Gone Medieval - King Henry V


Episode Date: August 27, 2022

Few kings have left more of an impression on the English - and then the British - nation as King Henry V, who died on 31 August 1422. The Battle of Agincourt in 1415 wove Henry V’s legend into the fabric of history. To many, he remains a hero, the exemplar of what a warrior-king should be. To others, Henry had a darker side that eclipses any glimmer of glory.To mark the 600th anniversary of his death, Matt Lewis takes a look at both sides of Henry V’s reputation and considers how we assess people and their actions from the distant past with our modern sensibilities.The Senior Producer on this episode was Elena Guthrie. It was edited and mixed by Anisha Deva and produced by Rob Weinberg. For more Gone Medieval content, subscribe to our Medieval Monday newsletter here.If you'd like to learn even more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - subscribe today! To download, go to Android or Apple store. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world, to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Welcome to this episode of Gone Medieval. I've got no guest again this time, so it's just you and me as we take a look at a momentous event that happened six centuries ago. Henry V died on the 31st of August 1422, 600 years ago. Few kings have left more of an impression on the English and then the British nation. Shakespeare's famous the voice of some of the Bard's most stirring and most nationalistic rhetoric.

He was a model for Henry VIII, who failed spectacularly to live up to the hype. The most famous speech that Shakespeare gives to Henry comes just before the Battle of Agincourt on St Crispin's Day, when the king addresses his men. This story shall the good man teach his son, and Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, from this day to the ending of the world. But we in it shall be remembered. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

The Battle of Agincourt in 1415 wove Henry V's legend into the fabric of British history. To many, he remains a hero, the exemplar of what a warrior king should be. But to others, he has a darker side that eclipses any glimmer of glory. I thought this would be a good chance to look at both sides of Henry's reputation. No one is two-dimensional. Heroes are always flawed, and monsters are often not all they appear to be. While we try to add some depth to our understanding of Henry, we also have the chance to think about how we assess people and their actions from the distant past.

Can we, should we, force modern sensibilities. back across the centuries. Henry was born on the 16th of September 1386 at Monmouth Castle in Wales. This connection is the reason he was widely known as Henry of Monmouth in his youth. His father was Henry of Bollingbroke, Earl of Derby, who later became Duke of Lancaster and then King Henry IV, the first Lancasterian king. Bollingbroke was the heir to John of Gaunt, third son of Edward III. Our young Henry was therefore the great-grandson of the most well-regarded King of England in recent history. His mother was Mary de Bowen, heiress to the fortune of her father, the Earl of Hereford. She died in 1394 when Henry was just seven. She never became Queen of England.

Despite dying at the age of just 24, she had six children. Henry was the eldest of four sons and two daughters. He also had several half-siblings. The children of his father, with his mistress Catherine Swinford. The Beaufort family, as these children were known, would have a huge impact on 15th century politics and would be invaluable supports to the Lancasterian regime. Described in his father's and grandfather's financial records as Lord Henry, son of the Earl of Derby,

the young boy's life was to undergo a dramatic transformation. His father was exiled in 1398, his grandfather died in 1399, and when King Richard tried to snatch at the Lancasterian inheritance, Henry's dad came back to fight for their dynasty's rights. He ended up doing much more than just that. Henry's father deposed his cousin, King Richard II, in 1399. With the accession of Henry IV, our Henry became Prince of Wales,

Duke of Lancaster, Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester and Duke of Aquitaine, as well as heir to the throne, all a fortnight after his 13th birthday. Born a nobleman's son, made a prince, now destined to be king. His was already a complex story of loss and gain, just as he hit his teenage years. In the years that followed, he would develop a complex, apparently contradictory nature that lies at the heart of his life and his legacy. One of the most famous aspects of Henry's youth is the myriad ways in which it was misspent. Shakespeare shows Prince Hal, largeing it up with the lower rise.

ranks. One of these accounts from a life of Henry composed in the 1430s describes him in his younger years as an assiduous cultivator of lasciviousness. Passing the bounds of modesty, he was the fervent soldier of Venus as well as Mars. Youthlike, he was fired by her torches and in the midst of worthy works of war found leisure for the excesses common to ungoverned age. The stories of Henry undergoing a radical change from party prince to solemn king, a striking and widely accepted. The first mention of this aspect of Henry's character comes in the 1430s and was quickly followed up by other accounts, one of which is connected to Henry's youngest brother, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. To me, that timing is particularly interesting.

