Why do historians disagree? A comparison of biographies of Henry V
By Jacob Deacon
There can be little doubt that Henry V is one of England’s most celebrated monarchs. Shakespeare’s dramatization of the events surrounding the Battle of Agincourt has secured Henry’s place in history, with many believing him to be one of England’s most successful kings. Not even historians are immune to the charismatic charm of Shakespeare’s heroic king, with some authors, including Michael Jones, often seeing Shakespeare’s version of events as gospel. Indeed, his iconic status has led to historians such as Ian Mortimer labelling him as a `hero in his own lifetime`, whilst K.B. McFarlane has named him `the greatest man that ever ruled England`[1]. However, whilst many are full of praise for the hero of Agincourt, there are plenty of historians who are quick to point out his many flaws. Whilst it can be hard to deny that Henry V was responsible for many military successes during his short reign which lasted less than ten years, there are those who label these successes as being overrated. Those who champion this view often cite the enormous financial burden that his war placed on the Kingdom of England long after his premature death. Others also criticize his approach to the Treaty of Troyes, pointing out that this dragged England in to the Armagnac-Burgundian civil war as opposed to allowing the English crown to take advantage of it. Furthermore, historians have remained critical of some of Henry’s more controversial decisions, including his battlefield execution of French prisoners at Agincourt, claiming that actions such as these far outweigh his successes. With such polarised opinion, one has to ask why historians disagree so vehemently about whether Henry V was a successful monarch or not.
In this essay, I shall be examining what I feel are the main issues surrounding the problem of why historians do not agree whether Henry V was a good king. The main reasons all stem from individual choices of the historian, and include their choice of frameworks, of sources, how these sources are interpreted and finally the historian’s own motives for writing. Through this, I hope to conclusively show how a historian’s opinion on a historical figure is often a subjective opinion, just as if they were judging how successful a person alive today had become.
As with all areas of history, the framework that a historian chooses to work within has a dramatic impact on what conclusions their work can produce. A historian who focuses on the military aspect of the Hundred Years War may well come to an entirely different conclusion when compared to one who is researching the economic impact of the war. Likewise, a historian who chooses to mainly research the war from the perspective of the English will have many disagreements with one who has examined it from a French perspective. Both of these can be seen in the work of historians writing about Henry V. As far as a framework based upon the military aspect of his accomplishments go, he can do little wrong in the eyes of many historians. William Ormrod believes him to be `the most spectacularly successful of the English warrior kings` in his brief account of Henry’s reign which focuses mainly on events in France, a view supported by Dan Jones in his claim that Henry’s successes were the `zenith of English fortunes during the Hundred Year’s War`[2][3]. Historians who focus on a military framework often cite the territorial expansions of the English crown under Henry V as being good arguments for his success; his acquisition of Normandy and the gains made through the Treaty of Troyes are amongst his most impressive achievements (indeed, historians such as Gravett who focus on a military framework emphasis that although Agincourt `solved little`, it was `the hard sieges of the following years that really wore down his enemies`)[4]. An economic account of Henry’s success, however, has an entirely different opinion on whether Henry V was a successful king or not. Desmond Seward writes how at the time of Henry’s death `the government had to face a deficit of £30,000 together with debts of £25,000`[5]. Seward attributes this to the highly expensive war, noting how even the new revenue from conquered territories was unable to defray these debts due to constant turmoil. Seward is not alone in his claims that the state of Henry’s economy when he died prevented him from being truly successful; Juliet Barker writes also writes how the conquest of Normandy, although successful, had `drained England’s resources of both money and men` as she talks about the cost of garrisoning Henry’s new strongholds[6]. In this way one can see how a historian’s use of frameworks causes disagreement; one framework will contain facts that another does not, and this has a profound effect on what is actually possible for the historian to argue . The choice of framework will also alter how a historian chooses to approach his subject; a historian who wants to examine alleged war crimes in relation to Henry V is far more likely to have a more negative image of one who writes about his relation with chivalric orders.
It is not just what subject matter the historian chooses to look at which can spark disagreements, but also the time period of what they look at. Ian Mortimer’s book Henry’s Year of Glory looks almost exclusively at 1415, the year of the Agincourt campaign and therefore arguably one of the most successful years of his reign. As such, he is unable to examine Henry’s second, much longer military campaign in France as well as other aspects of his reign and this prevents him from fully detailing whether Henry was a successful monarch or not. In order to judge whether Henry was a successful king or not, one must examine his full reign, not just a year of it (although Mortimer dedicates several pages to discussing his choice of framework in his conclusion), and one may even argue that it is necessary to also examine the continuation of the Hundred Years War after his death. Henry’s ultimate aim was for the English and French crowns to be united under the Lancastrian family, and as his son lost all French territories with the exception of Calais, a historian could easily argue that Henry’s ultimate aims were not successful. Mortimer’s book does not have the opportunity to discuss issues such as these, and so there is potential for disagreement between his book and one which details the entire period of the war under Henry VI such as Conquest by Juliet Barker.
