1415: Henry V's Year of Glory

by Mortimer, Ian

  52. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 52. Curry, quoting the Berry Herald, suggests they were both at Caudebec and that the numbers of men with them were exaggerated. Curry, Agincourt, p. 87.

  53. Gesta, p. 33; Curry, Agincourt, p. 84.

  54. Curry notes in ‘Military Ordinances’, p. 244, that Upton’s ordinances do not include the clause regarding wearing the cross of St George; all the other ordinances, including those of Richard II, do include it. However, it is highly probable that the cross of St George was worn on the 1415 campaign. The French were noted to have worn the white cross in response. In 1415 it was probably thought unnecessary at the outset to spell out the need to wear the red cross; but a few infractions of this rule may have led to it being stipulated in later ordinances.

  55. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 404.

  56. Gesta, pp. 29–31; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 7; Curry, Agincourt pp. 84, 335.

  57. Monstrelet, i, p. 333.

  58. Gesta, pp. 33–5.

  59. The great gun is named in Brie (ed.), Brut, ii, p. 553.

  60. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 25; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 90–1.

  61. Curry, ‘Military Ordinances’, p. 229. The earliest surviving set of military ordinances are the twenty-six clauses governing the behaviour of men on Richard II’s expedition to Scotland in 1385, See Maurice Keen, ‘Richard II’s Ordinances of War of 1385’, in Rowena Archer and Simon Walker (eds), Rulers and Ruled, pp. 33–48.

  62. Curry, ‘Military Ordinances’, pp. 221–3. Although Curry is very circumspect in choosing the set which relates to 1415 – she considers it possible also that the St John’s College set could also relates to 1415 – the set known as Upton’s ordinances seems most likely. The order to captains to proclaim them and receive copies, which appears only in the preamble to Upton’s set, became enshrined in the main text of the other sets. There are fewer clauses, suggesting the later sets were amplifications of these fourteen. Unlike the later sets of ordinances, the first two clauses of Upton’s set tally with the description of the first part of the proclamation as recorded in the Gesta. The six clauses in Upton which are not in the St John’s College set seem more theoretical and possibly based on general experience of warfare (in Wales, for example); the three in the St John’s set which are not in Upton seem closely based on the experience of fighting in France. All the St John’s College ordinances are in the later Mantes set, so if the Mantes ordinances were based on one or the other, it was far more likely to have been the St John’s College set, which was thus probably more recent.

  63. The military ordinances of Upton have been published in their Latin form in Upton, De Studio Militari, pp. 133–45. The ordinances of Mantes (1419 or more probably 1421) have often been used as those governing the army in 1415. A calendar of all of Henry V’s ordinances appears as an appendix to Curry, ‘The Military Ordinances of Henry V’, pp. 240–9. According to the French chronicle of the abbey of St Denis, the English deemed it ‘an almost unpardonable crime to have women of easy virtue in the camp’ (S&I, p. 105). This is supported by the last of Upton’s ordinances. For prostitutes in the English royal household, see Given-Wilson, Royal Household, p. 60.

  64. Nichols (ed.), Collection of all the Wills, pp. 217–23 (in French, but dated under 22 August); Testamenta Vetusta, i, p. 186 (English calendar, following Nichols and dated 22 August); Foedera, ix, pp. 307–9 (French, correctly dated).

  65. For the identification of the baker as Gurmyn, see Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 289.

  66. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 290; Fox, Acts and Monuments, pp. 840–1.

  67. Barker, Agincourt, p. 180.

  68. Gesta, p. 35.

  69. Gesta, p. 37.

  70. Raoul le Gay was given exaggerated figures concerning Henry’s army – including 50,000 men and 12 cannon. The latter would have been easier to count than the former, so perhaps are not quite as exaggerated. But le Gay would not have been given this number if there had been more. See Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 27.

  71. Fears, pp. 303–4.

  72. Gesta, p. 37.

  73. For the number of gunners, see Nicolas, Agincourt, p. 386.

  74. Curry, Agincourt, p. 113.

  75. CCR, pp. 280–1; Wylie, Henry V, p. 104. For Hovingham and Flete remaining at the duke’s court, see the entry for 7 December.

  76. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 52.

  77. Curry, Agincourt, p. 85.

  78. Riley (ed.), Memorials, pp. 617–18.

  79. Curry, Agincourt, p. 87; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 96. The latter states two galleys, not one.