As the English effort in France stalled in the wake of Joan of Arc's astonishing appearance, there was a renewal of interest in the man who had, it seemed, being the only one able to subdue France to the will of the English crown. Not only that, but as Joan became the focus of a cult that laid the foundations for her sainthood, the English needed an antidote to French claims that God was on their side. Who better than the victorious warrior of Agincourt? If he underwent exactly the same dramatic change attributed to Thomas Beckett, It was a deliberate effort to draw strong parallels with that saint's life.

No contemporary seems to have commented on this before the 1430s, so how true it really is remains a mystery. I think it's easier to see an effort in reaction to the changing situation in France to paint Henry as holy, a sainted warrior more significant than Joan of Arc, or at least an English version of the same narrative, than it is to see a radical alteration in his personality at the age of 26. One aspect of Henry's youth that is well-documented

is his involvement from his early teens in his father's wars in Wales. Henry IV faced threats throughout his reign. From being one of England's most celebrated tournament nights and crusaders, he became a king held hostage by rebellions. The most enduring of these problems came from Wales, led by the incredible O'England doer, who we really ought to cover on Gone Medieval.

Owen was proclaimed Prince of Wales and led his countrymen in a guerrilla war against the English crown from 1400 for over a decade. Prince Henry was sent there to earn his spurs and to learn how to be a soldier. In 1403 at the Battle of Shrewsbury, Henry joined his father's forces to fight the Percy family. The Persies had supported Henry IV in taking the throne

but felt aggrieved that they hadn't received the rewards they expected and became allied with Owen Glendouer. The head of this family was the Earl of Northumberland. The rebel army was led by his oldest son, Henry Hotspur Percy. Incidentally, Tottenham Hotspur Football Club take their name and badge from Hotspur Percy as the first ground they had was built on land given to them by the Percy family. The Royal Army won the battle and Hotspur was killed. Prince Henry, who was just 16, was struck in the face by an arrow during the battle.

It was embedded six inches into his face through his cheek. The shaft was removed, but it left the arrowhead lodged in his skull. No one dared to pull the piece of metal from the prince's face, and so it stayed there for three days as he was moved from Shrewsbury to Kenilworth. There, a royal surgeon named John Bradmore was summoned to treat the wound. He would invent an implement to extract the arrow that slid into the hole left by the shaft and expanded to grip it from the inside. He widened the wound to make room and used his new instrument to sort.

slowly remove the arrowhead. Bradmore then treated the wound by packing it with elderpith, honey, barley, flour and flax. This kept the wound clean and free from infection, and over the next 20 days, Bradmore reduced the size of the wadding to allow the wound to heal slowly from the inside, aiming to reduce the scar that would be left behind. Bradmore described the wound as on Henry's cheek, next to his nose on the left side. This might It had been Bradmore's left as he looked at the prince, as it's generally accepted the wound was to his right cheek. That's the reason the portrait of Henry as king is in profile, showing only the side of his face

without the scar from the arrow. It's interesting to wonder too what impact this must have had on the 16-year-old Henry's psyche. Henry IV's health began to deteriorate seriously from 1409. In January 1410, Prince Henry became the effective head of his father's government. The prince grew particularly close to one of his Beaufort uncles, Henry Bishop of Winchester. Differences in their foreign policy aims were exposed when the king preferred to back the Armagnac faction in the emerging troubles in France, while the prince favoured the Burgundians,

who the king maintained a strong dislike of. By November 1411, the disagreements were such that the king removed the prince from his position in control of the council. Once more, Shakespeare's version of King and Prince ready to go to war with each other is an exaggeration. They disagreed on a political course of action in France. While there is a belief among some that the King's second son Thomas was his favourite, there's no hint of Prince Henry being dislodged as heir, nor that there was any real hatred between father and son.

Henry IV grew increasingly ill in late 1412. In February 1413, he slipped from consciousness, though he didn't die until the 20th of March, aged just 45, with his son Henry at his side. The prince now became King Henry V at the age of 26. It's here that his Damascene conversion is often cited, but I think there's enough evidence of a man dedicated to military and political matters from his early teens to suggest that that isn't true, and that these stories were later deliberate.

