This day is called the Feast of Crispian
October 25, 2015 9:44 AM Subscribe
The battle of Agincourt was fought on a muddy field in northern France 600 years ago on Sunday – St Crispin’s Day, October 25th 1415. Legend says Agincourt was won by arrows. It was not. It was won by men using lead-weighted hammers, poleaxes, mauls and falcon-beaks, the ghastly paraphernalia of medieval hand-to-hand fighting. It was fought on a field knee-deep in mud, and it was more of a massacre than a battle.
But the first ranks of the French army were taken down by English longbowmen. Today, 21st Century re-enactors demonstrated how the arrows fell like rain. (Warning: Chipper television presenters.)
Henry became a national hero, and nearly 200 years later, Shakespeare gave him one of the world's great monologues. You can put on your own reading to honor the anniversary. Or watch the pros handle it:
Laurence Olivier
Kenneth Branagh
Tom Hiddleston
And in honor of the dead, let there be sung "Non Nobis" and "Te Deum."
But the first ranks of the French army were taken down by English longbowmen. Today, 21st Century re-enactors demonstrated how the arrows fell like rain. (Warning: Chipper television presenters.)
Henry became a national hero, and nearly 200 years later, Shakespeare gave him one of the world's great monologues. You can put on your own reading to honor the anniversary. Or watch the pros handle it:
Laurence Olivier
Kenneth Branagh
Tom Hiddleston
And in honor of the dead, let there be sung "Non Nobis" and "Te Deum."
It was won by men using lead-weighted hammers, poleaxes, mauls and falcon-beaks, the ghastly paraphernalia of Morris dancing.
posted by Wolfdog at 9:53 AM on October 25, 2015 [45 favorites]
posted by Wolfdog at 9:53 AM on October 25, 2015 [45 favorites]
And for a more rousing melody there's the Agincourt Carol. Many renditions, live and recorded, available via YouTube and the other usual suspects.
posted by Creosote at 9:57 AM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Creosote at 9:57 AM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
wow the woman in the green sweater is my SOUL MATE. I am completely in love with her. the thing with the broccoli was just beautiful!
excellent post. thank you :)
posted by supermedusa at 10:04 AM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
excellent post. thank you :)
posted by supermedusa at 10:04 AM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
One does not merely Morris dance his way into Agincourt.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 10:05 AM on October 25, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 10:05 AM on October 25, 2015 [8 favorites]
Broadcasting House (iPlayer, UK-only) had a historian on today. What I remember is that the arrows didn't fall like rain, or darken the sun - because longbows have a relatively low rate of fire. But accounts described them as falling like snow. His interpretation was that they described how it appeared from the archers point of view. The arrows would appear slow, because of perspective/forshortening, but steady, like falling snow in still air.
posted by sourcejedi at 10:10 AM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by sourcejedi at 10:10 AM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
Billy Bragg confused me about this for years.
posted by lagomorphius at 10:14 AM on October 25, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by lagomorphius at 10:14 AM on October 25, 2015 [8 favorites]
The arrows were certainly part of it, but another part was that the ordinary English archer was there because he wanted to fight, unlike the common infantry on the other side. Contrary to all expectations it turned out that a beefy, belligerent peasant with a big hammer and a long knife could easily take down a noble Frenchman in plate armour, especially in a muddy field.
I like to imagine the scene; remember that these French knights had been losing to showers of English arrows for a generation by now. Finally they wade across and get within sword length; now, you bastards, they think.
DONG! Massive hammer blow to the helmet, knife through a slit.
Merde, je suis mort.
posted by Segundus at 10:19 AM on October 25, 2015 [20 favorites]
I like to imagine the scene; remember that these French knights had been losing to showers of English arrows for a generation by now. Finally they wade across and get within sword length; now, you bastards, they think.
DONG! Massive hammer blow to the helmet, knife through a slit.
