The road to Agincourt

Today is the anniversary of the battle of Agincourt in 1415. Probably no other comparable battle, no other comparable victory, has fixed itself, and did so even before Shakespeare, in the collective n English national self-consciousness. One result of that is a continuing range of publications about the battle and about King Henry V.

This autumn has seen the much publicised appearance of Dan Jones! new biography of the King. I have not so far looked at it, but in an online conversation Jones made a point about the injury suffered by the future King when Prince of Wales at Shrewsbury in 1403. He argues John Bradmore may have been an even more skilled surgeon than modern commentators give him credit for. This is a point I have made for several years. We also agree that surviving such an injury gave, or reinforced, a personal sense of destiny, of Divine favour, with the future King.

King Henry V

Image:MeisterDrucke

YouTube offers a range of features in Agincourt and on the life of its victor. Two of the best are an excellent pair of podcasts by the now well-established duo of Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook about the events leading up to the battle fought 609 years ago at Agincourt.

They can be seen at Hundred Years' War | Henry V's Invasion of France | Part 1 and at Hundred Years' War | The Road To Agincourt | Part 2

King Henry V - boys will be boys

The BBC History Magazine online site reproduces an article from 2013 by Prof. Anne Curry about the Royal apprenticeship of King Henry V during his father's reign and the stories about his dissolute behaviour before he became King. I have copied and pasted it, and added a few comments as an afterword:

Behaving badly: Henry V's misspent youth

He’s widely feted as one of England’s greatest medieval kings but, for much of his early life, Henry looked more like a dithering also-ran than a statesman in the making. Anne Curry explores the growing pains of the hero of Agincourt.

This article was first published in the March 2013 issue of BBC History Magazine

On Friday 25 October 1415, in a muddy field in Picardy, the reputation of Henry V as a great warrior king was sealed. His victory over the French at Agincourt had a major effect on his position both at home and abroad. Even before he returned to England, a grateful parliament had granted him all revenue from customs duties – a sizeable income – for life. As for the French, they never again dared to face him in battle.

So Henry was able to conquer the whole of Normandy and advance on Paris, exploiting the divisions in France – between the Burgundian and Armagnac factions – that the defeat at Agincourt had exacerbated. The treaty of Troyes, signed in May 1420, sealed Henry’s acceptance as regent to Charles VI (‘The Mad’) and – through marriage to Charles’s daughter Katherine – heir to the throne of France. It seemed only a matter of time before he would rule over both England and France.
At the parliament held at Westminster in December 1420, the chancellor explained why the English had “special cause to honour and thank God” for the deeds and victories of the king. He had recovered the ancient rights of the English crown in France. He had destroyed heresy in the realm – a reference to his actions against Sir John Oldcastle and the Lollards (critics of the established church) in 1414. And, in his youth, he had put down rebellion in Wales.

In short, though Henry’s untimely death in 1422 curtailed the fulfilment of his plans, his career was, on the face of it, a complete success. As Thomas Walsingham, author of The St Albans Chronicle, expressed in a panegyric for the dead king: “He was a warrior, famous and blessed with good fortune who, in every war he undertook, always came away with victory.”

But had Henry always been so successful? Let us reflect on Henry’s life before he became king.

_{This 15th-century illustration depicts Henry, then Prince of Wales, paying homage to the French king Charles VI. The Treaty of Troyes, signed in 1420, saw Henry named Charles’s regent; by marrying the latter’s daughter, Katherine, Henry secured his position as heir to the French throne. (Credit: Bridgeman Images)}

There are ample reasons to believe that Henry the prince was a far cry from Henry the king. In Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2, Shakespeare portrays him as a medieval ‘hooray Henry’. In those plays, the prince chooses bad company; though wealthy, he prefers the low life and petty criminality; and it is only at his father’s deathbed and his own subsequent coronation that he reforms himself – becoming as excessively ‘correct’ as he was once so ‘incorrect’ for his social and political position. But was this fact as well as Shakespearean fiction?