myth-making. Henry's coronation took place at Westminster Abbey on the 9th of April 1413 in the midst of a snowstorm. Was this an omen of bad times to come or a good sign of purity and renewal? No one seemed to be able to agree. There are a few accounts of Henry's appearance and his nature by the time he became king. It was said he was very tall, slim, with dark, cropped hair in a ring above his ears and clean-shaven. That fits with the portrait we have. of Henry, and the very tall might have been around six foot three. One writer describes how the king's eyes betrayed his mood, as they flashed from the mildness of a doves to the brilliance of a lions. A monk from Westminster described him as devout, abstemious, liberal to the poor,

sparing of promises, but true to his word once given, a quick, wide-awake man, though at times reserved and moody, intolerant of laxity in priests, chivalrous towards women, and and rigid in repressing riot and crime. The writer Adam of Usk said Henry was upright, full of wisdom and virtue. Much like his great-grandfather, Edward III, Henry seems to have had a gift with the ability to draw people to him and to inspire unity. It was a trait his father had lacked, and perhaps Henry's time in the field from such a young age developed his realisation that camaraderie, a mutual cause and shared suffering, could

be powerful tools for a king. At home, Henry was determined to bring England together, but not by mercilessly pursuing enemies. He only really faced two serious threats at home. The first was the Oldcastle revolt, which ended with the battle in January 1414. This was a Lollard plots led by John Oldcastle. Lollards were very early religious reformers, with ideas similar to Protestantism, which emerged in the 16th century. Feuders' heretics, they were banned from meeting and teaching.

When they marched on London, planning not only to destroy. Catholic churches, but also to remove the king. Henry confronted and defeated the rebels. Oldcastle was hung and then the gallows set alight. It isn't clear whether Oldcastle was dead or alive at the time of the burning. The other uprising was the Southampton plot of 1415. This was a plan to assassinate Henry, exposed to the king by the man meant to replace him. The three ring leaders were executed, though the focus of the plot was spared because he'd taken the news to the king. These are good examples of how Henry worked. He started from a place of trust.

Betray that and you would face immediate and serious consequences. For a medieval king, it was a good stance to take in my opinion. People liked to know where they stood, that they were valued and that if they behaved in a certain way, they knew the consequences, which ought to be enough to discourage them. Whether you find this acceptable or not is probably central to how you view Henry V. From 1417, Henry would nurture the use of the English language in government, taking further steps to move away from the dominance of French

and reinforcing the notion of an English identity that had begun to flourish under Edward III. Over on the Warfare podcast by History Hit, we bring you brand new military histories from around the world. Each week, twice a week, we release new episodes with world-leading historians, expert policy makers and the veterans who served. from the greatest tanks of the Second World War. And so what are you actually trying to get out of your tank?

You're trying to get maneuverability and you're trying to get a really big gun. Your tiger and your pamper there to dominate the battlefield, primarily on the eastern front and in the North Africa and all that sort of stuff. But by the time, they're actually coming in in decent numbers, that moment has already passed. Through to new histories that help us understand current conflicts. Any invader, any attacker, any adversary will exploit gaps within society. It was true then, it's true today.

But the Finn signaled that they were united, and I think that's what the Ukrainians should signal today too. Subscribe to Warfare from History Hit wherever you get your podcast and join us on the front lines of military history. Reigniting the Hundred Years' War that had lain dormant for almost half a century was top of Henry V's agenda from the outset of his reign. By the summer of 1415, he was ready to launch an invasion that would go down in history. Why is easy to understand and provides another key to Henry's mind.

England had been divided and entirely focused on itself throughout the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV. Nothing brought a nation together like a foreign war. That's as true now as it was in the 15th century. Promising glory and riches in France brought the English nobility and polity together. I think the other big elements of this focus was Henry's determination to put the Lancasterian claim to the throne before God for judgment in an effort to put to bed the opposition that had dogged his.

his father's reign. This notion makes sense of some of the decisions Henry made in France and was another way to put uncertainty to bed. If God approved him, who would dare go against that? It was as Henry prepared to embark for France that the Southampton plot was exposed. When those involved had been executed, Henry set off on what would prove to be a fateful voyage. He'd written to his rival, Charles Ith of France, asking him to hand over the crown to avoid bloodshed. It was never going to happen, but it was a chivalric imperative to seek the avoidance of violence against fellow Christians. Henry's letter began, to the most serene Prince Charles, our cousin and adversary in France, Henry, by the grace of God, king of England and France. To give to each that which is his

own is a work of inspiration and of wise counsel by the bowels of Jesus Christ, friend. Render what you The invasion of France began with the siege of Harfleur. The siege was textbook. Henry cleared and burned the suburbs to make room for his cannon and siege engines. These pounded the walls of Harfleur day and night. During the action, Henry behaved in a way that resonates with Shakespeare's account. Contemporary sources talk of him touring the encampment, overseeing the operations at all points, no one quite sure where he would pop up next.

