Most Helpful Customer Reviews
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Henry V: a great hero or lucky thug?, August 6, 2002
Although succinct, Christopher Hibbert's account of Henry V's campaign in France in 1415, culminating in the amazing Battle of Agincourt, remains a fascinating read for serious students of history. Agincourt consists of ten short chapters, beginning with the preparations for Henry V's expedition to France, the siege of Harfleur, the crossing of the Somme River, the battle of Agincourt itself, and the aftermath of the battle. There are several sketch maps, which while conveying the basic data, but no more. The author also includes five appendices: genealogical tables for the French and English kings, one of Henry V's campaign contracts, Henry V's retinue, Henry V's ordinances of war and Henry's challenge to the Dauphin. I have read other accounts of Agincourt, but there is little doubt that Hibbert's writing style, command of relevant sources and analysis makes this one of the best modern accounts available. Most important, the author challenges the reader to assess Henry V's character and skill in light of all the facts, good and bad. A distinguishing feature of this account is the author's use of statistics to reinforce his narrative; for example, the author notes the huge amount of horses that were taken with the English expedition - about 25,000 (for an army that had only 10,000 fighting men). Also, Hibbert details the costly financial side of the expedition - the English army was becoming professional and expensive - and Henry V was forced to pawn some of his crowns to gain the sums required. Hibbert also discusses the English military preparations in great detail and notes that Henry required all of his troops to wear a large red St George's cross on front and back for identification - a first. Hibbert's discussion of the entire 1415 Campaign is incisive and is surprisingly open to criticism of Henry V, which is amazing given the traditional hero worship accorded the young king. Since the great victory at Agincourt and Shakespeare's version of it, Henry V has ridden off into history as the "the greatest Englishman of his time" and "England's greatest soldier." However, an objective reader - bearing in mind moral and cultural differences of the 15th Century - will find it hard to admire Henry V in this account. Henry V was so determined to invade France and assert his dubious claims on territory there that he continually rejected French efforts at negotiation (the French made very generous offers, which he would have been a greater king to accept). Hibbert includes one odd letter Henry V wrote to the French king demanding that the French concede his ridiculous claims and, "in the name of the merciful bowels of Jesus Christ to do us justice." Instead of a hero, Henry V appears more like a glory-hound or land-hungry thug. Henry's generalship is also in question for three reasons: Harfleur, the Somme crossing and choice of battle at Agincourt. After landing in France, Henry spent weeks besieging Harfleur, costing his army many casualties due to illness. Once he had Harfleur, the victory was hollow because it didn't lead to any useful result - just one more position to defend in France - and Henry opted to march toward Calais hoping for something more substantial to turn up. Henry's plan to cross the Somme was blocked by a fast-moving French advance guard and Hibbert notes that the English king was "outgeneraled" in the first phase of the campaign. Hibbert's description of the incredibly awkward English crossing at the Voyenne ford is surely no indication of great generalship and one wonders what might have occurred if the nearby French army had caught the English in mid-crossing. Even at Agincourt, the French initially appeared to hold the advantage by getting ahead of Henry and blocking his path to Calais with an army four times the size of his own tired, depleted force. If the French did not attack, but merely blockaded the small English army, Henry would have been in a desperate position. Instead, Henry used the French command confusion to move up his army and sting the reluctant French into a poorly executed frontal attack that ended in disaster. To be sure, Hibbert points out that Henry was a brave soldier, in the thick of the fight, and that his bold, confident attitude spurred his troops to victory. The French army, although large in size, suffered from divided command, whereas the small English army enjoyed unity of command. Still, the reader might wonder how the English would have fared if the French had been able to mount effective flank attacks through the woods. Also, the English use of hasty field obstacles - sharpened stakes - raises the issue, what if the French had used obstacles as well? If the French had emplaced obstacles to their front and covered them with artillery and crossbowmen, Henry might not have brought the French to grips. Indeed, a French Fabian strategy in 1415 would have quickly exposed the strategic poverty of Henry's expedition.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A classic returns to print, February 19, 2001
Christoper Hibbert's brief history of the battle of Agincourt on 21 October 1415, a seeming turning point of the Hundred Years' War, was originally published in 1964. This reprint edition is not an update, other than the inclusion of some recent bibliographic entries, but, since the original book was based mainly on the surviving contemporary accounts of the battle, there is little to change that would interest any but the narrowest of specialist. Since the intended audience for this text is the advanced undergraduate or graduate student or the well-versed layperson, and given Hibbert's obvious mastery of the surviving sources, there is little need for revision. Hibbert traces the background of the battle, from the raising of Henry V's army, to the seige of Harfleur on the coast of Normandy, to the desperate march to Calais that led, more or less inadvertantly, to the battle itself. Forced to fight and vastly outnumbered, perhaps as much as six-to-one, Henry took advantge of favorable ground, but was also blessed by old-fashioned French tactics and internal rivalries and divisions among his foes. As at Crecy and Poitiers, the English longbows proved decisive over the heavily armored French, many more of whom were slaughtered after they lost their mounts or their footing on the soggy field and, wearing heavy suits of armor, were unable to get to their feet. Literally several thousand Frenchmen were killed, including an impressive cross-section of the noble class, while the English suffered only a handful of casualties. Having described the battle and the reasons for the English victory, Hibbert briefly outlines the aftermath of the campaign as an exhausted English army retreated to home, even while the road to Paris seemingly lay open. Within five years, Henry V, the English victor at Agincourt, would be dead, and within another thirty it would become obvious that the English claim to the crown of France would never be realized. Whether Henry V was the greatest medieval English warrior-king or a bigoted and cruel prig, and whether the Hundred Years' War itself was a noble venture or a pointless exercise in fading chivalric pride, all must be considered elsewhere, for they are not the focus of Hibbert's book. For those with at least a nodding aquaintaince with medieval history, this is a classic book well worth the read. For those with little background in the subject, it would be a difficult book to appreciate. However, it is nice to see a minor classic text like this returned to print for a new generation of students, and this paperback edition is well worth the modest expense. While the whole of the Hundred Years' War is not considered here, the battle of Agincourt itself is given a full and convincing treatment that has stood the test of time very well and, barring the discovery of some unknown source materials, it unlikely to be superceded.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Too much French for me, January 4, 2006
The chief problem with this book is that the writer incorporates the French perspective by using citations in French with no translations. I took 2 years of high school French but I'm not that good! This could be overlooked except that, for obvious reasons, I was very interested to hear the perspective of French writing on this lopsided defeat. The experience was like someone telling a long joke and them mumbling the awaited punchline, or someone tearing out the last page of a riveting mystery novel. I simply can't believe key citations weren't translated. Otherwise the study of Henry V was great, and I would like to hear more about him (except since he died young I probably heard it all already.) The treatment of the battle was superficial, but perhaps given the lack of material this could be understood, but more could be done.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
