefield: Mud and Disarray
The Battle of Agincourt, fought on 25th of October , 1415, during the Hundred Years' War, was a pivotal moment in English history. King Henry V, leading an army of 6,000–9,000 men, faced a far larger French force, estimated between 12,000 and 36,000. The battlefield conditions played a significant role in the outcome of the battle. Heavy rains had turned the clay-rich ground into thick mud, hampering the movement of the heavily armoured French knights and cavalry.
The battlefield was narrow, bordered by thick woods, which funnelled the French forces into a confined space, creating a bottleneck effect. The mud slowed their advance, causing many knights and horses to get bogged down. This left the French vulnerable to the English longbowmen, who used their powerful bows to rain down arrows on the struggling French soldiers.
According to Anne Curry, one of the leading historians on the Battle of Agincourt, "The French were their own worst enemies on the day. The conditions favoured the smaller, more mobile English army, while the French approach was more of a disastrous slog through mud, resulting in devastating losses" .
The Role of the English Longbowmen
The English longbowmen, who made up the bulk of Henry V’s army, were the decisive factor in the battle. Positioned behind a defensive line of sharpened stakes, they unleashed volley after volley of arrows, targeting the advancing French knights. The longbow was a formidable weapon, capable of piercing armour from a distance, and the French forces were decimated by this barrage.
Juliet Barker, a historian and author of Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle, notes, "The longbow was Henry’s most potent weapon, capable of firing up to ten arrows per minute. The psychological and physical toll on the French knights was devastating. Before they could even reach the English line, many had been killed or wounded" .
As the French soldiers slogged through the mud, many were killed or wounded before they could even reach the English lines. The longbowmen, lightly armoured and more mobile, had a significant advantage over the heavily armoured French, who found themselves trapped in a deadly quagmire.
The Brutality of Hand-to-Hand Combat
Once the French forces finally reached the English line, the battle descended into a brutal melee. Hand-to-hand combat in medieval warfare was a gruesome affair, far from the chivalric duels often depicted in popular culture. Swords, axes, and maces were used to hack through armour and flesh, with little room for finesse or honour. Men fought desperately for their lives in the chaotic, muddy conditions.
According to John Keegan in The Face of Battle, "The reality of hand-to-hand combat at Agincourt was savage. The knights were bogged down by their own armour and surroundings, making them vulnerable to quicker, less encumbered archers who would attack with mallets, swords, and daggers in a desperate fight for survival" .
English archers, having run out of arrows, joined the melee armed with short swords, daggers, and mallets. They attacked the French knights who were often trapped or exhausted by the mud and unable to fight effectively. Some French soldiers, immobilized by their heavy armour, were beaten to death or trampled by their own comrades. The violence was indiscriminate, as survival on the battlefield left little room for mercy.
Perhaps the most shocking act of brutality came when Henry V, fearing a renewed attack, ordered the execution of French prisoners. This was a controversial decision, violating the chivalric code of the time, but it was a grim necessity given the small size of the English army and the risk of revolt. English archers were tasked with killing defenceless prisoners, many of whom were high-ranking nobles. The executions were carried out with daggers and mallets, further adding to the grim toll of the battle.
Juliet Barker comments on this decision, explaining, "Henry’s order to kill the prisoners was shocking, even in a time of brutal warfare. Yet given the circumstances, with the French army still looming and English forces unable to properly guard thousands of prisoners, it was a calculated risk to ensure victory" .
The Aftermath: Death and Destruction
When the fighting finally ceased, the field of Agincourt was littered with the dead and dying. Estimates suggest that between 6,000 and 10,000 French soldiers were killed, while English casualties were relatively light, around 400 to 600 men. The battlefield was a horrific sight—bodies piled in the mud, knights drowned under the weight of their own armour, and the wounded left to die from their injuries or exposure.
For days after the battle, the dead lay unburied as scavengers looted the corpses. Among the French dead were many prominent nobles and commanders, including Charles d'Albret, the Constable of France. The loss of so many high-ranking leaders dealt a severe blow to the French aristocracy and left a power vacuum that would take years to fill.
Christopher Allmand, in The Hundred Years War, highlights the long-term consequences: "The defeat at Agincourt not only decimated the French nobility, but it also left the kingdom vulnerable to internal strife. The loss of so many leaders contributed to the continued instability of France during the latter stages of the Hundred Years' War" .
Conclusion: Agincourt's Legacy of Brutality
The King offered a stark and gritty portrayal of Agincourt, but the real battle was even more brutal and horrific. It was a victory built not just on strategy, but on the ruthless, savage realities of medieval warfare. The mud, blood, and death that defined Agincourt were a far cry from the noble ideals of chivalry and honour.
This battle, remembered as one of the greatest English victories, was in truth a testament to the sheer brutality of war in the Middle Ages. Henry V's victory came at the cost of thousands of lives, and the legacy of Agincourt reminds us that war, even in its most famous moments, is a deadly and violent affair.
Sources:
Curry, Anne. Agincourt: A New History. The History Press, 2006.
Barker, Juliet. Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle. Little, Brown, 2005.
Allmand, Christopher. The Hundred Years War: England and France at War, c.1300–c.1450. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Keegan, John. The Face of Battle. Penguin Books, 1976.