"War without fire is like sausage without mustard."
"Dude, let's just kill our prisoners of war"
"You love your comrade so much in war. When you see your quarrel is just and your blood is fighting well, tears rise to your eyes. A great sweet feeling of love and pity fills your heart on seeing your friend so valiantly exposing his body to execute and accomplish the command of our Creator. And then you prepare to go and live or die with him and for love not to abandon him. And out of that there arises such delectation, that he who has not tasted it is not fit to say what a delight is. Do you think that a man who does that fears death? Not at all: for he feels strengthened, he is so elated he does not know where he is. Truly he is afraid of nothing."
>>564821
They had to because there was no way they could keep control of that many prisoners. And if they let them go or ransomed them, they just would've had to fight another battle against the same people. In killing them, Henry basically broke the back of any military resistance that france would be able to put up against him
>>564865
>They had to because there was no way they could keep control of that many prisoners.
Unlike the Japs at Singapore?
How comes 9,000 Brits can't control 1,500 French prisoners when 36,000 Japs can control 80,000 British prisoners?
>>564865
Not so much France as the Armagnac faction in France though.
>>564893
It wasn't 1500 french... There are multiple estimates as to the numbers of french vs English, but its thought to be at least double the french or even triple. That's a ton of prisoners and you have to consider medieval logistics were quite awful so feeding prisoners and effectively transporting them would've been impossible for the english whereas the japs had automatic guns and much more advanced technology in general. You cant equate the two
>>564912
Actually the highest given estimate by a chronicler is 160.000 but recent work has shown the number could actually be as low as 9000-10.000 which would make the French army the same size as the English one.
>>564937
Actually that estimate is literally one scholar. The majority still believe in the french force being 2-3 times larger since the administrative records from those days are so incomplete
>>564976
The English force is actually quite well documented.
>>564990
It was about 6,000 at Agincourt, 9,000 started the campaign but losses at La Harve, general wounds/attrition and disease reduced the effective force to around 6,000 by Agincourt. I don't know where the meme of lowballing French numbers comes from, given the French tactics on the day and the lie of the ground it's entirely possible for a dug-in force to repel an army outnumbering it 3-1.
>>565025
>La Harve
Harfleur obviously, same thing
>>564990
The french is the one that really matters tho, and it isn't well documented at all
>>564799
War without fire is a better war? Strangely that adds up, from a humanitarian perspective
>>564893
Really sharp swords
>>565042
>not liking mustard on your sausage
What kind of retard pleb are you?
>>564893
easier to control prisoners with machine guns than with swords
baka
>>565025
12.000 at Harfleur actually and 9.000 at Agincourt.
PS, la Havre is not really the same thing as it was only established by Francis I IIRC. It's also placed way more to the sea whereas Harfleur is a bit more land inward, sadly I am on a laptop and I cannot show the reconstruction of medieval Harfleur which is absolutely fantastic.
>>565035
True, some say the French outnumbered the English 6 to 1 while others say 3 to 1 or even less. But the sources don't even agree on the French battleplan. Some sources say they were arranged in two battles while others said three, some sources claim 4000 archers and 1500 crossbowmen fought in the vanguard while other sources claim they were held back in reserve due to lack of space and the gentry wanting to be the first to engage, some sources state the English initiated the fight while others say the French attacked in three columns.
Seems even the guys living in those decades had trouble determining what really happened.
>>565078
Everyone seems to agree that the french prisoners outnumbered the English captors though, which would make it completely understandable for Henry to have them killed since he had no way of controlling them effectively or feeding them
>>565138
Except your numbers are wrong, dumbass. The majority of scholars still view the french as outnumbering the English by 2-3 times their number
>>565138
They were held to the rear of the English army or even back in the baggage train IIRC. The French were advancing and threathening to free these guys.
>>565099
>Everyone seems to agree that the french prisoners outnumbered the English captors though
Literally no one does
We all agree (more or less) that the French army outnumbered the English one, but certainly not the prisoners
You mounted your own headcanon here.
>>565156
Lol nice meme. He could barely feed his own men, never mind adding double or triple that
>>565162
>We
Who is 'we'? Some dipshits on 4chan? Because scholars say otherwise
>>565166
Well he was being shadowed by a French army remember? After Agincourt they marched to Calais rather quickly.