Merde, je suis mort.
posted by Segundus at 10:19 AM on October 25, 2015 [20 favorites]
We know this battle now mostly because of Shakespeare. But what is not said and should be noted is that the long bow, made of the yew tree, was very strong and thus capable of taking down a guy, armored, on a horse, and that made the ordinary soldier (ie, infantryman) more important that the noble, riding a horse. Thus common men begin to count. And that moves forward toward the House of Commons and the ordinary citizen, rather than full reliance of nobles, and how many horses they would bring to fight for a king.
posted by Postroad at 10:29 AM on October 25, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 10:29 AM on October 25, 2015 [18 favorites]
We can still stick two fingers up as a act of defiance, right? (Though I fear that's well out of fashion now among the kids of today sadly)
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:33 AM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:33 AM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh and recommend Warren Ellis' Crecy for that other battle
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:34 AM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:34 AM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
I read a grotesquely fascinating history of the Hundred Years War a few years ago. My main takeaway (other than deep and profound horror*) was the degree to which the English were the villains, the invaders, the murdering pillagers (a fact generally overlooked in the Anglo-centric history books I grew up with). They had no legitimate claim on any piece of France (beyond your standard monarchic bullshit); it was almost entirely about the looting. Because the only way a man could advance his station in England was to buy himself some peerage (or whatever), and the nearest available lucre was across the the channel in France, so mercenary armies kept crossing, kept doing horrible things.
* my "fave" horror was the fact that the Black Death happened in the middle of it all, killing as much as sixty percent of Europe's population. It got so bad at one point that the English had to take two years off from the invading, the murdering, the pillaging.
posted by philip-random at 10:37 AM on October 25, 2015 [11 favorites]
* my "fave" horror was the fact that the Black Death happened in the middle of it all, killing as much as sixty percent of Europe's population. It got so bad at one point that the English had to take two years off from the invading, the murdering, the pillaging.
posted by philip-random at 10:37 AM on October 25, 2015 [11 favorites]
As great as Shakespeare and Kenneth Branagh are, I'm amazed at how few Anglophones ask the very simple yet pretty damning question: were we the baddies?
posted by Blasdelb at 10:38 AM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Blasdelb at 10:38 AM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
Of course the English were the villains - have you never seen a Hollywood film?
posted by Segundus at 10:40 AM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Segundus at 10:40 AM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
We few. We happy few. We band of holy fuck this mud is thick, what was I saying?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:43 AM on October 25, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:43 AM on October 25, 2015 [17 favorites]
As great as Shakespeare and Kenneth Branagh are, I'm amazed at how few Anglophones ask the very simple yet pretty damning question: were we the baddies?
Can't be. No skulls on their caps.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 10:49 AM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
Can't be. No skulls on their caps.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 10:49 AM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
The Normans started it.
posted by Devonian at 10:57 AM on October 25, 2015 [21 favorites]
posted by Devonian at 10:57 AM on October 25, 2015 [21 favorites]
Thus common men begin to count. And that moves forward toward the House of Commons and the ordinary citizen, rather than full reliance of nobles, and how many horses they would bring to fight for a king.
Arguably on the continent more broadly the Swiss pikeman had more to do with destroying the (always somewhat mythical) absolute supremacy of cavalry. And it should be noted that some of the best infantry in Europe in the early modern period served the increasingly absolutist Spanish crown and the Holy Roman Emperor (the landknecht), so the close relationship between military value and political power isn't necessarily true. The renewed importance of infantry (whether native levies or mercenaries), in fact seems to coincide somewhat with the development of more absolutist, centralized governments, probably because it meant that there was less and less of a reason to tolerate an independent-minded nobility, now that their raison d'etre was gone.
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:01 AM on October 25, 2015 [9 favorites]
Arguably on the continent more broadly the Swiss pikeman had more to do with destroying the (always somewhat mythical) absolute supremacy of cavalry. And it should be noted that some of the best infantry in Europe in the early modern period served the increasingly absolutist Spanish crown and the Holy Roman Emperor (the landknecht), so the close relationship between military value and political power isn't necessarily true. The renewed importance of infantry (whether native levies or mercenaries), in fact seems to coincide somewhat with the development of more absolutist, centralized governments, probably because it meant that there was less and less of a reason to tolerate an independent-minded nobility, now that their raison d'etre was gone.
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:01 AM on October 25, 2015 [9 favorites]
were we the baddies?
