The Battle of Agincourt: The Controversy of English Archers

The Battle of Agincourt, fought on October 25, 1415, during the Hundred Years War, is a significant event in military history. Two claims about the role of English archers exist: some believe they directly killed many French knights, while others argue that their primary contribution was in disrupting the French charge and creating chaos. This article explores both perspectives, supported by historical sources and contemporary analysis.

The English Archery Killed the French Knights

Richard Holmes, a renowned military historian, wrote in his series War Walks that English longbowmen were highly effective in inflicting casualties on the French forces. The longbow's range and rate of fire allowed for a high volume of arrows, capable of penetrating armor. According to Holmes, many French knights were killed or wounded by these arrows, particularly as they advanced through the muddy battlefield. This direct impact on the French knights is a significant aspect of the battle's outcome.

The Archers Disrupted the Charge

Another perspective argues that the English archers primarily disrupted the French charge. The muddy battlefield and the heavy armor of the French knights made it difficult for them to maintain their formation and charge effectively. The volleys of arrows fired by the English archers served to disrupt the French advance, causing confusion and panic among the ranks. This disruption played a crucial role in the overall strategy and contributed to the French defeat.

In summary, both claims are true to some extent. The English archers did cause significant casualties, but their primary contribution to the English victory at Agincourt lay in their ability to disrupt the French charge and create chaos on the battlefield, enabling the English forces to exploit their advantage. The combination of these factors ultimately led to a decisive English victory despite being heavily outnumbered.

The Impact of Archery at Agincourt

According to Richard Holmes, the English archers had a far-reaching impact on the battle. They created suppressive fire, forcing the French to keep their heads down and hindering their situational awareness. Without clear vision, French mobility and communication suffered. They fell into prepared killing zones between the flanking stakes that protected the archers. The reduction in the fighting front nullified the superiority in French numbers, leading to the French meeting the English line in poor order.

The English met their opponents on foot with daggers and cut down lances, marking the start of significant casualties. However, the real 'hinge of the battle' was the advance of the second and third French ranks. These ranks slammed into the back of the first rank, creating a giant scrum where half the French army was trampled and crushed. Archers with daggers then joined the fight, jabbing through visors and gaps, effectively ending any pretense of control over the battlespace. The final French ranks could not get into the battle, resulting in even more casualties.

The Aftermath and Casualties

Holmes and other historians compare the casualties to events like Hillsborough and other human stampedes or crushes. Many French casualties died some hours after the event due to internal injuries, organ failure, or asphyxia. This further demonstrates the intensity and scale of the battle's chaos.

The high death toll among French nobles was a significant financial burden on Henry V's treasury. Furthermore, there is evidence of disquiet among noble Europeans over the deaths. Tales of French knights being pulled from the battlefield for ransom resulted in many who later died due to their injuries. French scholars suggest the English acted in bad faith and slaughtered their prisoners, a sentiment echoed in Shakespeare's justifications for the battles' aftermath.