1415: Henry V's Year of Glory (102 page)

10.
Vaughan,
John the Fearless
, p. 209; Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 226.

11.
Wylie,
Henry V
, i, pp. 96–7.

12.
CCR
, pp. 230 (Somercotes), 236 (Wyrom and Sherman).
CPR
, pp. 379 (coal, abbot of Canterbury), 384 (Charterhouse).

13.
Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 227, quoting
Juvénal des Ursins
, p. 525; Johnes (ed.),
Monstrelet
, i, p. 349.

14.
For the names of the ambassadors, see Johnes (ed.),
Monstrelet
, i, p. 349. For the date of sending them, see
de Baye
, p. 228, n. 2.

15.
Foedera
, ix, p. 323; Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, p. 138, n. 41.

16.
CPR
, p. 378.

17.
CPR
, p. 380.

18.
Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 537, n. 8.

19.
CPR
, p. 384; Wylie,
Henry V
, i, pp. 536–7.

20.
Issues
, p. 343.

21.
de Baye
, p. 227, n. 1, quoting
Juvénal des Ursins
, p. 525; Johnes (ed.),
Monstrelet
, i, p. 348.

22.
Johnes (ed.),
Monstrelet
, i, p. 348; Petit,
Itinéraires
, p. 423.

23.
CPR
,
p. 405.

24.
Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 104.

25.
CPR
, p. 385. The reversion was after the death of Thomas Erpingham.

26.
CPR
, p. 383.

27.
CPR
, pp. 398–9.

28.
Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, pp. xv, 188–91;
Foedera
, ix, pp. 324–5.

29.
Johnes (ed.),
Monstrelet
, i, p. 349;
de Baye
, p. 228, n. 2; Petit,
Itinéraires
, p. 423; Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 585.

30.
de Baye
, p. 229.

31.
De Baye
, p. 229, n. 1, quoting
Juvénal des Ursins
, p. 525.

32.
CPR
, p. 397.

33.
Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 585;
de Baye
, pp. 228–9, n. 2.

34.
Foedera
, ix, pp. 325–6.

35.
CPR
, p. 381.

36.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, p. 504.

37.
The terms of 13 December appear in Loomis (ed.)¸
Constance
, pp. 269–79. Benedict XIII was finally deposed on 26 July 1417.

38.
Loomis (ed.),
Constance
, p. 138.

39.
E 403/623;
Issues
, pp. 343–4.

40.
Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 585.

41.
Foedera
, ix, p. 327.

42.
Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 583.

43.
Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, p. 332. Wylie claims this sortie was led by Beaufort, but he seems to have been back in England by the end of November and to have remained there until early 1416.

44.
Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, p. 106; Barker,
Agincourt
, p. 238.

45.
Issues
, p. 344.

46.
Issues
, pp. 344–5

47.
Bellaguet (ed.),
Chronique du Religieux
, v, p. 589;
de Baye
, p. 233.

48.
For the feast being at Lambeth, see
Chronica Maiora
, p. 413. The date given is 1416 but Christmas 1415 is obviously intended, from the positioning of the reference. See also
Gesta
, pp. 113–14.

49.
Dockray,
Warrior King
, p. 222.

Conclusion

1.
McFarlane,
Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights
, p. 133. The line was actually written in 1954 according to Curry,
Agincourt … Erpingham
, p. 9.

2.
Allmand,
Henry V
, p. 3.

3.
Allmand,
Henry V
, p. 443.

4.
Curry,
Agincourt … Erpingham
, p. 9.

5.
Pugh,
Southampton Plot
, p. 145.

6.
Hardy (ed.),
Waurin
, p. 391.

7.
Bradbury,
Medieval Archer
, p. 117.

8.
Issues
, pp. 278 (joust), 280 (sparrowhawk), 284 (swordfight, and king’s fool), 285 (‘to a certain woman’).

9.
J. Simmons, ‘Mr Rowse’s Masterpiece’,
National & English Review
(January 1951), pp. 44–5.

10.
For chess, cards and tables, see Dockray,
Warrior King
, p. 214.

11.
Dockray,
Warrior King
, p. 222. He said this at Caen, in 1419, when asked how he justified killing so many innocent people.

12.
Allmand,
Society and War
, p. 42.

13.
Dockray,
Warrior King
, p. 214.

14.
Allmand,
Henry V
, p. 8. The ambiguity in Allmand’s text is clarified in Mortimer, ‘Henry IV’s date of birth and the royal Maundy’, pp. 568–9, n. 7.

15.
Otway-Ruthven,
Medieval Ireland
, pp. 165, 334, 348–50;
ODNB
, under John Talbot.

16.
Wylie,
Henry V
, i, p. 537;
PROME
, iv, p. 213 (1423);
CPR
, p. 361.

17.
HKW
, ii, pp. 569–70.

18.
Nicolas,
Agincourt
, appendix, p. 15.

19.
Harriss,
Shaping the Nation
, p. 592.

20.
Pugh,
Southampton Plot
, p. 138.

21.
Vale,
English Gascony
, p. 76.

Appendix 1

1.
Testamenta Vetusta
, i, p. 189, quoting Hume, vol. iii, p. 64.

2.
Bennett, ‘Edward III’s Entail’, p. 608.

3.
For the declaration being in 1386 not 1385, see Mortimer, ‘Richard II and the Succession’, pp. 325–8.

4.
Mortimer, ‘Richard II and the Succession’, pp. 331–3.

5.
For the murder of the duke of Gloucester, see
Fears
, pp. 142–6; James Tait, ‘Did Richard II Murder the Duke of Gloucester?’, in T. F. Tout and James Tait (eds),
Historical Essays by Members of the Owens College Manchester
(1902); A. E. Stamp, ‘Richard II and the Death of the Duke of Gloucester’,
EHR
, 38 (1923), pp. 249–51; R. L. Atkinson, ‘Richard II and the Death of the Duke of Gloucester’,
EHR
, 38 (1923), pp. 563–4; A. E. Stamp, ‘Richard II and the Death of the Duke of Gloucester’,
EHR
, 47 (1932), p. 453.

