"You love your comrade so much in war. When you see your quarrel is just and your blood is fighting well, tears rise to your eyes. A great sweet feeling of love and pity fills your heart on seeing your friend so valiantly exposing his body to execute and accomplish the command of our Creator. And then you prepare to go and live or die with him and for love not to abandon him. And out of that there arises such delectation, that he who has not tasted it is not fit to say what a delight is. Do you think that a man who does that fears death? Not at all: for he feels strengthened, he is so elated he does not know where he is. Truly he is afraid of nothing."
>>564821 They had to because there was no way they could keep control of that many prisoners. And if they let them go or ransomed them, they just would've had to fight another battle against the same people. In killing them, Henry basically broke the back of any military resistance that france would be able to put up against him
>>564893 It wasn't 1500 french... There are multiple estimates as to the numbers of french vs English, but its thought to be at least double the french or even triple. That's a ton of prisoners and you have to consider medieval logistics were quite awful so feeding prisoners and effectively transporting them would've been impossible for the english whereas the japs had automatic guns and much more advanced technology in general. You cant equate the two
>>564912 Actually the highest given estimate by a chronicler is 160.000 but recent work has shown the number could actually be as low as 9000-10.000 which would make the French army the same size as the English one.
>>564990 It was about 6,000 at Agincourt, 9,000 started the campaign but losses at La Harve, general wounds/attrition and disease reduced the effective force to around 6,000 by Agincourt. I don't know where the meme of lowballing French numbers comes from, given the French tactics on the day and the lie of the ground it's entirely possible for a dug-in force to repel an army outnumbering it 3-1.
>>565025 12.000 at Harfleur actually and 9.000 at Agincourt.
PS, la Havre is not really the same thing as it was only established by Francis I IIRC. It's also placed way more to the sea whereas Harfleur is a bit more land inward, sadly I am on a laptop and I cannot show the reconstruction of medieval Harfleur which is absolutely fantastic.
>>565035 True, some say the French outnumbered the English 6 to 1 while others say 3 to 1 or even less. But the sources don't even agree on the French battleplan. Some sources say they were arranged in two battles while others said three, some sources claim 4000 archers and 1500 crossbowmen fought in the vanguard while other sources claim they were held back in reserve due to lack of space and the gentry wanting to be the first to engage, some sources state the English initiated the fight while others say the French attacked in three columns.
Seems even the guys living in those decades had trouble determining what really happened.
>>565078 Everyone seems to agree that the french prisoners outnumbered the English captors though, which would make it completely understandable for Henry to have them killed since he had no way of controlling them effectively or feeding them
>>565183 Throughout the hundred years war the English had trouble feeding their army since they ravaged the countryside so thoroughly. Henry v's army was no exception. There were too many prisoners to feed because the countryside had already been ravaged by the english
>>565250 The Plantagenet's coats of arms were variations of the norman lion up until Edward III, then they used both the lions and the frog flower, though those were just the personal arms of the members of the dinasty.
>>565214 >1500 french pows No, you dense motherfucker. Most frenchies yielded when they faced the english men-at-arms, but were killed afterwards. The 1500 number are the most valuable prisoners who were spared by the english because of their valuable ransom compared to the other french soldiers whose ransom wasn't as high (since they were base born)
>For fear and trepidation took hold of them, as was said among the army, since there were some of them, even of the more noble men, who surrendered themselves on that day more than ten times. But no one had time to take them as prisoners but almost all of them without discretion, as soon as they were laid low on the ground, were instantly consigned to death, either by those who laid them low or by those that followed them, by some hidden judgment of God, it is unknown.
>But no one had time to take them as prisoners
>But then at once, for what wrath of God it is unknown, a shout arose that the rearguard of the enemy’s cavalry was of an incomparable number and fresh, and that they had restored their position and battle line in order to overcome us in our small numbers and weary state. And the prisoners were killed at once, without any heed to the difference between people, excepting the dukes of Orleans and Bourbon and other illustrious men who were in the king’s battle line, along with a very few others, by the swords of either their captors or others that followed them, lest they should be ruinous to us in the ensuing battle.
>But after a short while, the enemy ranks, according to the will of God once they had tasted the bitterness of our weapons and our king had drawn close to them, abandoned to us a field of blood along with carriages and their draught-horses, many being filled with provisions, weapons, lances and bows
>they had restored their position and battle line >lest they should be ruinous to us in the ensuing battle >after a short while
>>565291 >French PoWs outnumbered the English army Oh and that's not true by the way. Even historians who still argue that the French outnumbered the English by up to 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 understand that most of the fighting fell upon just 10,000 French men-at-arms (I'm thinking of Clifford Roger's article in Different Vistas here). And we know about 5,800 men were buried in grave pits afterwards (Rogers, Sumption). So it's pretty much totally impossible for the prisoners to have outnumbered the English army.
>>566785 >5,800 men were buried in grave pits afterwards which to me indicates that the French army did in fact number in the 20-30,000 mark. Assuming that English casualties were 500-1000, 20% casualties for a defeated army is very heavy even today. If the French really did only number 10-15,000 that's between 33-50% deaths (not counting wounded) which is quite frankly unheard of in Medieval field battles
>>567977 It makes more sense if you believe that the French vanguard, numbering 5,000, engaged the English center but was then enveloped on both flanks by archers joining the melee. Pressed so tightly together that they couldn't raise their weapons and with no route of retreat, the French men-at-arms could only die or surrender. Think like Cannae.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.