Connie Jara
HS101-51
Professor Tangeman
November 29, 2015
Connie Jara
HS101-51
Professor Tangeman
November 29, 2015
Chivalrous Actions in the Battle of Agincourt
Chivalrous Actions in the Battle of Agincourt

The word chivalry is often associated with knights of the medieval ages. This term was used during the 11th and 12th century. The code of chivalry is a code of conduct that reflected bravery and service to others. This code of conduct was expected of the medieval knights. In his book, La Chevalerie, Leon Gautier wrote the ten commandments of chivalry which were the following: 1. Believe the Church’s teachings and observe all the Church’s directions, 2. Defend the Church, 3. Respect and defend the weak, 4. Love your country, 5. Do not fear your enemy, 6. Show no mercy and do not hesitate to make war with the infidel, 7. Perform all your feudal duties as long as they do not conflict with the laws of God, 8. Never lie or go back on one’s word, 9. Be generous, 10. Always and everywhere be right and good against evil and injustice (author, page). The knights were soldiers on horseback. They were soldiers that underwent years of training. They were highly respectable, intelligent and agile fighters. They wore full armor and used swords as weapons. They were once the best soldiers an army could have but the Battle of Agincourt changes every aspect of medieval warfare. With these knightly qualities in mind one can examine the actions that occurred in the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. This very well-known battle was a major turning point in the history of the code of chivalry.
The battle of Agincourt was a noteworthy event in history where the smaller force beats the stronger force. It is considered the greatest victory of the English King Henry V. The underdog of the battle was England. It was a small army composed of archers and men-at-arms both with and without cavalry. The mighty French army was composed of nearly all men-at-arms with and without cavalry. The French army knights followed the code of chivalry as they were nearly all knights. They fought bravely and fairly. The English army was not composed of brave knights. On the contrary it was composed of yeomen and poor dishonorable peasants.
The reason for the battle was because the English King Arthur V wanted to recover his former lands and the lands that he had lost in the Hundred Years War. With a small army at hand, the English started the battle with a siege of a Harfleur in Normandy. The fresh did not fight the English and surrendered the gate allowing the English the entrance. Later on, neither army wanted to start the battle due to military strategic reasons. The English begin lacking food and other provisions and therefore they decided to ‘provoke’ the French army by loosening the first flight of arrows. Their execution was successful and the French were indeed provoked. The French army begin the first attack but didn’t succeed at breaking the English and they actually suffered many loses due to the English Archers. After their retreat they decided to strike again. This time the English archers dropped their bows and began using the weapons that the French had abandoned in the first attack. These weapons included, axes, mallets, and swords. It is often said that the winners of the battle of Agincourt were the English archers but in fact they did not actually use their bows to cause the most casualties. They used more advantageous weapons in hand-to-hand combat. This in fact was no tale of chivalry, it was a tale of mere massacre.
The English were not shy of taking prisoners and looting all of the French’s belongings. The king of England believed that the French army was leading peasants of a nearby village to loot the English camp. These events were not really led by the French. The peasants alone decided to loot the English camp. Even though the looting was not caused by the French, Henry V decided to have all the prisoners killed to prevent the French from attacking him. Henry V believed that if the English army focused too much on the looting peasants and the French prisoners in the camp, the French army lines would attack them when they are weak and unorganized. The English men-at-arms did not obey Henry V’s request to murder the French prisoners. In order to get the task accomplished, Henry V appointed the archers to take over the task.
The reason as to why the English men-at-arms didn’t obey can be highly debated. It is commonly thought that the reason that his army didn’t obey was because they men-at-arms wanted to hold the prisoners for ransom. The English army was composed of many poor peasants and middle class men and this was their chance to make money of their war efforts. The author on the other hands suggests that the soldiers didn’t only disobey the order due to their personal needs but they also did it due to their moral character. They wouldn’t hurt fellow human beings without a cause. It appears as if they disagreed with their leader on the delinquent status of the prisoners. Had the cause been stronger and perhaps more believable they would have obeyed and killed the prisoners. For the men-at-arms to disobey their king seems like a very brave thing to do. It doesn’t seem believable to think that they took orders lightly. They must have truly been in a disagreement with Henry V. the men-at-arms’ stand on the order suggests that the men did in fact have moral values when it came to destroying the innocent.
The actions or lack thereof, of the men-at-arms made the author suggest that there were in fact chivalric values in late medieval warfare. He believes that the men-at-arms refused to kill the prisoners because they were harmless. The prisoners did not deserve to die if they were not attacking them. This argument should not be quickly disregarded. This kind of behavior would be that of the French army who was made up of knights that followed the code of chivalry.
The author believes that the men-at-arms did not want to butcher prisoners without a real reason. Killing in war was apparently different since they had a cause and both parties were armed and at the same advantage. Keegan said, “But there was certainly no honour to be won in killing one’s social equal after he had surrendered and been disarmed (Keegan, 215).” Henry V ordered an esquire to lead hundreds of archers to execute the order. They did without hesitation. The author notes that a possible reason for this behavior might be that the archers did not follow the code of chivalry. Many of the archers were delinquents and dishonorable people who were capable of murdering. They agreed to be drafted simply trying to escape prison and punishment. War is the perfect place for murderers to do as they like legally. These people would never miss an opportunity to kill another person.
Was mere savagery all that drove the English to fight? The author suggests that the English were in fact inspired by their leader, Henry V, who fought with the soldiers in the front lines. Seeing the bravery of the leader the soldiers were more inclined to fight and risk their lives if they knew their leader would do the same.
The knights of an army underwent major training. Several years of learning to fight on horseback, with heavy armor. They followed the code of chivalry and were overall the best of the best in terms of a soldier during its heyday. Warfare changed however, and new weapons and methods of fighting overtook the traditional fighting of the knights. One of the reasons for the French loss was the heavy armor. Unlike the English, the French army was composed of knights that wore heavy army which slows them down. The use of longbows by the English caused major casualties to the French army. A trained archer could shoot and penetrate armor.
Now knights had to confront fighters who had much advantage over them. Weapons made it very easy to train people to become soldiers. The extensive training that the knights underwent had become useless, a waste of time. Now an army leader could recruit any men that was willing to fight. Many of these men composed the English army. They were men who were easy to train. The advance of weapons such as the longbow and gunpowder made amateurs very capable of defeating the professionals. These weapons even put the amateurs on a major advantage over the professionals.
Examining the events of the battle of Agincourt, one can see that the English army was heavily outnumbered. Not only was it a small army but it was composed of many archers and fewer men-at-arms. They were supposed to have suffered a major defeat but they became the winners of the battle. This was due to the advance in weapons.
Finally, analyzing the chivalric gestures of the battle, one can say that both armies did portray actions of chivalry. The French army fought bravely and fairly because they were mainly all knights who had to follow the code of chivalry. And even though it is heavily argued, the English army, mainly the men-at-arms, did behave chivalrous by disobeying the unethical orders of their beloved leader, even if in the end the prisoners were killed anyway.

Works Cited Keegan, John. “The Face of Battle: Agincourt, October 25th, 1415.” The Social Dimension of Western Civilization. Edited by Richard M. Golden. Boston/ New York: Bedford/ ST. Martin’s, 2003.