Innovation in Warfare | The Battle of Agincourt
It was still raining when he walked onto the field. Mud clung to his boots, weighing him down, as if nature itself was commanding him to hold his position. He could see King Henry, clad in his armor, surveying the field. Before them stood an overwhelming force of French knights and men-at-arms, their banners moving in the small gusts of wind that combined with the rain, chilled the man to his bones. He looked around. The English were fewer in number, outmatched and out-armed. He closed his eyes, and remembered the King’s words of encouragement and pride, focusing on them and not on the horde of French ahead.
When he opened his eyes again, they went to the bow in his hand. He knew the range and power of it was better than any bow he had ever used. The thought of the bow gave him hope, but in his experience, he had seen lines of men break before under the pressure of oncoming soldiers and began to pray that he would hold his ground. Through the mist, he could see horses, the metal of the armor contrasting against the animals. Men were shouting, and again, he looked to the King.
Horns sounded across the field. He watched as the King drew his sword. Around him, his fellow archers took arrows and knocked them on the bows, in the ready position. In the distance he could hear thunder, but not from the rain overhead. The heavy horses were coming. The man blinked. He heard the order to fire and drew the arrow back before letting it loose.
Setting the Stage
The 100 Years’ War is complex. Though it happened in Europe the war had global effects, even shaping the world we live in today. To put today’s topic in context, a summarized version of what started it needs to be shared. With this in mind, please indulge me as I digress a bit to explain how we got here.
It’s 1415, and the English and French are at war. 87 years before, after the death of Charles IV of France, King Edward III of England claimed the French Throne. The English King was able to make this claim because the French King had no male heir, causing turmoil in the country as the French nobility fought over control. Edward claimed the French Throne through his mother, Isabella, a French Princess married to Edward’s father, citing a direct royal line of succession. French nobility, not overly happy with an English King claiming the French throne, invoked Salic Law, which would not allow royal inheritance through the female line of succession of which Edward, through his mother Queen Isabella, was a part. As a result, French Nobility installed the closest person to a male successor, Edwards's cousin, Phillip IV. Edward did not agree and disputed this move. The dispute is what started the Hundred Years War between England and France, which spanned from 1337 to 1453.
If you’re confused about the lineage of the two kingdoms, be of good cheer. You are in good company. Without going into the extreme detail that our short-form podcast doesn’t afford, its important to know that intermarrying between kingdoms during this time was very common. Sometimes for alliances, sometimes for land, others for wealth, or all of the above. The English King claimed the French throne, but nobles in France disagreed, installed someone else, and the war started. That said, most historians agree that the English claim originated for other reasons than Edward’s lineage. Internal turmoil in England and the expansion of power in Europe probably played a larger role in the decision, with the death of the French king simply acting as the catalyst for the opportunity to take control.
The dispute over the French throne evolved into armed conflict, with the first battle taking place within the English Channel. Dominance over the channel was vital for an invasion of either England or France, both for the ongoing troop movements and resupply operations to support long-term occupation. England defeated the French in the channel, paving the way for an English invasion of France and early victories that secured an English foothold within the French mainland. King Edward of England saw major victories which increased English lands, wealth, and resources.
After Edward’s death, England experienced many internal challenges, too many to mention this episode. Henry IV, who reigned after the short-lived reign of Richard II, concentrated on resolving the internal challenges – including the Battle of Bannockburn which you may remember from the film, Braveheart – rather than pushing English interests in the war. During the reign of both Richard II and Henry IV, England lost many of the territories gained by Edward through renewed French engagements and a truce that was signed in 1396. Henry V ascended the English throne in 1413 and had a renewed desire to advance English interests in the war.
By this time, France was divided and the monarchy destabilized. Henry V, seeking to enforce his claim on France, invaded in 1415, capturing Harfleur after a grueling siege that left his army depleted. He then planned a march to Calais, but French forces, eager to intercept and destroy this weakened English army, set the stage for Agincourt.
The Battle
On October 25, 1415, on a narrow field near the village of Agincourt in northern France, Henry V’s army met the French. As shared before, Henry had lost a good portion of his army in the previous siege and was retreating to Calais to meet with additional English forces. The French learned of his advance, that he was weakened, and intercepted them with the intent to wipe them out. Strategically, this was a smart move by the French, as Henry’s army was depleted to between 6,000 and 8,000 versus the French army, which had between 20,000 and 30,000 soldiers. Historians debate the ratio of the armies, with some estimating 4:1 where for every one English soldier, there were four French. Even at the low end of estimations, King Henry was outnumbered. To make matters worse, the French had a large amount of heavy cavalry. These armored horses carried armored knights who could literally mow down soldiers in battle. For comparison, think of a modern-day draft horse like a Clydesdale or Percheron, but with armor, and with a rider who is intent on running you down. With these factors and more, the Battle of Agincourt was essentially a last stand for the English, who had no retreat, no way of reinforcement, and no choice but to stand and fight.
With these odds, a few decisive factors were working in England’s favor. First, it is probable that they knew it was a last stand. Psychologically, this may have played a positive role in the mentality of the troops. Second, they were disciplined. Henry V had done the work with the English army to prepare them – as much as possible – to hold positions and follow orders regardless of the fear, and the odds. Third, and this one is pivotal, the English were utilizing a new technology, called the long bow. This bow had considerable range and power compared to previous versions. In addition, longbowmen were highly trained and able to compensate for wind, humidity, and other conditions that affected the trajectory of the arrow for the purposes of maximizing impact. Fourth, the terrain was a decisive factor; the field was hemmed in by woods, narrowing the space for combat to approximately 1,000 yards. Additionally, recent rains had turned the ground into mud, which would prove to be a disadvantage for the French cavalry. Finally, Henry V was a leader, known for inspiring his troops. His leadership was so well-known, that it was later embellished by Shakespeare in one of the most famous speeches in history, St. Crispin’s Day Speech, which depicts the king rallying his troops with words and encouragement before the Agincourt battle. In contrast, the French relied on their numbers and an added advantage, the heavy horse. Historians have contended that because of their numbers, they were arrogant, and did not account for the undisciplined nature of the French Knights who were eager for glory against the English. Unlike the disciplined English, the French were prepared to simply overwhelm their enemy and may not have given the needed consideration to other circumstances like the weather and new technologies like the long bow.
In the late morning/early afternoon, the French successfully intercepted the English army. French Calvary were placed in the front with infantry behind. Henry positioned his army with longbowmen on the flanks, protected by stakes to deter cavalry charges, and his men-at-arms in the center. The French, confident in their numerical superiority, planned for a cavalry attack followed by a massive infantry assault.
Getting into formation, the French heavy horse charged. Instantly, their momentum was hindered by the deep mud from the heavy rains the night before. As the impatient, undisciplined knights pushed forward, the English longbowmen unleashed volleys of arrows directly at the large, oncoming targets. The speed and velocity of the arrows cut through the armor of the knights and horses with deadly effect, dropping them like flies. As the French dismounted their knights to continue the attack on foot, the narrowness of the battlefield caused congestion, making them easy targets for the English archers. The French pushed forward in waves, but each was met with a relentless hail of arrows, followed by fierce combat when they reached the English lines.
Seeing the French confusion, Henry ordered some of his archers to discard their bows and engage in close combat, further bolstering his front line. Despite several French offensives, the English held firm, their disciplined formations contrasting with the chaotic French assaults. By late afternoon, the French attacks had significantly weakened, with many of their nobles dead or captured. The battle concluded with an English victory, with estimates suggesting that up to 7,000 French were killed, compared to several hundred English casualties.
This victory not only boosted English morale but also significantly impacted French military capability due to the loss of so many of their nobles and armor. The Battle of Agincourt became legendary, not just for the English triumph against the odds but for demonstrating the effectiveness of longbowmen and the strategic use of terrain in medieval warfare. As shared earlier, the battle would later be celebrated in English history and literature, notably in Shakespeare's "Henry V," as a symbol of English resilience and tactical ingenuity.
Good Idea/Bad Idea
The lessons of Agincourt are as relevant today as they were in the 15th century. If sounds like hyperbole, let me explain.
For England, the innovation in warfare that was the long bow decisively shifted what, in any other case, would probably have been a resounding French victory. Henry’s use of the longbow shows how embracing innovation can sometimes be the determining factor in a conflict. The battle demonstrated the effectiveness of English longbowmen and their tactics, enhancing England's military prestige and showing how infantry and archers could defeat heavy cavalry and armored knights. There are many modern parallels. The deployment of drones and the integration of artificial intelligence in military strategy, serve as examples in modern innovation that can turn the tide in warfare. These technologies, like the longbow, offer new ways to gain an edge over adversaries, provided they are wielded with vision and adaptability. But the good – and the bad – of what happened as a result of Agincourt goes beyond the simple conclusion that innovation is important because no kidding.
England’s victory greatly increased English morale and the reputation of Henry V as a military leader. It contributed significantly to English national pride and the mythos surrounding Henry V. Following Agincourt, Henry was able to secure more territory in France through the Treaty of Troyes in 1420, where he was recognized as heir to the French throne, although this was short-lived. But what was the bad side of this victory?
Historians believe that Agincourt might have given England a false sense of security regarding their position in France. This may have led to overconfidence, which wasn't wise given the long-term challenges of holding French territories. In addition, it caused the English to underestimate French forces. While innovation and guile can turn the tide in one battle, it is rarely enough to turn the tide of an entire war. Later in war, the French would rally under another banner, one of faith. Faith is a powerful unifier, one that transcends the temporal strategies of warfare through a belief in one’s own divine right to win. The English would soon face this challenge in the form of Joan of Arc, who successfully rallied and unified the French against the English, under the faith that God had ordained an absolute French victory in the war.
In addition to overconfidence, the victory at Agincourt only extended the war, and the cost and drain on resources would only compound as the years went by. The English had control over some French regions and the English Channel, but that was not enough to keep the armies fed, watered, and paid. The financial and human resources required to sustain the war effort drained England, setting the stage for future economic and political instability. In addition, although Agincourt led to territorial gains, these were not permanent. The English control over French territories began to erode shortly after Henry V's death, culminating in significant losses by the end of the Hundred Years' War. The French, in contrast, used Agincourt as a learning opportunity in strategy, tactics, and technology. Though weakened and humiliated, the French would eventually turn the tide of war against the English, driving them back and winning the war.
The Battle of Agincourt shows the power of innovation and the importance of strong leadership and strategy in warfare. While Henry V's deployment of the longbow and his ability to inspire and train his troops earned him a victory, it also serves as a cautionary tale about overconfidence and the limits of technological advantage. The lessons of Agincourt remind us that innovation alone cannot guarantee lasting success; it must be accompanied by humility, adaptability, and a clear vision for sustaining the gains realized through victory. By learning about the triumphs and pitfalls of this historic battle, we find enduring truths about the complexities of conflict, where strategy, innovation, and human resilience intertwine to shape the course of history, and our world today.