There's no once more unto the breach, though. The siege lasted from the 18th of August until the 22nd of September 1415, and although the English army suffered from dysentery, they were victorious. The inhabitants were allowed to send for help as siege etiquette demanded. They pleaded with Charles X's son and heir, the dauphin, but he failed to come to their aid. At 1pm, on Sunday the 22nd of September, the date appointed for any help to arrive. Henry sat on a throne outside Harfleur and accepted the surrender of the garrison. From here, Henry installed his own garrison in the town, then decided to retire to Calais.

While he chose to march across the land, taunting the French, remains something of a mystery. Henry's brother, Thomas, advised that they returned to England by sea, given the losses and disease they had suffered. The French army had been gathering at Rouen, and wandering across Normandy with a reduced, sickened army would make them easy prey. Henry ignored his brother's advice. Was this part of his need to place his right to the crown of England? rather than of France, before God? Along the route, the English were shadowed by a vast French army, though they made no effort to engage the English.

Henry sent a challenge to the Dofan, one-on-one combat for the crown of France. No more blood needed to be shed. They could settle it man to man. The Dofan refused, causing plenty of shame amongst the French at his cowardice. Eventually, the French did move to block the English. Henry took the opportunity to place his men between two. wooded areas on a strip of ploughed earth that would favour his men on foot over the cavalry of the French. The action that Agincourt is beyond our scope today, it was a slaughter and

the Battle of Agincourt became one of the most famous encounters of the Hundred Years' War. There were some aspects of that day though that speak to Henry's reputation. During the fighting, Henry had worn his crown atop his helm. This had marked him out as a target, but it also clearly displayed that the English had a king in the field, something the French conspicuously lacked. It was also a way of Henry overtly placing his position as king before God for judgment, since it was God who decided the outcomes of battles. In favouring Henry's smaller rag-tag force of sick men over the horde that represented the flower of French chivalry, everyone had their answer to the question of the Lancasterian title. Before the end of the battle, came

one of those moments of controversy too. Either because there was a renewed assault at the front or the threat of an attack in the rear or both, Henry ordered the executions of the captured prisoners. It was undoubtedly ruthless and for many a sign of the monster Henry really was. The laws of war allowed this course though to prevent prisoners being freed and re-armed. There's no real certainty around how many were killed. If Henry hadn't given the order and his men had been slaughtered, he'd have been criticised as weak-willed. For me, the real measure is that no contemporary commentator, not even amongst the French, blamed or criticised Henry for this decision. One French source blamed the order on those amongst their own army who had

made the fresh attack, branding them this cursed company of Frenchmen. Another moment of scandal for Henry came during the siege of Rouen, the capital city of Normandy, from 1418 to 1419. Building on his success at Harfleur and Agincourt, Henry pressed on. He laid siege to Ruan with the intention of starving the city into submission in the winter. He began in late July 1418 and by October the siege was biting those within. In that month they expelled anyone unable to fight, the women, the children, the sick and the elderly. If anyone thought Henry would offer mercy, they'd misjudged him. Those within had expelled their neighbours in order to make supplies last longer,

and thus prolong the siege. This was not part of the accepted operation of siege warfare. Henry refused to allow those driven out past his pickets, and they took refuge from the increasingly cold conditions at the foot of the city walls. One English eyewitness described what he saw. Some unable to open their eyes and no longer breathing, others cowering on their knees as thin as tweaks, a woman clutching her dead child to her breast to warm it, and a child sucking the breast of its dead mother. Henry refused to budge. When his men sought pity for the refugees, the king reportedly replied callously, they were not put there at my command. Those beneath the walls died of starvation and cold as winter bit harder. Who was cruel? Henry, for refusing to help

them, or those within Ruan for driving out their most vulnerable neighbours for military gain? I think I'd say both. From Henry's perspective, though, there was a danger in setting a precedent that would prolong every siege from that one onwards. The surrender of the city was accepted on the 19th of January 1419. Once more, Henry was not condemned by contemporaries for his tactics at Ruan. He emerged from the episode with his reputation higher than ever. On the 10th of September 1419, the Dofan met the Duke of Burgundy to seek peace. As the Duke knelt before the prince, one of the Dofans' men swung an axe into the Duke's face, killing him. By Christmas day that year, a treaty was agreed between Henry V and the new Duke of Burgundy. Charles

the 6th was said to have been disgusted by his son's behaviour. Although he suffered from frequent bouts of mental illness, Charles was still king. He began to negotiate with Henry, and those talks would result in the Treaty of Tuas, sealed on the 21st of May 1420. The terms of the treaty saw Henry married to Charles's daughter, Catherine de Valois. The English king was made heir to the throne of France to succeed on Charles's death and to act as regent until then. This was a high watermark in the Hundred Years' War. Charles was just over 50. Henry was 32, and France would be in time his. He hadn't taken. the throne by conquest, but his inheritance would be the realisation of the project begun by