For this, it's worth tracking down Desmond Seward's Hundred Years War. Among other things he brings to the party is the reminder that this whole mess colored the absolute loathing that the French had for the English for centuries thereafter, a loathing not entirely forgotten even today.
posted by BWA at 11:02 AM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
For this, it's worth tracking down Desmond Seward's Hundred Years War. Among other things he brings to the party is the reminder that this whole mess colored the absolute loathing that the French had for the English for centuries thereafter, a loathing not entirely forgotten even today.
posted by BWA at 11:02 AM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
English spearmen, French tanks. It was inevitable.
posted by delfin at 11:12 AM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by delfin at 11:12 AM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
AdamCSnider - but that's exactly the point, isn't it? The whole thing is about the declining power of the nobility as a class, and the concommitant rise of the bourgeoisie (let's not kid ourselves on the actual ordinary citizen making out much in any of this). On the surface, the power struggle was always between the monarchy and the rest of the nobility - this is e.g. entirely what the Magna Carta was about - so monarchies across Europe used this as an opportunity to take a lot more power. In fact my impression is that the middle class often aligned themselves with the monarchy against the nobility. It just took another couple hundred years before they could actually seize political power.
posted by goodnight to the rock n roll era at 11:27 AM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by goodnight to the rock n roll era at 11:27 AM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's some crowdsourced versions here (along with plenty of Shakespeare comics..)
And also linked there is a version of the speech in original pronunciation (scroll down a bit).
posted by nat at 11:37 AM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
And also linked there is a version of the speech in original pronunciation (scroll down a bit).
posted by nat at 11:37 AM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
What you say, Adam, makes good sense. But to elaborate on my point a bit: prior to the longbow in England, a common soldier could not do much about a noble on horse, armored. Thus in the choronicles (histories of the period), you never hear about losses of ordinary soldiers but only of nobles captured or killed, preferably captured, since they could be ransomed off. And in England, Kings did not have the full power they later came to have so need the support of this and that noble, who would bring X number of horses to battle for the king. All in all, some of these changes helped war and politics increasingly to focus upon ordinary citizens. But of course I am referring only to England in what I have said.
posted by Postroad at 11:47 AM on October 25, 2015
posted by Postroad at 11:47 AM on October 25, 2015
I'm amazed at how few Anglophones ask the very simple yet pretty damning question: were we the baddies?As Frankie Boyle says, the British national anthem should just be the word "sorry" in every language on Earth
posted by fullerine at 11:49 AM on October 25, 2015 [22 favorites]
worth tracking down Desmond Seward's Hundred Years War.
that's the one I was referring to
posted by philip-random at 11:50 AM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
that's the one I was referring to
posted by philip-random at 11:50 AM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
And that is why the English eat "crisps" to this day.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:01 PM on October 25, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 12:01 PM on October 25, 2015 [12 favorites]
Here is my band's homage/interpretation of the Branagh film. Pretty fun to yell out at a show "do you motherfuckers like Shakeapeare?"
posted by kittensofthenight at 12:22 PM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by kittensofthenight at 12:22 PM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
Mark Rylance's St. Crispin's day turn has gone missing from youtube but it is easily the best of the bunch.
posted by Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez at 12:33 PM on October 25, 2015
posted by Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez at 12:33 PM on October 25, 2015
For my money, the best speech in Branagh's version of Henry V is Blessed talking to the Fench court.
If you hide the crown, even in your hearts
There will he rake for it.
My college roommate and I always figured he had that teensy little mace in battle sequences to make it seem more fair to everyone else. (Side note: Why are there no good editions of Branagh films available on Blu-Ray? I've been looking for Midwinter's Tale for ages.)
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 1:01 PM on October 25, 2015 [7 favorites]
If you hide the crown, even in your hearts
There will he rake for it.
My college roommate and I always figured he had that teensy little mace in battle sequences to make it seem more fair to everyone else. (Side note: Why are there no good editions of Branagh films available on Blu-Ray? I've been looking for Midwinter's Tale for ages.)
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 1:01 PM on October 25, 2015 [7 favorites]
I don't know if it's accurate to say the English had no claim on parts of France. The problem really began with the Normans (SURPRISE), and the ebb and flow of their initial control of their dukedom in Normandy, and the expansions they would make with deals with or against the French crown to control even more land. Following the end of William's direct line, the successor kings had a habit of conquering quite a bit of French soil, forcing the French kings to recognize their holdings, and then in the next generation, losing it all to powerful French kings who would turn around and make the English kings recognize their subservience as mere dukes of French, who needed to pay homage to them. Toss in some strategic marriages, and you have a recipe for generations of problems.
