French Win At Agincourt

While I'm thinking about 15th century English WIs... What if something goes right for the French at Agincourt? Maybe the rain holds off for a bit so that the ground's better for them; maybe that cavalry attack they'd planned on the flanks is a bit more coherent, with more manpower behind it, and they put a serious dent in the English archers. Maybe Henry V just has an uncharacteristically bad day at the office.​

Whatever happens, the dismounted French men-at-arms advancing through the mud and the arrows manage to land a telling blow. The English are pushed back; a push back becomes a rout, becomes a massacre. King Henry and his brother Humphrey duke of Gloucester are among the dead.​

So:​

The leadership of the French Armagnac faction is probably mostly intact, with a more-or-less intact army and maybe some high-status English prisoners. What next? They could try and take Harfleur back, or maybe march on Calais. Except...​

...Duke John the Fearless of Burgundy is in Dijon with an army of his own. In theory, Armagnacs and Burgundians have put their differences aside to jointly repel Henry V's invasion. In reality, John was waiting and seeing what happened before he made his move (in OTL he took advantage of the mostly-Armagnac defeat at Agincourt to march on Paris). What is he going to do now? Sit tight? Opportunistically go after Calais himself?​

Thomas duke of Clarence, the slain Henry's younger brother and heir presumptive, is in Calais. He is now King Thomas I of England. He went there from Harfleur rather than join the march that led to Agincourt, allegedly sick. In reality, it is suspected that he was got out of the way by Henry because of his opposition to the march and his close personal ties to leading Armagnacs like Charles d'Orleans and Charles d'Albret. Does the new king now try to salvage what is left of England's fortunes in France by arranging a truce with his Armagnac friends, maybe to help offset any Burgundian move against English possessions.​

Henry V was operating a pro-Burgundian diplomacy before he died. His next oldest brother, John duke of Bedford, was left in England as lieutenant while Henry was campaigning in France, governing with the aid of a council headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. What does he do, especially if he trusts Thomas about as much as Henry did? Although, Thomas is now the king...​

(Hmm...might be more interesting to have Henry alive and in French captivity, so that Thomas and John can squabble over the best course of action in France and the dauphin's faction can demand a predictably massive ransom from England...)​

Oh, and if the vast majority of the English archers at Agincourt were killed either in or after the battle, that sort of trained manpower is hard to replace quickly. Yes, Henry had sent a lot of sick men back to England or Calais from Harfleur, so the massacre of the army at Agincourt would not mean the destruction of the entire force he had mustered from the French campaign (maybe only half of it). Still, it would be a blow to England's immediate term military outlook.​

So yes, thoughts, suggestions on where things would be likely to go from there?​
 
Last edited:
While I'm thinking about 15th century English WIs... What if something goes right for the French at Agincourt? Maybe the rain holds off for a bit so that the ground's better for them; maybe that cavalry attack they'd planned on the flanks is a bit more coherent, with more manpower behind it, and they put a serious dent in the English archers. Maybe Henry V just has an uncharacteristically bad day at the office.​

Whatever happens, the dismounted French men-at-arms advancing through the mud and the arrows manage to land a telling blow. The English are pushed back; a push back becomes a rout, becomes a massacre. King Henry and his brother Humphrey duke of Gloucester are among the dead.​

So:​

The leadership of the French Armagnac faction is probably mostly intact, with a more-or-less intact army and maybe some high-status English prisoners. What next? They could try and take Harfleur back, or maybe march on Calais. Except...​

...Duke John the Fearless of Burgundy is in Dijon with an army of his own. In theory, Armagnacs and Burgundians have put their differences aside to jointly repel Henry V's invasion. In reality, John was waiting and seeing what happened before he made his move (in OTL he took advantage of the mostly-Armagnac defeat at Agincourt to march on Paris). What is he going to do now? Sit tight? Opportunistically go after Calais himself?​

