1415: Henry V's Year of Glory (100 page)

50.
Gesta
, p. 67.

51.
Johnes (ed.),
Monstrelet
, i, p. 337.

52.
Issues
, p. 342.

53.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 132; Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, p. 112.

54.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 163;
S&I
, p. 124.

55.
S&I
, pp. 43, 148; Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 139; Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, p. 114.

56.
S&I
, p. 148.

57.
CPR
, p. 379. The grant was finally made on 28 November.

58.
S&I
, pp. 30, 77.

59.
Gesta
, p. 69; Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 140 notes that some French sources place the order for the stakes to be made on the 20th.

60.
Gesta
, p. 69; Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, p. 117;
S&I
, pp. 57, 66.

61.
Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 108–9; Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, pp. 104, 122.

62.
Petit,
Itinéraires
, p. 421.

63.
Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 139, 324.

64.
S&I
, p. 44;
Gesta
, p. 71; Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 143.

65.
S&I
, p. 57.

66.
Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 145–6.

67.
Gesta
, p. 71 notes the order to burn the villages.
S&I
, p. 103 states that they were indeed burnt.

68.
Gesta
, pp. 73–5.

69.
S&I
, pp. 148–9.

70.
Gesta
, p. 75.

71.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 148.

72.
Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 141, 150;
S&I
, p. 172.

73.
S&I
, p. 111.

74.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 121.

75.
S&I
, pp. 45, 77. For a discussion as to which lords sent the heralds, see Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 149–52. I suspect that some chroniclers’ addition of the name of the duke of Orléans was in light of his command at the battle, and that the duke of Bourbon issued the challenge.

76.
S&I
, p. 180.

77.
Gesta
, p. 75.

78.
S&I
, p. 132; Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, pp. 121–2.

79.
Johnes (ed.),
Monstrelet
, i, p. 338; Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 218–9;
S&I
, p. 180.

80.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 221.

81.
S&I
, p. 132.

82.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 153.

83.
Gesta
, pp. 76–7.

84.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 156.

85.
S&I
, p. 172.

86.
Wylie suggests it in
Henry V
, ii, p. 127. See Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 152–3 for a supporting view.

87.
S&I
, p. 117.

88.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 156.

89.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 160;
S&I
, p.152.

90.
S&I
, p. 58.

91.
S&I
, p. 68.

92.
Gesta
, p. 77.

93.
S&I
, p. 173.

94.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 218.

95.
Gesta
, p. 79;
S&I
, p. 59 (for Henry riding ahead).

96.
Gesta
, p. 79.

97.
S&I
, p. 45.

98.
Perfect King
, p. 393;
Fears
, pp. 197, 265.

99.
For example, the chronicle
of Ruisseauville,
S&I
, p. 124.

100.
S&I
, p. 153.

101.
S&I
, pp. 50, 63.

102.
See Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 215, 218. Curry supposes that the duke of Orléans was not with the army during the day of the 24th but did send out the count of Richemont during the night. This would suggest he arrived late on the evening of the 24th or during the night. Gilles le Bouvier (the Berry Herald) states that he arrived on the day of battle itself, as Henry was drawing up his troops.
S&I
, p. 181.

103.
S&I
, p. 59; Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 168.

104.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 215;
S&I
, p. 155.

105.
S&I
, pp. 59, 69, 92, 154.

106.
S&I
, p. 154.

107.
S&I
, p. 163. Although note that one of the commanders named is the count of Marle, who is named by the Berry Herald as taking his place in the main battle (
S&I
, p. 181).

108.
The placing of the French crossbowmen is noted in both English and French sources:
S&I
, pp. 36 (crossbowmen at the back of the men-at-arms and on the wings), 106 (crossbowmen not at their post, having been given permission to depart), 125 (archers not used), 159 (archers ordered not to shoot for fear of hitting the men-at-arms) and 173 (the archers, crossbowmen and infantry at the rear). Pierre Cochon notes that all those of lower status were pushed to the rear (
S&I
, p. 113).

109.
S&I
, pp. 34, 36, 106, 161, 181; Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 222–5. See also
S&I
, p. 61 for the wings of the French army being forward, like horns.

110.
S&I
, p. 111.

111.
S&I
, p. 172.

112.
S&I
, pp. 34, 46, 59.

113.
Gesta
, p. 83. It is worth noting that the two men whom Henry had appointed to lead the vanguard and rearguard embodied what he had to lose. The duke of York’s brother had been the traitorous earl of Cambridge who had sought to put the earl of March on the throne. Sir Thomas Camoys was similarly connected to the supposed conspirators. His wife was Elizabeth Mortimer – the widow of Hotspur, the mother of Henry Percy, and the aunt of the earl of March. If God were to be seen to favour Henry’s enemies, then the verdict of an English defeat would not just stand for France but also for Henry’s enemies in England, for it could be seen to vindicate the earl of Cambridge’s cause and the earl of March’s claim.

