‘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? – TIMED 45 MINS
I believe that it would be accurate to say that luck and favourable circumstances did aid Henry V’s
success in France over this tme periodd however his leadership skills were also a key factor in securing
victories over France. To assess thisd you would need to evaluate and analyse signifcant events such as
the Batle of Agincourtd the conquest of Normandy and the Treaty of Troyesd and whether it was
leadership or luck that gave Henry upper hand.
The frst factor to be assessed is the Batle of Agincourt; prior to this batle the English had sufered
severe losses in the number of troops due to fghtng and a dysentery outbreak. This led to Henry
marching his troops to Calaisd where English Garrisons were based; from thisd you can infer that perhaps
it was his leadership skillsd as he was able to make a judgement that would best suit their situaton. This
implies how Henry V contnuously thought like that of a warriord and so was able to gain an advantage
against the French. This can also be shown by how the English was able to fnd a crossing point along the
River Somme unprotected by the Frenchd and so were able to cross peacefully on October 19 th. You can
infer from this that had Henry not used his initatve in realising the problem and coming up with a
solutond then perhaps the English troops would have been more a risk to a failure than they already
wered which suggests how it was Henry’s leadership that account for his success rather than luck and
favourable circumstances in this situaton. Howeverd by looking at the formaton of the French during
the Batled it could be suggested that it was actually luck and favourable circumstances. The stance of
the French was to fght in close formaton of two divisions on foot and the third mounted; this proved
disastrous as the batlefeld was relatvely narrowd and with heavy armour it proved difcult to fght
efectvely. In this respectd it would be more accurate to agree with the judgementd as Henry was not to
know the tactcs of the Frenchd or whether the batlefeld and weather – which was muddyd making it
harder to move – would give them an advantage; although it didd Henry was not to know this in
advanced and so whilst the situaton provoked Henry to think in terms of a military standpointd it was the
circumstance the challenged him to do so.
Another factor that should be analysed is the conquest of Normandy. Henry was prepared to carefully
engage in siege warfare afer failing to place diplomatc pressure on the French in August 1917d and so
took to France approximately 10d500 troops and several canons. This implies that it was his leadership
abilites that led to a victoryd as the campaign was well funded making the English a formidable threat.
Through his victories across the campaign towards Rouend he was able to cut of support from Parisd a
signifcant victory as it meant he was able to keep control of the people of Normandy without the threat
of the French. From thisd you can infer that it would be more accurate to disagree with the judgmentd as
his leadership qualites had clearly enabled him to gain contnuous victories over the course of the
campaign. Henry’s manipulaton of the tensions between the Burgundians and Armagnacs also suggests
his military prowess and leadership skillsd as it gives evidence to how Henry utlised his resources and
others tensions for England’s gaind and therefore gave him the opportunity to bargain for greater power
over French land and have allies in France; this would be as a result be useful in case any further
campaigns against France were to occurd or when England was in need of more troops against other
France in the years 1415-1421.’ How far do you agree with this judgement? – TIMED 45 MINS
I believe that it would be accurate to say that luck and favourable circumstances did aid Henry V’s
success in France over this tme periodd however his leadership skills were also a key factor in securing
victories over France. To assess thisd you would need to evaluate and analyse signifcant events such as
the Batle of Agincourtd the conquest of Normandy and the Treaty of Troyesd and whether it was
leadership or luck that gave Henry upper hand.
The frst factor to be assessed is the Batle of Agincourt; prior to this batle the English had sufered
severe losses in the number of troops due to fghtng and a dysentery outbreak. This led to Henry
marching his troops to Calaisd where English Garrisons were based; from thisd you can infer that perhaps
it was his leadership skillsd as he was able to make a judgement that would best suit their situaton. This
implies how Henry V contnuously thought like that of a warriord and so was able to gain an advantage
against the French. This can also be shown by how the English was able to fnd a crossing point along the
River Somme unprotected by the Frenchd and so were able to cross peacefully on October 19 th. You can
infer from this that had Henry not used his initatve in realising the problem and coming up with a
solutond then perhaps the English troops would have been more a risk to a failure than they already
wered which suggests how it was Henry’s leadership that account for his success rather than luck and
favourable circumstances in this situaton. Howeverd by looking at the formaton of the French during
the Batled it could be suggested that it was actually luck and favourable circumstances. The stance of
the French was to fght in close formaton of two divisions on foot and the third mounted; this proved
disastrous as the batlefeld was relatvely narrowd and with heavy armour it proved difcult to fght
efectvely. In this respectd it would be more accurate to agree with the judgementd as Henry was not to
know the tactcs of the Frenchd or whether the batlefeld and weather – which was muddyd making it
harder to move – would give them an advantage; although it didd Henry was not to know this in
advanced and so whilst the situaton provoked Henry to think in terms of a military standpointd it was the
circumstance the challenged him to do so.
Another factor that should be analysed is the conquest of Normandy. Henry was prepared to carefully
engage in siege warfare afer failing to place diplomatc pressure on the French in August 1917d and so
took to France approximately 10d500 troops and several canons. This implies that it was his leadership
abilites that led to a victoryd as the campaign was well funded making the English a formidable threat.
Through his victories across the campaign towards Rouend he was able to cut of support from Parisd a
signifcant victory as it meant he was able to keep control of the people of Normandy without the threat
of the French. From thisd you can infer that it would be more accurate to disagree with the judgmentd as
his leadership qualites had clearly enabled him to gain contnuous victories over the course of the
campaign. Henry’s manipulaton of the tensions between the Burgundians and Armagnacs also suggests
his military prowess and leadership skillsd as it gives evidence to how Henry utlised his resources and
others tensions for England’s gaind and therefore gave him the opportunity to bargain for greater power
over French land and have allies in France; this would be as a result be useful in case any further
campaigns against France were to occurd or when England was in need of more troops against other
