I made a 15-min pseudo documentary on Henry V and Agincourt for an undergrad literature class and would love some expert critiques. I got some very positive feedback from friends and it was a lot of fun to make but the accuracy of it still gnaws at me. I watched a few history channel esq documentaries (and spliced in small bits of their content) but I ended with more questions than answers. I sourced Sir John Keegan's "Face of Battle" but there were many contradictions between the documentaries.
I had hoped to resolve a few questions but am not entirely satisfied I did, namely: Were arrows actually effective against the French cavalry? How accurate was Shakespeare's account? How exactly did Henry the 5 defeat the French with a supposed weaker army?
If you're interested in Agincourt, I think this is pretty entertaining. I hope it has some historical/factual value but if you have any experience on the topic I would love some fact checking and opinions from you experts!
Enjoy, Vinny
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to listen to an entire video to do a review on it. If you would like to summarize some of your major points, I will take a look at those. I've written several previous answers that you might find interesting.
To address the points you raise here:
Archery was indeed "effective" against the French cavalry, but not in the sense that it was able to outright kill huge numbers of them. English archery achieved its effect not by pure lethality (as arrows had a difficult time penetrating the armor that would have been common throughout French ranks in 1415), but by causing just enough damage that it disrupted advances, hampered formation movement, and demoralized the enemy. A weakened, disheartened enemy would be advancing into the teeth of the unbroken English line, who could then clean up the enemy more easily.
I would not really say that Henry V had a "weaker" army. Certainly, he had a smaller force, but this was not the archetypal match-up of commoners vs elite knights that many nationalist portrayals would lead you to believe. The English force was largely made up of military professionals, just like the French, who had combat experience and were well-equipped for their role. The English also benefited from having an able and experienced commander, who had no question as to whether his men would obey his orders. The French had some serious disadvantages in the same regard; although their commanders were neither arrogant nor incompetent, there was no truly unified hierarchy of command. Additional French troops arrived even in the midst of the fighting, throwing their carefully thought-out battle plan into utter chaos. Henry V also had the good luck to have acquired accurate intelligence about French plans for the battle, which did them no favors. All in all, the French numerical advantage was diminished by the circumstances of the battle and was likely not particularly overwhelming to begin with.
Shakespeare's account is extremely entertaining, but not particularly accurate. You should check out the bibliography of Anne Curry, who has written a number of excellent books about Agincourt. Juliet Barker also wrote a solid book on Agincourt that is very accessible.