The French didn't actually perform a frontal charge directly into the enemy's front ranks. Neither did they expect Agincourt to be an easy victory. Their actual battle plan reveals precisely the opposite: the French were led by experienced soldiers who were quite familiar with English tactics of the day. Like the English themselves, they were also painfully aware of the previous famous English victories in field battles like Crecy. When they made their battle plans, they actually made the decision to have the vast majority of the army fight on foot. Only a handpicked group of skilled veterans would remain mounted. Their role was to move around the flanks of the English army and clear away the archers. Between the French missile troops and the cavalry flank assault, the English archers would be either slaughtered or kept busy while the main French force could advance and bring its advantage in raw numbers of men-at-arms to bear. This was not a battle plan designed by arrogant or stupid men. It was a cautious, careful strategy developed by professional soldiers.

Unfortunately for the French, their plan was undone by several factors. For one, their opponent, Henry V, was equally clever and experienced. He avoided battle until he could pick the best ground for the decisive engagement. Instead of the almost completely static tactic usually adopted by the English, Henry allowed the French to believe that he was going to remain in place. Seeing that their enemies were going to wait around for an attack like they usually did, the French decided to wait. Time was on their side, as more French reinforcements were still trickling in and their troops were fresh, rested, and well-supplied. The French began to dismount, eat breakfast, and move around. When Henry saw them becoming disordered, the English began to advance until they were within bowshot range. They protected their lines with wooden stakes that they hammered into the muddy ground. By the time that the French realized what had happened, they had already lost the chance to strike the English while they were out of position and moving around. Now, any advance (and now that the English were within arrow range, there absolutely had to be an advance) would be conducted against a fortified position, along a narrow front, while being pelted with missiles. Due to the disorder and confusion in the French ranks, the planned skirmishers weren't able to push their way to the front and actually attack the English archers.

The cavalry charge failed for similar reasons. Not enough men could be found to do the job on such short notice (the original plan called for something like a thousand, but only a few hundred (if even that) eventually came forward. The muddy terrain slowed the horses down. The archers took their toll as well. Even when arrows did not injure a knight directly, their impact frightened the horses, further reducing the impact of the charge. The French horse were unable to directly get to the archers because of the stakes. The English darted around from around their stakes, grabbed the French from their horses, and either killed or captured them. The dismal results of the cavalry charge were followed up by an advance on foot. Their valiant efforts were rewarded with similar failure. But this failure should not be blamed solely on French incompetence. Certainly there was incompetence within their army, but they weren't as foolhardy and arrogant as they are often portrayed.