92. Gesta, p. 77.
93. S&I, p. 173.
94. Curry, Agincourt, p. 218.
95. Gesta, p. 79; S&I, p. 59 (for Henry riding ahead).
96. Gesta, p. 79.
97. S&I, p. 45.
98. Perfect King, p. 393; Fears, pp. 197, 265.
99. For example, the chronicle of Ruisseauville, S&I, p. 124.
100. S&I, p. 153.
101. S&I, pp. 50, 63.
102. See Curry, Agincourt, pp. 215, 218. Curry supposes that the duke of Orléans was not with the army during the day of the 24th but did send out the count of Richemont during the night. This would suggest he arrived late on the evening of the 24th or during the night. Gilles le Bouvier (the Berry Herald) states that he arrived on the day of battle itself, as Henry was drawing up his troops. S&I, p. 181.
103. S&I, p. 59; Curry, Agincourt, p. 168.
104. Curry, Agincourt, p. 215; S&I, p. 155.
105. S&I, pp. 59, 69, 92, 154.
106. S&I, p. 154.
107. S&I, p. 163. Although note that one of the commanders named is the count of Marle, who is named by the Berry Herald as taking his place in the main battle (S&I, p. 181).
108. The placing of the French crossbowmen is noted in both English and French sources: S&I, pp. 36 (crossbowmen at the back of the men-at-arms and on the wings), 106 (crossbowmen not at their post, having been given permission to depart), 125 (archers not used), 159 (archers ordered not to shoot for fear of hitting the men-at-arms) and 173 (the archers, crossbowmen and infantry at the rear). Pierre Cochon notes that all those of lower status were pushed to the rear (S&I, p. 113).
109. S&I, pp. 34, 36, 106, 161, 181; Curry, Agincourt, pp. 222–5. See also S&I, p. 61 for the wings of the French army being forward, like horns.
110. S&I, p. 111.
111. S&I, p. 172.
112. S&I, pp. 34, 46, 59.
113. Gesta, p. 83. It is worth noting that the two men whom Henry had appointed to lead the vanguard and rearguard embodied what he had to lose. The duke of York’s brother had been the traitorous earl of Cambridge who had sought to put the earl of March on the throne. Sir Thomas Camoys was similarly connected to the supposed conspirators. His wife was Elizabeth Mortimer – the widow of Hotspur, the mother of Henry Percy, and the aunt of the earl of March. If God were to be seen to favour Henry’s enemies, then the verdict of an English defeat would not just stand for France but also for Henry’s enemies in England, for it could be seen to vindicate the earl of Cambridge’s cause and the earl of March’s claim.
114. S&I, pp. 132–3, 154, 157.
115. S&I, p. 184. The follow-up statement that both of the men dressed like the king were killed may reflect a deliberate attempt to detract from Henry’s posthumous heroic reputation by associating Henry with this somewhat unchivalrous tactic, which the count would have learnt about during his time as a prisoner in England. At least one if not both of the men dressed as Henry IV at Shrewsbury were killed. See Fears, pp. 268–9, 272–3. The fact that no other French source mentions two men dressed as Henry probably indicates it is a malicious assertion.
116. S&I, pp. 46, 52, 95, 154–5.
117. S&I, p. 134.
118. S&I, p. 70.
119. S&I, pp. 60, 71.
120. S&I, pp. 104, 118, 124, 129–30, 125, 132, 153, 189. Note the French writers themselves are divided on whether such negotiations took place the previous evening or this morning. It is exceedingly doubtful that Henry ever made an offer of any sort. The only reason for supposing he might have done so are the moments when he chose to avoid conflict, firstly at Blanchetaque and secondly after leaving Péronne. But both those decisions had been taken to avoid fighting on ground which the French had chosen. Henry did not try to avoid battle at Agincourt. If he did send heralds to the French, then they were most probably sent the previous day, to request a truce overnight.
121. S&I, pp. 124, 130.
122. This is the Burgundian view. See S&I, p. 159.
123. S&I, p. 181.
124. S&I, pp. 61, 71. The latter does not name the lords.
125. S&I, pp. 153, 164.
126. S&I, p. 157.
127. S&I, pp. 72–3 (Pseudo-Elmham).
128. Most chronicles which mention the stakes say the archers took them. Some do not mention them in the fight, however; and one specifically says the archers did not carry them (S&I, p. 72). Probably some did take them and some left them.
129. Gesta, pp. 85–7; S&I, pp. 72 (mouthfuls of earth), 159–60 (Erpingham).
130. S&I, pp. 181–2.
131. For Clignet de Brabant leading this charge, see S&I, p. 173. For only 120 men being able to respond and charge with him, see S&I, p. 160 (p. 186 states 300). For Guillaume de Saveuses and his 300, see S&I, p. 161.
132. For the rain overnight and the muddiness of the field, see S&I, pp. 34 (Gesta: rain the whole night through), 51 (Walsingham: softness of the ground), 106 (monk of St Denis: torrents of rain … quagmire), 113 (Pierre Cochon: so much rain, ground soft), 115 (French Chronicle: newly worked land), 124 (rain all night), 125 (ibid: feet often sank deep into the ground), 130 (des Ursins: raining a long time, soft ground, feet sank into the ground), 133 (des Ursins: rain, soft ground, progress difficult), 154 (Burgundians: Monstrelet, le Fèvre, Waurin: rain all night; churned up ground), 159 (Burgundians: many horses churn up the ground … a quagmire).
133. For the disrupting of the French vanguard, see S&I, pp. 125, 161. For the three columns, see Gesta, p. 89.
134. For the piles of dead, see S&I, pp. 37, 47, 92 (two spears’ height). For the tightly packed third rank, and Guichard Dauphin and Vendôme, p. 107.
135. S&I, p. 107.
136. Curry, Agincourt, p. 253.
137. S&I, p. 168. The French assigned the honour of killing him to the duke of Alençon, although whether Alençon was fighting against the vanguard or the main battle is uncertain. In the Burgundian chronicles, Alençon is supposed to have attacked the king after killing the duke of York – but the king was in the main battle, and some distance away from York.
138. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, pp. 256–7. No source mentions Sir John Mortimer of Martley; his death on 25th or 28th October is noted in Kirby (ed.), IPM, xx, p. 109 (writ issued 5 December). He was certainly on the campaign, as he was knighted at Pont Rémy. The Visitation of Kent, p. 209, quoting BL Harleian MS 6138 fol. 125, calls him Hugh Mortimer and states he was slain at Agincourt. For Dafydd Gam’s attempt on Glendower’s life, see Fears, pp. 291, 430 (n. 27).
139. S&I, p. 62.
140. S&I, pp. 52, 125, 131, 134, 162, 168. For Henry fighting with a battle axe see ibid, p. 52. For Humphrey wounded in the groin and Henry defending him, ibid, pp. 47, 62, 73, 184. For the cutting of Henry’s crown, ibid, pp. 47, 94, 157 (where it was cut by one of the eighteen).
141. S&I, pp. 60, 115, 162, 174–5.
142. S&I, p. 115 (point of defeat). Des Ursins states he had just a dozen men (S&I, p. 134).
143. S&I, p. 134.
144. S&I, p. 163.
145. S&I, p. 163.
146. For orders concerning the baggage, see S&I, pp. 35, 59, 69, 154. For the attack on the baggage train, see S&I, pp. 53, 118, 125, 163. For the jewels found, see S&I, p. 125; Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 26.
147. Riley (ed.), Memorials, p. 621.
148. Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, pp. 137–9; Barker, Agincourt, p. 302. That the dukes of Orléans and Bourbon were taken at this time, and not at a later point, is suggested by the author of the Gesta, which notes that these two men were kept alive during the massacre. The Burgundians seem to suggest Orléans was found at a later time. See S&I, p. 165.
149. Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, p. 135.
150. S&I, p. 127.
151. S&I, pp. 37, 62, 88, 125, 131, 190. It is possible that the two accounts which refer to the new army being led by the duke of Brabant have confused this with the regrouped army under Clignet de Brabant. Alternatively, the Ruisseauville writer might have attributed t
o Clignet command of a force which should have been connected with the duke of Brabant.
152. For instance, see the article by Jerome Taylor, ‘The Battle of Agincourt: Once more unto the breach’, in The Independent, Saturday 1 November 2008.
153. S&I, p. 118; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 342.
154. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 172.
155. S&I, p. 47.
156. S&I, p. 62.
157. For example, the duke of Brabant’s body was found some way away from the battlefield (S&I, p. 174). Ghillebert de Lannoy’s companions were burnt alive in a house in Maisoncelles – out of sight of the French lines.
158. S&I, pp. 37, 108, 125, 163.
159. Tuck, ‘The Earl of Arundel’s Expedition’, p. 233.
160. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 172. The chronicle of St Denis supports this, stating that the order was executed quickly. See S&I, p. 108.
161. S&I, p. 62. Frulovisi had information from Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, which may underpin this point. However, he claims that Henry threatened that he would kill the prisoners unless they withdrew. It is difficult to see how this was true, given that the French did not advance and yet he killed the prisoners anyway.
162. S&I, pp. 125, 184.
163. S&I, p. 37.
164. S&I, p. 165.
165. This suggestion is based on le Fèvre’s statement that he kept his army arrayed and no French showed despite his being in the field for four hours. The ‘four hours’ cannot relate to the battle itself, as Henry had actually been in the field since dawn; so it is assumed that it relates to the period of time he was waiting after the end of the battle. English chronicles also state that it was not until evening that Henry left the battlefield; see S&I, pp. 63, 74.
166. S&I, pp. 108–9.
167. S&I, p. 165.
168. S&I, p. 94; Curry, Agincourt, p. 290.
169. For numbers of the French dead, see S&I, pp. 11, 53, 93, 110, 118, 127, 134, 168, 182; Barker, Agincourt, pp. 324–5. The last is Gilles le Bouvier’s account, which states that 4,000 French knights and esquires were killed, and 500–600 other ‘men of war’, supporting the notion that infantry and archers were sent to the back.
170. S&I, p. 126.
171. S&I, p. 133.
172. S&I, p. 126.
173. S&I, p. 165.
174. S&I, p. 48.
175. S&I, p. 52.
176. S&I, p. 74.
177. S&I, p. 166.
178. S&I, p. 175.
179. S&I, pp. 109–10.
180. CPR, p. 381; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 63.
181. S&I, pp. 74–5.
182. Riley (ed.), Memorials, pp. 621–2; ODNB.
183. Curry, Agincourt, pp. 282–3; S&I, p. 167; Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, pp. 140–1.
184. S&I, p. 444. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 41 states that the decision was in response to Henry’s letter of 3 September; but this does not mention war engines, and the June letter does.
185. Vale, Gascony, p. 75.
186. Issues, p. 342. This payment is dated 15 October.
187. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 182–4.
188. CCR, p. 237.
189. CPR, p. 378.
190. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 537, n. 9.
191. S&I, p. 131.
November
1. Hutton, Rise and Fall, p. 45.
2. A particularly good description of the plights of some of the Agincourt widows is given in Barker, Agincourt, pp. 324–9.
3. Wylie, Henry V, iii, p. 1.
4. Loomis (ed.), Constance, pp. 267–9.
5. CPR, p. 380 (Norwich); CCR, p. 240 (March). The entry for Edmund in ODNB states that the full fine of 10,000 marks was due. The CCR entry does not overtly state that this was an instalment.
6. Belz, Garter, lvi–lvii; Gesta, p. 133; CP, ii, p. 539.
7. PROME, 1415 November.
8. CCR, p. 236.
9. CCR, p. 245; HKW, i, p. 266.
10. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, pp. 25–6.
11. CPR, p. 382.
12. CCR, p. 287.
13. CPR, p. 380.
14. PROME, 1415, appendix; CPR, p. 371.
15. de Baye, pp. 222–3.
16. Chronica Maiora, p. 413; Gesta, pp. 100–1; Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 583.
17. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 52.
18. Foedera, ix, pp. 319–20; Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, pp. 136–7.
19. Nicolas, Agincourt, appendix, p. 27.
20. Gesta, p. 100, n. 3 (stayed two days); Jacob, Chichele, p. 113.
21. Jacob, Chichele, p. 113; Allmand, Henry V, p. 97; Gesta, p. 100.
22. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 259.
23. CCR, p. 256.
24. CPR, p. 382.
25. CPR, p. 381.
26. Foedera, ix, p. 320. The grant is dated as being dictated at Westminster – but as yet Henry was still somewhere between Rochester and Eltham Palace. See Allmand, Henry V, p. 97. Presumably Rippon had returned with Warwick earlier in the year, as he was mentioned by Cerretano as being part of the initial English delegation.
27. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 137.
28. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 264, where the date is 22 November (corrected to 21st on p. 540).
29. CCR, p. 237.
30. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 536–7, n. 10.
31. CPR, p. 411.
32. Gesta, p. 102 (quotation); Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 261 (four miles).
33. Gesta, p. 107.
34. Gesta, pp. 107–9.
35. Gesta, p. 113.
36. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 263; Capgrave, Illustrious Henries, p. 134; Chronica Maiora, p. 413. Usk states this funeral Mass was held the next day; Walsingham on 1 December. Other chroniclers state there were more than twelve bishops – sixteen or eighteen.