Mortimer’s arguments are also shaped by the choice of sources which he uses in his book. This applies not just to his writings but that of every historian. Arguments are based on the evidence provided by a source, and so a historian’s conclusions are likely to be based on which sources they choose, or how important they feel a particular source to be. Different historians use various sources and believe one may be more important than another, causing many disagreements. There are many sources detailing the reign of Henry V, but for this essay I will be looking at how historians have used sources about the battle of Agincourt to determine Henry’s success as king. Many historians believe Agincourt to be the root of Henry’s later successes; Curry writes how it `sealed his reputation as a warrior king`, and after Agincourt the French `never dared to face him again in battle`[7].
Agincourt is often regarded as such a success because the English were supposedly hopelessly outnumbered, but this traditional image is now under threat from new research. In her book Agincourt; A New History, Anne Curry offers insights in to her research on numbers at the battle of Agincourt. As part of this research, Professor Curry has compiled a database listing the name of every soldier who fought in the Hundred Years War, and from this research she has been able to lay claim to the figures for 9,000 soldiers for the English and 12,000 for the French[8]. The implications of this research are clear. Agincourt is celebrated as one of the great victories of the Hundred Years War due to what many chroniclers have described as a near miraculous win for the small English army. If it becomes generally accepted that the numbers were in fact much closer than previously thought, then its status, and that of Henry V as a successful warrior king, becomes much lower. However, there are some historians who do not agree with the new research carried out by Anne Curry. Juliet Barker is amongst the most prominent of these critics. She refers to other sources produced during Henry’s lifetime which cite 60,000 or even 150,000 but settles on a figure of 36,000 as recorded by a Burgundian in the French army (this is chosen above others because he gives it substance through listing the number of soldiers in each position)[9]. In addition to this, Barker claims in the foreword to her book that `surviving records on both sides are simply too incomplete her assertion that nine thousand English were pitted against an army of only twelve thousand. If the differential really was this low then this makes nonsense of the course of the battle as described by contemporaries`[10].
Other historians have come forwards to defend Professor Curry’s somewhat controversial claims. Amongst these historians is Ian Mortimer, who chooses to side with Professor Curry over Juliet Barker due to how he interprets the sources that Barker relies on. Mortimer urges the reader that it `needs to be borne in mind that their main precedent for describing the size of an army was in battle was the Old Testament – which regularly mentions armies of tens or hundreds of thousands of men`[11]. From this one can infer that he believes that as the chroniclers are writing almost in an attempt to mimic events of literally biblical proportions they are not necessarily objective or accurate, and as such cannot be regarded as a useful source.
It cannot be denied that both sides of the argument are logical, valid claims. In this instance of what causes historians to disagree, it becomes obvious that it is not only the choice of sources but also how the sources are interpreted. Mortimer’s belief that Medieval chroniclers were writing in a style akin to the battles of the Old Testament reveal useful insights in to how beliefs about the medieval mind-set shape how one sees the sources left by these writers, whilst Barker’s interpretation of some sources, the chroniclers of the time, have led her to discard others, the list of soldiers produced by Professor Curry.
Finally, the historian’s background must also be considered when determining why historians disagree. When covering an international conflict such as the Hundred Years War, it can be hard for a historian to remain entirely objective when writing about the history of their own country. This has been pointed out by Anne Curry, writing that historians `show a distinctly national bias` whether they were writing at the time of events or six hundred years later[12]. She is joined in this perspective by Juliet Barker who advocates the view that `it is no coincidence than many authors have been prompted to write about Henry V and Agincourt during war when national morale is low`[13]. Examples of this national bias can be seen in the work of many writers; the English are often full of praise for Henry whilst the French are quick to point out his negative traits. William Churchill, in his History of the English Speaking Peoples believes Henry’s reign to be `a gleam of splendour` in comparison to the `dark troubled story of Medieval England`[14]. He goes on to defend Henry’s decision to execute the prisoners his men had taken halfway through the battle of Agincourt, claiming that `the desperate character of this act supplies what defence can be found for its ferocity`[15]. But whereas Churchill talks of Henry as being `splendid, merciful, prudent in judgement, a brilliant soldier and a true Englishman with all the greatness and none of the glaring faults of his Plantagenet ancestors`, French historians offer a very different image of whether Henry V was a successful king[16].
This opposing view can be found in the work of Desmond Seward. Seward, a French historian who was educated in England has little but contempt for Henry; `In the national legend Henry is the glorious conqueror who broke the French chivalry at Agincourt. In reality he displayed a number of markedly unheroic qualities and had more than a little in common with Napoleon or even Hitler`[17]. Seward is joined in his character assassination of Henry V by other French historians. Perroy, for example, considers that he `belongs to the age of Italian tyrants`, a view which directly contrasts those that have been put forwards by Churchill in that he was merciful[18]. Influenced by this national bias, just as English historians have a tendency to exaggerate Henry’s successes, many French historians tend to downplay them. In The Recovery of France in the Fifteenth Century one author writes how `the figure of 6,000 French soldiers at the battle of Agincourt should be regarded as maximum estimates`, despite it being a commonly accepted figure for the outnumbered English forces, not the French[19]. Seward also underplays the importance of the Agincourt campaign, labelling it `just another chevauchcée which decided nothing`[20]. Through examples such as these one can see that historians disagree about the success of Henry V in order to bolster the image of their own national history.
