Historians Reassess Battle of Agincourt

[Kosmo]

MAISONCELLE, France

[sylla]

MAISONCELLE, France

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[caldrail]

The historians have concluded that the English could not have been outnumbered by more than about two to one. And depending on how the math is carried out, Henry may well have faced something closer to an even fight, said Anne Curry, a professor at the University of Southampton who is leading the study.

 

Those cold figures threaten an image of the battle that even professional researchers and academics have been reluctant to challenge in the face of Shakespearean verse and centuries of English pride, Ms. Curry said.

 

We do take a lot on face value regarding historical accounts, and in all likeliehood, the events are exaggerated by the victors (We won, by the way, if you haven't heard). Now there is some patriotic pride involved as there always will be in the success of a nations past. The problem with reconstructive analyses like this is that often the researcher has started with the express intention of proving something he or she believes, thus raising the possibility of bias. A statistical revision also runs the risk of being widely incorrect because it doesn't necessarily include all the relevant factors (or only includes those the researcher feels is relevant) and that many modern assumptions can creep into the equation.

 

Re-enactive research is useful and does point out some obvious fallacies, but that isn't just dry research made real, it also involves a lot of intuition and even guesswork, because many of the activities and paraphenalia used at the time are no longer part of ordinary life and thus things deemed mundane aren't likely to be recorded, a potential calamity for us ignorant modern day types.

 

I would view this revision with interest. Perhaps it's worth reading or simply bunkum, but in this sort of thing it's worth keeping in mind. For my part, I would say there has to be something that links modern insight with events as recorded, even if it isn't what the chroniclers of old wrote down for us. If a complete revision is called for, this actually needs justification. Can the researcher point to peripheral events that support his hypothesis? Further, a revised account isn't necessarily correct despite good intentions, and whilst we can accept the qualifications and indeed quality of the work, we should never blindly accept revision unless the case is overwhelming. In thisparticular case, I've yet to be convinced, but it is an interesting possibility.

[Melvadius]

I would also add the caveat that in any such statisitical analysis there would normally be a set of assumptions published upon which the research has been based. However these are not normally considered 'news worthy' or else are considered by the press as liable to confuse the average reader so the press tend to cut them out of any articles published about the research findings.

 

To have any chance of understanding the basis of the research I am afraid that unless it has been published on-line it means that anyone interested in further reading will have to obtain access to a full copy of a report which may have only a limited publication run

Edited October 28, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

I would also add the caveat that in any such statisitical analysis there would normally be a set of assumptions published upon which the research has been based. However these are not normally considered 'news worthy' or else are considered by the press as liable to confuse the average reader so the press tend to cut them out of any articles published about the research findings.

 

To have any chance of understanding the basis of the research I am afraid that unless it has been published on-line it means that anyone interested in further reading will have to obtain access to a full copy of a report which may have only a limited publication run

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla