Well said. Also, the battlefield was reversed: the English had the high ground, and the French had to climb the rise to get to them. Also, the archers rained death on the French constantly. The Bodkin Point arrows of the British longbow couldn't penetrate the armor of the mounted French knights (except on the arms) because armor had progressed to a higher state, but the lightly armored horses took lots of arrows, throwing their riders, who were trapped in the mud, and exacerbated by wounded horses running all over the field trampling and running down many French. The bulk of Henry's forces were longbowmen (around 6000) behind pointed stakes until they were out of arrows- they shot from and then took the field from the flanks, and lightly armored, could move easier and wreak havoc on the struggling French.
The French Men-At-Arms (the foot soldiers) suffered terribly from the English longbows- their armor wasn't really up to the standards of the mounted knights, and thousands died. The English lost only a few high-ranking people: Duke of York, Earl of Suffolk and several more.
Even if the conservative estimated of 15,000 French on the field, they lost 6,000: Henry had about 9000 and lost around 400-500.
This movie's battle was very Hollywood. The Dauphin was not in command of the battle- that was Constable of France Charles d'Albret, who died on the field.
Lastly, no mention was made of the boys who remained behind at the wagons- the French mounted an attack that killed all of the young boys. That and the tremendous number of prisoners is why Henry ordered the prisoners killed There were too many to guard, and he feared they would start to pick up weapons from the field and start fighting again. Fortunately, only a few were killed because the French surrendered.
Personally, I prefer Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V movie to this- it portrays the longbow winning the day, even if Shakespeare grossly underrated the British dead.
..Joe
reply
share