H/W 17th October 2017
‘Luck and favourable circumstances rather than his leadership account for
Henry V’s success in France in the years 1415-1421.’ How far do you agree with
this judgement?
Whilst there is signifcant evidence throughout Henry V’s reign that suggests his leadership is a key
factor in the English success in France, there are other factors such as luck and circumstances that
have also infuenced how well the conquest of France went. The other factors that were not of
Henry’s doing include: King Charles VI’s periodic insanity, and his lack of capability in leadership
which led to factons amongst the French regime, and a lack of trust for the monarch, along with
how the factons between the Armagnacs that caused a civil war, which greatly benefted the
English. I personally believe that Henry’s leadership are accountable for his success in France, and
therefore do not agree with the judgement to a great degree.
Despite luck and exceptonal circumstances being important factors into what led to Henry’s
success in France, I believe that a more prominent and signifcant factor was his leadership skills,
partcularly as he was seen as a powerful and experienced warrior-like king. This quality had become
public afer the Welsh rebellion against Owain Glyndwr, which was won by the English due to
Henry’s strong leadership skills with the royal army and his determinaton to be a charismatc
soldier; this quality was then consistently shown in military defeats such as Agincourt and Harfeur in
1415, where – despite the conditons and weaknesses the English faced, including smaller numbers
than the oppositon, fatgue from the trip across the Channel and lack of food, and the threat of the
French prisoners escaping – Henry V became victorious, alongside the 1419 conquest of Normandy,
which allowed him to have a foothold into French land that gave him strength to weaken the French
in a military and politcal way. It was Henry’s tactcs and leadership skills that had aided the English
when they were seen to be the weaker of the two partes during the Batle of Agincourt; with Henry
sending them to Harfeur prior to the batle giving the English fghtng practce, it suggests that his
leadership was signifcant in many of the English victories of his tme as it implies that he understood
what his troops needed and how to achieve a substantal victory, and therefore is accountable for
the success in France, as being an experienced soldier and king allowed him to have the mind-set to
apply and create new tactcs for each batle, whilst also ensuring that the money raised was used
effectvely.
Henry’s leadership skills can also be seen when through his charisma, and how he was able to
organise war campaigns well and gain support through effectve money raising techniques and his
good reputaton in order to give England the best chance of succeeding; by being able to campaign
in a well-organised manner that were backed by subtle, effectve diplomacy and parliament support,
and then claim victory at said batle, along with gaining the support of not only the government but
also the public that he reigned over, it allowed Henry to contnue showing his strength and strong
skill-set and therefore put into practce what he has used before such as the tactcs during the Welsh
rebellion against Glyndwr. With parliament showing support for his ventures gives evidence to
suggest that Henry was a good leader and King, as many governments have never been able to fully
support the past kings due to lack of popularity or disagreements between views. His charisma also
enabled him to unite England unlike many monarchs before him, meaning that he was then able to
fght batles with men who were ready to support him; this suggests that Henry’s leadership was a
key focal point to his reign, and in turn infuenced the actons against France in a signifcant way,
‘Luck and favourable circumstances rather than his leadership account for
Henry V’s success in France in the years 1415-1421.’ How far do you agree with
this judgement?
Whilst there is signifcant evidence throughout Henry V’s reign that suggests his leadership is a key
factor in the English success in France, there are other factors such as luck and circumstances that
have also infuenced how well the conquest of France went. The other factors that were not of
Henry’s doing include: King Charles VI’s periodic insanity, and his lack of capability in leadership
which led to factons amongst the French regime, and a lack of trust for the monarch, along with
how the factons between the Armagnacs that caused a civil war, which greatly benefted the
English. I personally believe that Henry’s leadership are accountable for his success in France, and
therefore do not agree with the judgement to a great degree.
Despite luck and exceptonal circumstances being important factors into what led to Henry’s
success in France, I believe that a more prominent and signifcant factor was his leadership skills,
partcularly as he was seen as a powerful and experienced warrior-like king. This quality had become
public afer the Welsh rebellion against Owain Glyndwr, which was won by the English due to
Henry’s strong leadership skills with the royal army and his determinaton to be a charismatc
soldier; this quality was then consistently shown in military defeats such as Agincourt and Harfeur in
1415, where – despite the conditons and weaknesses the English faced, including smaller numbers
than the oppositon, fatgue from the trip across the Channel and lack of food, and the threat of the
French prisoners escaping – Henry V became victorious, alongside the 1419 conquest of Normandy,
which allowed him to have a foothold into French land that gave him strength to weaken the French
in a military and politcal way. It was Henry’s tactcs and leadership skills that had aided the English
when they were seen to be the weaker of the two partes during the Batle of Agincourt; with Henry
sending them to Harfeur prior to the batle giving the English fghtng practce, it suggests that his
leadership was signifcant in many of the English victories of his tme as it implies that he understood
what his troops needed and how to achieve a substantal victory, and therefore is accountable for
the success in France, as being an experienced soldier and king allowed him to have the mind-set to
apply and create new tactcs for each batle, whilst also ensuring that the money raised was used
effectvely.
Henry’s leadership skills can also be seen when through his charisma, and how he was able to
organise war campaigns well and gain support through effectve money raising techniques and his
good reputaton in order to give England the best chance of succeeding; by being able to campaign
in a well-organised manner that were backed by subtle, effectve diplomacy and parliament support,
and then claim victory at said batle, along with gaining the support of not only the government but
also the public that he reigned over, it allowed Henry to contnue showing his strength and strong
skill-set and therefore put into practce what he has used before such as the tactcs during the Welsh
rebellion against Glyndwr. With parliament showing support for his ventures gives evidence to
suggest that Henry was a good leader and King, as many governments have never been able to fully
support the past kings due to lack of popularity or disagreements between views. His charisma also
enabled him to unite England unlike many monarchs before him, meaning that he was then able to
fght batles with men who were ready to support him; this suggests that Henry’s leadership was a
key focal point to his reign, and in turn infuenced the actons against France in a signifcant way,
