What do you think?
Rate this book
Agincourt: Battle of the Scarred King
Agincourt is one of the most famous battles in English history, a defining part of the national myth. This groundbreaking study by Mike Livingston, author of Never Greater Slaughter, presents a new interpretation of Henry V's great victory.
King Henry V's victory over the French armies at Agincourt on 25 October 1415 is unquestionably one of the most famous battles in history. From Shakespeare's 'band of brothers' speech to its appearances in numerous films, Agincourt rightfully has a place among a handful of conflicts whose names are immediately recognized around the world.
The English invasion of France in 1415 saw them take the French port of Harfleur after a long siege, following which Henry was left with a sick and weakened army, which he chose to march across Normandy to the port of Calais against the wishes of his senior commanders. The French had assembled a superior force and shadowed the English Army before finally blocking its route. The battle that followed was an overwhelming victory for the English, with the French suffering horrific casualties. Agincourt the door for Henry V's further conquests in France.
Agincourt provides a new look at this famous battle. Mike Livingston goes back to the original sources, including the French battle plan that still survives today, to give a new interpretation, one that challenges the traditional sit of the battlefield itself. It is a thrilling new history that not only rewrites the battle as we know it, but also provides fresh insights into the men who fought and died there.
King Henry V's victory over the French armies at Agincourt on 25 October 1415 is unquestionably one of the most famous battles in history. From Shakespeare's 'band of brothers' speech to its appearances in numerous films, Agincourt rightfully has a place among a handful of conflicts whose names are immediately recognized around the world.
The English invasion of France in 1415 saw them take the French port of Harfleur after a long siege, following which Henry was left with a sick and weakened army, which he chose to march across Normandy to the port of Calais against the wishes of his senior commanders. The French had assembled a superior force and shadowed the English Army before finally blocking its route. The battle that followed was an overwhelming victory for the English, with the French suffering horrific casualties. Agincourt the door for Henry V's further conquests in France.
Agincourt provides a new look at this famous battle. Mike Livingston goes back to the original sources, including the French battle plan that still survives today, to give a new interpretation, one that challenges the traditional sit of the battlefield itself. It is a thrilling new history that not only rewrites the battle as we know it, but also provides fresh insights into the men who fought and died there.
390 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 10, 2023
About the author
Michael Livingston
47 books201 followersA native of Colorado, Michael Livingston holds degrees in History, Medieval Studies, and English. He lives today in Charleston, South Carolina, where he teaches at The Citadel.
In his author life, he is a winner of the prestigious international Writers of the Future Contest (in 2005), and his novel SHARDS OF HEAVEN, the first in a trilogy of historical fantasies, will be published by Tor Books in November 2015. He has also published in a variety of other genres and venues, from a historical retelling of BEOWULF to a brief story about quantum physics in the world-renowned journal of science, NATURE.
In his academic life, he has published more than a dozen articles on subjects as varied as early Christianity, BEOWULF, Chaucer, James Joyce, J.R.R. Tolkien, and digital and practical pedagogies (though never all of them at once!). He has investigated European maps of America that pre-date Columbus, found unrecorded Anasazi ruins and artifacts, and written about the handwriting of fourteenth-century scribes. He is the general editor of the Liverpool Historical Casebooks Series, for which he has edited casebooks on the Battle of Brunanburh (Exeter, 2011), the Welsh rebel hero Owain Glyndwr (co-edited with John Bollard; Liverpool, 2013), and, coming soon, the Battle of Crécy (co-edited with Kelly DeVries; 2015).
In his author life, he is a winner of the prestigious international Writers of the Future Contest (in 2005), and his novel SHARDS OF HEAVEN, the first in a trilogy of historical fantasies, will be published by Tor Books in November 2015. He has also published in a variety of other genres and venues, from a historical retelling of BEOWULF to a brief story about quantum physics in the world-renowned journal of science, NATURE.