Ultimately, the 100 Years War was just a continuation of this trend - granted, a fair bit of it had to do with the English monarchs being sore losers and always pushing the French with the equivalent, "Okay, best 45 out of 89! ....oh, okay, how about best 46 out of 91?!"
Really, both sides for the most part treated the poor common folk with the same amount of love and respect, which was about zero. They brought in mercenaries who then roamed free range when they weren't paid or were simply bored.
One of my favorite belongings is a pewter statue of St. Crispin on horseback...which succeeded in losing a bit of his crown after a move. Shucks.
posted by Atreides at 1:36 PM on October 25, 2015 [8 favorites]
Ultimately, the 100 Years War was just a continuation of this trend - granted, a fair bit of it had to do with the English monarchs being sore losers and always pushing the French with the equivalent, "Okay, best 45 out of 89! ....oh, okay, how about best 46 out of 91?!"
Really, both sides for the most part treated the poor common folk with the same amount of love and respect, which was about zero. They brought in mercenaries who then roamed free range when they weren't paid or were simply bored.
One of my favorite belongings is a pewter statue of St. Crispin on horseback...which succeeded in losing a bit of his crown after a move. Shucks.
posted by Atreides at 1:36 PM on October 25, 2015 [8 favorites]
They had no legitimate claim on any piece of France (beyond your standard monarchic bullshit); it was almost entirely about the looting.
Except the "standard monarchic bullshit" was the rule of the day. It's wrong, I think, to look at the 100 Years' War as "England vs France;" it was more of a three-way contest of England, the ruling house of France, and Burgundy, with a lot of minor (and not so minor) semi-independent lords changing sides as the situation changed. This is one reason why it lasted so long -- also because feudalism is not really comparable with the nation-state as we envision it. The King of England (note, not the English) had as much right to most of western France under the feudal system as the titular King of France or the Duke of Burgundy did. Now the King of England also owed feudal duty for that land (which is where a big chunk of the complexity comes in), but Henry's claim wasn't illegitimate (especially under English law, which accepted a woman's right to inherit more than French law did).
Really, it was another round in the effort to centralize power in France (and England) that had been going on since Philip II/Henry II's day at least, and which France and England managed to eventually do (after maybe 150 years of bloody civil war each) and which Germany and Italy failed to do (and Poland catastrophically failed to do, but the situation in eastern Europe was really different).
If you are at all interested in the events as seen from a fairly even-handed English point of view, the podcast The History of England episodes covering maybe Edward II-Henry VI will give you a fairly entertaining and informative overview. I wish there was a similar thing in English from the French side.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:40 PM on October 25, 2015 [12 favorites]
Except the "standard monarchic bullshit" was the rule of the day. It's wrong, I think, to look at the 100 Years' War as "England vs France;" it was more of a three-way contest of England, the ruling house of France, and Burgundy, with a lot of minor (and not so minor) semi-independent lords changing sides as the situation changed. This is one reason why it lasted so long -- also because feudalism is not really comparable with the nation-state as we envision it. The King of England (note, not the English) had as much right to most of western France under the feudal system as the titular King of France or the Duke of Burgundy did. Now the King of England also owed feudal duty for that land (which is where a big chunk of the complexity comes in), but Henry's claim wasn't illegitimate (especially under English law, which accepted a woman's right to inherit more than French law did).
Really, it was another round in the effort to centralize power in France (and England) that had been going on since Philip II/Henry II's day at least, and which France and England managed to eventually do (after maybe 150 years of bloody civil war each) and which Germany and Italy failed to do (and Poland catastrophically failed to do, but the situation in eastern Europe was really different).
If you are at all interested in the events as seen from a fairly even-handed English point of view, the podcast The History of England episodes covering maybe Edward II-Henry VI will give you a fairly entertaining and informative overview. I wish there was a similar thing in English from the French side.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:40 PM on October 25, 2015 [12 favorites]
Spike: "Well, not exactly the St. Crispin’s Day speech, was it?"
Giles: “We few, we happy few . . . .”
Spike: “. . . . we band of buggered.”