  80. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, pp. 6–7.

  81. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 334.

  82. Gesta, p. 39.

  83. Gesta, p. 41.

  84. Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 25–6.

  85. Curry, Agincourt, p. 103; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 53.

  86. Curry, Agincourt, p. 94; Gesta, pp. 41–3.

  87. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 334.

  88. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 27. The question of Henry’s ill-health was one previous example of Courtenay misinforming Fusoris.

  89. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 420.

  90. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 29.

  91. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 535.

  92. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 104–5.

  93. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 100.

  94. Rawcliffe, Medicine and Society, p. 4; S&I, p. 435.

  95. For Henry’s nightly inspections of his lines, see Curry, Agincourt, p. 93.

  September

  1. Chronica Maiora, p. 408.

  2. Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 41–2; Chronica Maiora, pp. 408–9. For the heat, see Curry, Agincourt, p. 92.

  3. CP, v, p. 482; Curry, ‘Agincourt’, in ODNB.

  4. Foedera, ix, pp. 310–11; Wylie, ii, p. 40, n. 5.

  5. Curry, Agincourt, p. 96.

  6. This letter is much misquoted in many sources. For instance it is often said that the king requested cannon be sent to him; that in fact was a separate request, made in June. A full text of the letter appears in S&I, pp. 444–5.

  7. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 122–3 (Arundel’s company).

  8. S&I, p. 445.

  9. Issues, p. 342. This payment was made on 4 October in respect of the messenger carrying the order to Dover. It must have been about a month earlier that Henry summoned the fishermen.

  10. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 53; Curry, Agincourt, p. 105.

  11. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 541.

  12. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 29.

  13. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 292.

  14. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 539–41; Curry, Agincourt, p. 105.

  15. Wylie, Henry V, i, 291–2.

  16. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 42; Curry, Agincourt, p. 92.

  17. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 259, 283.

  18. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 135.

  19. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 96–105.

  20. Gesta, p. 45.

  21. Curry, Agincourt, p. 91.

  22. Curry, Agincourt, p. 95.

  23. Gesta, p. 47

  24. Gesta, p. 49.

  25. Chronica Maiora, pp. 406–7.

  26. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 25.

  27. Curry, Agincourt, p. 107.

  28. Walsingham actually says the Sunday after Michaelmas; the Gesta does not mention any of this bargaining about the date but states the Sunday before Michaelmas. See Gesta, p. 51; Chronica Maiora, p. 407.

  29. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 100.

  30. Gesta, p. 51; Chronica Maiora, pp. 407–8.

  31. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 535–7.

  32. Curry, Agincourt, p. 107.

  33. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 336.

  34. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 336; Barker, Agincourt, p. 239.

  35. The dating of this event comes from a single fifteenth-century manuscript, and so is open to question. See ODNB, under Glendower.

  36. Gesta, p. 53. Chronica Maiora, p. 408 states at this juncture
there were sixty-four hostages.

  37. Gesta, p. 52.

  38. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 56.

  39. Froissart, quoted in Gilbert, A Medieval Rosie the Riveter’, p. 350.

  40. Riley (ed.), Memorials, pp. 619–20; S&I, pp. 441–2.

  41. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 97–8.

  42. Chronique de Ruisseauville, quoted in Curry, Agincourt, p. 162; S&I, p. 124.

  43. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 337; Gesta, p. 55.

  44. Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 63–5, 331.

  45. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 58.

  46. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 109–10; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 102–3.

  47. CP, v, p. 458.

  48. Perfect King, p. 172.

  49. It is stated that Bruges was accompanied by Raoul de Gaucourt in Gesta, p. 57. It is worth noting that de Gaucourt does not mention this in his statement but rather stresses how ill he was at the time. See Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 25; Curry, Agincourt, p. 117. See under 29 September for a strategic reason why de Gaucourt might have been sent to the dauphin.

  50. Foedera, ix, p. 313 (Latin); Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, pp. 29–30 (English).

  51. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 46.

  52. His four men-at-arms are named in Nicolas, Agincourt, p. 357.

  53. Gesta, pp. 55–7; Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 25.

  54. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 101.

  55. Fox, Acts and Monuments, pp. 838–9.

  56. See the ODNB entry for Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick.

  57. PROME, 1415 Nov., introduction; CCR, pp. 287–8.

  58. See the ODNB entry for Warwick. He was at Harfleur but not at Agincourt, ‘having been sent to Calais with prisoners’.

  59. On this parallel with Edward III, see C. J. Rogers, ‘Henry V’s Military Strategy in 1415’, pp. 399–422.

  60. Barker, Agincourt, pp. 220–1; Curry, Agincourt, p. 118. Curry is sceptical about the veracity of this report, which was put forward by Titus Livius Frulovisi, who was employed by Humphrey. The implication of this account would be that Humphrey had supported Henry V when even Thomas’s courage had failed him. Thomas and Henry V were both dead by the time this account was written, so they could not dispute it.

  61. S&I, p. 65.

  62. Gesta, p. 61.

  63. S&I, p. 65.

  October

  1. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 47.

  2. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 101; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 112–13.

  3. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 212.

  4. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 60.

  5. Henry had originally set sail with at least 11,248 fighting men: 2,266 men-at-arms and 8,982 archers. About forty or fifty fighting men had died at Harfleur, and he had sent home between 1,330 and 1,900 more. If the losses were in the standard 3:1 proportion of archers to men-at-arms, then he had at least 1,781 men-at-arms and 7,527 archers remaining. It is unlikely that he had more than 1,926 men-at-arms and 7,952 archers.

  6. For Botreaux, see Curry, Agincourt, p. 121. According to S&I, p. 430, in 1416 the deputies were four barons: Hastings, Grey, Clinton and Bourchier. Technically there was no Lord Hastings in 1415, and no Lord Bourchier either; so these ‘barons’ must have been Sir Edward Hastings and Sir William Bourchier. These four men were not necessarily those deputed to defend Harfleur in 1415, but the companies of Sir Edward Hastings and Lord Clinton were amalgamated in the garrison (according to Curry, ‘Agincourt’, in ODNB). Wylie states that the captains were Sir John Fastolf, John Blount and Thomas Carew; Fastolf was certainly there as he led the sortie in November (Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 332).

  7. This total of 10,000 is backed up by a newsletter issued after the battle (see S&I, p. 264). It is in excess of the 5,000 archers and 900 men-at-arms given in the Gesta (and other chronicles based on it) as the Gesta allows for 5,000 men being sent home. This was almost certainly an exaggeration, to enhance the ‘miracle’ aspect of Agincourt. Adam Usk and the London Chronicles state there were 10,000 men on the march; Thomas Walsingham, Brut and John Strecche all say 8,000. The latter could relate to just fighting men, not including the pages; this section of the army creates a substantial ambiguity. One English source – Benet’s chronicle – gives the figure of 11,000 men. French sources claim many more; but the smallest figures given by the French roughly correspond with the largest figures given by the English writers, which in turn tally with the record sources at about ten thousand men. See the comparison table in Curry, Agincourt, pp. 326–8.

  8. For a licence to return to England from Harfleur dated today, see Curry, S&I, p. 447.

  9. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 74; S&I, p. 124.

  10. Curry, Agincourt, p. 120.

  11. Foedera, ix, p. 314.

  12. Curry, Agincourt, p. 126.

  13. Barker, Agincourt, p. 224.

  14. Foedera, ix, pp. 314–15. A translation appears in S&I, pp. 446–7.

  15. Barker, Agincourt, p. 229.

  16. The new agreement with John the Fearless, negotiated by Morgan, was delivered to Westminster on the 10th; a messenger from Morgan carrying this had probably passed through Calais on the 6th, 7th or 8th.

  17. Curry, Agincourt, p. 107.

  18. S&I, p. 67.

  19. Curry, Agincourt, p. 157; Hardy (ed.), Waurin, p. 190; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 75–6, 88.

  20. Gesta, pp. 60–1; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 337; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 88; S&I, p. 6; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 126, 324.

  21. Gesta, p. 61; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 114.

  22. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 90; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 126, 154, 156.

  23. Curry, Agincourt, p. 126.

  24. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 92.

  25. Rawcliffe, Medicine and Society, p. 182.

  26. Testamenta Vetusta, i, p. 186.

  27. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 207.

