Ir al contenido principal

Band of Brothers

On the 25th of October of 1415, Henry V of England defeated a French army five times larger and better equipped at the battle of Azincourt. His victory, the greatest of an English army in European soil, is a formidable example of courage and determination. But, what else explains Henry´s triumph at Azincourt?

Henry was not born to be King. His father, the Earl of Derby and Northampton, was but a distant claimant to the throne when Henry was born in 1386. The tempestuous politics of medieval England allowed the Earl to become King in 1399. But, Henry was more dead than alive when an arrow penetrated six inches into his face while fighting in Wales. The Prince, only sixteen at the time, should have perished from his wound if not for a revolutionary device which removed the arrow head after twenty days of excruciating pain. Although scarred for life, Henry was crowned at Westminster Abbey in March of 1413.

In 1415, France and England were once again at war. In August, Henry landed in Northern France with an army of twelve thousand. But, in a matter of weeks, lost about half of his men to disease and the French. Dozens of English soldiers died every day of hunger and rampant dysentery. Trapped in a foreign country, Henry´s army was in a hurried march to the safety of Calais, an English possession at the time. On October 24th, when Calais was within reach, all seemed lost for the English: a large French army of about thirty thousand was blocking their escape route.

Henry was in a desperate situation. If he surrendered he would be captured and ransomed and would likely lose the crown. But, not surrendering seemed irrational not only for the difference in strength but because of the composition of the armies. In the middle ages, knights and men-at-arms were considered invulnerable to attack by other types of soldiers because of their heavy body armor and superior weaponry. The French army at Azincourt had around ten thousand knights and men-at-arms while the English had little more than one thousand. Indeed, most of the English soldiers were longbowmen who, besides their bows and arrows, had light weapons and wore no heavy armor. 

But, Henry V chose to fight on the morning of October 25th and won a decisive and stunning victory. The French lost thousands of men while the English probably did not lose more than five hundred. Terrain was central to the English success. The battlefield was narrow and surrounded by woods which greatly limited the advantage in numbers of the French. Further, because the field was muddy by rains and had been recently plowed, knights and men-at-arms moved slowly and with extreme effort. Many of them were overwhelmed with fatigue well before reaching the English lines, many sank in the mud, and many were unable to get back on their feet after falling. In contrast, the nimble-footed English longbowmen moved quickly to fire at point blank and to strike with hammers and hatchets at the slow and densely-packed French formation after firing their arrows. 

Henry was also a masterful strategist. The French, overconfident on their superiority, were not expecting an English attack. But, by advancing his lines and ordering his longbowmen to fire, Henry provoked the French into attacking him while retaining a strong defensive position. Further, by placing sharpened stakes in front of his lines, he annihilated the effectiveness of the French cavalry charges.

The French army was full of aristocrats and nobles. It was many more times more expensive to arm a knight than a longbowman. Jean Le Mangre, Marshall Boucicault, had drawn a detailed battle plan on the eve of the fight. But, with their King absent from the field, the French nobles were reluctant to take orders from anyone.  As a consequence, the French attacked in disarray disregarding Boucicault´s plan and without a central command.   

But, Azincourt would had not been won if not for the exceptional bravery and charisma of Henry V. He was able to motivate and inspire a sick and hungry army to fight a much superior enemy. He did not hesitate to join the thick of the battle when his younger brother, the Duke of Gloucester, was injured. He did not falter from hand-to-hand combat even after receiving a sword blow to his crown.

Time changes everything. Some of Henry´s actions after the battle might seem questionable when examined by contemporary eyes. Henry himself died young, stricken down by a sudden illness a few years after Azincourt. But, the extraordinary victory of Henry and his small “band of brothers” will forevermore live in the memory of men.

Juan Mendoza, October 18, 2018.

Entradas más populares de este blog

La estafa de Olmos

El Estado pierde más de US$22,500 por hectárea en Olmos. Pérdida social total supera US$850 millones. Odebrecht y First Capital son los ganadores. Olmos es una estafa monumental. Ni un solo agricultor de Lambayeque recibirá una sola hectárea de nuevas tierras. La pérdida social supera los US$850 millones. Los ganadores de Olmos son Odebrecht, que obtendrá una tasa de rentabilidad superior al 250%, y First Capital que participó en el financiamiento del lesivo proyecto. El proyecto Olmos tiene 3 componentes. El primero es el trasvase Olmos (CTO) que consiste en llevar las aguas del Río Huancabamba desde la vertiente oriental de los Andes hacia la occidental. El segundo es irrigar 38,000 hectáreas de tierras eriazas y mejorar la calidad de otras 5,500 hectáreas (H2Olmos). El tercero es la generación de 850 GWh anuales de electricidad. Este artículo trata sobre los dos primeros componentes. El 24 de julio de 2004, Odebrecht obtuvo la concesión del trasvase Olmos como postor único...

Vía de coimas en Cusco

Vía de evitamiento tiene sobreprecio de S/. 347 millones. Costo por kilómetro llegaría a S/. 54 millones. Odebrecht habría pagado coima de USD 3 millones. Más de 20 atropellos fatales en dos años. La vía de evitamiento del Cusco es un asalto al ciudadano: tiene un sobreprecio superior a los S/. 347 millones. El costo por kilómetro llegaría a la friolera de S/. 54 millones: el más alto de cualquier pista que se haya construido en el Perú. Peor aún, la inseguridad en la vía es tal que más de 20 personas han muerto atropelladas en dos años. La obra fue concesionada el 2012 cuando Jorge Acurio era gobernador del Cusco. El objetivo de la pista era reducir los tiempos de viaje y la congestión vehicular en la ciudad imperial. El presupuesto inicial fue de S/. 297 millones. Pero, debido a diversos incrementos, ha llegado hasta los S/. 410 millones. Para colmo de males, Odebrecht pretende, a través de un proceso arbitral, recibir S/. 100 millones más lo que llevaría el costo a los S/ 510...

Augusto Bernardino Leguía

Leguía es el fundador del Perú contemporáneo. Su obra pública es monumental. Transformó Lima de una aldea en una ciudad moderna. El ingreso aumentó 50% durante su segundo gobierno. Augusto Bernardino Leguía gobernó el Perú durante 15 años, más que cualquier otro mandatario republicano. ¿Cuál es su legado? El primer gobierno de Leguía, entre 1908 y 1912, no fue ni chicha ni limonada. El producto bruno interno (PBI), que es el ingreso agregado del país, creció 3.6% por año en dólares constantes en ese período, por debajo del promedio de 4.6% entre 1895 y 1930. Pero, el segundo gobierno de Leguía, entre 1919 y 1930, fue uno de extraordinarios aciertos en el campo económico. En efecto, el oncenio fue una etapa de rápido progreso y desarrollo. Según datos del Banco Central de Reserva, la economía creció a una tasa promedio anual de 6.5% entre 1922 y 1929. El ingreso per cápita y la productividad del capital y del trabajo se expandieron 5% y 4% por año en el mismo período. El veloz...