--BtVS, "The Gift" (s5e22)
posted by bentley at 1:53 PM on October 25, 2015 [13 favorites]
Giles: “We few, we happy few . . . .”
Spike: “. . . . we band of buggered.”
--BtVS, "The Gift" (s5e22)
posted by bentley at 1:53 PM on October 25, 2015 [13 favorites]
Here is a trivia thing for you: just watched the Branagh speech and the camera showed a young guy who looked a lot like Christian Bale. Turned out to be Christian Bale, as Robin the Luggage Boy. Thank you, internet movie database.
posted by not that girl at 2:29 PM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by not that girl at 2:29 PM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
We read Henry V at my office after hours last week. I got to do "Once more unto the breach!" and "We happy few..." and I must say I KILLED it.
Seriously, the Tom Hiddleston version of the play, part of the Hollow Crown series, is superb. I far prefer it to Branagh (and I find the Olivier pretty much unwatchable for its weird staging and art direction and old-timey performances).
posted by stargell at 2:42 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
Seriously, the Tom Hiddleston version of the play, part of the Hollow Crown series, is superb. I far prefer it to Branagh (and I find the Olivier pretty much unwatchable for its weird staging and art direction and old-timey performances).
posted by stargell at 2:42 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
I must say I KILLED it.
Did your line readings hide the sun?
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:47 PM on October 25, 2015
Did your line readings hide the sun?
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:47 PM on October 25, 2015
Arguably on the continent more broadly the Swiss pikeman had more to do with destroying the (always somewhat mythical) absolute supremacy of cavalry.
Well, the notion of knights on horseback at least. Cavalry still meant something until WWI at least, on the continent, Asia, and the New World (nods to Sheridan and Crazy Horse).
posted by Ber at 2:48 PM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well, the notion of knights on horseback at least. Cavalry still meant something until WWI at least, on the continent, Asia, and the New World (nods to Sheridan and Crazy Horse).
posted by Ber at 2:48 PM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
Seriously, the Tom Hiddleston version of the play, part of the Hollow Crown series, is superb. I far prefer it to Branagh
A friend of mine gave me the Hollow Crown series on DVD a few years ago and I love it (and I am chomping at the bit for Series 2 and Cumberbatch as Richard III). That being said, I still prefer Branagh's version. It's just waaaaaay too ingrained in my mind. I just watched the speech from the link above and... goosebumps. Every. Damn. Time.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 2:55 PM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
A friend of mine gave me the Hollow Crown series on DVD a few years ago and I love it (and I am chomping at the bit for Series 2 and Cumberbatch as Richard III). That being said, I still prefer Branagh's version. It's just waaaaaay too ingrained in my mind. I just watched the speech from the link above and... goosebumps. Every. Damn. Time.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 2:55 PM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
Also, for those interested, AV Club recently did a "Scenic Route" examination of the the three traitors scene from Branagh's version.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 2:59 PM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 2:59 PM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
fearfulsymmetry: "Oh and recommend Warren Ellis' Crecy for that other battle"
Don't forget Poitiers!
posted by Chrysostom at 3:03 PM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
Don't forget Poitiers!
posted by Chrysostom at 3:03 PM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
How many suburban neighbourhoods labour under the name Agincourt in what remains of the British Commonwealth?
Too many.
posted by clvrmnky at 3:17 PM on October 25, 2015
Too many.
posted by clvrmnky at 3:17 PM on October 25, 2015
For the traditional British folk song version of this, see: the Agincourt Carol.
posted by teponaztli at 3:32 PM on October 25, 2015
posted by teponaztli at 3:32 PM on October 25, 2015
Well, the notion of knights on horseback at least.
The whole knights in armor thing makes a whole lot more sense if you imagine their primary opponents to be half-starved peasants armed with sticks and stones.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:44 PM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
The whole knights in armor thing makes a whole lot more sense if you imagine their primary opponents to be half-starved peasants armed with sticks and stones.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:44 PM on October 25, 2015 [1 favorite]
The whole knights in armor thing makes a whole lot more sense if you imagine their primary opponents to be half-starved peasants armed with sticks and stones.
it's the violence inherent in the system...
posted by OHenryPacey at 3:55 PM on October 25, 2015 [11 favorites]
it's the violence inherent in the system...
posted by OHenryPacey at 3:55 PM on October 25, 2015 [11 favorites]
wow the woman in the green sweater is my SOUL MATE.
