Henry V of England

[el t]

Could Agincourt and the invasion of Normandy somehow been avoided? Especially if King Charles of France had been a stronger ruler and never went insane. Could the English have been bought off, or the encounter ended in a stalemate?

[SavoyTruffle]

It was really a literally huge combination of fortuitous affairs that led to Henry V's war being extremely successful.

First off, Henry was quite young at his accession (around twenty-six), which meant that he had more energies to deal with the claims to the French throne. Secondly, he was a pretty skilled military commander himself, proving his defensive mettle at Agincourt. Third, the king of France, Charles VI, was obviously increasingly unfit to rule as his madness had affected him. It is in fact what I call the Miracle of the House of Valois, to paraphrase a later event quite similar in character, that led to the descendants of Hugh Capet in the male line keeping their throne. The event, of course, is Henry V's sudden death of dysentery at a siege, and before Charles VI himself died.

[Yorel]

Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle

It was really a literally huge combination of fortuitous affairs that led to Henry V's war being extremely successful.

First off, Henry was quite young at his accession (around twenty-six), which meant that he had more energies to deal with the claims to the French throne. Secondly, he was a pretty skilled military commander himself, proving his defensive mettle at Agincourt. Third, the king of France, Charles VI, was obviously increasingly unfit to rule as his madness had affected him. It is in fact what I call the Miracle of the House of Valois, to paraphrase a later event quite similar in character, that led to the descendants of Hugh Capet in the male line keeping their throne. The event, of course, is Henry V's sudden death of dysentery at a siege, and before Charles VI himself died.

I suppose you're refering to the "Capetian Miracle", the fact that, from Hugh Capet to Louis X, every French King died while leaving behind at least 1 son to succeed him (Louis X was the last, leaving his posthumous son John I to succeed him, but the baby boy died five days after his birth).

About the main topic, I would also like to point that Agincourt could have been a complete disaster : the French were better equipped and more numerous than the English. The English had the longbow of course, but that wouldn't have been enough.
The weather played a huge part : it rained heavily during the battle, and the ground became very muddy, proving disastrous for the heavily armored French knights. Plus, the rain weakened the string of the French crossbows who thus broke, while the English were more successful to protect the strings of their longbows.

I'm not saying Henry V had nothing to do with the English victory at Agincourt : in my opinion, he took advantage of the battles' condition, allowing him to inflict a crushing defeat to the French. That's what makes him a great general : he was able to adapt to the situation.

Originally Posted by el t

Could Agincourt and the invasion of Normandy somehow been avoided? Especially if King Charles of France had been a stronger ruler and never went insane. Could the English have been bought off, or the encounter ended in a stalemate?

I'm not sure you could avoid the invasion of Normandy, even with a Charles VI in good mental health. The English Kings considered that they were usurped their rights to the French throne since Philip VI was chosen over Edward III by total exclusion of female lines in the French succession.
Plus, France was one of the strongest and richest kingdoms of the Middle Age : the French crown was a very tempting prize.

However, if Charles VI did not became insane, this would avoid the civil war between both the Armagnacs and Burgundians. That civil war was caused by the rivalry of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, and Louis of Orléans, brother of Charles VI, who were fighting for the control of the Regency, leading the Duke of Burgundy to have the Duke of Orléans assassinated. A sane Charles VI wouldn't have need for a regency, thus getting rid of those troubles. Charles VI might even be able to avert it himself, by neutralising both Dukes.

Without those troubles, the French would be in better position against any potential threat of invasion and have better chances.

[SavoyTruffle]

And thus many of the achievements we attribute to his son Charles VII, will likely be his, I'd assume in said scenario.