In his academic life, he has published more than a dozen articles on subjects as varied as early Christianity, BEOWULF, Chaucer, James Joyce, J.R.R. Tolkien, and digital and practical pedagogies (though never all of them at once!). He has investigated European maps of America that pre-date Columbus, found unrecorded Anasazi ruins and artifacts, and written about the handwriting of fourteenth-century scribes. He is the general editor of the Liverpool Historical Casebooks Series, for which he has edited casebooks on the Battle of Brunanburh (Exeter, 2011), the Welsh rebel hero Owain Glyndwr (co-edited with John Bollard; Liverpool, 2013), and, coming soon, the Battle of Crécy (co-edited with Kelly DeVries; 2015).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 20, 2024
I have to admit that my first thought on picking this up was do we need a new book on Agincourt? After all, there have been two recent excellent popular histories, by Julian Barker and Anne Curry (both worth reading, btw). I was also put off by the Osprey imprint. Like any modeler, I have a bunch of Osprey's reference guides, but I had not been too impressed by their move into full-length military history books. Happily I set those thoughts aside; this is an excellent book, well worth the time of anyone interested in the topic.
Michael Livingston teaches military history at The Citadel, and his classes must be fascinating on the evidence of this book. Written in a conversational, accessible style, Livingston starts by giving a short history of the political and military build-up to the battle - frankly the best and most complete one I've ever read. He follows with the Agincourt campaign (not skimping on the march from Harfleur to Agincourt, which he illustrates as being much more complex than it is often portrayed as being), and then the battle itself. One of his main points, and I think he makes a damn good argument for it, is that the site of the battle has been mislocated, not enormously but certainly by several hundred feet, and his careful studies of old sources, maps, and the ground as it lies now really illuminate what follows (it boggles, incidentally, that there have evidently never been any field surveys of the battlefield area). His study and mastery of the sources lead him back to the earliest and in many ways best - a source written by one of Henry V's chaplains who was there - and his presentation of the ensuing battle is both clear and extremely plausible, much more so than the received version that has been rewritten over and over.
A very fine book, well worth reading, and I'll be searching out his other works, as he's clearly an author to follow.
Michael Livingston teaches military history at The Citadel, and his classes must be fascinating on the evidence of this book. Written in a conversational, accessible style, Livingston starts by giving a short history of the political and military build-up to the battle - frankly the best and most complete one I've ever read. He follows with the Agincourt campaign (not skimping on the march from Harfleur to Agincourt, which he illustrates as being much more complex than it is often portrayed as being), and then the battle itself. One of his main points, and I think he makes a damn good argument for it, is that the site of the battle has been mislocated, not enormously but certainly by several hundred feet, and his careful studies of old sources, maps, and the ground as it lies now really illuminate what follows (it boggles, incidentally, that there have evidently never been any field surveys of the battlefield area). His study and mastery of the sources lead him back to the earliest and in many ways best - a source written by one of Henry V's chaplains who was there - and his presentation of the ensuing battle is both clear and extremely plausible, much more so than the received version that has been rewritten over and over.
A very fine book, well worth reading, and I'll be searching out his other works, as he's clearly an author to follow.
September 28, 2023
This is going to sound weird to start a review with this compliment but here it goes. Michael Livingston's Agincourt has perfect tone. Allow me to explain.
Livingston takes a look at one of the most famous battles in history and, le gasp, argues historians have been wrong about a few things for years! Yes, people, we have ourselves a nerd fight.
Now may be the point where you are asking, "But how much fun can there be in historians arguing about stuff?" Generally, I find books arguing historical points can be rather tedious. This is where Livington's tone is so important. First, he writes in a very "non-scholarly" voice. I felt like he and I were sitting having a beer and he was telling me non-nonchalantly his ideas. Second, he doesn't call anyone a fool for the misinterpretations he's uncovered. History can be pretty difficult to discern and Livingston himself points out he might be wrong or we may never know the right answer. (Seriously, though, how can someone not mention a castle on a battlefield? This question will make sense when you read it. I promise.)
Finally, Livingston sticks to the important parts and doesn't get bogged down (like the French) in too many details. This book is a quick read, focuses on what you need to know, and makes arguments while keeping the narrative moving. I loved it and this is accessible to even non-history nerds.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Osprey Books.)
Livingston takes a look at one of the most famous battles in history and, le gasp, argues historians have been wrong about a few things for years! Yes, people, we have ourselves a nerd fight.
