On 25 October 1415, Henry V of England took on the mighty French forces at the Battle of Agincourt. Despite being heavily outnumbered, his troops won. It would become one of the most legendary victories in English history. But how much of the story we know today is true? In Agincourt: The Real Story, historical conflict analyst Dr Mike Livingston journeys through northern France in the footsteps of Henry V and his army, from Harfleur to Agincourt. Sign up to watch Livingston argues that the traditionally recognised site of the battle incorrectly locates the English position in the French position. Additionally, he wonders if Henry’s strategy alone won him the battle – or whether forces beyond his control proved pivotal. In the battle, Henry arranged his archers into low long wings either side of his centre, where his dismounted men-at-arms stood between further groups of archers. “As the French approached, they would be shot at from both sides while the surrounding woods and stakes would prevent his archers from being overrun,” Livingston explains. Livingston reconstructs the battle with Dr Marina Viallon, medieval arms and armour expert. Ultimately, it saw Henry win a total victory against the French, losing just hundreds of men compared with the thousands of French losses. Although the French men-at-arms facing them would have been eager and fully protected, wearing a combination of mail and plate armour, and the distinctive pointed helmet known as the pig’s nose bascinet, they had a problem. “The Dauphin had not yet arrived on the battlefield,” explains Viallon. “Instead the French were being led by various dukes of the realm, and they didn’t always get along. So a lot of other factions were actually fighting for power around the king and so you have four or five different leaders in this army.” This was their biggest problem, says Viallon. “The English had a clear and strong leader. And the French basically had too many cooks in the kitchen, but no chef.” Dr Mike Livingston meets with master arrowsmith and fletcher Will Sherman in Agincourt: The Real StoryImage Credit: History Hit The result was confused command, and commitment to a foiled plan even as conditions on the battlefield turned muddy and difficult. In this light, victory at Agincourt was not a foregone conclusion for the English, but almost a fluke. “Henry did not even want a fight,” says Livingston. “He tried his best to avoid it but the French caught up to him.” In Agincourt: The Real Story, Livingston explores the vital role of Henry’s archers, and works with master arrowsmith and fletcher Will Sherman to explore the finely honed technology that helped win the day. He also investigates whether Henry was seeking battle or running away, exploring whether illness among his troops motivated a return home. Livingston considers how Agincourt permeated as a tale of bravery and triumph against all the odds, inspiring Shakespeare and thereafter everyone from Churchill to Kenneth Branagh. Sign up to History Hit to watch original documentaries and ad-free listening to History Hit podcasts. Sign up to watch

2024 Election Roundup: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

America's Problem in a Nutshell

Remote and on-location observations by a Chinese mission provide further evidence for that scenario.

They came from surprisingly far away.

Traveling in style comes at a huge cost to the planet.

The region was witness to a large-scale attempt to capture orcas, which was fatal for some of them.

In Brazil and Paraguay, they are called "urutaú", from the Guaraní words for bird and ghost.

There’s no need to space them out, according to this research.

After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, she and her allies refused to accept responsibility and instead blamed former FBI director James Comey, Russian President Vladimir Putin, former President Barack Obama, Wikileaks, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), supposed sexism, and, of course, "millions of white people." Having just lost the 2024 election to President Donald Trump by an even greater margin, Kamala Harris, her campaign, and allied Democrats are similarly looking for someone or something else to blame. Rather than admit that Harris ran a bad campaign with a weak and amorphous message or acknowledge that her radicalism, lack of transparency, alienation of key voter blocs, difficulties communicating, disenfranchisement of Democratic primary voters, prioritization of vibes over policy, complicity in Biden's failures, and collusion with a dishonest media likely turned off voters — or that Trump simply made the better pitch to Americans — they have instead settled on a scapegoat: President Joe Biden, the man they spent years pretending was fit for office then unceremoniously kicked to the curb. CNN's senior White House correspondent Min Jung Lee told Wolf Blitzer Wednesday, "Obviously there will be a lot of soul-searching and a lot of questions in the coming days about what, if anything, could Democrats and the Harris campaign have done differently. One thing we are clearly already starting to see take place is finger-pointing and the blame game, and a lot of that is going to be directed at President Biden." 'The biggest onus of this loss is on President Biden.' Lee added that the efforts to blame Biden are "even coming from some folks inside of the Harris campaign. One senior official I just talked to said, 'Biden will hold a lot of blame for it,' and frankly, they said, 'He should.'" Before deleting his X account Wednesday, David Plouffe, senior adviser to the Harris campaign, insinuated that Biden left Harris in a lurch, writing, "We dug out of a deep hole but not enough. A devastating loss." Biden — who consistently polled better than Harris — did the vice president no favors by calling millions of Trump supporters "garbage," letting the vice president humiliate herself during Hurricane Helene, and donning a Trump 2024 hat after a 9/11 memorial in Pennsylvania. However, Harris' allies appear to be primarily upset over Biden's decision to run in the first place, having signaled years earlier he would only serve one term. Several high-ranking Democrats, including three Harris campaign advisers, told the Associated Press that Biden should have thrown in the towel earlier. Those complaining on the condition of anonymity apparently believe that had Biden not waited until his ejection from the race through what some have called a "coup," Harris or some other Democratic candidate would have been afforded more than 107 days to fabricate a winning personality and agenda. "The biggest onus of this loss is on President Biden," said failed Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who endorsed Harris. "If he had stepped down in January instead of July, we may be in a very different place." Matt Bennett, executive vice president of the Democrat-supporting think tank Third Way, said, "Harris was dealt a really bad hand. Some of it was Biden's making and some maybe not." "He shouldn't have run," Jim Manley, top aide to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told Politico. "This is not time to pull punches or be concerned about anyone's feelings. He and his staff have done an enormous amount of damage to this country." Democratic strategist Mark Longabaugh similarly suggested that "Biden should have stepped aside earlier and let the party put together a longer game plan." Democrats appear reluctant to blame Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), and the other Democrats who ostensibly forced Harris' more popular boss out of the race. Biden reportedly called Trump Wednesday to congratulate him on his historic victory and invited him to the White House. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!