Teresa Cole, Henry V: The Life of the Warrior King and the Battle of Agincourt (affiliate link). (Gloucestershire: Amberly Publishing, 2015. 287 pages.
I admit from the outset that this is one of my “nerdy” history biographies. I love reading about people from history, particularly successful people. I heard somewhere that some historian argued, as historians are want to do, that Henry V was England’s greatest king. He was undefeated. He also died young, which makes it challenging to judge him. Nevertheless, when I found this biography, I decided to see for myself. I will offer a few caveats. First, this is Teresa Cole’s first biography. She is a lawyer by trade. Overall, she did a fine job. She doesn’t have the poetic charm or aristocratic flair of Churchill, but she covered the material adequately. Second, this book is only 287 pages, including the notes. It is difficult to treat this work as definitive. Nevertheless, it is hard to find books written on people who lived in the 14th century. Since I was simply trying to acquaint myself with Henry, I decided it would have to do.
One of the drawbacks of any such work is that the author feels obliged to trace the family tree of said monarch. The volume of families, titles, and castles can quickly become cumbersome. This, coupled with the interplay between royal families from France and popes from Italy and emperors from Germany and non-historians, as well as many history-lovers, soon get lost.
Several things that intrigue me about Henry. First, he should never have become king. His older brother died as an infant. Twists of fate in history have always intrigued me. Second, his father, Henry IV, usurped the throne from Richard II. Richard suffered mental disorders and some have speculated he may have been bipolar (17). Henry IV was no doubt treated unjustly by Richard. When he had the opportunity, he overthrew the monarch and claimed the throne as his own. Though Henry had an ancestral link to the throne, his claim was certainly not the strongest. He spent the remainder of his reign trying to hold onto the throne he had won.
What makes Henry even more interesting is that Shakespeare wrote several plays in which Henry and Richard played prominent roles. He is now known more from Shakespeare than from history. Henry was raised in Richard’s court as a ransom for his father’s good behavior. When he became king, he had Richard exhumed and properly buried in Westminster Abbey. In Henry’s first battle, he fought alongside his father. In a careless moment, Henry raised the visor of his helmet and an arrow pierced him, nearly ending his life. Nevertheless, Henry refused to leave the field until he had successfully led his men to victory (45).
Henry IV made much use of his son in his government and granted him military experience fighting his enemies. Henry seems to have been a good student and quickly learned how to lead. On April 9, 1413, Henry was crowned Henry V. Cole claims that “. . . from the day of his accession, the king was a new man” (67). “His hand was firmly on the tiller and never for a moment thereafter was his grip at all slackened” (68).
Henry had observed his father’s challenges trying to unify and finance the country and working with parliament. Henry seems to have lived as if he was born for his life’s undertaking. Henry was a devout Catholic and always gave credit to God for his victories. He was also careful to observe every religious practice. He won the hearts of the people he led. Cole notes, “Those who served him, with very few exceptions, served him for life, and had an intense and personal loyalty that is probably key to the admiration felt by succeeding generations” (68).
Because of Henry’s devotion to the church, he suppressed the Lollards, which in hindsight is a blight on his record.
Almost as soon as he became king, Henry prepared for war against France. In his age, the English had many claims to French territory, and Henry believed England had been cheated by larger, more powerful France. In response, Henry raised an army of roughly 12,000 men and set sail for France. Cole makes the Churchillian comment that, “Then as now, victory in war frequently went to the side that changed the rules first” (101). At that time, the chivalrous thing to do was engage in cavalry charges. The crossbow was the weapon of choice for archers. England, however, had trained their archers to use the longbow. Since Henry III, all adult males in England were required to keep and practice with the longbow (103). Since archers made up ¾ of Henry’s army, this custom was significant (103).
The bow string was so important, it was often kept under the archer’s hat for safekeeping. Hence the term, “Keep it under your hat” (104).
Henry spent more time conquering walled cities than he did fighting pitched battles. The first major stronghold was Harfleur. As in so many medieval armies, dysentery and other diseases carried off more soldiers than the sword did. It is estimated that Henry lost 2,000 men to dysentery (129). By the time Harfleur fell, Henry had to send home 5,000 more men who were too sick to fight, which left Henry’s army drastically smaller, especially compared to the numbers the French could raise against him.
Henry kept a strong hand on his soldiers. He forbid them from looting, as doing so would alienate him from the French townspeople he wished to win over to his side. Henry was also a planner who considered logistics and the care of his men. Even though the French army swelled daily, Henry was prepared to fight them.
