The Battle of Agincourt
On October 25, 1415, a famous battle of the Hundred Years' War took place between English forces led by Henry V and a much larger French army at Agincourt, France. For centuries, this battle has been examined, reexamined, dissected and reconstructed by French and English historians alike.
This week The New York Times has an article about how historians have "reassessed" the Battle of Agincourt. Though I find the comparisons drawn between medieval foreign wars and current conflicts interesting (but not surprising), I was a little bemused to learn that a group of historians "now take a skeptical view of the figures handed down by medieval chroniclers."
What, only now?
Medieval chroniclers were notorious for inflating the numbers of participants in the battles they reported. Those numbers have always been taken by modern historians with a grain of salt, and have usually been tempered by archaeological discoveries and the data gleaned from period documentary evidence. In the case of Agincourt, it has long been known that the English representation of Henry's forces was minimized and that of the French forces was inflated to make their victory over a larger force appear particularly remarkable. So, while the recent "reassessment" may bring us closer than ever to more accurate numbers on both sides, the fact that the disparity wasn't nearly as great as the medieval chroniclers said doesn't really surprise me. Does it surprise you?
Comments
Of course it’s not surprising. Every historian worth his salt has remarked on the different estimates from different sources. What I find surprising is that someone who should be more aware of existing premises should be so lacking in general knowledge that he finds this disparity a new and unique thing. Or can’t he/she/they find anything worth talking about?
seriously any artist worth his salt would no that and it doesnt surprise me any