MKJ's "Agincourt"

Mine came this morning and it looks good so far.
Further comments welcome.

From what I have seen MKJ's "Agincourt" is not a patch on Anne Curry's
new book of the same title. Jones seems to have almost completely
ignored (or was unaware of) most of the recent work on the battle such
as Tim Sutherland's on the site and Anne Curry's on the strength of the
French Army, although both papers are now nearly two years old.
Additionally having heard MKJ speak at Norwich just over a week ago I
felt his paper was the perfect example of Style over Content - very
disappionting. Get the Curry book.

Diomedes

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Mine came this morning and it looks good so far.
> Further comments welcome.
>

On a recent history quiz on the BBC website, it was still insisted
that the longbow was the "decisive" weapon at Agincourt. This seems
to go against everything I've read recently, which confirms that by
1415 plate armour had developed sufficiently to render the bow
ineffective against knights at all but short range against a
stationary target. My reading is that the "decisive" element in the
battle was the insufferable snobbery of the French knights, who
trampled each other into the mud in order to get at the English
nobles and grab some personal "gloire".



--- In , "diomedes5465"
<diomedes5465@a...> wrote:
>
> From what I have seen MKJ's "Agincourt" is not a patch on Anne
Curry's
> new book of the same title. Jones seems to have almost completely
> ignored (or was unaware of) most of the recent work on the battle
such
> as Tim Sutherland's on the site and Anne Curry's on the strength of
the
> French Army, although both papers are now nearly two years old.
> Additionally having heard MKJ speak at Norwich just over a week ago
I
> felt his paper was the perfect example of Style over Content - very
> disappionting. Get the Curry book.
>
> Diomedes
>
> --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> <smlark@t...> wrote:
> >
> > Mine came this morning and it looks good so far.
> > Further comments welcome.
> >
>

At least he hasn't relocated the battlefield.

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> On a recent history quiz on the BBC website, it was still insisted
> that the longbow was the "decisive" weapon at Agincourt. This
seems
> to go against everything I've read recently, which confirms that by
> 1415 plate armour had developed sufficiently to render the bow
> ineffective against knights at all but short range against a
> stationary target. My reading is that the "decisive" element in
the
> battle was the insufferable snobbery of the French knights, who
> trampled each other into the mud in order to get at the English
> nobles and grab some personal "gloire".
>
>
>
> --- In , "diomedes5465"
> <diomedes5465@a...> wrote:
> >
> > From what I have seen MKJ's "Agincourt" is not a patch on Anne
> Curry's
> > new book of the same title. Jones seems to have almost
completely
> > ignored (or was unaware of) most of the recent work on the battle
> such
> > as Tim Sutherland's on the site and Anne Curry's on the strength
of
> the
> > French Army, although both papers are now nearly two years old.
> > Additionally having heard MKJ speak at Norwich just over a week
ago
> I
> > felt his paper was the perfect example of Style over Content -
very
> > disappionting. Get the Curry book.
> >
> > Diomedes
> >
> > --- In , "Stephen Lark"
> > <smlark@t...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mine came this morning and it looks good so far.
> > > Further comments welcome.
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "theblackprussian"
<theblackprussian@y...> wrote:
>
> On a recent history quiz on the BBC website, it was still insisted
> that the longbow was the "decisive" weapon at Agincourt. This
seems
> to go against everything I've read recently, which confirms that by
> 1415 plate armour had developed sufficiently to render the bow
> ineffective against knights at all but short range against a
> stationary target. My reading is that the "decisive" element in
the
> battle was the insufferable snobbery of the French knights, who
> trampled each other into the mud in order to get at the English



A series called Battlefield Detectives, on The History Channel in the
US, recently examined the Battle of Agincourt and concluded that the
deciding factors were not the longbows but rather the funnel shape of
the battlefield, which aided in bunching up the eager French knights,
and the peculiar qualiy of the mud on that field, which trapped them.

The series examined the Battle of Hastings a while back, and again
found that the deciding factor was the geography of the battlefield
(which they concluded was not quite where it has been placed
historically) and that Harald was forced to the end of a ridge which
could not be defended.

Katy