Hi Jim, Paul, & Fearn,
Thanks for the additional insights given!
I always watch those Discovery Channel and National Geographic programs analyzing plane crashes and other aviation disasters. For me the lesson invariably is that a catastrophe is always due to the confluence of little things, which little things by themselves singly would not be such a big deal.
Seldom does a disaster occur that can be attributed to just a single big factor ... it's always the simultaneity of those little factors.
Agincourt is a total disaster for the French. And I agree with everybody's observation that it was a catastrophic defeat because it was similarly a confluence of those little problems ... which then pushed things to the so-called tipping point.
For me those 'little' things that conspired to the French's ruin that day would be:
[1] the successive days of rains, which created the muddy battlefield;
[2] the heavy armour of the French men-at-arms;
[3] the terrain that created the bottleneck [in the French troop's deployment], such that the French's numerical superiority was rendered useless; and
[4] the cocky attitude of the French.
It was said that the English archers' longbow played a key role in the defeat of the French at Agincourt. I think it was in the TV series 'Battlefield Detectives' that such notion was debunked (if I recall correctly the results of the simulation, it was demonstrated that the longbow arrow does not really penetrate the French's armour).
On item '4' above, we must have all read the accounts that the French knights were jostling over one another for the vanguard position, in eager anticipation of crushing their English foes that day.
And de Wavrin's account of what the French were doing on the eve of the battle seems to support the idea that the French were overconfident:
"... the King of England lodged in the said town of Maisoncelles, so near his enemies that the foremost of his vanguard saw them quite plainly, and heard them call each other by name, and make a great noise; but as for the English, never did people make less noise, for hardly did one hear them utter a word, or speak together.
"... and there continued a great noise of pages, grooms, and all kinds of people; such that , as it is said, the English could hear them plainly, but those on their side were not heard; for during this night all that could find a priest confessed themselves ....
" ... And to the royal banner of the Constable [d' Albret] all the great lords of the gathering gladly joined their own; namely, marshals, admirals, and other royal officers; and this night the French made great fires round the banner under which they were to fight ...."
And thus we read of accounts that some (or many??) of the French were lacking sleep on the day of the battle.
So Paul and Fearn, can we surmise then that the French had been partying all night
on the battle's eve, such that physically and mentally they did not prepare themselves for the battle?
Then again, factor no. 4 singly cannot be it. Other things have to conspire as well, to have that perfect storm.
PS - Jim, I have read John Keegan's book, The Face of Battle. I was actually trying to look for my copy, before making the posts, but I seemed to have misplaced the book. Yes, it's a great reading