Now may be the point where you are asking, "But how much fun can there be in historians arguing about stuff?" Generally, I find books arguing historical points can be rather tedious. This is where Livington's tone is so important. First, he writes in a very "non-scholarly" voice. I felt like he and I were sitting having a beer and he was telling me non-nonchalantly his ideas. Second, he doesn't call anyone a fool for the misinterpretations he's uncovered. History can be pretty difficult to discern and Livingston himself points out he might be wrong or we may never know the right answer. (Seriously, though, how can someone not mention a castle on a battlefield? This question will make sense when you read it. I promise.)
Finally, Livingston sticks to the important parts and doesn't get bogged down (like the French) in too many details. This book is a quick read, focuses on what you need to know, and makes arguments while keeping the narrative moving. I loved it and this is accessible to even non-history nerds.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Osprey Books.)
January 15, 2024
storygraph 4.75
this was a fascinating and informative read! one of the best nonfiction histories i’ve read in a while. i learned a lot about a battle and it’s politics of which i’d previously only had glancing (and primarily Shakespearean) knowledge. while there were many, many details, i didn’t feel bogged down by the information; Livingston’s voice and pacing kept me engaged and not overwhelmed. i also particularly appreciated his explicit discussion of biases/worldview and the way he oriented us to the academic arguments surrounding the battle. masterfully written, with a compelling argument. highly recommend.
this was a fascinating and informative read! one of the best nonfiction histories i’ve read in a while. i learned a lot about a battle and it’s politics of which i’d previously only had glancing (and primarily Shakespearean) knowledge. while there were many, many details, i didn’t feel bogged down by the information; Livingston’s voice and pacing kept me engaged and not overwhelmed. i also particularly appreciated his explicit discussion of biases/worldview and the way he oriented us to the academic arguments surrounding the battle. masterfully written, with a compelling argument. highly recommend.
October 18, 2023
As an Englishman I have finished this book feeling let down and lied to by my peers, as the work of Michael Livingston, yet again, show just how lazy our nationalist view on history really is. However, to say I loved this book is an understatement! Wonderfully written and with an argument that holds up to stress testing and primary sources, you can't go far wrong to reshape your view on the Battle of Agincourt. A must read.
February 18, 2024
Very interesting perspectives on the traditional site of the battle. Lvingston concludes that the battle didn't take place at the field that is designated as such to the present day. Also, he goes into fascinating detail about Henry V's facial injury from the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, when the then 16-years old prince of Wales got an arrow in his right cheek.
All in all, well worth your time, even for those who have read about the Battle of Agincourt before.
All in all, well worth your time, even for those who have read about the Battle of Agincourt before.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 7, 2024
I had no idea I wanted to read about the battle of Agincourt (1415). I've never read, for instance, Shakespeare's "Henry V" nor have I thought a great deal about this moment apart from the way the Netherlandish courts led the way into what we would soon enough call the Renaissance. The volume, however, was sitting on the new books shelf at my library. The name "Dan Snow" was visible on the cover and I managed to get him confused with "Dan Jones," author of the "Wolves of Winter" a bloody work of historical fiction focused mostly on the events around the siege of Calais (1346-47). Never mind. Sometimes errors have good results. I may have been wrong about authors, but I was absolutely right that I would enjoy going more deeply into a nonfiction account of that era, and especially the way that the events at the beginning of the Hundred Years' War shaped, well, the next hundred years. And more.
Michael Livingston is a simply marvelous writer. He is candid, funny, presents his facts with great clarity and makes his history a rollicking good yarn. Just a yarn he proves every step of the way is true. A key goal is the revision of what we know--or assume--about Agincourt, about the people and historical context, and about the battle itself. Especially where that battle took place. LIvingston lays out the backstory meticulously and guides the reader through his arguments as though he were guiding us through the landscape of France and the intricate political maneuverings in the various courts in England and France. This assuredly is not a story of a single battle between England and France; it was so, so much bigger than that.
I was fascinated by Livingstone's intellectual process as well, because in challenging the orthodoxy about the battle of Agincourt, I recognized that he was dealing with many of the challenges I faced in my art history classroom trying to disprove the absurd assumption that the painter Vincent van Gogh died a suicide. No, I won't lay out my belief that van Gogh was accidentally killed by a couple of wealthy bullies summering in the area with their parents. But I will say, it is possible I will revisit Livingstone's methodology next time I engage in that fight.