Hopefully this has shown how subjective the process of judging whether a historical figure is successful or not truly is; neither does this apply only to Henry V, as individuals ranging from Gengis Khan to Mother Teresa are subject to very similar historical debates. The selection of sources and frameworks inevitably narrow down the information and subsequently the line of argument available to the historian. This is then also affected by how the historian interprets the source, an interpretation which can be altered depending on how one views the use of a specific word, or whether the historian chooses to measure Henry’s success by medieval or modern standards in light of the source’s information (as shown by Seward’s dismissal of English historians who dismiss the execution of the French prisoners at Agincourt as having to be understood by `standards of the day)[21]. Both of these are also influenced by the historian’s approach to their subject matter. It is now a commonly held view that one must examine the historian as well as their argument, a truth which can be seen in this particular debate through the national bias of many historians writing about Henry V. In the end, it seems unlikely that Henry’s reputation is subject to change. As already mentioned, his successes have been `romanticised by generations` thanks to the works of William Shakespeare, and with the works of modern historians such as Juliet Barker cementing this successful image of Henry, it will prove a challenge for future historians to alter this popular interpretation[22].
Bibliography
Barker J., Agincourt; The King, The Campaign, The Battle, Abacus, 2006
Barker J., Conquest; The English Kingdom of France, Abacus, 2010
Boutruche R., The Devastation of Rural Areas during the Hundred Years War and the Agricultural Recovery of France, in The Recovery of France in the Fifteenth Century, The Macmillan Press LTD, 1971
Churchill W., A History of the English Speaking Peoples; Volume I, The Birth of Britain, Cassell & Company Ltd, 1956
Curry A., Agincourt; A New History, Tempus Publishing Ltd, 2006
Curry A., Essential Histories; The Hundred Years War 1337-1453, Osprey Publishing, 2002
Curry A., Henry V’s Misspent Youth in BBC History Magazine Vol 14, no 3, BBC Worldwide, 2013
Curry A., The Hundred Years War, The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1993
Gravett C., Knight, Noble Warrior of England 1200-1600, Osprey Publishing, 2008
Jones D., The Plantagenets; The Kings who made England, HarperPress, 2012
Jones M.K., Agincourt 1415, Leo Cooper Ltd, 2005
Mortimer I., 1415 Henry V’s Year of Glory, Vintage, 2010
Ormod W.M., The Kings and Queens of England, Tempus Publishing Limited, 2004
Seward D., A brief history of the Hundred Years War, Robinson, 2003
http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/
End Notes
[1] Mortimer I., 1415 Henry V’s Year of Glory, Vintage, 2010, p.1
[2] Ormod W.M., The Kings and Queens of England, Tempus Publishing Limited, 2004, p.171
[3] Jones D., The Plantaganets; The Kings who made England, HarperPress, 2012, p.594
[4] Gravett C., Knight, Noble Warrior of England 1200-1600, Osprey Publishing, 2008, p.143
[5] Seward D., A brief history of the Hundred Years War, Robinson, 2003, p.185
[6] Barker J., Conquest; The English Kingdom of France, Abacus, 2010, p.24
[7] Curry A., Henry V’s Misspent Youth in BBC History Magazine Vol 14, no 3, BBC Worldwide, 2013, p.19
[8] http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/
[9] Barker J., Agincourt; The King, The Campaign, The Battle, Abacus, 2006, p.274-5
[10] Barker J., Agincourt; The King, The Campaign, The Battle, Abacus, 2006, p.xvi
[11] Mortimer I., 1415 Henry V’s Year of Glory, Vintage, 2010, p.566
[12] Curry A., The Hundred Years War, The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1993, p.6
[13] Barker J., Agincourt; The King, The Campaign, The Battle, Abacus, 2006, p.xi
[14] Churchill W., A History of the English Speaking Peoples; Volume I, The Birth of Britain, Cassell & Company Ltd, 1956, p.315
[15] Churchill W., A History of the English Speaking Peoples; Volume I, The Birth of Britain, Cassell & Company Ltd, 1956, p.319
[16] Churchill W., A History of the English Speaking Peoples; Volume I, The Birth of Britain, Cassell & Company Ltd, 1956, p.323
[17] Seward D., A brief history of the Hundred Years War, Robinson, 2003, p.153
[18] Seward D., A brief history of the Hundred Years War, Robinson, 2003, p.154
[19] Boutruche R., The Devastation of Rural Areas during the Hundred Years War and the Agricultural Recovery of France, in The Recovery of France in the Fifteenth Century, The Macmillan Press LTD, 1971, p.31
[20] Seward D., A brief history of the Hundred Years War, Robinson, 2003, p.170
[21] Seward D., A brief history of the Hundred Years War, Robinson, 2003 p. REFERENCE
[22] Jones D., The Plantagenets; The Kings who made England, HarperPress, 2012, p.598
Pentru a putea adăuga comentarii trebuie să fii membru al altmarius !
Alătură-te reţelei altmarius