The first ‘published’ comments on Henry’s bad behaviour so far unearthed appear in the Latin lives written about him in the late 1430s. In the anonymous Vita et Gesta Henrici Quinti (often called the Pseudo-Elmham), Henry is described as being in his youth “an assiduous cultivator of lasciviousness…passing the bounds of modesty he was the fervent soldier of Venus as well as Mars; youthlike he was fired by her torches and in the midst of worthy works of war found leisure for excesses common to ungoverned age”. The work devotes much space to his last-minute repentance to his father for his bad behaviour.

We could dismiss all of this as simply a good story – except that it was dealt with at great length, and in a work known to have drawn information from one of Henry’s courtiers: Walter, Lord Hungerford.
In another work, the Vita Henrici Quinti by Tito Livio Frulovisi (now believed to have been derived from the Vita et Gesta), stories of a misspent youth and late change of heart are shorter, but remain. Given this work’s links with Henry’s last surviving brother, Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, and the status of both works as eulogies for Henry V, we have to assume that the accounts of his youth are basically true – as are those of the well-publicised change of character at his accession.
There are many intriguing facets to Prince Henry. For one thing, he had not been born to be king. Until just after his 13th birthday, in September 1399, he was merely the eldest son of the eldest son of a collateral line of King Richard II . He stood to inherit, in time, the duchy of Lancaster created for his grandfather John of Gaunt (d.1399), the third son of Edward III. He was also to be bequeathed the earldom of Derby held by his father, Henry Bolingbroke (d.1413), and the titles brought to the family by his co-heiress mother, Mary (d1394), daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Northampton, Essex and Hereford (d.1373).

So the career that lay ahead for the “young lord Henry” or “Lord Henry, son of the Earl of Derby”, as he is described in the financial records of his father and grandfather, was that of a peer – but at the time it seemed that he might have to wait many years for his inheritance.

_{Tom Mison plays Prince Hal, with David Yelland as the old king, in a performance of Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part I. The play portrays Hal as a medieval ‘hooray Henry’. (Credit: Rex)}

As it was, his life was completely transformed – first, in October 1398, by the exile of his father by Richard II; and then, the following September, by Bolingbroke’s return to England and usurpation of the throne as Henry IV.

On 15 October 1399, two days after his father’s coronation, Henry was created Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester, and was acknowledged as heir to the throne. Later in October, the title Duke of Aquitaine was added and, on 10 November, that of Duke of Lancaster.

Given the fragile political position of the new dynasty, Prince Henry was a vital cog in its establishment and, as such, shared in its problems – indeed, he experienced them even before the usurpation. In May 1399 the young Henry was taken to Ireland by Richard II , seemingly in an attempt to ensure his father’s good behaviour. It failed: in the king’s absence, Bolingbroke invaded England.

Education in arms

Henry was then 12 years old, an age at which it was customary for noble boys to begin gaining experience of military service, though they were not expected to actually participate in the fighting. So in the summer of 1400 he was assigned a company of troops within the huge army – over 13,000 strong – that his father took to Scotland.

Then, as the army returned to England, the Welsh revolt began. The historian Adam Chapman has observed that it was no coincidence that Owain Glyndŵr declared himself Prince of Wales on 16 September 1400 – the 14th birthday of the formal holder of the title, Prince Henry. Only six months later, the latter found himself involved in his first siege, at Conwy.


It is not surprising that the teenage prince learned under the tutelage of advisors appointed by his father. The young Henry held a number of nominal commands but was always guided by others, including Henry Hotspur, son of the Earl of Northumberland, and Hotspur’s uncle, Thomas Percy, Earl of Worcester, who was appointed Prince Henry’s governor at the end of 1401.

Yet these were the very men who, in 1403, rebelled against Henry IV and his son. So the battle of Shrewsbury on 21 July, when he faced his erstwhile mentors, must have been a chastening experience for the prince – not least because he was wounded by an arrow that pierced his left cheek. The surgeon John Bradmore removed the arrowhead, but the wound put the prince out of action for a year or so.

Even as Henry entered his late teens, his father was reluctant to give him complete authority in the Welsh wars. The young prince was neither wholly committed nor effective, and constantly complained of being kept short of funds. Alongside praise for the prince’s good heart and courage, the speaker of the parliament of March 1406 also urged that he should maintain continual residence in Wales for the sake of the wars – an indication that he had not been attentive to his duties.

All did not go well with the prince’s campaigns. In 1407, at the siege of Aberystwyth, Henry theatrically negotiated its peaceful surrender, withdrawing his troops; Glyndwˆ r, though, simply occupied the castle. Aberystwyth remained in rebel hands until September 1408 and was recovered, as was Harlech in 1409, not by the prince in person but by those to whom he delegated.

_{This late 15th century illustration shows prisoners being taken at Agincourt. Some of Henry’s earlier military endeavours had not met with such success. (Credit: Alamy)}

Sickly and sexed up

As the late Welsh historian Rees Davies observed, the prince’s personal role in Wales was limited. Chroniclers of the wars scarcely mention him at all. He seems to have preferred to stay in the relative safety of the English border towns and, increasingly, to spend his time in and around London.
In 1409 he was appointed constable of Dover Castle and warden of the Cinque Ports but so far no evidence has been found to show that he went to Dover or Calais, the captaincy of which he gained in March 1410. Yet in 1412, the prince was investigated for misappropriating the garrison’s wages.
The overall impression formed from the sources is that King Henry IV was slow to let his son have his head, but that, as the prince grew up, his father could not hold him back. It is notable how, once he turned 21, Prince Henry began to build up his own support. Fifty-one new grants of annuities were made in the year following Michaelmas 1407, a big increase on the average for the previous six years of less than ten.

Many of Henry’s circle were nonentities, which fans the notion that he associated with unsuitable people. It also seems that he promoted favourites such as Thomas, Earl of Arundel, and Richard Courtenay, whom Henry had appointed as bishop of Norwich after his accession. Comments made by Courtenay in 1415 tell us that Henry suffered from being overweight and in bad health, and that he was of the opinion that there were no decent doctors in England.

There’s more evidence for a sickly Prince Henry in his household accounts listing purchases of medicines. These records also suggest that he may have lived beyond his means, partly because of the large payments he made to retainers. Thomas Walsingham speaks of his retinue in 1412 being “larger than any seen before these days”. Intriguingly, too, in 1415 Courtenay observed that Henry had not had sexual relations with any woman since he came to the throne – the implication being that, as the Vita et Gesta suggests, he had been notably promiscuous before his accession.

As prince and heir, we would expect Henry to have had a place on the royal council. This was the case from at least the end of 1406, when he was 20. As the medievalist Christopher Allmand observes, Prince Henry attended a good proportion of meetings but was increasingly advancing the interests of key friends and relations – including his father’s half-brother, Henry Beaufort – and challenging the power of the chancellor, Thomas Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed, Henry’s growing influence may have contributed to Arundel’s decision to resign from the chancellorship in December 1409.

_{Henry married Katherine of Valois, daughter of Charles VI of France, on 2 June 1420. This painting of 1487 is from the Chroniques de France ou de Saint Denis. (Credit: AKG images)}

Yet, in November 1411, it seems that the prince’s influence over the council abruptly ended. There is no doubt that Henry’s relations with his father, and with his brother, Thomas, were bad: there were major differences of opinion on foreign policy, and a study of diplomatic relations with Burgundy suggests that the prince was making offers he was simply not entitled to issue. He was  also outraged not to be chosen to lead an expedition to Aquitaine in the summer of 1412.

The seriousness of the situation is reflected in a letter sent by Prince Henry from Coventry on 17 June 1412, a missive that was clearly intended to reach a wide audience. It addressed rumours accusing him of plotting to rebel against his father and seize the throne.

Father and son became reconciled but, according to the chronicler Thomas Walsingham, Henry IV refused to punish immediately those who had spread the rumours; instead, he ordered that sanctions should wait until the next parliament, when they could be tried by their peers. This could only mean that the prince’s detractors were noblemen. Interestingly, the Latin lives made much of Henry’s last-minute reform and confession to his father – does this suggest that, despite his protestations, he might have had a guilty conscience?

Henry the prince emerges as a complex character: not always living up to expectations, making enemies and choosing unsuitable friends. He was brave but flawed, and always prioritised his own desires. Six centuries after he assumed the throne, it’s worth remembering that the road to his achievement as all-conquering hero of Agincourt was often a rocky one.

Professor Anne Curry is the dean of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Southampton.