Before the Battle of Agincourt, Sir Walter Hungerford declared that he wished they could have 10,000 more English archers at their disposal for the upcoming battle. Henry famously replied, “I would not have one more than I have, even if I could . . . Don’t thou believe . . . that the Almighty can through this humble little band overcome the pride of the Frenchmen, who boast of their number and their strength?” (144). Whether Henry was trying to bolster his troops’ morale or he truly believed in the righteousness of his cause, Henry always claimed he was just in fighting the French. Henry warned his men that the French intended to cut two fingers from every English archer captured to prevent them from ever fighting again (which was probably untrue). Nevertheless, it gave rise to the famous English two-fingered salute (150).
The French picked the site of the battle. Nevertheless, it favored the English. It was about half a mile wide and flanked by woodlands, which enabled the much smaller English army to face the French without fear of being outflanked or surrounded. Henry led the center of his army and dressed in such a way to inspire his men and attract enemy arrows. Estimates as to the size of the French army range from 30,000 to more than 100,000.
One of the French army’s problems was that it did not have strong leadership at the top. Many nobles were present, and they all wanted to fight at the prestigious front of the battle. The result was devastating. The English archers wreaked havoc on the advancing French. Then when the French front faltered, soldiers were crushed by the soldiers coming from behind. French soldiers were killed in enormous numbers, including a long list of French nobility. Because the closest castle to the battle was named Agincourt, the battle took its name.
The English chaplain later commented, “I truly believe there is not a man with a heart of flesh or even of stone who, had he seen and thought on the horrible deaths and savage wounds of so many Christian men, would not have fallen to weeping time and again for grief” (163).
Henry claimed that God had granted the English a miraculous victory because its cause was just. But both sides were Christian, and the bloodletting was horrific.
This battle was the only major victory Henry would win for England himself, yet it guaranteed his fame.
As king, Henry did several things that led to a highly successful rule. First, though England had always been largely dominated by France, Henry determined that all correspondence would from then on be written only in English. Henry developed a sense of “Englishness” in the nation that was proud of its accomplishments. He built the navy and cleared the channel of enemy ships. Henry also had a keen eye for effective leaders and was blessed to have many serve him. Those governing England in his absence did so well that Henry had few repairs to do upon his return (203). When Henry conquered French territory, he typically abolished oppressive taxes and governed so well that people were pleased to serve under him.
Henry returned from his first endeavor to advance further into France. He again captured various fortresses. The French were now wary of engaging in a pitched battle with him. Eventually, France, because if its own internal strife, was in no position to withstand an adversary as determined and effective as Henry. He won concessions from France ensuring that he marry a French princess and that his son become king of England and France. But during the siege at Meaux, Henry contracted a disease and ultimately died. He was still a young man.
His brothers ruled England and France until his son came of age. Yet, his son would prove far from the leader his father had been. Within thirty years, England lost all Henry had won. Worse yet, England would eventually devolve into the destructive War of Roses, which would decimate Henry’s Lancaster relatives.
One of the great mysteries of history is whether Henry, had he not succumbed to a camp disease, could have melded England and France into an empire. Had his son been made of Henry’s mettle, could he have built upon the legacy handed to him? We will never know.
Cole notes that, “The supreme skill of Henry V as a leader of men is shown in the way he had managed over a long period of time to blend a desperate group of strong personalities into a harmonious team” (223). She continues, “. . . he was held in such esteem by those he left behind that they spent the rest of their lives trying to carry out his wishes” (223). She concludes, “. . . Such was the energy and capability of the king that there is hardly an area that his hand touched domestically that was not in some way improved” (224).
Cole observes that Henry, “. . . was in general a realist about what could be achieved, though he often aimed higher than his contemporaries” (227). Henry also knew how to win common people’s loyalty. He saw himself as king of all England, not just the nobles (239).
Henry also avoided abusing his power. He forged an effective working relationship with parliament, and he managed to gain the loyalty of his proud nobles, even when he was away for extended periods.
Cole concludes, “. . . he is more accessible than Alfred the Great, more English than Richard the Lionheart, more stirring than Lord Nelson” (240). Cole closes with a quote from Shakespeare about Henry: “Small time, but in that small moat greatly lived this star of England” (240).
I enjoyed learning more about Henry V. I had not been very familiar with this period in history. It was an age when nobles were constantly scheming and proudly refusing to yield to their king. Yet Henry proved highly skilled at working with them. He also seemed to understand England and what could make it great. He had personal ambition, but he led wisely and effectively.
This book is informative. It provides some details on medieval warfare and archery. It offers context for the European wars and royal families of that time. If you don’t have much background in this era, it’s easy to get lost. Yet for a concise overview of Henry’s life, this book proved quite helpful. Because it is so focused on a somewhat obscure English king, I rate it lower. But if you are intrigued, as I was, by a lesser-known leader who managed well with what was given to him, then you just might enjoy this read.
Rating: 2