Yes, Ruth Goodman is pretty amazing.
posted by glasseyes at 4:12 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yes, Ruth Goodman is pretty amazing.
posted by glasseyes at 4:12 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
Iirc the narrow field of battle, the mud and the overwhelming number of French soldiers charging in may have created conditions of a crowd crush. Similar to the recent disaster in Saudi Arabia.
posted by humanfont at 5:13 PM on October 25, 2015
posted by humanfont at 5:13 PM on October 25, 2015
I hope I don't get pilloried for saying this, but Branagh's version is just flat out breathtaking. I would follow this man straight into the jaws of hell if he asked me to.
Olivier's is terrific, but it just loses me somewhere in the middle. Although, I do have to admit I get goosebumps watching his while thinking about the meta-context. Imagine you're a British citizen and this film comies out during WWII. Olivier may have been inspiring the troops to go into battle against the French, but there's no mistaking the subtext. This is a soliloquy about going down to the bitter end fighting the Nazis.
posted by zooropa at 5:23 PM on October 25, 2015 [7 favorites]
Olivier's is terrific, but it just loses me somewhere in the middle. Although, I do have to admit I get goosebumps watching his while thinking about the meta-context. Imagine you're a British citizen and this film comies out during WWII. Olivier may have been inspiring the troops to go into battle against the French, but there's no mistaking the subtext. This is a soliloquy about going down to the bitter end fighting the Nazis.
posted by zooropa at 5:23 PM on October 25, 2015 [7 favorites]
Edward III's claim to the French throne was destroyed by the birth of Charles the Bad, if you accept the weird theory of transmission by women (but not to women).
Salic law was just an a posteriori excuse, and it's pretty weak given that Hugh Capet was elected king of France after the downfall of the descendants of Karl der Große, who had themselves usurped the last descendants of Chlodwig.
It's interesting that English-speakers are fascinated by Agincourt and the Hundred-years War in a way Francophones aren't. For instance, it comes up several times in the British Sitcom The Thin Blue Line.
Azincourt was won by the absence of a strong leadership among the French. The King, Charles VI, was mentally ill, and the Armagnac-Burgundian War was ongoing. Simply giving battle was a mistake; it would have been better to keep shadowing the English army so it would run out of supplies and have to decamp. The experienced military men among the French wanted to send seasoned men-at-arms on foot and forego the charge, but they were overruled by the high-ranking nobles, with disastrous results.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 5:36 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
Salic law was just an a posteriori excuse, and it's pretty weak given that Hugh Capet was elected king of France after the downfall of the descendants of Karl der Große, who had themselves usurped the last descendants of Chlodwig.
It's interesting that English-speakers are fascinated by Agincourt and the Hundred-years War in a way Francophones aren't. For instance, it comes up several times in the British Sitcom The Thin Blue Line.
Azincourt was won by the absence of a strong leadership among the French. The King, Charles VI, was mentally ill, and the Armagnac-Burgundian War was ongoing. Simply giving battle was a mistake; it would have been better to keep shadowing the English army so it would run out of supplies and have to decamp. The experienced military men among the French wanted to send seasoned men-at-arms on foot and forego the charge, but they were overruled by the high-ranking nobles, with disastrous results.
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 5:36 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
For my money, the best speech in Branagh's version of Henry V is Blessed talking to the French court
He's just looking at the Dauphin as if he's thinking, I regularly take shits that are larger and more threatening than you.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:54 PM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
He's just looking at the Dauphin as if he's thinking, I regularly take shits that are larger and more threatening than you.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:54 PM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
Agincourt's Dark Secrets Battlefield Detectives YouTube
posted by adamvasco at 6:02 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by adamvasco at 6:02 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
Billy Bragg confused me about this for years.
So I wasn't alone in thinking that the Battle of Agincourt was fought on St. Swithin's Day?
posted by Flashman at 7:42 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
So I wasn't alone in thinking that the Battle of Agincourt was fought on St. Swithin's Day?
posted by Flashman at 7:42 PM on October 25, 2015 [3 favorites]
Branagh's version of the speech is the great, big, soaring epic. It's great.
