Agincourt: Battle of the Scarred King

by Michael Livingston, Bernard Cornwell (foreword)

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.

Genres: History, Medieval, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, Military History, Audiobook, War

320 pages, Paperback

First published October 10, 2023

About the author

A 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).

Reviews

[Susan Paxton · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Brendan (History Nerds United) · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.)

[Elizabeth Kerns · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

very academic discussion of the battle, both before and after.

[Max Frankwicz · Rating 5 out of 5]

A detailed well researched study of the Battle of Agincourt. Like with Crecy Livingston has provided a compelling alternative location to the site where French and English battled in a cold wet October day in 1415.

[Hans Geurts · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Cole Maynard · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Agincourt: Battle of the Scarred King is a popular history of the Battle of Agincourt fought in 1415 and memorialised in Shakespeare’s Henry V. There have been many books about Agincourt but, as always, there’s something new to say about it. Here, Livingston takes issue with what he calls the vulgata – the traditional, familiar story of the battle – and proposes revisions, most notably suggesting that the location of the battle is wrong.

I’m always wary with pop histories but this is pop history as it should be. There’s no smoothing over of debates to present the author’s one preferred narrative as the absolute truth, nor does Livingston spice up his narrative by going for the least likely but most dramatic option or inventing dramatic options. It’s a historian who really knows his stuff (Livingston has published academically on Agincourt) and is determined to make it accessible for people who aren’t historians. There’s a review here that describes it as though Livingston is telling you about Agincourt and his ideas casually while you and he share a beer and that’s exactly what it’s like, though the drawings on the back of the beer coasters are a bit high tech.

I really, really enjoyed the way Livingston talks about history as a discipline – he explains upfront the problems historians face and is always clear whenever he feels his “lens” might influence his interpretations. There’s plenty of respect for the historians whose work he’s drawing on, even when he disagrees with them which is depressingly refreshing to see – especially after the last pop history of Agincourt I read featured the author repeatedly sniping about other historians (Ian Mortimer’s 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory). Throughout it all, I had the impression of just widely Livingston had read and researched on Agincourt and its background.

Livingston gives a lot of context for the battle, from a chapter each on the definitive moments of Henry V and Charles VI’s lives pre-Agincourt, to an overview of the Hundred Years War (including a chapter dedicated to Crecy – arguing that the near-disaster the English had faced in 1346 had been smoothed into a legend that Henry V would attempt to emulate in 1415 and become a near-disaster itself) and the domestic context in both England and France leading up to the Agincourt campaign.

And don’t be mistaken. Livingston may eschew the forced drama so common in pop history but he still crafts a dramatic tale. I found myself whipping through the pages, amazed by the sense of heart-in-throat urgency he created, whether by the descriptions of the Battle of Crecy or the march to Agincourt or the battle itself.

Livingston’s revisions are argued well and make a great deal of sense. I’d already read his academic article proposing we had the battle of Agincourt’s location wrong, as well as previous articles by archaeologist Tim Sutherland, arguing much the same, so his argument presented here was already familiar to me and I ended up doubly convinced by the end. One hopes that his hypothesis is tested with further archaeological work or at least given weight by historians in the future.

I would recommend for those wanting a thorough understanding of Agincourt, this is read in concert with other historians’ work on Agincourt, such as Anne Curry, Juliet Barker and Clifford J. Rogers (whom Livingston himself suggests as places to start for further reading), but it’s incredible on its own. Highly recommended. Now, I need to get a copy of his book on Crecy and hope the book about the Battle of Shrewsbury is still forthcoming…

[Ellen Cutler · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good account of how cadastral cartography from the time of Napoleon, shadow estimations from the day of battle via Google Earth, twelve-year-old John Lennon's sketchbook, and Monty Python can all illustrate details elucidating the impacts of the conflict made mythical by Shakespeare. Livingston in his early description of the head wound suffered by Prince Hal around 16, and the ingeniously grim manner in which the arrow head was extricated from six inches inside his brain, are masterfully told.

A lot of.what follows diverges into a slew of other medieval conflicts setting up the rationale for the English invasion. Having told in his previous study on Crécy that fabled clash in its revisionist version (for once, not a negative description in this terminology), Livingston knows the terrain literally and figuratively backwards and forwards. He scrutinizes the actual field of battle, shifting it to make the physical impacts combined with the chronicles, adjusting for their exaggeration, and the fog of war.

A fascinating example of his military historian meets mathematical calculator is his explanation of how many of the advancing French cavalry would have fallen over thirteen volleys of archers. Only about a tenth would have made it to the stakes famously planted in the mud by their English enemies.

This kind of book isn't my usual fare although the Middle Ages always is. Although aimed at a special audience eager for weaponry, armour, and strategic lore, however, Livingston provides a well-told, smartly paced, and thoroughly researched investigation of this mythologicized encounter. While the records tilt away from us having the vaguest idea of how common men felt in the fray, his powerful few lines about a Frenchman, encased in metal with a helmet clamped, and how limited would be his vision as he staggered forward against the onslaught, haunts one, eliminating any chivalrous illusion.