Related articles 

10 things you (probably) didn’t know about Henry V and the battle of Agincourt

Henry V: the cruel king

The Clever Boy thinks both those pieces are interesting, but not without error in the first case and being somewhat tendentious in the second - a point picked up in the comments section - and makes little allowance for stories of a dissolute youth.

He would also point out the error in the illustration in the main text of Henry as Prince of Wales paying homage to King Charles VI - the only possible such event would be when as King Henry V under the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 he was recognised as Duke of Normandy and Heir to King Charles for the French realm. This is a serious error in ascription.

Otherwise this is a very interesting article by a distinguished historian of the period, and the pity is that it is not longer. Were it so then it could have included the story of the Prince being committed to prison by Chief Justice Gascoigne for contempt of court when the Prince turned up and demanded the release of one of his retainers. These and similar stories may have been preserved by the family of the Earl of Ormonde who himself was part of Henry's circle. A discussion of the emotional reconcilation with his father at Westminster late in 1412 would also have been interesting - it certainly suggests the Prince exploiting the situation for all it was worth in offering his dagger to his father to kill him there and then if he considered him disloyal.The facial injury in 1403 at the battle of Shrewsbury was more serious than this article might suggest. It was life-threatening, and maybe life-changing for the teenage Prince. I shall post about that later on in the year.

If this article's assessment of the future King is correct then it makes his achievement as monarch all the more notable and reveals something of his character after 1413 as well as before. Shakespeare's portrayal may be closer than historians have thought, and what one sees is a King determined to fulfil his responsibilities despite or in reaction to his inclinations as a young man. These two aspects make him more completely human both in his limitations and in his successes.

Barker on Agincourt

I marked the anniversary last weekend of the battle of Agincourt by reading right through Juliet Barker's Agincourt

 

Image: Amazon

In my post some months ago on Prof. Anne Curry's book on the battle I described Juliet Barker's book as being more popular. That it perhaps is, but not in any slighting sense. It does perhaps set the battle and the society that existed at the time in a way that is perhaps a little more approachable to the non-specialist reader.

Although I would have some quibbles about points Juliet Barker makes, especially on church matters, her book is splendid - very readable and full of details, one that self-consciously looks at individuals and how they prepared for the campaign, such as the Earl Marshal equipping himself with armour, but not always from the same supplier, and it is a gripping read, which touches on those emotions Agincourt still evokes in the English, a point to which I referred in a recent post.

For anyone wanting to know about the battle or the wider campaign, or the military society of the time this is, perhaps, the book to read. When first published it was the fourth best selling history book of the year ( which also tells you something about the continuing fascination with the battle) and richly deserved its success.

It is quite a page turner, gives one plenty to think about - such as firing off ten arrows inside a minute to be able to qualify as an archer - and catches the sheer emotion of the success against the odds of King Henry V and his men in 1415.

Agincourt at the College of Arms

The latest Newsletter from the College of Arms includes this piece about their manuscripts relating to Agincourt:

Arundel Ms 29 is a small manuscript volume with miscellaneous contents dating from the fifteenth century. It was part of the library of manuscripts collected by Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel (died 1646), part of which came to the College of Arms later in the seventeenth century.

This page, headed 'bell'm de Agencowrt', shows a list of noblemen taken prisoner by Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415. It is one of the relatively few sources for casualties on the French side at that conflict, the 600th anniversary of which is commemorated this year.

An online exhibition of documents from the archives of the College of Arms relating to Agincourt can be seen here.

Agincourt 600

Today is the 600th anniversary of the battle of Agincourt.

 The English route to Agincourt

Each arrow represents a days travel

Image:aginc.net 

Jane Stemp Wickendon posted on the Medieval Religion discussion group King Henry V's pre-battle speech as re-written for him by William Shakeapeare almost two centuries later - still powerful and emotional stuff:


This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

John Dillon added as a more contemporary version Thomas Elmham's verse account of the battle (Liber metricus de Henrico V, vv. 485-580). As he said not exactly Shakespeare, of course. Herewith some selections:

CAPITULUM XXXVII. -De bello de Agincourt, in die Sanctorum Crispini et Crispiniani

Octobris mensis vicenus quintus habetur,
Anglos dans memores fervidus ille dies.
In feria sexta, Crispinus Crispiniano
Christi pila nuens nomine ferre potest.
Hostes in campo plures statuere cohortes,
Trusa quod his saevis arcubus ala foret.
Anterior fuerat Francorum turma pedestris,
In triplo superans Anglica rura viris.
Hinc equitum turmis acies sunt posteriores;
Sexaginta simul millia rure viri.
Ex Regis parte septem tunc millia vix sunt;
His unum bellum regia cura parat.

Henry arranges his troops and assigns the Duke of York to his station, then turns to the others about him:
Rex dixit reliquis, "Consortes, arma parate;
"Anglica jura quidem sunt referenda Deo;
"Edwardi Regis, Edwardi principis isto
"Jure notant memores praelia plura data.
"Cum paucis Anglis victoria multa notatur;
"Hoc nunquam potuit viribus esse suis.
"Anglia non planget me captum sive redemptum;
"Praesto paratus ero juris agone mori.
"Sancte Georgi! Sancte Georgi, miles! adesto;
"Anglis in jure, Sancta Maria, fave!
"Hac hora plures pro nobis corde precantur
"Anglorum justi : fraus tua, France!, ruet."

Near the end of Elmham's account we are told that some saw St. George on the field during the battle:

CAPITULUM XL. - Quod a quibusdam cernitur Sanctus Georgius in campo, armatus pro parte Anglorum.

Cernitur in campo sacer ille Georgius armis,
Anglorum parte, bella parare suis.
Protegit his Anglos victrix manus Altitonantis:
Non nobis, sed ei, gloria tota datur.

 King Henry V

Image: Wikimedia

Westminster Abbey is holding several events to commemorate the battle - including a special service on October 29th, the anniversary of the news of the King' s victory reached London, and day upon which he reached Calais - about which there are details at http://www.westminster-abbey.org/events/agincourt

I  have some more posts in mind about this anniversary, but for today I will add this comment that at Agincourt King Henry V and his band of brothers not only won a major and remarkable military victory but also, in that strange process which defines nations and communities, managed on that wet October day amidst the mud and blood, the pain and suffering, to touch the very soul of England. So we may well say " Cry God for Harry, England and St George"

October

Image: Wikipedia

This calendar page in the Très Riches Heures of John Duke of Berry is attributed to Paul Limbourg, with possible additions by Jean Colombe in the 1480s

The scene in the foreground is winter sowing and harrowing, with crows and magpies eating some of the seeds. The harrow is shown as horse drawn rather than by oxen. Beyond there is an archer in the middle ground with pollarded willows on the river bank. Meanwhile in the background people walk by the Seine, across which small boats ply. Once again this is a tranquil, reassuring scene of agricultural harmony. This is an idealised view as the building which dominates the scene is the palace of the Louvre, then at the western end of Paris, but the foreground would have been built up as it would be part of the Ile de la Cite or the left bank of the Seine.

The Louvre was originally built by King Philip II (1180-1223)  - the impressive foundations of his fortress are once again visible in the basement of the museum complex - but the Louvre as depicted was the result of its  remodelling as a residence by Duke John's elder brother, King Charles V, after his accession to the throne in 1364. As at Saumur in last month's illustration the palace fortress is decorated with elaborate finials and the chimneys point to domestic comfort inside the royal residence.

October 1415 was to see the English army make its doubtless in many ways weary way north-eastwards on the route towards Calais, with King Henry V seeking, it would appear, to avoid engagement with the French. That was not to be and the road to Calais was the road to the battle of Agincourt.... 

Another Pilgrimage to Holywell

Yesterday I went again on the annual LMS pilgrimage to Holywell. This was my third such pilgrimage, having done so in 2012, and about which I posted in Pilgrimage to Holywell and in Pictures of the Holywell Pilgrimage, and last year, which I wrote about in A Pilgrimage to Holywell.

I travelled up with a friend who drove us, his Mini filled for much of the journey with the sound of Gregorian chant from his CD player.

We arrived in a heavy rain storm, with part of the Irish Sea being dumped upon us as we climbed up by ourselves from the car park to the church - but, well, when it comes to stereotypical images what better represents Wales on a Sunday afternoon - a viewpoint which is, I know from past experience of holidays in the Principality, grossly unfair.

The celebrant at the High Mass in the very handsome and beautifully cared for parish church was Fr Richard Bailey Cong.Orat. from Manchester. I was particularly struck by the beauty of the liturgy and the calm efficiency with which it was performed.

Following the Mass there was the usual procession saying the rosary down to the eponymous Holy Well of St Winefride itself. This lies at the bottom of the hill on which the church and town centre stands. It is a quite remarkable place, set in the complex and exquisite well chamber built about 1500. It is striking to think that the site has been a place of pilgrimage since, apparently, the seventh century. Amongst famous pilgrims of the past there was, almost exactly six centuries ago in 1415 King Henry V on the eve of the Agincourt campaign.

We stood around the Well, recited the litany of St Winefride, venerated the relic of her, lit candles, and I dipped my rosary in the pool.

There was, inevitably, a trip to the sizeable Shrine shop to buy cards and medals for oneself and for friends in my prayers

For our return - and now the weather was warm and sunny - we had Mozart's Vespers on the CD player, though I felt we should be in a great Austrian Baroque church rather than my friend's mini to get the full effect.

We cam back through Hope (nice looking late medieval church tower), the edge of Wrexham, with a distant view of the great tower of the church there, round the edge of Oswestry with its memories of the death of St Oswald and the edge of Shrewsbury, with its signs to the Battlefield Enterpise Park, recalling the battle of 1403.

The traffic was snarling up, so we re-routed and ate fish and chips, washed down with a mug of Yorkshire tea from a Harry Ramsden's at a service station - very ethnic cuisine.

A splendid and holy day out, and a spiritual and physical tonic.

Commmorating Agincourt

This coming October 25th will see 600th anniversary of the battle of Agincourt. Various commemeorations of the battle are being planned, and details of them can be found on, or will be added to, the website of Agincourt600

Agincourt

Today is the 599th anniversary of the battle of Agincourt, King Henry V's spectacular defeat of the French army in 1415.

I recently read Professor Anne Curry's excellent and authoritative book Agincourt: A New History - available in paperback from Tempus - and I would heartily recommend it to anyone interested in the campaign and the battle.

Image: Amazon

Anne Curry brings out a whole range of details which have, I think, rather escaped earlier historians of the battle, and she writes with these in mind as well as considering the larger picture - not least the route taken by the English from Harfleur to the fateful confrontation at Agincourt.

The only criticism I would make is not of the author but of the publishers who provide many interesting  illustrations, but not of the best quality. This really is disappointing, given, for example, the care to show in photographs the landscape through which the army moved, yet for the images to be of low resolution, or relating to other themes, other stock images lacking the quality of other photo-agencies.

I shall no doubt have more to write about the battele and its context in the light of own interest in the period as we approach the 600th anniversary next year, but in the meantime Prof. Curry's book is a detailed and well researched read ideal for historians and armchair warriors alike.

"Warrior King" - Keith Dockray's view of King Henry V

Today being the anniversary of the battle of Agincourt it seems an appropriate one on which to comment on a fairly recent biography of the victor, King Henry V. Recently I have been looking again at "Warrior King" by Keith Dockray, which is published by Tempus.

Image:Amazon

It is useful, indeed valuable, contribution to studies of the reign, and well worth looking at, although it is pity the publshers did not use better quality illustrations to accompany the text. 

The author sets out at the beginning specifically to be conciously more critical of the King's achievements than have been historians such as say K.B.Macfarlane or Christopher Allmand. There is nothing necessarily wrong in that, although it would not necessarily be my opinion. He certainly raises the question - ultimately unaswerable  - as to whether the King could ever have succeeded in his French plans.  They may well have been unattainable, but King Henry V did show a remarkable ability to make things happen and to happen as he wanted them to. 