37. Curry, Agincourt, p. 284.
38. Vale, English Gascony, p. 75.
39. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 422.
40. S&I, p. 178; Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 209.
41. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 348.
42. Given-Wilson (ed.), Usk, p. 263.
43. Foedera, ix, pp. 320–1.
44. Foedera, ix, p. 321.
45. CCR, p. 242.
46. CPR, pp. 379, 380. The letters to the pope and the council were dated 25 November.
47. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 184–5.
48. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 332.
49. ODNB, under Thomas Beaufort.
50. CPR, p. 380.
51. CPR, p. 381.
52. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 69; Foedera, ix, pp. 321–2.
53. Foedera, ix, p. 324.
54. CPR, p. 379. The order was given for the patent letter to be drawn up on 3 December. CCR, p. 236.
55. CCR, p. 297; Foedera, ix, p. 322.
56. The messenger had arived in Henry’s absence, before 30 October. See Issues, p. 343, where he was rewarded with gilt-silver cups which had belonged to Henry Scrope.
57. Wylie, Henry V, p. 314. Hingman returned to England in or before 1425, when he became deputy to Bishop Wakeryng of Norwich, who was then at Constance. The last known Greenland-generated Norse documents date from 1408; so presumably Hingman returned to Europe when the Greenland community was given up.
58. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 422
59. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 209.
60. Cal. Charter Rolls, v, p. 482.
61. S&I, p. 185.
December
1. Chronica Maiora, p. 413; Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 270.
2. CPR, pp. 374 and 379 (Arundel), 377 (Robesart), 378 (Clitherowe and Cawardyn), 383 (Dominicans), 402 (Bedford).
3. Petit, Itinéraires, p. 423; S&I, p. 178.
4. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, pp. 583, 587; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 350.
5. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. 186–7.
6. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 585; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 350.
&nb
sp; 7. Parker, ‘Politics and Patronage in Lynn’, p. 224.
8. CPR, p. 411.
9. CCR, p. 287 (French); CPR, pp. 374 (Kent), 405 (Wales).
10. Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 209; Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 226.
11. Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 96–7.
12. CCR, pp. 230 (Somercotes), 236 (Wyrom and Sherman). CPR, pp. 379 (coal, abbot of Canterbury), 384 (Charterhouse).
13. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 227, quoting Juvénal des Ursins, p. 525; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 349.
14. For the names of the ambassadors, see Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 349. For the date of sending them, see de Baye, p. 228, n. 2.
15. Foedera, ix, p. 323; Ambühl, ‘Fair share of the profits’, p. 138, n. 41.
16. CPR, p. 378.
17. CPR, p. 380.
18. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 537, n. 8.
19. CPR, p. 384; Wylie, Henry V, i, pp. 536–7.
20. Issues, p. 343.
21. de Baye, p. 227, n. 1, quoting Juvénal des Ursins, p. 525; Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 348.
22. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 348; Petit, Itinéraires, p. 423.
23. CPR, p. 405.
24. Wylie, Henry V, i, p. 104.
25. CPR, p. 385. The reversion was after the death of Thomas Erpingham.
26. CPR, p. 383.
27. CPR, pp. 398–9.
28. Nicolas (ed.), Privy Council, ii, pp. xv, 188–91; Foedera, ix, pp. 324–5.
29. Johnes (ed.), Monstrelet, i, p. 349; de Baye, p. 228, n. 2; Petit, Itinéraires, p. 423; Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 585.
30. de Baye, p. 229.
31. De Baye, p. 229, n. 1, quoting Juvénal des Ursins, p. 525.
32. CPR, p. 397.
33. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 585; de Baye, pp. 228–9, n. 2.
34. Foedera, ix, pp. 325–6.
35. CPR, p. 381.
36. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 504.
37. The terms of 13 December appear in Loomis (ed.)¸ Constance, pp. 269–79. Benedict XIII was finally deposed on 26 July 1417.
38. Loomis (ed.), Constance, p. 138.
39. E 403/623; Issues, pp. 343–4.
40. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 585.
41. Foedera, ix, p. 327.
42. Bellaguet (ed.), Chronique du Religieux, v, p. 583.
43. Wylie, Henry V, ii, p. 332. Wylie claims this sortie was led by Beaufort, but he seems to have been back in England by the end of November and to have remained there until early 1416.
1415: Henry V's Year of Glory Page 71