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.