How large was the French Army at Agincourt?

[Captain Gideon]

This topic must have been mentioned a few times before but I'd thought that I would bring it up again.
Can anyone tell me just how large the French Army was at Agincourt?
Now I have a few sources one is Osprey Campaign Series book which says:
French
First Line
Up to 2,400 Mounted and 8,000 Dismounted MAA
Second Line
6,000 Dismounted MAA and 2,000 Crossbowmen and Archers
Third Line
6,000 Mounted
Now the other source has it as:
7,000 Mounted
15.000 Dismounted MAA
3,000 Crossbowmen
Now the English is always in the 5,000 or more with the bulk of these as Archers.
I've also heard that other sources say that the French only had 1,200 Mounted which I don't believe.
Also from what I've read some English sources from the time say that the French outnumbered the English 5 to 1 so if the Englsih had around 5,000 then the French would have around 25,000 or so.
Can anyone help.

[Charlie_]

I've also heard that other sources say that the French only had 1,200 Mounted which I don't believe.

Could well be true. Consider that all those dismounted men-at-arms had horses... they had just dismounted! So the army could well have consisted almost entirely of cavalry, for arguments sake, but most of them dismounted to fight on foot, with just a small number assigned to the mounted attacks on the wings.

Also from what I've read some English sources from the time say that the French outnumbered the English 5 to 1 so if the Englsih had around 5,000 then the French would have around 25,000 or so.

Well, they would say that wouldn't they, to make it look like an even more impressive victory! I'd take accounts of numbers from the victors with a generous pinch of salt.

I think general consensus these days is that the English weren't so outnumbered as popular legend would once have us believe.

Outnumbered, yes, but not horrifically so.

[Arlequín]

I've come across references to 4:3 in France's favour, which if the English Army was 5-6,000 archers and 1,500 men at arms, would only produce a French army of 10,000 or so. I imagine it as being in the region of 15,000 myself.

Berry Herald and the Monk of St. Denis give 4,800-5,000 Men at Arms in the French vanguard, while Jean de Wavrin gives 8,000. The mainward is given as being in the same ballpark.

If we take the legends as true, then the mainward probably had the valets and 'lesser men at arms' pushed out of the vanguard by the jockeying for position by knights and nobility. The mounted wings were apparently formed from the same men.

There was on average one mounted 'archer' (bow or crossbow) per man at arms and as these are not mentioned as a rule, I imagine they formed the rearward nobody really talks about.

So 5-8,000 gentry, knights and nobles in the vanguard, same again for valets etc. in the main and same again in missile troops in the rearward. So 15 - 24,000 all told. Works for me at least.

[jon_1066]

Well the French loss at Agincourt would point to the difficulty of moving and maneuvering that number of troops since that was their principal difficulty.

[Calimero]

Just my two cents but generally, archeological finds tend to prove that "ancient battles reports" are generally exaggerated… both in "facts" reported and numbers involved

[Captain Gideon]

Now I'm very confused so all of these books about Agincourt are more or less a lie when it comes to the number of French.

But what of the English would those numbers be wrong too?

And if think that the numbers of the French are wrong at Agincourt then how about Crecy?

At Crecy the English Army under Edward III around 9,000 men met a French force of 27,000 men so would you say that this number is wrong as well?

[jon_1066]

Nothing is a lie as such - most are best estimates by historians looking at various sources.  So chroniclers say one thing, someone studying the muster rolls another.  Ultimately no-one really knows for sure.

[painterman]

One of the most recent (and ongoing) studies is by Southampton University - they built and maintain the English Soldier database.

They now have a section on the French army of 1415 - heres the link: http://www.medievalsoldier.org/publications/French_Army.htm
There is less original sources for the French, whereas the names of nearly all the English are known.

Current view for this group seems to be about 12,000 I recall, not so significantly larger than the English - and of course about 3,000 crossbows and non-nobles & retainers didn't engage in the fighting on the day.
But you 'takes your money and makes your own choice' - no exact numbers known (as per most medieval battles) so you won't be wrong.

Simon.

[levied troop]

That link is extremely interesting and helpful, thanks.

I was going to add that Sumption (2015) estimates the French at 8-9,000 men at arms and 4-5,000 bowmen and infantry.  His conclusion is that the army was smaller than planned because of divisions in the French nobility.

From the same source, the French army gathered for the invasion of England in 1386-7 when the nobility were less diviided is estimated at 19,000 to 28,000 and that this number of troops, possibly an uncontrolled muster as the expedition proved very popular, created serious problems in logistics and provision of ships.  The numbers eventually led to the expedition being abandoned.

I'm not sure the medieval mind is very different from ours, it's not a medieval ability to create fantastical numbers, more a human ability.  Some chroniclers will report 'fake news', gossip and rumour. Some records will be incomplete or misunderstood, new material comes to light and changes perceptions, some records may be very exact (compiled by hard working civil servants by candle light) but still not reflect absolute reality.

Decide the number you feel is most accurate and keep a note of your sources 

[Arlequín]

Humakt is quite correct to raise the issue of logistics as a determiner of army numbers though and certainly armies broke down to take separate routes, or even move at different times, so as to be sure of feeding the troops. As a rule 3-4,000 extra mouths was all an area could cope with at a time, so armies of 9-12,000, with three 'battles' was a logistical, as well as a tactical choice.

The unusually large armies at Towton (1461) had converged at a single point from different routes. The Yorkists for example broke down into three armies travelling by different routes and days apart. Warwick went via the A5, Edward via the A1 and Norfolk via the A12. Recruiting as they went, they were able to expand their core forces and to build quite a large army, likewise the Lancastrians, to produce a battle that may have featured 25,000 per side. Typical WOTR battles were much smaller.

If I recall correctly, the French Army in 1415 was attracting numbers as it went, until such time as it reached the point where it outnumbered the English sufficiently and the capacity for the area to feed it. Under the circumstances an army of c. 20,000 is possible, but not for very long at all.

Certainly though when large numbers are bandied about, "how did they feed them?" pretty much gives the lie to exaggerated numbers.

[Calimero]

... it's not a medieval ability to create fantastical numbers, more a human ability.  Some chroniclers will report 'fake news', gossip and rumour.

You mean alternative facts...

[Charlie_]

From the same source, the French army gathered for the invasion of England in 1386-7 when the nobility were less diviided is estimated at 19,000 to 28,000 ... The numbers eventually led to the expedition being abandoned.

Phew!

Now I'm very confused so all of these books about Agincourt are more or less a lie when it comes to the number of French.

But what of the English would those numbers be wrong too?

And if think that the numbers of the French are wrong at Agincourt then how about Crecy?

At Crecy the English Army under Edward III around 9,000 men met a French force of 27,000 men so would you say that this number is wrong as well?

To be honest I don't think it really matters to be honest. If you're building armies to recreate these battles, just go for numbers that seem right to you, and make for a good game. As you can see, no one really knows for sure how big the armies really were.