Thomas duke of Clarence, the slain Henry's younger brother and heir presumptive, is in Calais. He is now King Thomas I of England. He went there from Harfleur rather than join the march that led to Agincourt, allegedly sick. In reality, it is suspected that he was got out of the way by Henry because of his opposition to the march and his close personal ties to leading Armagnacs like Charles d'Orleans and Charles d'Albret. Does the new king now try to salvage what is left of England's fortunes in France by arranging a truce with his Armagnac friends, maybe to help offset any Burgundian move against English possessions.​

Henry V was operating a pro-Burgundian diplomacy before he died. His next oldest brother, John duke of Bedford, was left in England as lieutenant while Henry was campaigning in France, governing with the aid of a council headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. What does he do, especially if he trusts Thomas about as much as Henry did? Although, Thomas is now the king...​

(Hmm...might be more interesting to have Henry alive and in French captivity, so that Thomas and John can squabble over the best course of action in France and the dauphin's faction can demand a predictably massive ransom from England...)​

Oh, and if the vast majority of the English archers at Agincourt were killed either in or after the battle, that sort of trained manpower is hard to replace quickly. Yes, Henry had sent a lot of sick men back to England or Calais from Harfleur, so the massacre of the army at Agincourt would not mean the destruction of the entire force he had mustered from the French campaign (maybe only half of it). Still, it would be a blow to England's immediate term military outlook.​

So yes, thoughts, suggestions on where things would be likely to go from there?​

Much will depend on whether you decide to have Henry V survive. Killing a king in battle is one thing, killing him afterword is another. Though now that I think on it, considering the Dauphin's (he was there) feelings towards Henry, Henry's survival in a lost Agincourt is pretty much ASB. Also, there were a lot of doubters about Henry's invasion considering how long it had been since Charles the Wise had so effectively outmaneuvered the English from so much of France.

ITTL, King Thomas would have his policy of caution vindicated and Henry revealed as a dead fool, and a martyr to no one. King Thomas would have to retrench, holding up in Calais, and hopefully watch the Burgundians and Armagnac factions tear each other to pieces. Thomas would never have expected to be king anyway, so just getting the crown should be enough for him.

Question is: Does an earlier end to the Hundred Years War cause an earlier start to the Wars of the Roses?:eek:
 
The hundred years would have continued regardless, but the age of knights would have continued for a few decades longer, as the longbow would have to proove itself at a later date. (The loss would have been blamed on the difference in numbers of men on the field not on the weapons used)
Thomas of Lancaster, 1. Duke of Clarence would become king of England and continue the war as soon as his army is up to scratch.
This would be neccessary to clear the name of his family from the loss his brother suffered - his other brothers would demand that. His brother John of Lancaster 1,Duke of Bedford would not accept him as king if Thomas makes peace so soon after the loss at Agincourt.
But if the French would have won, absolutism would not have been "invented", at least not in France. With so many aristocrats surviving, the kings of France would have a lot of oppostion to impose their personal rule.
This would also put a serious blow to enlightenment as "commoners" like Descartes would not get a voice or not as big a voice as he had in OTL.
 
Last edited:
Without (I'm assuming) the prisoners' massacre, maybe plus a shift in English support to the Armagnacs, the French wouldn't hate everything English quite so much and for so long. Could also perhaps take the edge off French revanchism.

And the longbow hardly needed to prove itself in 1415.
 
the longbow hardly needed to prove itself in 1415.

Absolutely. It had done a pretty good job on the Scots. Back to Agincourt. Given that it was an English defeat and Henry V's reputation slashed, Shakespeare is going to have to look for alternative material for a few plays
 
Much will depend on whether you decide to have Henry V survive. Killing a king in battle is one thing, killing him afterword is another. Though now that I think on it, considering the Dauphin's (he was there) feelings towards Henry, Henry's survival in a lost Agincourt is pretty much ASB. Also, there were a lot of doubters about Henry's invasion considering how long it had been since Charles the Wise had so effectively outmaneuvered the English from so much of France.

Yes. I think (think!) that, Shakespeare notwithstanding, the Dauphin was actually sitting it out in Rouen and letting Charles d'Albret and Marshal Boucicaut do the heavy lifting for him (after also turning down Henry V's request for single combat - his reputation, let's say, wasn't enhanced by either of these things...luckily, he was dead by the end of 1415 himself). But the point stands - Henry was in the thick of the fighting at Agincourt, at one point standing over his wounded brother Humphrey and, famously, losing one of the fleur-de-lis from his crown to a swordstroke. Also there were a group of young French knights and squires who had sworn an oath to land a blow on the English king (maybe it was one of them who got his crown), so I think both Henry and Humphrey being killed if the English army goes south is very plausible, if not almost certain. Remember, in the thick of the battle, it was hard to identify who that bloke you were bashing over the helmet actually was. A number of high-ranking French nobles who Henry had ordered taken alive were killed in OTL because nobody knew who they were in all the mud, blood etc.

ITTL, King Thomas would have his policy of caution vindicated and Henry revealed as a dead fool, and a martyr to no one. King Thomas would have to retrench, holding up in Calais, and hopefully watch the Burgundians and Armagnac factions tear each other to pieces. Thomas would never have expected to be king anyway, so just getting the crown should be enough for him.

Question is: Does an earlier end to the Hundred Years War cause an earlier start to the Wars of the Roses?:eek:

True. Henry V would be regarded in a much different light in this TL, I think. I suppose the question is, what peace terms would the Armagnacs, flush with victory, be prepared to accept? I agree that the sensible route for England would be to try somehow to play the two French factions off against each other.

Remember that there were still people in England who saw the Lancastrian dynasty as usurpers - the victory at Agincourt, surely inspired by God in the estimations of people at the time, went a long way to ending that particular source of discontent (for the time being anyway). Here, not so much. And many people thought that Edmund, the earl of March, Richard II's designated heir had a better claim to the throne. He didn't actually want the throne as it happened, but he was still a focus for discontent.
 
The hundred years would have continued regardless, but the age of knights would have continued for a few decades longer, as the longbow would have to proove itself at a later date. (The loss would have been blamed on the difference in numbers of men on the field not on the weapons used)
Thomas of Lancaster, 1. Duke of Clarence would become king of England and continue the war as soon as his army is up to scratch.
This would be neccessary to clear the name of his family from the loss his brother suffered - his other brothers would demand that. His brother John of Lancaster 1,Duke of Bedford would not accept him as king if Thomas makes peace so soon after the loss at Agincourt.
But if the French would have won, absolutism would not have been "invented", at least not in France. With so many aristocrats surviving, the kings of France would have a lot of oppostion to impose their personal rule.
This would also put a serious blow to enlightenment as "commoners" like Descartes would not get a voice or not as big a voice as he had in OTL.

I think the longbow and the so-called "English way of war" had already proved its worth at Crecy, Poitiers and earlier than that in Scotland, but you still make a good point. The French, having won (they think) due to their knightly elan or whatever, and if they then go on to drive the English out of France altogether (apart from Calais?) earlier than OTL, won't have the incentive to reform militarily and governmentally as in OTL. And I also agree that the continued survival of so many aristocrats and knights who died in OTL will make the French monarchy's attempt to centralise power more difficult. Which obviously has a huge knock-on for the history of France and for all of the adjoining places France interfered in (eg. Italy) over the course of the next couple of centuries.

I think Thomas might want to make peace, but as you say there would be elements that would strongly oppose that (and he himself was an aggressive military leader who has just lost his brother, so he might want to get his own back). On the other hand, there could be a peace party growing as there was in OTL significantly later in the war, and possible anti-Lancastrian discontent raising its head. So, he's going to have a difficult time of it, maybe.

Also, he died childless in OTL after 10 years of marriage, so no reason to think that won't happen here, in which case Bedford is next up. In OTL, Bedford was a pretty solid protector of his brother Henry's legacy (until he fell out with the Burgundians), so might indeed have something to say if he thought Thomas was backsliding.

Without (I'm assuming) the prisoners' massacre, maybe plus a shift in English support to the Armagnacs, the French wouldn't hate everything English quite so much and for so long. Could also perhaps take the edge off French revanchism.

Yes, an earlier peace, between men who are on good personal terms as Clarence and Charles d'Orleans were (although Orleans never killed Clarence's brother in OTL!), might lead to less acrimony in the long term. Until Bedford gets the throne and launches another invasion...maybe... :D

Given that it was an English defeat and Henry V's reputation slashed, Shakespeare is going to have to look for alternative material for a few plays

Well, probably won't be a Shakespeare with a POD in 1415, but yes England's national myth just lost a big part of itself... The longterm cultural effects would be interesting, and the view of later historians regarding Henry. Another thought that occurs to me - does no "myth of Agincourt" mean that England doesn't continue to be as attached to the longbow in later years. I mean, they already were, but they still were well into the Tudor period when European warfare had moved onto pikes+firearms (it's common to see lost HYW battles blamed on lack of archers or poor deployment of archers). Perhaps this doesn't persist quite so long in a TL where the archer's reputation for invincibility has taken a big dent.
 
Last edited:
Of course butterflies might give Thomas a child. One reason for childlessness would be absence from his wife who I assume managed his estates in his absence. As king, it would be more usual for her to be with him for longer periods. Also, being king might fire his virility or he might just decide for dynastic purposes he needs an heir so sleep with his wife a lot more often than he did in OTL.

Either way, he has two brothers both of which were capable of siring children (even if they didn't survive)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Regarding Thomas' death, he died in battle didn't he? In that case, if he is adopting a more cautious policy now he's king then he may well live into the 1840s (Humphrey did)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
One reason for childlessness would be absence from his wife who I assume managed his estates in his absence. As king, it would be more usual for her to be with him for longer periods. Also, being king might fire his virility or he might just decide for dynastic purposes he needs an heir so sleep with his wife a lot more often than he did in OTL.

Yes, I suppose so. It would certainly be interesting if he did have an heir, and then lived long enough for him to inherit the throne as an adult. It wouldn't necessarily preserve the peace in England, but it'd be a start.

Regarding Thomas' death, he died in battle didn't he? In that case, if he is adopting a more cautious policy now he's king then he may well live into the 1840s (Humphrey did)

Whoa the 1840s! That would be remarkable! :eek:

(Only kidding!)

Yes, died leading a reckless charge at the battle of Bauge in 1421 (which doesn't say much for his caution...but then as you say, as king he has an incentive to be careful). The knight who killed him was Scottish, iirc. But yes, if he lived into the 1440s, he might well outlive Bedford...
 
Yes, I suppose so. It would certainly be interesting if he did have an heir, and then lived long enough for him to inherit the throne as an adult. It wouldn't necessarily preserve the peace in England, but it'd be a start.

Whoa the 1840s! That would be remarkable! :eek:

(Only kidding!)

Yes, died leading a reckless charge at the battle of Bauge in 1421 (which doesn't say much for his caution...but then as you say, as king he has an incentive to be careful). The knight who killed him was Scottish, iirc. But yes, if he lived into the 1440s, he might well outlive Bedford...

Oops, the 1440s seems more likely!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
There is still another card to be played in the Hundred Years War. Joan of Arc. She's only 3 years old at Agincourt. But when she gets old enough, and gets herself moving, look out!:mad: It's interesting to speculate on how King Thomas would have taken Joan, though. Bedford treated her with contempt until it was too late, and then blamed it all on "witchcraft".:p
 
Bedford, IIRC, died in 1435.

I remember reading once that he "died of grief" when he heard that Burgundy had switched sides to support Charles VII (a move that was in large part his own fault), but I'll take that with a pinch of salt... :D Without knowing exactly what he did die of, I thought butterflies might change the date, but people generally died of all sorts of causes at all sorts of ages in those days, and he was 46, so he could well die "on schedule" ITTL.

There is still another card to be played in the Hundred Years War. Joan of Arc. She's only 3 years old at Agincourt. But when she gets old enough, and gets herself moving, look out!:mad: It's interesting to speculate on how King Thomas would have taken Joan, though. Bedford treated her with contempt until it was too late, and then blamed it all on "witchcraft".:p

Well, if Thomas was able to follow his earlier pre-Agincourt policy of siding with the Armagnacs in return for territorial concessions, he'd be backing Charles VII too - they could team up against those perfidious Burgundians! Although, the Burgundians might make peace too if they thought everyone was ranged against them.

I don't know about Joan, because if things were going differently, no siege of Orleans etc, her impact might be different or reduced or butterflied away altogether... But on the other hand, she is too awesome a figure to butterfly away altogether...

I think the other thing with King Thomas, given his OTL record as a battlefield commander, is that any pitched battle he is involved in could well have a 50/50 chance of him doing something tactically reckless, and possibly getting himself killed. I don't see him winning his own Crecy or Agincourt if his conduct at Bauge in OTL is anything to go by.
 
Whether you think Joan was an agent from God or just a crazily inspired woman it would still need France to be in desperate straits and looking like being on the edge of annihilation for her to appear, IMVHO

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Whether you think Joan was an agent from God or just a crazily inspired woman it would still need France to be in desperate straits and looking like being on the edge of annihilation for her to appear, IMVHO

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

"France" as a national concept, was unknown to the people of the time (except Joan). People served their lords, king, or church. NOT nation, or God. That was what made Joan unique for her day. She made the war a holy war with which there would be no relenting of the French against the English.

As long as the Hundred Years War was going on, France was going to be in desperate straits. The Armagnacs needed the Burgundians on their side for good, not in a transitory alliance of convenience. An alliance that could be shattered with the death of one nobleman (the Duke of Burgundy?). No alliance between Thomas and the Armagnacs was worth the paper it was printed on. They were mortal enemies. After all, the Lancastrian's long-range strategic goals in France were to depose the House of Valois and install themselves on the French throne, yes? How do you negotiate on such a premise? IOTL, post-Agincourt, the Armagnacs had no choice, but ITTL?:cool:

BTW, "crazily inspired" woman? IMVHO, you're going to Hell.:eek:
 
"France" as a national concept, was unknown to the people of the time (except Joan). People served their lords, king, or church. NOT nation, or God. That was what made Joan unique for her day. She made the war a holy war with which there would be no relenting of the French against the English.
Interestingly at one point in the war "France" was only the lands around Paris. Everywhere else was in some one else's hands. The movement from feudal hordes to national armies helped reverse this.

After all, the Lancastrian's long-range strategic goals in France were to depose the House of Valois and install themselves on the French throne
Of course if they had succeeded, a hundred years later some French lord else would have used similar claims and attempted the same thing. Attempts to replace the monarch in England with another one by force did not cease until the mid eighteenth century. The same would have happened in France on this TL.
 
Agincourt

The French I'm sure would press on to the either Calais or Bordeaux. One or both would fall. I also see trouble with Scotland. If I'm not mistaken, they are still allied with France at this period, and raiding northern England would appear to be relatively easy.
 
The French I'm sure would press on to the either Calais or Bordeaux. One or both would fall. I also see trouble with Scotland. If I'm not mistaken, they are still allied with France at this period, and raiding northern England would appear to be relatively easy.

True, esp. as the "Battle of the Herrings" hadn't happened yet. But as long as England has a navy, and Scotland doesn't...:(
 
The hundred years would have continued regardless, but the age of knights would have continued for a few decades longer, as the longbow would have to proove itself at a later date. (The loss would have been blamed on the difference in numbers of men on the field not on the weapons used)

Hi first post and this really isn't the era that I am familiar with but I need to raise a point.

The devastating effect of the longbow was aready known to the English. The battle of Cressy had pretty much shown to everyone what an army of archers could do if used properly and if anyone wasn't paying attention then the battles of Atoleiros and Aljubarrota nailed the point home.

The battle wasn't a stroke of luck but was rather using the terrain to enhance the capabilities of the army. Realistically, the French didn't stand a chance from the moment the battle started. A modern comparision might be the British army at The Somme walking towards the German Machine Gun positions. No one says the Germans were lucky on that day.

The age of chivalry and knights on horseback was already dead but the French hadn't learnt from the lessons of the past.
 
Top