History is so rarely written with this kind of joie-de-vivre and passion. It is so often a litany of facts when facts themselves are so often up for dispute. As Livingstone points out repeatedly, and I paraphrase, "history is the story we tell about what we think happened." In working through the disagreements on this one historical event--and doing it in so compelling a fashion--Michael Livingstone makes us think and rethink the history we believe we know and the reasons we believe pretty much anything at all.
And that is a darned good thing these days in the political world we live in.
Michael Livingston is a simply marvelous writer. He is candid, funny, presents his facts with great clarity and makes his history a rollicking good yarn. Just a yarn he proves every step of the way is true. A key goal is the revision of what we know--or assume--about Agincourt, about the people and historical context, and about the battle itself. Especially where that battle took place. LIvingston lays out the backstory meticulously and guides the reader through his arguments as though he were guiding us through the landscape of France and the intricate political maneuverings in the various courts in England and France. This assuredly is not a story of a single battle between England and France; it was so, so much bigger than that.
I was fascinated by Livingstone's intellectual process as well, because in challenging the orthodoxy about the battle of Agincourt, I recognized that he was dealing with many of the challenges I faced in my art history classroom trying to disprove the absurd assumption that the painter Vincent van Gogh died a suicide. No, I won't lay out my belief that van Gogh was accidentally killed by a couple of wealthy bullies summering in the area with their parents. But I will say, it is possible I will revisit Livingstone's methodology next time I engage in that fight.
History is so rarely written with this kind of joie-de-vivre and passion. It is so often a litany of facts when facts themselves are so often up for dispute. As Livingstone points out repeatedly, and I paraphrase, "history is the story we tell about what we think happened." In working through the disagreements on this one historical event--and doing it in so compelling a fashion--Michael Livingstone makes us think and rethink the history we believe we know and the reasons we believe pretty much anything at all.
And that is a darned good thing these days in the political world we live in.
May 21, 2024
Fabulous book. I love Livingston’s take on how to view history, granted he has many historians who would likely disagree with his viewpoints and decisions on how he believed the battle took place, but his acknowledgment of the shortcomings of understanding and interpreting these historical moments is inspiring.
I don’t know how many conversations I’ve had about historical events with people who considered themselves historians without actually understanding the fluidity of history is astounding. And to find a historian who continually points out the shortcomings and guesses that he was making (educated guesses, backed with literally lists of calculations) is so refreshing. The fact that history is often presented as fact is frustrating and makes it difficult for the average reader to find reasons to disagree or question the accuracy of what they are reading.
Regardless on whether you agree with Livingston’s take on this historical battle, you have to admit that his ability to understand and point out his own shortcomings due to lack of information, and his attempt to use the data presented instead of the opinions already generated around the battle is refreshing.
We need more historians of his caliber.
I don’t know how many conversations I’ve had about historical events with people who considered themselves historians without actually understanding the fluidity of history is astounding. And to find a historian who continually points out the shortcomings and guesses that he was making (educated guesses, backed with literally lists of calculations) is so refreshing. The fact that history is often presented as fact is frustrating and makes it difficult for the average reader to find reasons to disagree or question the accuracy of what they are reading.
Regardless on whether you agree with Livingston’s take on this historical battle, you have to admit that his ability to understand and point out his own shortcomings due to lack of information, and his attempt to use the data presented instead of the opinions already generated around the battle is refreshing.
We need more historians of his caliber.
January 30, 2024
This is an exciting and very well written account of the background and the battle itself. Livingston continually cites sources, both contemporary and modern. He analyzes the causes of the renewal of the long war between France and England, giving Henry V much of the blame. He takes us, insofar as possible, into the thinking of the lead combatants, but also looks at the suffering endured by the common soldiers.
When it comes to the battle itself he explains the plans of both sides, always trying to tie strategy to geography (here is my only quibble with Livingston. He spends a lot of time attempting to prove that the battlefield has been misidentified. ). He gives a plausible account of what actually happened, and explains why Henry won.
This is very close to the perfect history book!