The Hiddleston version is a handful of guys looking at each other going, "Are we fucked? Was this all a terrible mistake? We're fucked, right? Can we go home? If we just left right now, would we make it back? Because it looks like we're really fucked."
So, two different takes. "We few, we happy few..." Branagh's few is the underdog team taking the field against the defending champ. Hiddleston's few is ... yeah. Few.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:57 PM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
The Hiddleston version is a handful of guys looking at each other going, "Are we fucked? Was this all a terrible mistake? We're fucked, right? Can we go home? If we just left right now, would we make it back? Because it looks like we're really fucked."
So, two different takes. "We few, we happy few..." Branagh's few is the underdog team taking the field against the defending champ. Hiddleston's few is ... yeah. Few.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:57 PM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
Also, Waterloo, The Somme.
When I was in college, I had two separate courses where we had to read The Face of Battle by John Keegan, which covers Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme in great detail. You may require several drinks after reading about the Somme. I know I did.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 8:11 PM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
When I was in college, I had two separate courses where we had to read The Face of Battle by John Keegan, which covers Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme in great detail. You may require several drinks after reading about the Somme. I know I did.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 8:11 PM on October 25, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'll look up a reference if anyone is interested. I once read that the line that shows how far the English army invaded France during the Hundred Years War and the line that shows the average daytime temperature of +25°C or greater are pretty similar. The English longbow was springy and effective up to about 25°C. Above that, the yew wood got relaxed and mushy, and was not as good a combat weapon. If that's true, I think it's fascinating.
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 9:36 PM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Multicellular Exothermic at 9:36 PM on October 25, 2015 [2 favorites]
GenjiandProust: " Did your line readings hide the sun?"
THEN WE WILL LISTEN IN THE SHADE
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:47 PM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
THEN WE WILL LISTEN IN THE SHADE
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 9:47 PM on October 25, 2015 [5 favorites]
The renewed importance of infantry (whether native levies or mercenaries), in fact seems to coincide somewhat with the development of more absolutist, centralized governments, probably because it meant that there was less and less of a reason to tolerate an independent-minded nobility, now that their raison d'etre was gone.
The formation size at which infantry can beat knights is probably quite large. It also requires much tighter co-ordination of combined arms to work, and strong ties to bind the combatants together to stop the formation breaking (and/or effective discipline).
Getting a small number of men on horses to charge an enemy doesn't require the same kind of central authority as co-ordinating the much larger number of foot soldiers required to stand against them and win.
Only once you mostly fight large pitched battles between centrally led adversaries can you routinely beat knights with foot soldiers.
posted by atrazine at 4:31 AM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
The formation size at which infantry can beat knights is probably quite large. It also requires much tighter co-ordination of combined arms to work, and strong ties to bind the combatants together to stop the formation breaking (and/or effective discipline).
Getting a small number of men on horses to charge an enemy doesn't require the same kind of central authority as co-ordinating the much larger number of foot soldiers required to stand against them and win.
Only once you mostly fight large pitched battles between centrally led adversaries can you routinely beat knights with foot soldiers.
posted by atrazine at 4:31 AM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
At Agincourt some barbed ‘broadheads’ would have been shot at those few horses that attacked the English line, but the vast majority were ‘bodkins’, long and slender arrowheads without barbs that were made to pierce armour.
Hmm, I thought that recent scholarship awards the armour piercing role to the broadhead, as there's a dearth of hardened bodkins found on old battlefields. That would make the bodkin more an arrow used for long distances, it being lighter and more aerodynamic.
posted by pseudocode at 6:21 AM on October 26, 2015
Hmm, I thought that recent scholarship awards the armour piercing role to the broadhead, as there's a dearth of hardened bodkins found on old battlefields. That would make the bodkin more an arrow used for long distances, it being lighter and more aerodynamic.
posted by pseudocode at 6:21 AM on October 26, 2015
As a friend reminded me overnight, “The slaughter was unimaginable.”
posted by ob1quixote at 11:16 AM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ob1quixote at 11:16 AM on October 26, 2015 [1 favorite]
600 years plus the julian to gregorian calendar shift, surely?
posted by scruss at 3:02 PM on October 26, 2015
posted by scruss at 3:02 PM on October 26, 2015
The whole knights in armor thing makes a whole lot more sense if you imagine their primary opponents to be half-starved peasants armed with sticks and stones.
