JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 244 JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 245 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT: AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION? TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND A The recent publicity surrounding the proposed construction of a wind farm close to the Medieval Agincourt battlefield in France has provoked an outcry suggesting that, once again, a European historic battlefield is at risk. A recent archaeological survey on the Agincourt battlefield has, however, failed to find positive artefactual evidence of the conflict on the officially designated battlefield site. Using the available histor- ical and archaeological data from Agincourt and evidence from the successfully sur- veyed Medieval battlefield at Towton, England, an interpretation can be proposed, which highlights an alternative location for the French-English battle of 1415. Unfortunately, if this hypothesis was confirmed it is possible that, in attempting to protect an incorrect site, the correct site is more likely to be left unprotected and might eventually be destroyed. Introduction (In order to avoid confusion within the text, both the battle and the vil- lage will be spelt with a ‘g’, as in Agincourt. The author therefore apologises to the villagers of Azincourt, France). On 27 January 2004, the Daily Telegraph newspaper published a letter from the actor Robert Hardy MBE, an authority on the English longbow. The letter (Hardy 2004) highlighted the proposed construction of a wind farm on the site of the Battle of Agincourt, France, fought between the English and French on October 25, 1415. The letter began with the following description of the problem: Sir—The préfet of the Pas de Calais has received a planning application to build a wind farm on the edge of the battlefield of Agincourt. Each wind turbine would be more than 400 ft high, roughly half the height of the Eiffel Tower, and certainly four of them, to be sited on the left of the English position at the battle in 1415, would dominate the whole field. In order to prevent the proposed development, many individuals and groups were mobilised into action to protest against the wind farm. It was not long before the British and French media were covering the protests of those who purported to have the protection of the battlefield landscape at heart. However, as is the case with many early historical battlefields, it has not been archaeologically confirmed where the site of the battle lies. It is there- fore possible that most people were overlooking the most serious threat to the JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 246 246 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND battlefield: if the actual site has not been proven archaeologically, then how can one protect all, or part of it? Indeed, the real site might lie in a different location? In order to prove the whereabouts of the actual site, all available resources should be employed, not just the analysis of historical documents. As the threat to any physical aspect of the battlefield would involve the disturbance of the ground surface or sub-surface, then the issue is primarily one of archae- ology and not simply of history. Although there is a great deal of historical evidence relating to the battle, this provides possible conjecture as to its loca- tion. There is, however, arguably no archaeological evidence for the site of the conflict, which is unfortunate, as this would authenticate only a single site. In her comprehensive book, The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, Professor Anne Curry states that, ‘There is no dispute about the location of the battle’ (Curry 2000: 1). This is a bold statement, and so, in order to stimulate discussion, this paper will illustrate how selected historical information can be used to highlight a particular point of view—in this case, an alternative location for the battlefield. The validity of this view can be verified or disregarded by carrying out an archaeological evaluation of the battlefield. Historical Evidence Historical maps provide several potential locations for the Battle of Agincourt. The 18th century Cassini map of the area (Cassini 1744–89) for example, illustrates the location of the battle using the common contemporary symbol of a single sword (Fig. 1). This, however, is shown to the west of the village of Agincourt, whereas the acknowledged site of the battle, as suggested by some early chroniclers, lies to the east of the settlement. The 14th century French chronicler Waurin, for instance, clearly states that ‘. . . the French had ordered their battles between two small woods, one close to Agincourt, the other to Tramecourt. The site was narrow and very advanta- geous for the English and the very opposite for the French.’ (Hardy & Hardy 1864–91, in Curry 2000: 159) Because the villages of Agincourt and Tramecourt lie close to each other and are separated by a narrow road and a long strip of land, it is presumed that the battle took place on this, the accepted piece of ground (Fig. 2 & 3). As if to emphasise this point, a small enclosure (Fig. 3) now marks the site of what are believed to be the graves of the French soldiers killed in the battle (Knight 1862, in Curry 2000, 381). This hypothesis was apparently strength- JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 247 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 247 Fig. 1. Eighteenth century map of the Agincourt area, by Cassini, displaying a sword as a symbol of the presumed battle site ened by Sir John Woodford’s excavation of the site of the graves in 1818, where he found human remains and artefacts said to be from the battle (Woodford 1818; Waller 2004, pers comm.). Some time later, in 1870, a large Calvary or cross was erected by the Vicomte de Tramecourt at the burial place indicated by Woodford (Green 1969: 29–30, in Curry 2000: 383). However, another map by Nicholas (2nd edition, 1832; in Curry 2000: 365)once again clearly shows the village of Agincourt in an area to, what is apparently, the east of the battlefield. This matter is simply dismissed by Curry (Curry 2000: 365), who suggests that we ignore, what is essentially a com- parison with the Cassini map, by asking that we ‘Note that the village of Agincourt is placed in error on the right rather than the left’. In essence, these historical references are either accepted or rejected, depend- ing upon how well they match the conventional view. There are many such contradicting references in the historical literature, and it has therefore been the task of the historian to sort or interpret them as is considered appropri- ate. It is consequently difficult to remain objective in the face of such abun- dant contradictory evidence. JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 248 248 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND Fig. 2. Modern map of the Agincourt area showing topographical contouring (IGN) JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 249 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 249 Fig. 3. Map of the area between Agincourt and Tramecourt showing the recognised location of the battlefield and the site of the graves (IGN) Archaeological Evaluation The author and his colleague, Simon Richardson, carry out multi-disciplinary archaeological evaluations of historic battlefields (Sutherland 2003). As part of these assessments, we conduct metal detector surveys by systematically walk- ing the ground and recording the location of every artefact found, on a hand- held satellite navigation instrument (GPS). We then transfer the data onto computer software which overlays it onto a map of the survey area (Fig. 4). We were invited to instigate an archaeological survey of the accepted battlefield site for Granada Television in 2002, as guests of the Agincourt battlefield visitor’s centre. Granada television, which was filming a programme on the battle as part of the Channel 5 series ‘Battlefield Detectives, had been involved with us during our successful archaeological research on the Medieval battlefield at Towton, North Yorkshire (AD 1461). That survey had already located over 1,000 artefacts from the battle of Towton (Fig. 5), including hun- dreds of arrowheads (Plate 1), and it was therefore considered likely that such techniques could successfully locate evidence of the battle of Agincourt. During the Agincourt fieldwork, although several of the fields still contained crops and were therefore not accessible to be surveyed, enough fields were available for a reasonable sample of the battlefield to be undertaken (Fig. 4). JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 250 250 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND Fig. 4. Map of the fields between Agincourt, Tramecourt and Maisoncelle showing the location of artefacts recorded during the archaeological survey JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 251 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 251 Fig. 5. Map of the battlefield at Towton, Yorkshire (AD 1461) showing the locations of fifteenth century artefacts JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 252 252 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND Plate 1. A selection of fifteenth century arrowheads discovered during the Towton Battlefield Archaeological Survey The results of the survey are important, as approximately 100 diagnostic artefacts were recorded from a total of many hundreds of modern and insignificant artefacts over a period of several days. These included 32 coins, ranging in date from the Roman period to the 20th century. However, even though a silver Roman coin was found, suggesting that the site had not been significantly metal detected in the past, no obvious Medieval coins were recov- ered. Evidence of projectiles was recorded, although unfortunately these con- sisted almost entirely of examples of ballistic ammunition, comprising three lead round shot and several cylindrical heads of bullets and cases. These obvi- ously derived from later periods up to the present. Examples of post-Medieval silver and copper alloy military and civilian but- tons were also located, as well as evidence of prehistoric surface finds, such as a flint tool core. Additionally, there were many sherds of pottery, once again dating from the Roman period to the 20th century. However, there was a significant dearth of Medieval pottery across the whole battlefield, which, for an agricultural landscape that lies between two Medieval villages, should be considered unusual. It is therefore possible that this land was not culti- JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 253 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 253 vated in the Medieval period. The abundance of artefacts from many different periods, other than Medieval, suggests that if there were Medieval artefacts on the site, the