# French accuse English of war crimes and exaggeration over Agincourt



## Blackadder1916 (25 Oct 2008)

I guess there is no statute of limitations when you are a sore loser.

*French accuse English of war crimes and exaggeration over Agincourt*

By Peter Allen and Nabila Ramdani, Telegraph,  in Agincourt Last Updated: 5:48PM BST 25 Oct 2008

The French are using the anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt to accuse England's men of acting like 'war criminals'.

Exactly 593 years after King Henry V's legendary victory, a revisionist conference will be held at the scene of the triumph.

Academics will suggest that the extent of the feat of arms was massively exaggerated, with claims that the English were hugely outnumbered a lie.

More controversially still, they will say that the foreign invaders used numerous underhand tactics against an honourable enemy.

These included burning prisoners to death and setting 40 bloodthirsty royal bodyguards on to a single Gallic nobleman who had surrendered.

'There's been a distortion of the facts and this conference will attempt to set the record straight,' said Christophe Gilliot, a distinguished French historian who is director of the Medieval History Museum in Agincourt, where the conference will take place.

'We have historians arriving from all over France, and all will produce hard facts concerning the battle, rather than rumours and speculation.

'At the very least the English forces acted dishonourably. The middle ages were a very violent time, of course, but some might accuse the English of acting like what might now be called war criminals.'

It was on Friday October 25 1415 - St Crispin's Day - that a force led by Henry V engaged the French at Agincourt, a small village not far from Calais in northern France.

The English army, made up mainly of archers using longbows, massacred a vast force of noblemen in the most famous battle of the Hundred Years' War.

Immortalised by William Shakespeare in his play Henry V, Agincourt has since become a byword for English heroism in the face of apparently insurmountable odds.

In fact, detailed bureaucratic records of French king Charles VI's army reveal that they were made up of 9000 travelling soldiers, perhaps with another 3000 locals from the Picardy region where the battle took place.

This compares to the total force of 12000 who travelled to France with Henry, although some 3000 were lost during the preceding siege of Harfleur, and through dysentery.

English chroniclers writing in the years following the battle have wrongly claimed that there were as many as 150,000 French, compared to 6000 odd English.

Mr Gilliot said notably horrific acts perpetuated by the English included placing prisoners in a barn and setting in on fire, with the permission of Henry V.

When the Duke of Alençon, who commanded the second division of the French army, had failed to put an axe through Henry, he tried to surrender but was killed by the King's 40-strong bodyguard.

Mr Gilliot said: 'There were numerous heroic acts by the French on the field of battle, but they were met with barbarism by the English.' While, significantly, no English academics have been invited to today's conference in France, the revisionist theories have found support on the other side of the Channel.

Professor Anne Curry, a military historian from Southampton University, admitted that many accounts of the battle have been exaggerated to give the impression of "plucky little England" against the evil French.'

Professor Curry, author of 'Agincourt: A New History', added: 'For the French, Agincourt was such a disaster that someone had to be blamed. For the English, it afforded an opportunity to eulogise Henry and his army.'


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Oct 2008)

We need a law whereby only those still alive from any battle of more than 2 hundred years ago get to "set the record straight".

This also applies to marching around like a bunch of morons just to give someone a facerub......


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (25 Oct 2008)

They got their conference noticed, I'd say they succeeded. I am curious what the evidence behind the "hard facts" are, after 593 years  the mine must have been  exhausted.


"When the Duke of Alençon, who commanded the second division of the French army, had failed to put an axe through Henry, he tried to surrender but was killed by the King's 40-strong bodyguard."
Quelle horreur!


----------



## gaspasser (25 Oct 2008)

Was it not true of the times that you, the Victor, put to death all those remaining on the battlefield, basically by putting a sword or pyke thru the heart of the dying and wounded?  To the Victor go the spoils of War.  That way, your enemy did not regroup and return to fight another day.  
And is it not true that prior to this battle, the French performed similiar atrocities on the English foe, such as removing the plucking fingers of the any captured archers?  
I'm not a history buff, so I only speak of rumours et.al. 
'Tis true, that those were horrible times when it came to battles.
My tu-pence.


----------



## Yrys (26 Oct 2008)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Was it not true of the times that you, the Victor, put to death all those remaining on the battlefield, basically by putting a sword or pyke thru the heart of the dying and wounded?



When you say : "that you, the Victor", are you speaking to 600 years old people  ???


----------



## gaspasser (26 Oct 2008)

History is always written to make the victor the good guy and the eneme is always bad.  Most battles of the time left "no quarter" on the battle field and the enemy forces were usually completely annihilated; whether on their feet or lying prone and wounded.

As Rob Wahl says in his video "Assume the Position", if the legend becomes fact, print the legend. It seems here that the French are trying to rewrite history to make the British look bad.  No one of this age will ever know EXACTLY how things went back then, so why try to change it to benefit one party???
That would be just like saying Hitler had a good idea, if you were of German/Nazi background?

And. yes, I'm British.  Many forces throughtout history tried to take that little island of fog and usually terrible weather.  It's an opinion of national pride with me.  

NOTE: I am NOT advocating the partakings of the German SS during WW2.
Regards


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Oct 2008)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> . . .  Many forces throughtout history tried to take that little island of fog and usually terrible weather.  It's an opinion of national pride with me.



Then the purpose of the English version (Shakespearean et al propaganda) of the Agincourt tale was successful.  You should note that Agincourt (and the wars that surround it) was not about the stout hearted men of England proudly defending their island against the vile French (and actually, it would be difficult to recognize a "Frenchman" back in those times).  The Hundred Years' War was (basically) a succession of conflicts with one theme of the English King claiming that he should sit on the French throne since some French tart may have slept with someone other than her husband.  The English were the invaders.  After winning at Agincourt, the English enjoyed some success;  Henry V got a French bint of his own (with a promise that their heirs would attain the throne) and held on to some mainland territory.  A few years later another French tart* girl of perhaps questionable mental stability (Jeanne d' Arc) came along and kicked the English out.  The justification for and prosecution of war back then was so much more interesting than modern times.


_*sarcasm (and wit) apparently does not translate well_


----------



## Yrys (26 Oct 2008)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> History is always written to make the victor the good guy and the eneme is always bad.  Most battles of the time left "no quarter" on the battle field and the enemy forces were usually completely annihilated; whether on their feet or lying prone and wounded.



Anyone that is a bit interested in history knows that that the victor is writing the story most of the times.
I understand that French historians may want to shed another light on Agincourt, as they are historians,
and it happened into what is now their territory...

What I didn't understand was why some insisted that it would be view(?s) as war crimes nowadays. If
somebody should knows that "battles left no mercy" then, it's THEM, historians, for CHR*ST sake!

A friend told me that they are historians, so they don't have that many things to do, as a way of explanation ...

I'm Canadian, of french canadian origin .

Blackadder1916, why do you say that Jeanne d'Arc was a tart, as it usually apply to a prostitute or a woman 
who is rather free of her "favors" ? On the french side of history, she is view as a virgin ...


----------



## Steel Badger (26 Oct 2008)

Points finger at his viking ancestors ( sobs): They were.......VERY Naughty! Please let the 1eme "Haven't got anything else to do " Brigade condemn them. Mebbe that Pentiction guy could write the Star and complain about them as well >


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 Oct 2008)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Points finger at *his viking ancestors* ( sobs): They were.......VERY Naughty!



Since you mentioned the Vikings, it is possible that they weren't the "he-men" of popular storytelling but instead were the "metrosexuals" of their day.


*Vikings preferred male grooming to pillaging*

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Telegraph.co.uk  Last Updated: 8:48PM BST 25 Oct 2008

The Vikings are traditionally known for leaving destruction in their wake as they travelled around Europe raping, pillaging and plundering. 

But Cambridge University has launched a campaign to recast them as *"new men" with an interest in grooming, fashion and poetry.*

Academics claim that the old stereotype is damaging, and want teenagers to be more appreciative of the Vikings' social and cultural impact on Britain.

They say that the Norse explorers, far from being obsessed with fighting and drinking, were a largely-peaceful race who were even criticised for being too hygienic.

The university's department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic has published a guide revealing how much of the Vikings' history has been misrepresented.

They did not, in fact, wear horned or winged helmets. And* they appear to have been a vain race who were concerned about their appearance.*

"It seems that the Vikings may not have been as hairy and dirty as is commonly imagined," the guide says.

"A medieval chronicler, John of Wallingford, talking about the eleventh century, *complained that the Danes were too clean - they combed their hair every day, washed every Saturday, and changed their clothes regularly*."

The guide reveals that Norsemen were also stylish trend-setters: "Contemporaries who met individual Vikings were struck by the extreme bagginess of their trousers.

"A tenth-century Persian explorer described trousers (of Vikings in Russia) that were made of one hundred cubits of material, and a number of runestones depict warriors with flared breeches."

The traditional view of the Vikings as "illiterate warring thugs" exaggerates considerably the reality of their life, the academics argue.

"Although Norse men and women may have sometimes liked fighting and drinking, and were sometimes buried with weapons, they also spent much of their time in peaceful activities such as farming, building, writing and illustrating."

The guide points out that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a contemporary list of notable events beginning in the ninth century and running through to the twelfth, records some battles, but not for every year.

"Life can't have been as violent as we sometimes like to imagine," it adds.

Dr Elizabeth Rowe, a Viking expert and lecturer in Scandinavian mediaeval history at the university, said it was important that children should not picture the Norse warriors as an aggressive race, preoccupied with raping and looting.

"Many British children are quite likely to have Viking ancestry and we want to make them think about the reality of their past," she said.

"It's damaging to think that they were simply a violent society, and easy to undermine them as a people who have no redeeming qualities.

"The truth is that their culture was very artistic and they were keen to make an impression because they want to cultivate a certain look. They were very concerned about their appearance."

The first burial ground of Viking origin in Britain was located only four years ago. Discoveries at the site have challenged the romanticised picture of a noble savage race, perpetuated most famously in Wagner's operas and Hollywood films.

Archaeologists in Cumbria unearthed the remains of Viking men and women buried with copper brooches, jewellery, and riding gear as well as swords and spears.

Dr Francis Pryor, an archaeologist and regular on the Channel Four series Time Team, said the discovery had shown the Norse warriors to be part of an advanced society.

He said: "Far from the illiterate warring thugs in horned helmets who brought us to new depths of barbarism after landing by boat to sack monasteries and molest women, they were a settled and remarkably civilised people who integrated into community life and joined the property-owning classes."


----------



## Steel Badger (27 Oct 2008)

Very interesting...  I guess having a name like Wulfhere Skullcleaver is mere metro inuendo? >


----------



## JackD (27 Oct 2008)

heavy metal man! heavy metal!


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Oct 2008)

The Spartans were also a very cultured lot. History and the movies (300) show them as a hard a$$ lot, but in fact were a democratic society about 100 years prior to the Athenians (philosophers and boy lovers). Spartan women were as well educated as the Spartan men. Just a few historical perspectives.

Now the French are complaining. Maybe the Brits should sue over the Norman invasion of 1066. :blotto:


----------



## YZT580 (27 Oct 2008)

There was no desire on the part of the english to massacre anyone.  It was all a misunderstanding on the part of the french.  
No one, particularly an English or more probably a Welsh bowman wanted to put a clothe shaft through the heart of a french trooper who might be sold back to the french for a significantly large sum of money.  The problem was the dastardly french wouldn't get down off their horses and surrender as they were supposed to.  And it wasn't the french trying to kick the english off of french land, the english actually owned the place through primogeniture or some such fancy word and the english wanted to hold on to what they had.  Without their french possessions, the english would have to pay import duties on their wine.  No such thing as local wine since global warming hadn't happened yet.  The french were also refusing to share the recipe for chips.

So you see if the french had agreed to duty free shipments of wine, the english would have freely vacated their estates and there would have been no war. :warstory:


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Oct 2008)

Also in the news today,

*Self professed Historian has discovered documents, where the French were duped into the battle.*

Le Perisien
October 27, 2008

Dr. J.S Désorienté has discovered documents, where the French were duped into the battle

Apparently, the English sent a private envoy asking the French to attend quite a fight.

However, the English envoy misunderstood the English King and wrote the word Sight.

The French thinking that they were going to be entertained to one of the English's famous fares, with Jugglers and Bards, massed a large group of people to attend the affair.  Instead they were met with volley upon volley of arrows.

"This is just typical of the conduct, we are proving, that the English were downright war criminals!" Dr. J.S Désorienté explained in front of a group of people in the middle of the street in Paris.

"What next?  Are they going to tell us that they have small cubes of fish, to eat, and we find out that they are fuel tablets?".

Dr. J.S Désorienté will continue with his findings.

dileas
tess


----------



## Yrys (27 Oct 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> *Self professed Historian has discovered documents, where the French were duped into the battle.*
> 
> Le Perisien
> October 27, 2008
> ...




To my francophone eyes, that look like a hoax...

You usually put link to your posting articles, 48th ...

There is no french paper name Le Perisien . However, there is one name  "Le Parisien",
from Paris city. Furthermore, Désorienté means lost in french. There is no article on the 
Parisien about such a man.

I presume it's a "jeu de mots"  (words play) on the name of the doc that will be comprehensible 
once the full name is know, something about french being lost   ...


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Oct 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> To my francophone eyes, that look like a hoax...
> 
> You usually put link to your posting articles, 48th ...
> 
> ...



Oh Yrys,

You proved my point 

dileas

tess


----------



## Danjanou (27 Oct 2008)

I'm waiting for our very own George W to come on here and set the record straight. Rumour is he was Henry's right marker at the battle. 8)


----------



## PanaEng (27 Oct 2008)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for our very own George W to come on here and set the record straight. Rumour is he was Henry's right marker at the battle. 8)



I thought I heard that he was around when Centurion was a rank, not a tank.    ;D

Yes, I haven't read any posts from him in a while (more like shutting me down    ) - hope he gets back soon.

Actually, he was around yesterday: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80419/post-772012.html#msg772012

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Oct 2008)

Whiny little plonkers.  By the way, 1914-18 and 1939-45? You're welcome.   :


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2008)

I think I will put together a touring company and have performances of "Henry V" throughout France for the next anniversary of the battle. George can play the King from memory, I think  

These "historians" seem only slightly less loony than the people who claim the Great Sphinx of Giza was built in 12000 BC, the Chinese made round the world sailing expeditions in 1421, or that the Knights Templar founded the Masonic order and dug the Oak Island Money pit....back slowly away from them without breaking eye contact.


----------



## geo (27 Oct 2008)

Well... I guess they could challenge the Brits to "best two out of three" 

when I read "the foreign invaders used numerous underhand tactics" I can only conclude that the French are just upset that they didn't think of it first OR that they were incapable of doing same.

Let's face it... peasant longbowmen picking off the knights on horseback at a distance.... that,s just prudent work on the archer's part.  Peasant soldiers pulling down knights on horseback bogged down in muddy fields... gawd - how unchivalrous



(sore loosers)


----------



## Yrys (27 Oct 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> (sore loosers)



Aren't loosers in a war usually sore  ???

Just saying    ...


----------



## geo (27 Oct 2008)

.... ayup - though the Germans & Japanese have done a fair to middling job of "taking it on the chin" loosing WW2 and all.


----------



## gaspasser (28 Oct 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Also in the news today,
> 
> Dr. J.S Désorienté  will continue with his findings.[/color]
> 
> ...


Very funny 48th, I clued in very quickly...J.S. Desoriente = je suis disoriented    :king: of :clown:
Regards  8)


----------

