The King makes Agincourt feel exhausting, frightening and horribly close. Men stumble in mud, armour becomes slick with rain, and the battlefield contracts until there seems barely enough room to breathe. As an antidote to the spotless sword fights of older historical films, it has considerable appeal.
As an explanation of what happened on 25 October 1415, it needs rather more supervision.
David Michôd’s 2019 film draws on Shakespeare’s history plays, then substantially reshapes their characters and politics. Its Henry V is a reluctant warrior, its Falstaff a trusted military adviser, and its Dauphin a sneering antagonist awaiting an undignified encounter with English mud.
The historical battle involved a more ambitious king, a less obligingly foolish enemy and thousands of archers whose contribution deserves considerably more attention.
How Historically Accurate Is Agincourt in The King?
The film captures something convincing about the physical ordeal of close combat. Its explanation of the battle is much less reliable.
The English victory, difficult ground and fighting on foot have historical foundations. Falstaff’s sacrificial battle plan and the Dauphin’s confrontation with Henry belong to the screenplay.
| Element | In the film | Historical assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Henry’s motives | A reluctant ruler manoeuvred into war | Henry actively pursued claims and territorial ambitions in France |
| English tactics | A vulnerable force draws the French into a muddy trap | Archery, defensive stakes, terrain and close combat worked together |
| Falstaff | Henry’s adviser and a central battlefield figure | A fictional character inherited from Shakespeare |
| The Dauphin | Present at Agincourt and confronted by Henry | Louis, Duke of Guyenne, was absent |
| Armoured combat | Exhausting, crowded and dangerous | Broadly plausible, although the choreography is dramatised |
| Prisoner killings | Evidence of Henry’s increasingly ruthless kingship | A real event, with disputed circumstances and an uncertain death toll |
The distinction matters because the film changes responsibility as well as detail. Its Henry is drawn towards violence by other people. The historical Henry had considerable experience of exercising it.
Why Henry V Invaded France
Henry’s invasion belonged to the long struggle now called the Hundred Years’ War. English kings claimed the French crown, while disputes over territory, sovereignty and allegiance repeatedly turned negotiation into campaigning.
France’s internal divisions offered Henry an opportunity. Rival political factions weakened royal government, and Charles VI’s recurring illness complicated an already unstable situation.
Henry landed in France in August 1415 and besieged Harfleur. The town surrendered in September, but the siege consumed time and damaged his army. Disease, particularly dysentery, reduced its strength.
He then marched towards English-held Calais. French forces obstructed his route, forcing diversions and increasing pressure on supplies. By the time the armies met near Agincourt, the English had endured a punishing march. The College of Arms estimates that they had covered around 260 miles in the preceding weeks.
This was a dangerous position for an invading king. It was also a position Henry had reached through his own decisions. I find him more interesting when allowed that responsibility.
The Armies: Numbers, Commanders and Composition
Agincourt’s army sizes remain disputed. Chronicles provide conflicting figures, and surviving records cannot produce a complete battlefield register.
For a general account, roughly 6,000 to 9,000 English troops and perhaps 12,000 to 20,000 French troops are useful working ranges. They should remain ranges. The familiar image of a tiny English army confronting an almost limitless French host owes something to the battle’s subsequent reputation.
| Army | Principal figures | Composition |
|---|---|---|
| English | Henry V, the Duke of York, Lord Camoys and Sir Thomas Erpingham | A large majority of archers alongside dismounted men-at-arms |
| French | Constable Charles d’Albret, Marshal Jean II le Meingre, known as Boucicaut, and leading nobles | Substantial formations of dismounted men-at-arms, mounted troops and missile troops |
Two corrections are particularly important.
First, the French attack was not simply an army of mounted knights charging English infantry. Many French men-at-arms advanced on foot.
Second, the French commanders were experienced soldiers. Their defeat requires an explanation involving deployment, ground, coordination and battlefield pressure. Calling them stupid is quicker, but teaches us very little.
How the Real Battle Unfolded
The English deployed across a restricted frontage between areas of woodland. Rain had softened the cultivated ground, making movement increasingly difficult.
Their archers carried sharpened stakes intended to protect them against mounted attacks. When the French did not advance immediately, Henry moved his army closer, bringing the enemy within effective bowshot.
The fighting developed through several connected phases:
- English archers opened fire. Their shooting helped provoke the French response.
- A mounted French attack failed to break through. Arrows, stakes and difficulties of coordination disrupted the assault.
- French men-at-arms advanced on foot. The wet ground made the approach tiring and formations became crowded.
- Close combat developed at the English line. Men behind pressed towards men already struggling to fight or remain upright.
- English archers joined the melee. Their contribution continued after the initial shooting.
The Musée de l’Armée’s account likewise emphasises the English advance, archers’ stakes, unsuccessful French cavalry attack and difficulty of moving through rain-soaked ground.
No single ingredient explains the victory. Mud mattered because soldiers had to cross it under pressure. Archery mattered because it disrupted movement and helped shape the engagement. Close combat mattered because arrows alone did not dispose of the French army.
The film compresses that interaction into a more personal and readily visible trap.
What The King Gets Right About Mud and Armour
The film’s strongest historical instinct is its insistence that fighting becomes difficult very quickly.
Wet earth, restricted vision, physical exertion and the pressure of other bodies could make an already dangerous situation catastrophic. A fallen man might struggle to rise because other men were standing or falling around him.