114.
S&I
, pp. 132–3, 154, 157.

115.
S&I
, p. 184. The follow-up statement that both of the men dressed like the king were killed may reflect a deliberate attempt to detract from Henry’s posthumous heroic reputation by associating Henry with this somewhat unchivalrous tactic, which the count would have learnt about during his time as a prisoner in England. At least one if not both of the men dressed as Henry IV at Shrewsbury were killed. See
Fears
, pp. 268–9, 272–3. The fact that no other French source mentions two men dressed as Henry probably indicates it is a malicious assertion.

116.
S&I
, pp. 46, 52, 95, 154–5.

117.
S&I
, p. 134.

118.
S&I
, p. 70.

119.
S&I
, pp. 60, 71.

120.
S&I
, pp. 104, 118, 124, 129–30, 125, 132, 153, 189. Note the French writers themselves are divided on whether such negotiations took place the previous evening or this morning. It is exceedingly doubtful that Henry ever made an offer of any sort. The only reason for supposing he
might have done so are the moments when he chose to avoid conflict, firstly at Blanchetaque and secondly after leaving Péronne. But both those decisions had been taken to avoid fighting on ground which the French had chosen. Henry did not try to avoid battle at Agincourt. If he did send heralds to the French, then they were most probably sent the previous day, to request a truce overnight.

121.
S&I
, pp. 124, 130.

122.
This is the Burgundian view. See
S&I
, p. 159.

123.
S&I
, p. 181.

124.
S&I
, pp. 61, 71. The latter does not name the lords.

125.
S&I
, pp. 153, 164.

126.
S&I
, p. 157.

127.
S&I
, pp. 72–3 (Pseudo-Elmham).

128.
Most chronicles which mention the stakes say the archers took them. Some do not mention them in the fight, however; and one specifically says the archers did not carry them (
S&I
, p. 72). Probably some did take them and some left them.

129.
Gesta
, pp. 85–7;
S&I
, pp. 72 (mouthfuls of earth), 159–60 (Erpingham).

130.
S&I
, pp. 181–2.

131.
For Clignet de Brabant leading this charge, see
S&I
, p. 173. For only 120 men being able to respond and charge with him, see
S&I
, p. 160 (p. 186 states 300). For Guillaume de Saveuses and his 300, see
S&I
, p. 161.

132.
For the rain overnight and the muddiness of the field, see
S&I
, pp. 34 (
Gesta
: rain the whole night through), 51 (
Walsingham
: softness of the ground), 106 (
monk of St Denis
: torrents of rain … quagmire), 113 (
Pierre Cochon
: so much rain, ground soft), 115 (
French Chronicle
: newly worked land), 124 (rain all night), 125 (
ibid
: feet often sank deep into the ground), 130 (
des Ursins
: raining a long time, soft ground, feet sank into the ground), 133 (
des Ursins
: rain, soft ground, progress difficult), 154 (
Burgundians: Monstrelet, le Fèvre, Waurin
: rain all night; churned up ground), 159 (
Burgundians
: many horses churn up the ground … a quagmire).

133.
For the disrupting of the French vanguard, see
S&I
, pp. 125, 161. For the three columns, see
Gesta
, p. 89.

134.
For the piles of dead, see
S&I
, pp. 37, 47, 92 (two spears’ height). For the tightly packed third rank, and Guichard Dauphin and Vendôme, p. 107.

135.
S&I
, p. 107.

136.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 253.

137.
S&I
, p. 168. The French assigned the honour of killing him to the duke of Alençon, although whether Alençon was fighting against the vanguard or the main battle is uncertain. In the Burgundian chronicles, Alençon is supposed to have attacked the king after killing the duke of York – but the king was in the main battle, and some distance away from York.

138.
Given-Wilson (ed.),
Usk
, pp. 256–7. No source mentions Sir John Mortimer of Martley; his death on 25th or 28th October is noted in Kirby (ed.),
IPM
, xx, p. 109 (writ issued 5 December). He was certainly on the campaign, as he was knighted at Pont Rémy.
The Visitation of Kent
, p. 209, quoting BL Harleian MS 6138 fol. 125, calls him Hugh Mortimer and states he was slain at Agincourt. For Dafydd Gam’s attempt on Glendower’s life, see
Fears
, pp. 291, 430 (n. 27).

139.
S&I
, p. 62.

140.
S&I
, pp. 52, 125, 131, 134, 162, 168. For Henry fighting with a battle axe see
ibid
, p. 52. For Humphrey wounded in the groin and Henry defending him,
ibid
, pp. 47, 62, 73, 184. For the cutting of Henry’s crown,
ibid
,
pp. 47, 94, 157 (where it was cut by one of the eighteen).

141.
S&I
, pp. 60, 115, 162, 174–5.

142.
S&I
, p. 115 (point of defeat). Des Ursins states he had just a dozen men (
S&I
, p. 134).

143.
S&I
, p. 134.

144.
S&I
, p. 163.

145.
S&I
, p. 163.