  28. Barker, Agincourt, p. 238.

  29. Curry, Agincourt, p. 160.

  30. Gesta, p. 63; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 92–3; Curry, Agincourt, p. 127.

  31. Curry, Agincourt, p. 128.

  32. Curry, in Agincourt, p. 127, points out that it is 35km from Arques to Eu, and the English army was travelling at an average of about 22km per day if they ended their fourth day’s march at Arques. But the English clearly did not stay at Arques; they marched through. Thus it would appear that by the end of the fourth day they had covered more than the 88km from Harfleur – perhaps nearer 98km. This would leave them with a much more manageable 25km to Eu. This would in turn be in line with an average 24.5km per day since leaving Harfleur.

  33. S&I, p. 57.

  34. Curry, Agincourt, p. 128; Barker, Agincourt, p. 234.

  35. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 421.

  36. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 208.

  37. Curry, Agincourt, p. 106.

  38. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 63, n. 7.

  39. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 134–5.

  40. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 141–2.

  41. Gesta, p. 63.

  42. S&I, p. 147.

  43. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 131–2, 135.

  44. Barker, Agincourt, p. 229.

  45. Gesta, p. 65.

  46. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 337; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 111.

  47. Riley (ed.), Memorials, pp. 620–1.

  48. CP, i, p. 246; Wylie, Henry V, p. 68; ODNB (under ‘Thomas Fitzalan’).

  49. S&I, p. 88. In the hope of pre-empting enquiries about the identity of the John Mortimer here mentioned, he was not the Sir John Mortimer executed in 1424 as supposed by Edward Powell in ‘The Strange Death of Sir John Mortimer: Politics and the Law of Treason in Lancastrian England’, in Archer and Walker (eds), Rulers and Ruled, p. 86. The John Mortimer knighted on the Agincourt campaign died at Agincourt (Kirby (ed.), IPM, xx, p. 109). This identifies him as John Mortimer (1392–1415) of Martley, the great-great-grandson of Roger, Lord Mortimer of Chirk (1256–1326), and thus the fourth cousin twice removed of Edmund Mortimer (1391–1425), earl of March.

  50. Gesta, p. 67.


  51. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 337.

  52. Issues, p. 342.

  53. Curry, Agincourt, p. 132; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 112.

  54. Curry, Agincourt, p. 163; S&I, p. 124.

  55. S&I, pp. 43, 148; Curry, Agincourt, p. 139; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 114.

  56. S&I, p. 148.

  57. CPR, p. 379. The grant was finally made on 28 November.

  58. S&I, pp. 30, 77.

  59. Gesta, p. 69; Curry, Agincourt, p. 140 notes that some French sources place the order for the stakes to be made on the 20th.

  60. Gesta, p. 69; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 117; S&I, pp. 57, 66.

  61. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 108–9; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 104, 122.

  62. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 421.

  63. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 139, 324.

  64. S&I, p. 44; Gesta, p. 71; Curry, Agincourt, p. 143.

  65. S&I, p. 57.

  66. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 145–6.

  67. Gesta, p. 71 notes the order to burn the villages. S&I, p. 103 states that they were indeed burnt.

  68. Gesta, pp. 73–5.

  69. S&I, pp. 148–9.

  70. Gesta, p. 75.

  71. Curry, Agincourt, p. 148.

  72. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 141, 150; S&I, p. 172.

  73. S&I, p. 111.

  74. Curry, Agincourt, p. 121.

  75. S&I, pp. 45, 77. For a discussion as to which lords sent the heralds, see Curry, Agincourt, pp. 149–52. I suspect that some chroniclers’ addition of the name of the duke of Orléans was in light of his command at the battle, and that the duke of Bourbon issued the challenge.

  76. S&I, p. 180.

  77. Gesta, p. 75.

  78. S&I, p. 132; Wylie, Henry V, ii, pp. 121–2.

  79. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 338; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 218–9; S&I, p. 180.

  80. Curry, Agincourt, p. 221.

  81. S&I, p. 132.

  82. Curry, Agincourt, p. 153.

  83. Gesta, pp. 76–7.

  84. Curry, Agincourt, p. 156.

  85. S&I, p. 172.

  86. Wylie suggests it in Henry V, ii, p. 127. See Curry, Agincourt, pp. 152–3 for a supporting view.

  87. S&I, p. 117.

  88. Curry, Agincourt, p. 156.

  89. Curry, Agincourt, p. 160; S&I, p.152.

  90. S&I, p. 58.

  91. S&I, p. 68.