I think this might be an opportunity to share my perspective on the Battle of Agincourt, as it tends to be oversimplified. There's a very sensitive issue surrounding the battle. Even today, England ultimately decided against using Agincourt as the name for a submarine due to international relations concerns. What really happened? What could have occurred to cause such a large part of the French knighthood and nobility to be massacred? To the point that, years later, Charles VII decided to no longer place his full trust in the knighthood, but rather in anyone who knew how to fight, regardless of nobleman or commoner? One thing is certain: it's incredibly complex, given the number of different sources and especially the chronicles of both sides, which can contradict each other. The same is true for modern works and the numerous debates between the French and English. Several versions exist of what happened, one where the English killed and executed the knights and a large part of the French army out of humiliation. The other version claims that the French knights were arrogant and foolish for charging on horseback into thousands of archers firing ten arrows a minute. Neither is in fact exactly true. Both sides shared a common problem that led to the catastrophe: panic, a natural reaction in any human being, noble or not. Yes, the French army had been arrogant the night before the battle, but by morning this was no longer the case. During the day, they saw that the English army had positioned itself at the narrowest point of the two forests, making it impossible to flank them on horseback, which had been Marshal Boucicaut's plan. But in addition, all the ranged troops (archers and crossbowmen) who were supposed to be in the front line had disappeared. They had been hastily and improvisedly moved to the rear, ultimately rendering them useless. Arguments had broken out among the dukes over which improvised plans to implement. Meanwhile, the English had already traveled 170 km, outnumbered and battling a dysentery epidemic that had already claimed over 1,000 lives during the siege of Harfleur. Having attempted to flee via Calais, they were blocked on the road by the French army and their morale was at rock bottom. It would be a bloodbath if they were to reach Calais. Both sides were in a state of panic on October 25th. Even though the French had numerical superiority, after these accumulated problems, many, including those on foot, lowered their heads, helmets and all, at the sight of the English arrow hail, to avoid being pierced by the visor. Despite armor capable of withstanding the onslaught, the psychological effect of the darkening sky also demoralized them. All had to charge into battle for honor, to die or not, or else a herald would write in his chronicle that such and such a knight bore this coat of arms and fled, and this would enter the annals of his family. For the English, especially the archers, some of whom were without pants due to dysentery, when they ran out of arrows they immediately resorted to hand-to-hand combat, filled with stress and fighting for their survival. After the battle and the successive waves of violence, including that of Duke John I of Alençon which even targeted King Henry V, thousands of prisoners were taken. However, we come to the crucial point: the massacre. What happened? The answer: Lord Ysembart of Agincourt and his army of 600 peasants. Though rarely mentioned, he and the lesser lords are indirectly responsible for it. The local lords near the battlefield, having learned of the French defeat and that thousands had been taken prisoner, decided to seize the opportunity. He and his local army attacked the rearguard of the English army, stealing, looting, and plundering equipment, treasures, and supplies. They even took a precious crown and the king's ceremonial sword. Panic gripped the English and King Henry V. Everything suggested that the French army had anticipated defeat and was seeking reinforcements. From the moment Englishmen rushed from the camp to warn the king of a surprise attack, Henry V suspected revenge in an emergency and ordered the immediate execution of all prisoners, noble or not, keeping only the most important. Few prisoners who had already been moved survived the order, and many Englishmen had refused to execute their prisoners for ransom. The King of England then appointed a nobleman with 200 archers to carry out the executions. When the English army and King Henry V arrived at the camp, everything was ransacked, and the peasants and lords had fled in haste with enormous booty. In the end, Henry V himself admitted to killing a "living bank" because of damn peasants and local lords who gave a false alarm about a counter-attack, or even surviving French rearguard troops who regrouped to attack desperately. This could have brought England a colossal fortune through ransoms for future warfare. Perhaps this is why the invasion of Normandy was only planned two years later. Henry V himself would say that the massacre was carried out according to God's justice anyway, that the French rearguard and the minor lords paid the price for their sins in this act. The chronicles of both sides try to exonerate themselves. The French died for their code of honor in a defeat that had become inevitable, and that it was suicidal. The English fought for their survival and, faced with the need to commit the unthinkable in the heat of the moment. Both sides fought hard, and both made mistakes that led to the catastrophe, which is still debated today. This battle remains one of the greatest tragedies in the History of the Hundred Years' War. Agincourt is not the victory of genius over arrogance, it is the triumph of survival over honor. I hope I've been able to shed some more light on this battle, which, for me, would take an extremely long time to study all the scenarios that unfolded for each warrior. To those who have no grave.