McGeer cover

De Re Militari | Book Reviews

Anne Curry

The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations

Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2009. 487 pp. $47.95. ISBN 978-1843-83511-0.

See also the review of the HB

On 25 October 1415, Henry V (1387-1422) and his army of heavy infantry and longbowmen fought a larger French army of cavalry, crossbowmen, and heavy infantry. The result was a decisive English victory at the Battle of Agincourt that historian John Keegan identified as “one of the most instantly and vividly visualized of all epic passages in English history, and one of the more satisfactory to contemplate.”[1] With all the histories available on the battle, Anne Curry’s The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations provides the best starting place for that contemplation. Containing histories, reactions, and administrative records from the fifteenth through twentieth centuries, this book provides contemporary sources along with the interpretations of those sources throughout the years. In addition, Curry provides her own analysis of the authors, intended audiences, and validity of the sources, making this a superb anthology of narratives on Agincourt that even the layperson can read, understand, and seek to interpret from their own level.

It is crucial to understand Curry’s approach to medieval narratives, as her analysis makes up a large portion of the book. Narratives are of great importance to military historians attempting to piece together the events of medieval battles. Unfortunately, these narratives are full of bias, superstitions, and grandiose tales. As Kelly DeVries has made the case, however, historians cannot throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. He believes that “with care, military history, especially that taking place on the battlefield or at sieges, can be reconstructed by comparing what the various sources say about an event.”[2] The care to which DeVries refers includes understanding the author’s motivation, whether they were present at the battle, who was the audience, and what was the author’s “nationality, vocation, education, and agenda.” Curry agrees with this approach and understands the inevitable bias as she believes “no account of Agincourt aims simply to tell us what happened.” (470)  She goes on to further explain that each narrative places “the battle within a broader intention.” (470) With this book, Curry aims not only to compile an anthology of battle narratives, but to also provide the intentions of each work.

Curry has broken the book into five chapters. The first chapter includes 26 English and French narratives of Agincourt from the fifteenth century, allowing the reader to examine the works closest to the actual events. Chapter two provides six narratives from the sixteenth century, where chronicling of the battle faded and historical writing flourished. This chapter shows especially how those separated from the events by more than several generations remembered the battle. As Curry points out, these writings focused heavily on the heroic: clearly a very attractive form of story-telling. The result is that “many later writers eagerly looked to the more conducive and readable sixteenth-century works in English” instead of the works closest to the battle itself (202-203). As one reads the accounts in these first two chapters, the difference is clear. In the fifteenth century, the English accounts tell of a great victory while the French accounts tend to seek out reasons for the loss, examining everything from the attitude of the soldiers to the weather. The sixteenth century accounts from both sides, however, tend to be very neat and complete stories.

The third chapter provides contemporary, as well as sixteenth- and seventeenth-century receptions to the battle. The receptions include announcements in English and French Parliaments along with poems, ballads, and plays. Curry believes these demonstrate how Agincourt “had an impact on contemporary imagination.” (260) For example, a supposed newsletter circulated throughout England shortly after the battle claimed that Henry’s 10,000 troops defeated 100,000 French troops (264), a staggering and unbelievable figure and yet one not apparently considered so at the time. These contemporary receptions are important for not only understanding the battle, but also understanding how people heard about and remembered it.

Chapter four tackles histories from the eighteenth- through twentieth-centuries. This chapter is almost entirely analysis as it does not include complete texts as with the other chapters, for as you could imagine that would make a nearly 500-page book many times longer.  Curry provides eight facsimiles of maps by such notable historians as Charles Oman (1860-1946). With these maps, she points out inaccuracies and explains which ones were drawn by those who actually visited the battlefield—tacitly arguing for terrain studies in military history. In addition, Curry attempts to determine which narratives from the preceding centuries these authors relied on for their mapping, a fascinating and revealing analysis. What is most interesting is that historians of the past few hundred years simply did not have all the available contemporary accounts of Agincourt.

The fifth chapter seems boring at first as it contains administrative records for both the English and French armies. However, these records provide some amazing insight into both the preparation and the aftermath of the battle. One of the most remarkable documents, the French plan of battle, was only discovered in the British Library late in the twentieth century. This document provides insight into some of the planning the French put forth just a few days before the battle, revealing that instead of a set of charges against the English, the French planned to utilize their superior numbers by coordinating several attacks in the front and rear of the English lines (468-469). The battle plan, however, differs greatly from its actual execution and the reasons for the changes are in the narratives.

An important note about the collection is that while it is considerable, it is not complete. Such an anthology would be in volumes and very redundant. Curry sought to include only the unique narratives and analysis of the battle, meaning she excluded those narratives which simply copied others.  Sometimes the exclusions are extreme, though: Curry, for example, completely excludes anything from the seventeenth-century claiming that she could not find “any interpretations distinctive enough to merit inclusion” (370). As the book moves throughout the centuries, the exclusions grow in number, which is understandable given the increase of historians.

Although this work is useful, Curry believes it makes it easier for historians to commit a violation when constructing their own narratives. She sees a real problem with historians who pluck details from various narratives and accept as fact, those points which only exist in one narrative. For example, using one narrative to describe troop movements, but then using another narrative for the description of weather. This especially becomes a problem when the sources are not consistent. As a result, Curry believes that only “the bare bones of a narrative for the battle can be agreed, but the smaller points of details remain less firm, even though they are precisely the ones which often seize the imagination” (22). To help with those small details and inconsistencies, Curry provides great detail on the authors and intended audiences of the documents, along with her own analysis of the reliability of the sources. This information is just as valuable as the primary text for those seeking to read and, more importantly, understand accounts of the battle. Although there are numerous books written on the Agincourt, there is no compilation as exhaustive as is found in The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations.

Notes

[1] John Keegan, The Face of Battle (New York: Penguin Books, 1978), p. 78.

[2] Kelly DeVries, “The Use of Chronicles in Recreating Medieval Military History,” Journal of Medieval Military History 2 (2004): 15.

Scott Manning

American Military University<[email protected]>

Page Added: August 2010