>>564799
my nigga
>>565183
Throughout the hundred years war the English had trouble feeding their army since they ravaged the countryside so thoroughly. Henry v's army was no exception. There were too many prisoners to feed because the countryside had already been ravaged by the english
>>565173
Scholars say there were from 6,000 to 9,000 English soldiers for 1,500 French pows
The "French pows outnumbered the English army" thing was created in your mind.
Henry V is my /his/ husbando
>>565213
Yet these two armies met on the battlefield.
>>565237
>Norman lion
>French lily
Where is the English symbol?
Was England merely a colony from Anjou and Normandy that deserved no representation on its own flag/coat of arm?
>>565214
How about a source for your numbers friendo? Because from everything I've read, the prisoners outnumbered the english
>>565250
Yes. England was and always will be a cuck nation
>>565250
The Plantagenet's coats of arms were variations of the norman lion up until Edward III, then they used both the lions and the frog flower, though those were just the personal arms of the members of the dinasty.
>>565214
>1500 french pows
No, you dense motherfucker. Most frenchies yielded when they faced the english men-at-arms, but were killed afterwards. The 1500 number are the most valuable prisoners who were spared by the english because of their valuable ransom compared to the other french soldiers whose ransom wasn't as high (since they were base born)
>>564893
Because the Japanese weren't litterally in the middle of an ongoing battle?
It's not like there were all tied up and being marched to Calais, then Henry decided to kill them for no reason.
>>565138
Because those 9000 men are somewhat occupied by the whole "battle" thing.
>>566098
Pows were captured after the battle was over, cretin
All those wounded/exhausted French nobles who survived the charge in the mud under arrows were captured by the still intact English force
>>566272
>For fear and trepidation took hold of them, as was said among the army, since there were some of them, even of the more noble men, who surrendered themselves on that day more than ten times. But no one had time to take them as prisoners but almost all of them without discretion, as soon as they were laid low on the ground, were instantly consigned to death, either by those who laid them low or by those that followed them, by some hidden judgment of God, it is unknown.
>But no one had time to take them as prisoners
>But then at once, for what wrath of God it is unknown, a shout arose that the rearguard of the enemy’s cavalry was of an incomparable number and fresh, and that they had restored their position and battle line in order to overcome us in our small numbers and weary state. And the prisoners were killed at once, without any heed to the difference between people, excepting the dukes of Orleans and Bourbon and other illustrious men who were in the king’s battle line, along with a very few others, by the swords of either their captors or others that followed them, lest they should be ruinous to us in the ensuing battle.
>But after a short while, the enemy ranks, according to the will of God once they had tasted the bitterness of our weapons and our king had drawn close to them, abandoned to us a field of blood along with carriages and their draught-horses, many being filled with provisions, weapons, lances and bows
>they had restored their position and battle line
>lest they should be ruinous to us in the ensuing battle
>after a short while
>>564821 here, I'm glad I sparked so much discussion with my post
There's a ton of contradictory reports on why it happened. Truth is nobody blamed Henry V for doing it so it's probably okay, right?
>>565291
>French PoWs outnumbered the English army
Oh and that's not true by the way. Even historians who still argue that the French outnumbered the English by up to 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 understand that most of the fighting fell upon just 10,000 French men-at-arms (I'm thinking of Clifford Roger's article in Different Vistas here). And we know about 5,800 men were buried in grave pits afterwards (Rogers, Sumption). So it's pretty much totally impossible for the prisoners to have outnumbered the English army.
>>566785
>5,800 men were buried in grave pits afterwards
which to me indicates that the French army did in fact number in the 20-30,000 mark. Assuming that English casualties were 500-1000, 20% casualties for a defeated army is very heavy even today. If the French really did only number 10-15,000 that's between 33-50% deaths (not counting wounded) which is quite frankly unheard of in Medieval field battles
>>567977
It makes more sense if you believe that the French vanguard, numbering 5,000, engaged the English center but was then enveloped on both flanks by archers joining the melee. Pressed so tightly together that they couldn't raise their weapons and with no route of retreat, the French men-at-arms could only die or surrender. Think like Cannae.
>>564799
I hate mustard can we change this to ketchup instead
>>564821
>applying modern morals to the past
Pointless. It just devolves into circlejerking over how the present is superior to the past, itself a spurious claim too.