[Amber · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Jake Arluck · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent journal article wrapped in a boilerplate book.

The core of Livingston's history is a fascinating and, to this non-specialist, very persuasive argument that the consensus location of the 1415 battlefield is wrong and that another site (still within a few miles) matches what we know about the course of the battle much more closely.

The rest of the book, however, is a fairly potted summary of the previous eight decades of the Hundred Years' War, written in the warmed-over pastiche of Hemingway that's apparently legally obligatory for all history targeted at Men, Who Like Manly Things. It's not awful - the narrative is clear and he does a decent job at both helping us understand the motivation of the English and French while still emphasizing the strangeness of the late medieval world - but there's nothing new here even if the style is to your liking.

If the period is new to you and of interest, I recommend the whole book (to read in your leather armchair with a snifter of Laphroaig at hand; taxidermized stag head on the wall optional but highly recommended). If you're more familiar with the basics, consider a library trip to read just the truly original chapters.

[Jim Bogue · Rating 5 out of 5]

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!

[Oli Turner]

#agincourt #battleofthescarredking by @livingstonphd #michaellivingston published in 2023. I have been saving it for this weekend the 610th anniversary of the battle 25 October 1415. The first hundred pages gives context and background to Henry and Charles and the Hundred Years’ War. The middle third deals with the agincourt campaign and the final third focuses on the battle. Extremely well researched and a great companion piece to his book on the battle of crecy. Some interesting detective work challenging myths and putting forward a strong case that the location of the battle isn’t where it is generally considered to be. Highly readable and engaging, not a touch of the dryness that sometimes happens with nonfiction. Great stuff.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting idea but, like the same author’s book on Crecy, it is fixated on the idea that all other historians have got it wrong and only he has understood what happened and where the battle actually took place. Funny that. Very good on the sources, but at the same time as saying that they all have their biases, he tends to choose one which suits his analysis and disregard others. My history lecturer would have called that ‘special pleading’ and I think the current term is ‘confirmation bias’. He may well be right, no-one knows, but I got a little bored with the ‘until now’ style of writing and dismissal of earlier authors.

[Brandon Porter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Being from the States I didn't know much about the Battle of Agincourt. I knew it was a famous battle set during the 100 Years' War but not much more.

This book goes against the popular narratives told by the English and tries to see it from both sides. Instead of tales that King Henry did everything right, you get a different story here.

You really get a sense of desperation that King Henry V was up against. With men dying of dysentery, supplies running low, and the army trapped behind enemy lines, it is remarkable that the English emerged victorious. The author does a great job explaining how deforestation and limited space for troops raise questions about the current location where the battle took place.

The book excels at explaining the horrors of war, the tactics used, and why we are wrong about the history of this battle.

This battle was brutal, with the English successfully luring the French into a deadly trap. Their unmatched skill with the longbow decimated the French cavalry. Sharpened wooden stakes, strategically placed, played a critical role in neutralizing the French cavalry—a brilliant tactical move.

The way the book describes the conditions of fighting in the mud while bodies piled up was intense. I can't imagine what it would be like to be pinned between the man-at-arms of the English and the incoming French forces.

Overall, this book is an eye-opening exploration of Agincourt, vividly portraying its chaos and brilliance. It’s a must-read for anyone passionate about medieval history or warfare.

[Chris Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great book! This could be used as a text on how to do and write history. It is thoughtful, thorough, and provocative. It is also an extremely entertaining and educational romp through the era.
As he did with his book, Crecy, Dr. Livingston takes an iconoclastic position on where the battle of Agincourt actually occurred. He takes us through the evidence, how to use and 'decode' that, identification of bias, walking the ground, use of other sources (a survey of property ordered by Napoleon, for example), and a lot of reading, discussion, and thought. It is excellence in action.

[heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

most iconic battles. With meticulous scholarship and engaging narrative, Livingston breathes new life into Henry V’s legendary victory. His reliance on original French sources and battlefield evidence adds remarkable depth, challenging long-held assumptions while honoring the complexity of the men who fought there. The book is both intellectually rich and accessible, offering a definitive retelling for readers who crave accuracy wrapped in vivid storytelling.

[Magpie6493 · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had a fantastic time reading this. I especially enjoy how the author takes you through the math and his train of thought.

I'm only starting to read more into this era and an easy enough time following the narrative and events so if you have an interest in reading about the actual historical Agincourt, I highly recommend giving this book a try.

[Doug Garrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Paul Downs · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Michael Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

outstanding

Great read and a great reinterpretation of the battle. Micheal questions all the known facts and develops a much more realistic vision of how, why and where the battle occurred. A great read.

[Ernest Spoon · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Albert Majó Sabater · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Steven Batty · Rating 3 out of 5]

For some reason I didn't find this nearly as interesting as his book on Crecy.

[lola · Rating 5 out of 5]

really impressive work

[Ron Nurmi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A reexamination of the original sources and walking the ground yields a different version of this famous battle.
The author carefully lays out his reasoning as he re-examines Agincourt.