6.
Fears
, pp. 205–9.

7.
Riley (ed.),
Annales
, p. 399 refers to Thomas Mowbray, Earl Marshal, confessing that he was aware of the duke’s plot to rescue the boys. This has been seen as corroboration of Constance’s accusations. However, the chronicler may just have been describing the plot as ‘news of the duke’s intentions’ as a shorthand for the plan. The duke offered to defend himself in a duel to protest his innocence. The
ODNB
states that he confessed he knew of the plot after an initial denial; I do not know of the source for this, but, even if correct, it does not mean that he was complicit in his sister’s designs.

Appendix 2

1.
Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, pp. 150–1.

2.
Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, pp. 154–5.

3.
See for example that of Lord Scrope of Masham, printed in
Foedera
, ix, pp. 230–2.

4.
Nicolas (ed.),
Privy Council
, ii, p. 154.

Appendix 3

1.
Johnes (ed.),
Monstrelet
, i, p. 334.

2.
Gesta
, pp. 58–9.

3.
Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 122–3.

4.
S&I
, p. 436.

5.
S&I
, p. 434. Barker,
Agincourt
, p. 215 states that 47 archers were sent back to England.

6.
This is the method used in Barker,
Agincourt
, pp. 215–16.

7.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 123.

8.
Gesta
, p. 59, n. 5; Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, p. 67.

9.
Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, p. 67. In addition, it is worth noting that some men seem to have returned with more men in their company than they had at the outset, presumably due to reorganisation of companies during the campaign. This would mean our understanding that these were all ‘reinforcements’ would be wrong.

10.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 123.

11.
The ratio of
combatants to non-combatants in the lists of the sick sent home, 1,330 out of 1,693 (79%), compares closely with the ratio of combatants to non-combatants in the army as a whole (between 75% and 78%, depending on the number of Cheshire archers); so we can be confident that these lists describe men of all status groups, occupations and ranks, not just the combatants.

12.
The ‘we can prove …’ statement is to be found in Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 123.

13.
S&I
, pp. 429–30, 433. For the number in his retinue, see Wylie,
Henry V
, ii, p. 63. He had contracted to provide 960, which is the figure Curry uses, but according to Wylie he actually mustered 798 archers and 246 men-at-arms. Of these a total of 742 men made it back to England; it is not clear how many were invalided home from Harfleur and how many died at the battle.

Appendix 4

1.
The
Gesta
is normally regarded as a work of propaganda, written to bolster Henry’s reputation. Anne Curry writes that ‘the purpose of the
Gesta
was likely to extol to a European audience at the council of Constance the king’s virtues as a Christian prince’ (
Agincourt
, p. 260). Chris Given-Wilson questioned the assumption that it was a propaganda-related piece in a talk delivered at the University of Exeter in November 2007, pointing out that it was written in Latin, which relatively few contemporaries would have been able to understand. However, as Curry suggests, and as this book shows, Henry’s ambition in 1415 was coupled with his need for divine approbation. It was as clerically orientated propaganda that the
Gesta
was written, by a priest. One might say that propaganda concerning military miracles – divine intervention in military affairs –
had
to be written by a priest, in Latin. The language of this book does not invalidate its propaganda purposes.

2.
In Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 228, the ‘minimum figure’ for the English army is 8,732 fighting men: 1,593 men-at-arms and 7,139 archers. This incorporates her assumption that the lists of those sent back to England with dysentery are complete. It also seems not to account for the 160 Englishmen who had fallen into French hands since leaving Harfleur.

3.
Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 326–7;
S&I
, p. 12.

4.
Nicolas,
Agincourt
, appendix, pp. 25–6.

5.
S&I
, p. 156.

6.
S&I
, p. 181.

7.
Curry,
Agincourt
, pp. 222–8, esp. 226.

8.
Curry,
Agincourt
, p. 228.

9.
S&I
, p. 156. With regard to other retinues, the duke of Alençon seems to have no retinue in Curry’s reckoning, unlike all the other dukes. There may be other hidden retinues within the army. The men from the Marches of Boulogne are mentioned in the Burgundian chronicles (
S&I
, p. 157).

Acknowledgements

In the course of researching and writing this book I have been assisted by many people and several organisations. In particular I would like to thank my editors, Will Sulkin and Jörg Hensgen at Random House, and my agent, Jim Gill, at United Agents. The Royal Literary Fund was extremely generous in supporting me financially during a very difficult period. Grants from two funds managed by the Society of Authors – the Frances Head Bequest and the Author’s Foundation – were similarly crucial to my continuing to work on this book. I am very grateful to all those who showed such faith in this project that they kept me and the family from penury.