The Battle of Agincourt: How England’s Archers Shattered a French Army

Few battles in medieval Europe captured the imagination quite like Agincourt, fought on 25 October 1415 during the Hundred Years’ War. Against all expectations, a sick, exhausted English army—outnumbered at least 3 to 1—broke the military might of France in a narrow, muddy field near the village of Agincourt. It is remembered not just as a stunning upset but as a moment when technology, discipline, and terrain combined to overturn the traditional logic of medieval warfare.

Context: Henry V’s Hard March

Following his siege and capture of Harfleur, King Henry V began a long march toward English-held Calais. His army, reduced by disease and hunger, numbered roughly 6,000 men, the majority of whom were longbow archers. French forces shadowed him closely and eventually assembled a massive army—estimates vary, but 20,000–25,000 French soldiers is the widely accepted modern range.

Sources: Anne Curry, Agincourt: A New History (2005); Juliet Barker, Agincourt (2005).

Henry had no interest in a pitched battle. But the French blocked his route. The king had to fight.

Terrain: The Decisive Factor Few Expected

The battlefield was a narrow strip of farmland, flanked by woods on both sides. It rained the night before, turning the freshly plowed soil into a deep, sucking mud. This mattered: the French elite—knights and men-at-arms—fought primarily as heavy infantry in this battle. Their sheer mass, combined with the bottle-necked terrain, ensured only a fraction of them could engage at once.

The English line was set behind a defensive array of wooden stakes, an innovation Henry borrowed from the Hussites and adapted for English archers. The French, expecting to overrun a weakened enemy, began the advance.

Sources: Barker (2005); Jonathan Sumption, The Hundred Years War, Vol. 3: Divided Houses (2009).

The Longbow: England’s War-Winning Weapon

At Agincourt, England’s longbow archers—perhaps 4,500 of Henry’s 6,000 men—were decisive. Their rapid rate of fire (6–10 arrows per minute) created an unrelenting storm of armor-piercing missiles. While plate armor of the era could resist long-range arrows, the mud and bottlenecking slowed the French advance to a crawl. As they compressed together, they became ideal targets.

As the French front ranks fell, those behind trampled over them. The battlefield became a crushing, suffocating pileup as men drowned in the mud beneath their comrades.

Sources: Clifford Rogers, War Cruel and Sharp (2012); Bernard Cornwell (for popular narrative synthesis).

French Overconfidence and Poor Command Structure

The French army was not lacking in bravery—it was crippled by disunity. Multiple factions argued over who should lead the vanguard. When the advance began, it lacked coordination, and the French cavalry charge against the English archers failed disastrously. Horses panicked under arrow fire, throwing the line into confusion even before the infantry arrived.

French chronicles such as those from Enguerrand de Monstrelet confirm this internal fracturing of command. Modern historians argue that French nobles underestimated the stakes, expecting an easy victory over a supposedly dying English army.

Sources: Monstrelet Chronicle (15th century); Curry (2005).

Hand-to-Hand: The English Fight for Their Lives

Despite the devastating arrow storm, thousands of French men-at-arms still reached the English line. Here the fighting became brutal. The English men-at-arms fought shoulder-to-shoulder, pushing back the French column as archers dropped their bows and waded into the melee with mallets, axes, and knives.

The narrow field prevented the French from deploying their numerical advantage. Instead of overwhelming the English, they became trapped and suffocated in their own ranks.

Sources: Christopher Gravett, English Longbowman 1330–1515 (Osprey, 2006).

The Aftermath: A French Nobility Destroyed

The scale of French losses was catastrophic. Modern estimates suggest:

• 4,000–6,000 French killed

• Hundreds of nobles dead, including many from the highest ranks

• English casualties were likely around 300

The battle crippled French military leadership for years. Henry V’s victory opened the path to the Treaty of Troyes (1420), recognizing him as heir to the French throne.

Source: Anne Curry, Agincourt; Summaries in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

Why Agincourt Still Matters

Agincourt was not simply a triumph of English arms—it was a turning point in the evolution of warfare. It demonstrated:

✔ Light, mobile infantry could defeat heavily armored knights

✔ Terrain and discipline mattered more than noble birth or chivalric ideals

✔ The longbow was one of the most effective battlefield weapons of the Middle Ages

For military historians, Agincourt remains a masterclass in using terrain, technology, and tactical innovation to defeat a more powerful enemy.

Works Cited / Recommended Reading

To maintain historical integrity, here are key sources reflected in this blog:

• Anne Curry, Agincourt: A New History (2005).

• Juliet Barker, Agincourt (2005).

• Jonathan Sumption, The Hundred Years War, Vol. 3: Divided Houses (2009).

• Clifford J. Rogers, War Cruel and Sharp (2012).

• Christopher Gravett, English Longbowman 1330–1515 (Osprey, 2006).

• Enguerrand de Monstrelet, Chronicles (Primary Source).