When it comes to the battle itself he explains the plans of both sides, always trying to tie strategy to geography (here is my only quibble with Livingston. He spends a lot of time attempting to prove that the battlefield has been misidentified. ). He gives a plausible account of what actually happened, and explains why Henry won.
This is very close to the perfect history book!
January 4, 2024
Fascinating in-depth study of the lead up and political dynamics of the time, followed by a clear presentation of a new view of where and how the battle proceeded. Quite good and reads like a novel in many places. Fast-paced.
May 25, 2024
The title to this book is: Agincourt - the Battle of the Scarred King' but it might also be: 'Agincourt - the writings of the Scarred Historian'! I have seldom been so disappointed by a military history, that hectors us to examine our lens and be aware of our bias but the writing seems constantly hampered by the author's own inherent weakness in not recognising his own.
Twice he claims to have 'no dog in the fight' (p 19 & 245) but that elusive canine is waging its tail throughout these pages. Some of the research and findings, particularly around the site of the battle are useful and informative, as it is when the author allows the various sources to speak, but Livingston seems to want to educate his readers in a overbearing and patronising way, rather than allow evidence, if correctly presented, to speak for itself. I found this immature style grating at best, which is why it took so long to read!
The fact that a book of fourteen chapters only covers the actual battle in two is significant, as is the fact that on those precious pages nine is taken up with the guilt of the killing of the prisoners - the biggest single section in the book. This, I believe, allows some of our author's bias to bleed more obviously into the pages. The final conclusion is that the pride of the French contributed to the French defeat but the most proud man on the field that day was the English king (p284), not proud for having won the battle, but for believing he had some kind of divine purpose, as evidenced from being spared at the Battle of Shrewsbury.
He comments on page 279 that some modern historians mock medieval 'honour' but he seems content to overlook the strength of medieval piety, even more by those who have looked death in the face. I suspect that pride is indeed a key here and that the author's own ego in bringing what he considers new methods and research from the same old sources, is clouding his view of the field, because it certainly clouds the clarity and value of this book.
I am glad to have waded through the mud of Livingston's 'Agincourt' but I would not recommend it, unless you have very comfortable wellingtons.
Twice he claims to have 'no dog in the fight' (p 19 & 245) but that elusive canine is waging its tail throughout these pages. Some of the research and findings, particularly around the site of the battle are useful and informative, as it is when the author allows the various sources to speak, but Livingston seems to want to educate his readers in a overbearing and patronising way, rather than allow evidence, if correctly presented, to speak for itself. I found this immature style grating at best, which is why it took so long to read!
The fact that a book of fourteen chapters only covers the actual battle in two is significant, as is the fact that on those precious pages nine is taken up with the guilt of the killing of the prisoners - the biggest single section in the book. This, I believe, allows some of our author's bias to bleed more obviously into the pages. The final conclusion is that the pride of the French contributed to the French defeat but the most proud man on the field that day was the English king (p284), not proud for having won the battle, but for believing he had some kind of divine purpose, as evidenced from being spared at the Battle of Shrewsbury.
He comments on page 279 that some modern historians mock medieval 'honour' but he seems content to overlook the strength of medieval piety, even more by those who have looked death in the face. I suspect that pride is indeed a key here and that the author's own ego in bringing what he considers new methods and research from the same old sources, is clouding his view of the field, because it certainly clouds the clarity and value of this book.
I am glad to have waded through the mud of Livingston's 'Agincourt' but I would not recommend it, unless you have very comfortable wellingtons.
May 19, 2024
Nothing more fun than a new take on an old story. Livingston does a great job of retelling the events leading up to the battle, and then clearly lays out evidence that contradicts the accepted understanding of where the battle was fought and what went wrong. Worth reading.
December 2, 2023
Excellent study of the ultimate great English victory of the Hundred Years War. This book may even be better than author Michael Livingston's Crecy: Battle of Five Kings.
March 25, 2024
En la línia dels seus llibres, documenta amb les fonts i l'estudi del terreny i qüestiona el que s'ha escrit anteriorment sobre la batalla proposant un lloc alternatiu.
August 31, 2024
For some reason I didn't find this nearly as interesting as his book on Crecy.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews