An easy read is all I ask for, nothing over-complicated or too fussy for me thank you very much, and Barker relates an account of events which is right on the button. ( )

Story of the battle of Agincourt. Well told. (I need to learn more about
the English-French wars.) Makes the English victory more of a mystery,
because it implies that a large part of the battle was a slugging match, and
hen numbers should have told. ( )

A fine book. It does a wondereful job in introducing the people involved and the way they thought. Barker patiently sets the scene for the famous battle. She strikes a perfect balance between personal stories of protagonists and the broad view of history. ( )

Shakespeare’s Henry V has always held a high place as one of my favorite plays by the Bard of Avon. Furthermore, the Battle of Agincourt depicted in the film version of the play by Kenneth Branagh, has been a fun, if not entirely historically accurate account of this pivotal and remarkable victory by a shabby, sick, under-provisioned band of invaders.

Juliet Barker has provided a detailed account of Henry’s rise to the throne of England, including his unique preparation in political, military, and diplomatic arenas. His vow to reform corrupt feudal officials, defend the church, and ultimately to recapture English lands in France, made him a beloved and effective monarch.

English history from the fourteenth century through the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, has always held a great deal of fascination for me. I have an extensive collection of biographies and histories from this period of English History. Barker has brought much of this time period into sharp focus.

Regardless of the admiration I have for Shakespeare’s version of the campaign, I always knew some exaggerations, deletions, and additions must have slipped into his account. I have always felt the play was propaganda to bolster the ego of Elizabeth the first, a descendent of Henry V, who was known for his ability to achieve consensus and motivate grumbling nobles, peasants, and merchants into supporting him. The rousing speeches Henry delivers before the walls of Harfleur and the “St. Crispian’s Day” speech immediately before the battle never happened.

The slaughter was unimaginable. The miracle of the English victory, largely attributed to the intervention of St. George and God himself, was due largely to French over-confidence, infighting among various factions of the French nobility, poor planning, and refusal to begin the battle. Each side wanted the other to attack first. Henry, who was concerned with his sick and demoralized men, decided to reform his battle lines, and attack. This opportunity, clearly visible to the French, was ignored.

One interesting point I never consider involved the consequences had the English lost the battle at Agincourt. The financial, political, and military disaster that would have resulted would have drastically altered English history.

This wonderful book contains more detail than the casual reader may want, but Barker has put together a gripping read. I sailed through this volume in two days. 5 stars.

--Jim, 3/8/09 ( )

I read more history than fiction these days; perhaps because the stories are better. This book is an excellent example of that. Barker gives a detailed and very readable account of the Agincourt campaign, shows how and why Shakespeare got Henry V both wrong (no carouser with the Falstaffs, he) and right (yes, he did make an inspiring speech before the battle) and illustrates it all with many delightful asides and illustrations of medieval life. Such as the story of King Henry II's favourite court jester. Henry was so taken with this jester's act that he settled an estate on him and his heirs, provided he or his heir turned up at court and performed the turn each Easter. The family soon lost the estate ... which is quite understandable when you learn the jester was called Roger the Farter, and his trick was a simultaneous leap, whistle and fart.

I had high hopes of this book from the beginning (and was not disappointed); Juliet Barker had already won my admiration, first for comprehensively overturning the Gaskellian myths about The Brontes, and then for turning Haworth Parsonage Museum into a much livelier and more interesting place. One of the things she did there was cajole the Briitish Library into lending the original manuscript of Jane Eyre. I saw it at Haworth, and so did one Jasper Fforde, which gave him an idea .... ( )

Excellent narrative. Especially interesting was the description of archers, arrows, and their importance in warfare at the time.

Hugely readable history of the Battle of Agincourt, which Barker persuasively argues made modern England. Barker puts you right in the middle of the action, every splash of rain and every sword cut. Like historical fiction? You'll like this one. ( )

This is a carefully researched book, but much of the data therein is of interest only to a specialist in late medieval times. The first and longest part of the book deals with preparation for the incursion into France in 1415. I could not get muc interested in this part. After the first eight chapters the book is of more interest, and the account of the battle itself is of high interest. The author is admiratory of Henry V and I do not quarrel with her assessment of him. In general though, the book is so specialized that only an avid student of the times will become engrossed in the book. ( )

Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt. The English triple victories of the Hundred Years War certainly have received plenty of attention over the years. Not only Shakespeare has discovered the appeal of the (assumed) underdog. In fact, it was a question of technology vs social customs: The sophisticated French armoured mounted knights were outclassed by the more flexible (stake-protected) English archers (or, in the Swiss case, pikemen). The Hundred Years War is a testament to the slow learning curve of military castes.

Juliet Barker has written a splendid, if non-traditional campaign study. If you like Barbara Tuchman's writing, you will be immediately familiar with Barker's approach. In fact, the battle per se is covered only in a single chapter of twenty pages (out of 400), given the scarce and conflicting sources available. The book features neither a map of the battlefield proper nor a order of battle (whatever merit they have in medieval times). These I found in the epynomous Osprey campaign booklet, along with a couple of excellent illustrations, a recommended complement to this book.

I enjoyed reading Barker's book for its details on raising and financing a late medieval army by indentures, her vignettes on medieval life and especially her observations on chivalry (the focus of her previous books). I look forward to the follow-up work which will deal with the English occupation of Northern France. It will be interesting to see the story of Joan of Arc covered from an English point of view. The anglo-centric approach of this volume is the only negative point I could mention. A couple of doomed French knights are no match for the pivotal character Henry V.

Agincourt is a case study for military prudence. A Fabian strategy would have worked far better for the French. Letting Henry V escape to Calais would have given him a fruitless victory (and a possible bankruptcy). Tactically, simply blocking Henry's forces would also have been a winner. Doing nothing, however, was not an option. On they marched through the mud to their doom. The decapitation of the French nobility (like Stalin's massacre of the Polish officers at Katyn) crippled their resistance to the oncoming occupation. On the English side, Agincourt was a lucky affair. At several points, a slight change in fortune might have resulted in disaster. Henry V was truly blessed with incompetent opponents. Recommended. ( )

I am interested in the subject matter, but this book just didn't grab me. I didn't make it through - it belabored the details too much. It makes what to me is a cardinal error - making the same point several times from different directions. I am not reading a book to see if the thesis is iron clad, I am reading a book to hear someone else's ideas. To me this is trapped between a scholarly work & a history for non-experts. ( )

Barker's Agincourt lacks the fresh reappraisal of the battle that Anne Curry offered in her most recent work.

However she certainly fleshes out the story with greater insight into the challenges Henry V faced as the son of a usurper, forced early into the role of a military leader. This very readable book offers a deeper view into the conflict between the rival French nobles, and the impact of the battle.

Barker's books is a great companion to Curry's Agincourt: A New History. Read them both and you decide who is correct. ( )

Henry V was lucky, with a more disciplined application of sound tactics the French could easily have routed his small English force but in the event their disorganized cavalry was shredded by efficient archery as their armoured knights on foot slithered around in a muddy field where the English slaughtered them by the thousand.

However, the book goes beyond the battle using original resources for an illuminating account of middle ages chivalry and it's ranks, rights, obligations and persistent money problems. ( )