Occasionally however this approach does seem to lead Dockray to what becomes a rather selective use of language. Thus, writing about the King's non-appearance at his Queen's coronation at Westminster in 1421 the author suggests that Henry was not interested in such "junketings". That, to my mind, misses the point about Kings usually being absent from such a seperate coronation of their consorts, so as to leave the Queen centre stage - as with Margaret of Anjou in 1445, Elizabeth Woodville in 1464, Elizabeth of York in 1487 and Anne Boleyn in 1533. The King might well be there, but hidden away in a royal pew,so as not to divert attention from her.Furthermore as King his sense of the importance of ceremony appears clear. Queen catherine's coronation indeed appears to have been an impressive occasion, and demonstration of the unuin of the dynasties and crowns.

The book is divided into three parts - the historiography, life, and the author's assessment of his subject. I was struck by the way in which the historiography is surprisingly consistent whether contemporary English or French writers or later historians using those same sources - a consistent portrait emerges. The difference lies more in the attitude of the different writers to the King they are describing, and thus reveals more about them rather than modify the image of King. Individual historians may or may not like or admire King Henry V, but he himself emerges true to the record - a disciplined, austere, intelligent man, gifted in the art of governance, well able to assert his authority and command men, a man able to lead. Whether what he sought to do was practicable, possible or desirable may be open to discussion, but that he stamped his presence on his contemporaries and the enduring national conciousness (not least thanks to Shakespeare) is unquestionable.

St Catherine and Marshal Boucicaut

Were yesterday not Sunday, and therefore the Solemnity of Christ the King in the modern rite, it would have been the feast of St Catherine of Alexandria. An immensely popular saint in middle ages and in subsequent centuries she was dropped from the Calendar in 1970, but reinstated by Pope John Paul II  in 2002. This may have been an opening towards the Orthodox who have retained great devotion to her.

This illustration of devotion to her is taken from the Book of Hours of Marshal Boucicaut, dating from 1410-15.

St Catherine and Marshal Boucicaut

Image: Wikipedia

There is an account of the artist, known today as the Master of Boucicaut here  and views of other pages of the manuscrpt can be found online.

The Hours were produced for Jean le Meingre II, known as Marshal Boucicaut following his appointment as Marshal of France in 1391, and who lived from 1366-1421. There is an online life of him here and also an account here.  

Hailed in his lifetime as a paragon of the chivalric code  and life of the military elite he was a crusader and jouster who narrowly survived the disaster of the Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, served as the French Governor of Genoa and was finally defeated and captured at Agincourt on October 25th 1415. He had served as commander of the vanguard in the battle. Taken as a prisoner to England he was to remain one of King Henry V's captives until his death in 1421.

Marshal Boucicaut Image: Findagrave

I am particularly interested in this phase of his life as he was in the custody of Robert Waterton in Yorkshire for part of this time and it was at Waterton's house at Methley that the Marshal died on June 21 1421. His body was sent back to France for burial at Tours. Part of the house Waterton built survived as part of Methley Hall until its demolition in the early 1960s. Waterton, an emiment and long-serving Lancastrian retainer, was the brother-in-law of Bishop Richard Fleming, and the online Oxford DNB life of him can be read here. My innate modesty forbids me from drawing attention to the authorship of the biography.

Agincourt

I think I cannot, as a historian of the period, let the anniversary of the battle of Agincourt pass without some comment

King Henry V
from a contemporary portrait

Images from Wikipedia

Although in the long term - though what that term ever means is open for discussion - one can say it achieved little by comparison with Hastings or Bouvines, Blenheim or perhaps Waterloo, in its owm time it had a seemingly seismic impact. The English appear to have been dazed by what they had achieved, just as the Frebch gradually realized just how significant was their defeat. Internationally it transformed the english position in Europe, notably at the Council of Constance, whither went Richard Fleming about a year later.

King Henry V's victories in 1415, from 1417 -20, the Treaty of Troyes of 1420 and the victory of his brother John Duke of Bedford at Verneuil in 1424 changed the international political outlook for a generation. Moreover, and despite what historians of the sixteenth century might try to tell you, not until 1704, 280 year later, at Blenheim, did English arms win a major land victory on the continent.

Indeed not since Najera in 1367 had there been a significant land victory, so the celebrations which greeted King Henry in London in November 1415 are not surprising. Moreover it appear that from the time that the news reached London of Agincourt the battle entered the national conciousness. Almost two centuries later Shapkespeare created the defining image and words, but he was dealing with what was already part of the national identity.