However, plate armour did not ordinarily turn its wearer into an immobilised metal ornament. Properly fitted armour distributed its weight across the body and allowed considerable movement. Men trained to fight in it.
The danger at Agincourt came from the combination of equipment, fatigue, ground and crowding. Armour could protect a man from a weapon without protecting him from being crushed or trapped.
The Dauphin’s repeated slipping makes effective cinema, but it should not become our general understanding of medieval mobility. Armourers had customers who expected to survive wearing their work.
Longbows, Swords and the Weapons of Agincourt
The original article’s emphasis on longbowmen is justified, although their effectiveness needs careful explanation.
English arrows did not reliably pass through every piece of good plate armour. Protection varied with the quality and thickness of the metal, the range, the angle of impact and the part of the body struck. Horses and less protected areas presented different vulnerabilities.
Archery could influence a battle without every arrow killing an armoured knight.
| Weapon or equipment | Battlefield role | Historical qualification |
|---|---|---|
| War bow | Sustained shooting against approaching troops and horses | Its effects extended beyond penetrating armour |
| Arming sword | A sidearm for close fighting | A cut was unlikely to defeat good plate directly |
| Longsword | Close combat, including specialised techniques against armour | Precise blade classifications cannot be assigned to every combatant |
| Lance, axe and hammer | Thrusting or striking at close quarters | Equipment varied between individuals and retinues |
| Dagger | Fighting at very close range and attacking openings | Particularly dangerous against an immobilised opponent |
| Plate and mail | Protection for men-at-arms | Coverage and quality differed considerably |
In armoured combat, wrestling, thrusting towards gaps and controlling an opponent could matter more than an impressive sword swing.
The film understands the ugliness of that proximity. Its battle would explain more if the archers received comparable attention.
Falstaff’s Plan: An Effective Invention
Joel Edgerton’s Falstaff provides the film with much of its emotional weight. His relationship with Henry gives the battle a personal cost, while his proposed sacrifice makes the English plan easy to understand.
There was no historical Sir John Falstaff directing events at Agincourt.
Shakespeare’s character has associations with the historical name of Sir John Fastolf, but the two should not be treated as interchangeable. The film then transforms Shakespeare’s Falstaff into a rather different man.
The result works as drama. It also redirects attention from an army’s collective work towards the insight and death of one fictional adviser.
Henry’s real soldiers did not have the benefit of a screenplay explaining which sacrifice would win the afternoon.
Was the Dauphin Really at Agincourt?
No. Louis, Duke of Guyenne, the Dauphin portrayed by Robert Pattinson, did not fight at Agincourt.
His confrontation with Henry is invented. Louis died in December 1415, rather than being killed on the battlefield. The film also compresses the later political settlement: Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Valois took place in June 1420, almost five years after Agincourt.
Removing the fictional duel changes the character of the victory. Agincourt was not resolved through personal justice between two princes. Its consequences fell across a much wider political and military world.
Henry’s Killing of the Prisoners
Henry ordered the killing of French prisoners during the battle. The event belongs in any serious assessment of his victory.
Accounts associate the order with fears that fighting might resume and that prisoners could overwhelm their guards or rejoin the enemy. The sequence of events, including the relationship between the order and an attack on the English baggage, remains debated.
Military fear helps explain the decision. It does not erase the fact that surrendered men were killed.
Nor were all prisoners executed. Research drawing on chronicles, safe-conducts and financial records identifies numerous survivors. High-ranking captives, including Charles, Duke of Orléans, were retained for ransom. agincourt600.com
I would resist both the effortless acquittal and the tidy claim that nothing about the decision requires historical context. Henry could be an effective commander and responsible for a terrible act. The evidence does not oblige us to choose a more comfortable king.
What the Sources Can Tell Us
Agincourt is unusually well documented for a medieval battle, but its evidence still needs handling with care.
The anonymous Gesta Henrici Quinti offers a near-contemporary English account associated with a cleric who accompanied the campaign. French and Burgundian narratives provide other perspectives, including those of writers connected with participants.
Administrative records help identify soldiers, payments, prisoners and ransoms. They are particularly useful when a chronicler’s enthusiasm begins to exceed his arithmetic.
Yet the records remain incomplete. The Medieval Soldier research project notes that even lists of French casualties raise questions about overlap and copying between chroniclers. Named individuals provide firmer evidence than sweeping totals, but do not reveal every man present. The-french-army-in-1415
We can reconstruct the battle’s broad course with confidence while remaining cautious about exact numbers, speeches and individual encounters. That is a strength of historical enquiry, even if it makes for less decisive dialogue.
Did Agincourt Win Henry the French Crown?
Agincourt strengthened Henry’s prestige and inflicted severe losses on the French political and military elite. It did not immediately deliver France into his hands.
Further campaigns followed, including the conquest of much of Normandy. The Treaty of Troyes in 1420 recognised Henry as heir to Charles VI and arranged his marriage to Catherine.
Henry died in 1422 before Charles VI. His infant son inherited the English claim, but maintaining English power in France proved another matter entirely.
The victory’s enduring reputation owes much to later storytelling, especially Shakespeare. The St Crispin’s Day speech belongs to the theatre, not a surviving transcript of Henry addressing his soldiers.
The King adds another interpretation to that tradition. Its Agincourt is memorable for its fear, exhaustion and bodily violence. For an understanding of why the English won, I would put the archers, stakes and formations back into the picture, and give Henry rather less opportunity to blame his advisers.
