British victory at Agincourt may be punctured by academia

History | 206925 hits | Oct 25 12:33 pm | Posted by: snookums

The heavy, clay-laced mud behind the cattle pen on Antoine Renault's farm looks as treacherous as it must have nearly 600 years ago, when King Henry V rode from a spot near here to lead a sodden and exhausted English army against a French force that was s

Comments

by Newfy
Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:22 pm
Oh well, another myth/legend that historians just had to prove was not 100% correct. Why can't they just leave some things alone sometimes? Does everything need to be historically accurate? The British still won so do numbers really matter for a battle that happened 600 years ago? Why can't a myth just be left a myth?
by PublicAnimalNo9
Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:31 pm
Ahhh the French still got whipped. That's all that matters
by xerxes
Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:42 pm
Can we really be surprised that the numbers are a bit off? After the battle was won, King Henry V and his commander got together and wrote about how they won the battle. There is probably not a more textbook example of history being written by the victors.
by Newfy
Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:44 pm
"PublicAnimalNo9" said
Ahhh the French still got whipped. That's all that matters

Exactly!!
by commanderkai
Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:56 pm
"xerxes" said
Can we really be surprised that the numbers are a bit off?

I think that's true for any battle that occurred before 1800 or so. Look at the Crusades for example. Whenever they start talking about blood up to the knees or ankles, or wholesale slaughters of tens of thousands...it's usually bullshit. The fact cities were considered massive whenever they hit 50,000 shows this.

view comments in forum

Page 1

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

Share

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net