Edward III in 1337. Henry and Catherine had a son on the 6th of December 1421, named for his father. Henry went back to France to continue consolidating his position, not least because the Dofan, who had been dispossessed by the Treaty of Troyes, wasn't going quietly. On the 31st of August 1422, Henry died at the Chateau de Vincennes after contracting dysentery, the enemy of all campaigning soldiers. He was 35 years old. From his birth as the son of a nobleman, he'd become king of England and the heir to France.

Charles VI would die on the 21st of October 1422, just weeks after Henry, who, if he'd lived a couple of months longer, would have been the first king of both England and France. Instead, that accolade passed to his nine-month-old son, King Henry VI. England was faced with a long minority. Henry the 6th would be crowned King of England in England

and King of France in France, the only time this has ever happened. France saw the opportunity of the minority and exploited it. The Dofan became Charles the 7th, and over the decades that followed, France became resurgent as England discovered that its new king had no interest in war. Henry the 6th would drag England through the loss of the 100 years' war, and into the wars of the roses that would ultimately end the Lancasterian dynasty. His father had worked so hard to demonstrate was legitimate, chosen by God.

So how should we judge Henry V? What is his legacy? Henry VIII remains a heroic figure to many. Perhaps his greatest achievement was dying at the very pinnacle of his powers. Deprived of time in which he might have failed, he remains frozen for all eternity in his glittering achievements. There are accusations of cruelty that are hard to ignore. Whilst they would never condone them, I find it striking that contemporaries don't condemn Henry

and frequently applauded what we consider his worst moments. He was behaving precisely as his contemporaries expected and in some cases demanded. We've heard what some contemporaries thought in their own words. Thomas Walsingham summed Henry up by writing, He was a warrior, famous and blessed with good fortune, who in every war he undertook always came away with victory. Much of this revolves around the question of how we should judge the past.

By the standards of today? I'm always saying the medieval world wasn't so different from ours, yet in some key ways it was a very different place. A century or so after Henry's death, warfare began to change dramatically. Princes stopped leading armies on the field, and war would become something radically different, as men invented new and better ways to kill ever more of their fellow men. Henry was human, as such, he was flawed,

he was proud, but loved by those who knew him and fought with him. He was undefeated in battle from the age of 16 until his death, but he remained insecure and always saw his position as fragile in need of reinforcement. He won in France, but against a fractured enemy with a mentally unwell leader. He was fated in life, but his legacy crumbled, almost disresolved, soon as he was gone. How should we view the people of the past and their actions? We ought to allow them to be human, we should be shocked by their brutality, but understanding

of the moment they lived in. One of the most striking things about Henry's story and the criticism he receives today is that none of his contemporaries saw what he did as wrong, cruel, beyond the pale or evil. In fact, I think they liked the certainty of a man who obeyed the rules because everyone knew where they stood. What makes a good medieval king? In 1422, it was one who led an army into battle, destroyed his enemies and won lands and crowns. In 2022, it certainly isn't that anymore.

The world has changed, rather than what Henry did. Some of England's medieval kings considered the most disastrous, Henry III, Edward II, even Henry's son, Henry VI, were criticised for seeking peace, for shunning war, for being too nice, for being the kind of person we might want as a leader today. Our view of history is still skewed by past obsessions and markers of high achievement. For me, the past is there to be learned from. That means we should think about who we glorify and why we hold them in high regard, because that often says more about us than it does about them.

I also think we have to be careful of judging those in the past by the standards of an age they never lived in. Henry V behaved as his time except. expected, even if we would consider his actions unacceptable now. For me, what Henry achieved was remarkable, but I wouldn't want to see anyone achieve it today. Both of those things can be true at the same time. That's the beauty of history. You can join Dr Kat Jarman on Tuesday for another brand new episode of Gone Medieval. Don't forget to also subscribe wherever you get your podcasts from and to tell your friends and family that you've gone medieval. If you get a moment,

please do drop us a review or rate us anywhere that you listen to your podcasts, including Spotify. It really does help new listeners to find us. If you're enjoying this podcast and looking to get a bit more medieval goodness in your life, then subscribe to our Medieval Monday's newsletter. Just follow the links in the show notes below. Anyway, I better let you go. I've been Matt Lewis, and we've just gone medieval with history hits.