In this thread, u/sunagainstgold and u/Valkine recommend Anne Curry's Agincourt: A New History. It seems like a reputable book. However, it looks like some disagree with Curry's assessment on the numbers at the battle. According to Wikipedia, Curry says the English had 9,000 men and the French 12,000. Others, like Juliet Barker, say the English had 6,000 men and the French 36,000. Also according to wikipedia, Curry is in the minority about her opinion, but does that mean it is wrong, or is she even in the minority for that matter?

For example, this amazon review (updated here) attacks Curry's ideas in favor of the more traditional view of Juliet Barker.

Some important quotes from the review:

• There are serious problems attending Professor Curry's attempt to diminish the heroic quality of the English participation in the Battle of Agincourt by reliance primarily on surviving archival evidence. First, she has to reject the evidence of an educated man-at-arms in the French army (Jehan de Waurin) who was an eyewitness to the battle. This is an absurd approach that seriously undermines the validity of her claim. Secondly, her reliance on archival records ignores the fact that many French archival records from the time of Agincourt were destroyed in the French Revolution. On the other hand, a vast quantity of English records that are relevant to Agincourt still exists in British archives. These British records show that the attendance of most of King Henry V's army in France, including the presence of England's nobility, was purchased by the king. Even royal dukes signed contracts of employment (indentures) for the Agincourt campaign. Finally, and by contrast with English archival records, Professor Curry appears to have failed to appreciate, or perhaps wished to ignore, the historical fact that the massive French army at Agincourt was largely composed of the great nobles of France, their vassal lords, and their knights, squires, and retinues of men-at-arms. These fighting men were present at Agincourt in pursuance of feudal obligations to the French king. They were not mercenaries. It is highly unlikely that these massive feudal levies would have been recorded in any French archival records of hired mercenaries, such as Genoese crossbowmen, used by Professor Curry to create her very questionable revisionist history of Agincourt. Professor Curry produced no convincing historical evidence to support her Agincourt theory, but if she was seeking controversy, public attention, and the probability of increased book sales, she appears to have achieved her purpose.

• There were intelligent eyewitness chroniclers in both the English and French armies at Agincourt, and I suggest that the most reliable assessment of French numbers on the actual battlefield probably comes from the noble Burgundian man-at-arms Jehan de Waurin who history records not only as a soldier in the French army but also as Lord of le Forestier, politician, chronicler, and bibliophile. I believe that Jehan de Waurin's credibility as an accurate chronicler of the Battle of Agincourt is enhanced by the fact that he actually lists the number of men assigned to each division or "battle" of the French army and the two cavalry formations on the wings. He lists 8,000 men-at-arms, 4,000 archers, and 1,500 crossbowmen in the vanguard; a similar number in the main body, and two heavily armoured cavalry wings numbering in total 1,400. So including supporting cavalry, we have 28,400 French fighting men in the vanguard and main divisions or "battles" without including the rearguard division which probably amounted to at least 6,000 mounted men-at-arms. Without including the numbers for the French rearguard, Jehan de Waurin has driven a "coach-and-four" through Professor Curry's fanciful underestimate of French numbers. On the basis of his listing of numbers in the French divisions or "battles", Dr Barker describes Jehan de Waurin's claim that the French outnumbered the English by six to one as "most likely" (at page 264).
• To show that Professor Curry's suggested figure of 12,000 for the French army at Agincourt is absurdly low, it is only necessary to deduct from that figure the French archers who would have probably numbered at least 5,000 (based on Jehan de Waurin's figures) and who took no significant part in the battle. Add to that figure at least one thousand French cavalry, and Professor Curry is left with only some 6,000 men-at-arms for her three French divisions of men-at-arms, or 2,000 men-at-arms in each of the vanguard, main body, and rearguard. These figures are simply absurd. The French would not have had only two or even three ranks in the lines of battle of the vanguard and main body as the mass of men-at-arms on foot approached the English battle line. Such thin French line of battle ranks, as apparently envisaged by Professor Curry when she plucked her figure of twelve thousand for the French army out of the air, would have been heavily depleted by the English arrow storm and would have lacked the mass and momentum necessary to break through the English line of battle. Unlike Professor Curry, Marshal of France Jean Boucicaut had the military experience to appreciate that a dense massing of French men-at-arms was necessary to survive in sufficient numbers to break through the deadly English arrow storm and attack the English men-at-arms positioned between the archers. Marshal Boucicaut's plan for the Battle of Agincourt had envisaged densely massed ranks in each French division. His plan was followed, but he was not the commander of the French army at Agincourt. There was no appointed commander of the French army at Agincourt. As a result, all attacks on the English line of battle were spontaneous, uncoordinated, and disastrous.

So, is this review right in that Ann Curry is completely wrong and Barker is right, or are both reasonable arguments, or is Curry right and Barker wrong? How divided are historians on the numbers at Agincourt? I know little about Agincourt (or the entire HYW for that matter) aside from this video, so I'm interested in learning more. This book is also on my to read list.

Thanks!

BTW - This was originally asked here but it didn't receive an answer.

I was looking for a biography of Marcus. Having been somewhat burned by reading biographies of historical figures that I later learned didn't have the best scholarly reputation, I was looking at reviews of the various biographies of Marcus. I stumbled upon a review by Mary Beard that contained the following passage:

But we have plenty of evidence that other Roman emperors were thoroughly philosophically trained: Hadrian, for example, or even the first emperor Augustus, who wrote his own Exhortations to Philosophy, now lost. There seems to me a fair chance that, though the Meditations is a rare survival, works like it might well have been found on the desk (and from the pen) of many a Roman ruler. What, after all, would Augustus’ Exhortations have looked like, if that had survived? And what difference would it make to how we told the story of his reign? To put this another way: might we not get further in understanding Marcus Aurelius and his reign by not treating him as a rare hybrid? With his desire for military glory, his disastrous succession plans, his wayward wife, and his spare-time interest in philosophy, might he not actually be rather ordinary by the standard of Roman emperors?

This obviously inspired my question. Do we make too much of Marcus's philosophical interests? Are the Meditations just a rare survival of a relative abundance of philosophical output by Roman emperors? If so, might they have survived because they were especially "good" or out of respect for Marcus himself? This latter option seems weird to me, given the high esteem Trajan and Augustus were held by latter generations.

When you think of the role of math and CS during WWII, the Enigma Code, tank serial numbers, and survivorship bias quickly come to mind. However, I saw A Bridge too Far for the first time over the weekend and couldn't help finding myself marveling at what a logistical nightmare that Operation Market Garden must've been. The timing of the mission can be thought of, to some extent, as huge graph theory problem with enough unknowns (fog, sabotaged bridges, etc) to make your head spin.

Furthermore, at a point in the movie a battalion needed to cross a river with boats that they didn't have, and so they sat around until a convoy raced them to the front lines. Spoiled by my 21st century sensibilities, I spent more time than I'd care to admit scratching my head over how they must've kept all of their inventory straight without neat databases, procedurally updated with code. Certainly there was some sort of similar manual process, but I've got a real thirst to learn more.

Was hoping to get some materials to chase down if I were interested in learning about the role of math and logistics on supply chain management during WWII (or, of course, anything interesting and tangentially related).

Thanks in advance for any responses this gets!

http://imgur.com/a/6YryK

http://imgur.com/a/aAFnZ

I think 'DWM' means Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken? But I can't find any information on the 'K'. I'm unfamiliar with ammunition and not sure what type of bullet this even is. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Here's a typical rendition of the story:

Writing down ‘Miserere’ by Italian composer Gregorio Allegri, was punishable by excommunication, but 14 year old Mozart committed it to memory…

Miserere, by Italian composer Gregorio Allegri (1582-1652), is a setting of Psalm 51 composed during the reign of Pope Urban VIII, probably during the 1630s, for use in the Sistine Chapel during matins as part of the exclusive Tenebrae service on Wednesday and Friday of Holy Week. It was the last of twelve misereres composed and chanted at the service since 1514, and the most popular. The Vatican wanted to preserve the music’s reputation for mystery and inaccessibility so it was forbidden to be transcribed and was only performed at those particular services. Writing it down or performing it elsewhere was punishable by excommunication.

According to a popular story (backed up by family letters), the fourteen-year-old Mozart was visiting Rome when he first heard the piece during the Wednesday service. Later that day, he wrote it down entirely from memory, returning to the Chapel that Friday to make minor corrections. Some time during his travels, he met the British historian Dr Charles Burney, who obtained the piece from him and took it to London, where it was published in 1771. Mozart was summoned to Rome, but instead of excommunicating the boy, the Pope showered him with praise for his feat of musical genius and the ban was lifted.

So how accurate is this and why, if it's true, was Mozart not excommunicated or something?