Or, say, the legions of the Roman Empire.
Only once you mostly fight large pitched battles between centrally led adversaries can you routinely beat knights with foot soldiers.
This. Properly supported armored heavy cavalry was damn near unstoppable on the battlefield from about the 5th Century BC when Persians cataphracts fought the Greeks right up through the middle ages. One of their chief limitations was economic, because each knight/cataphract cost a lot of money to train, equip, and maintain. Since the size of such a force was usually limited, they were mainly used as shock assault troops, and they were usually a decisive force if employed at the right time. It took a long time for armies to figure out the right combination of arms and tactics to consistently smack down a heavily armored dude with a pointed stick riding at you full steam on a heavily armored horse.
You don't even need the infantry, if you bring along some horse archers. The Mongols had nothing but horse archers and heavy cavalry. They used that all-cavalry force to conquer most of the Eurasian continent and they did it without too much difficulty.
posted by snottydick at 7:11 AM on October 27, 2015
Or, say, the legions of the Roman Empire.
Only once you mostly fight large pitched battles between centrally led adversaries can you routinely beat knights with foot soldiers.
This. Properly supported armored heavy cavalry was damn near unstoppable on the battlefield from about the 5th Century BC when Persians cataphracts fought the Greeks right up through the middle ages. One of their chief limitations was economic, because each knight/cataphract cost a lot of money to train, equip, and maintain. Since the size of such a force was usually limited, they were mainly used as shock assault troops, and they were usually a decisive force if employed at the right time. It took a long time for armies to figure out the right combination of arms and tactics to consistently smack down a heavily armored dude with a pointed stick riding at you full steam on a heavily armored horse.
You don't even need the infantry, if you bring along some horse archers. The Mongols had nothing but horse archers and heavy cavalry. They used that all-cavalry force to conquer most of the Eurasian continent and they did it without too much difficulty.
posted by snottydick at 7:11 AM on October 27, 2015
The whole thing makes a lot of sense in retrospect.
Army 1 has armored dudes on armored horses riding at them with pointy sticks. When they make contact, army 1 is going to have a bad time. So, get some of your own pointy sticks and launch them at the dudes on horses while they're still far away. Now army 2's point sticks can't get to us.
The solution for army 2 is obvious. You are being hit with point sticks from farther away that you can them back. You're on a horse so you just need to ride at them as fast as you can and your bigger pointy stick (along with your armor, your horses armor, and a lot of mass moving quickly) has the advantage again.
At Agincourt, the field was too muddy to ride with any speed so you've lot your mobility advantage and that takes the weight advantage with it. You still have some height and reach advantage and you're more heavily armored but you don't have your legs under you to really generate a lot of power (you usually count on the movement of the horse for that). You can still swing your sword (or axe, morning star, war-hammer, etc) but you're using a lot arm strength to do it so it's really just a matter of time until that armor gets crushed and you along with it.
posted by VTX at 8:05 AM on October 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Army 1 has armored dudes on armored horses riding at them with pointy sticks. When they make contact, army 1 is going to have a bad time. So, get some of your own pointy sticks and launch them at the dudes on horses while they're still far away. Now army 2's point sticks can't get to us.
The solution for army 2 is obvious. You are being hit with point sticks from farther away that you can them back. You're on a horse so you just need to ride at them as fast as you can and your bigger pointy stick (along with your armor, your horses armor, and a lot of mass moving quickly) has the advantage again.
At Agincourt, the field was too muddy to ride with any speed so you've lot your mobility advantage and that takes the weight advantage with it. You still have some height and reach advantage and you're more heavily armored but you don't have your legs under you to really generate a lot of power (you usually count on the movement of the horse for that). You can still swing your sword (or axe, morning star, war-hammer, etc) but you're using a lot arm strength to do it so it's really just a matter of time until that armor gets crushed and you along with it.
posted by VTX at 8:05 AM on October 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older The Philips Golden Ears Challenge | the pause that refereshes Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I'm pretty sure it was won by a rousing Kenneth Branagh speech, an inspiring Patrick Doyle score, and motherfucking Brian Bleessed in motherfucking plate mail.
posted by AlonzoMosleyFBI at 9:52 AM on October 25, 2015 [57 favorites]