survey should have located them. Only one artefact, a possible arrowhead, was located that might have derived from the Medieval battle. Although it has been radiographed by the Royal Armouries, Leeds, it has not been positively identified as an arrowhead. It is, however, remarkably similar to an artefact which Woodford found whilst exca- vating the graves in 1818 and described as such in a contemporary letter (Waller 2004 pers com). Unfortunately, the more recently discovered ‘arrow- head’ was not found on the centre of the recognised battlefield, but to the south of it, nearer to Maisoncelle (Fig. 4), where the English army was believed to have camped (Hardy & Hardy 1864, in Curry 2000: 155). It is therefore possible that the battle was fought in this location, much further to the south than is currently recognised, thereby providing yet another possible location for the battle. Equally, the artefact may have been dropped within the camp, or whilst the army was travelling to the battle further to the north. It is cer- tainly possible that the arrowhead confirms the location of a French attack on the English camp on the night before the main battle (Douet-D’Arcq in Curry 2000: 155). As the metal detector survey was drawing to a close, the team considered the possibility that, due to the lack of diagnostic Medieval material found, the survey area might not have been positioned on the actual site of the Medieval battlefield. The hypothesis was therefore initially considered that the battlefield might be situated on an alternative piece of ground. It is therefore important to re-analyse the available information and interpret it in the light of this new information. Re-Evaluation of Existing Evidence Firstly, there are those historical quotes that firmly place the battle at its present site. These are very specific in that they clearly place the battlefield between Agincourt and Tramecourt. However, one must question the logic of a French army that, arriving on the battlefield first, places itself in a dis- advantageous location. Waurin states, that this site ‘. . . was narrow and very advantageous for the English and the very opposite for the French’ (Hardy & Hardy 1864, in Curry 2000: 159). Would the French really carry out such a manoeuvre when their forces outnumbered the English by several to one (Taylor and Roskell 1975, in Curry 2000: 33)? Would the French not have selected a broad, open piece of ground so they could easily outflank the smaller English army? Once at the site chosen by the French, the English JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 254 254 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND found their way blocked by the French army. Both forces then camped for the night, the English at Maisoncelle, the French in the villages of Agincourt and Ruisseauville to the north (Dupont 1837 in Curry 2000: 117). The only village blocking the road on which the English army were trav- elling north was at Ruisseauville, a religious settlement (note l’Abbaye, Fig. 2) and therefore an appropriate place for the French to lodge. To the south, between Ruisseauville and Agincourt, is a very large, wide and open expanse of land (Fig. 2). It is at this point that one of the French names of the battle should be considered. The early 15th century French text Le Pastoralet, for example, gives the French name of the conflict: ‘Here follows the fourteenth chapter which contains the battle of Ruisseauville of the French against the English’ (Blanchard 1983 in Curry 2000: 351). It is strange that this document names the battle after a settlement to the north of the accepted battlefield site, when there was allegedly a castle and settlement virtually on the battlefield at Agincourt. However, it was the English King, Henry V, and not the French, who, as victor and as tradition dictated, named the battle after the castle at Agincourt, which he could see from the battlefield (Douet-D’Arcq in Curry 2000: 164). Nevertheless, for him to be able to notice the castle, it did not have to be immediately beside the battlefield. It is therefore worth considering the matter of location not in direct, but in indirect terms. Reading between the lines of the historical documents, essen- tially in what are the more casual references, a description of the site of the battle is sometimes given. For example, an anonymous chronicle (Douet- D’Arcq 1862, in Curry 2000: 115) describes how ‘. . . the French and English assembled for battle around the hour of prime in a place near Agincourt and Ruisseauville.’ Although this might initially be seen as a reference to a very general location, it mentions two settlements that are very close to each other and therefore, generally speaking, the reference to one of these is superfluous. If it was meant to be a detailed description, it would infer that the battlefield could be found at a different location to the accepted site. Another text by Thomas Basin, Bishop of Lisieux (Samaran and Saint-Rémy 1934 in Curry 2000: 19) gives a further insight into why these settlements have been cho- sen. ‘This unlucky battle was fought near to the town of Hesdin in the fields of two villages, the one Agincourt, the other Ruisseauville . . .’. The phrase ‘. . . in the fields of two villages . . .’ is important, as it is a precise description (where one is not otherwise necessary), of an area of land across a boundary between two villages. However, this text states that these villages are Agincourt and Ruisseauville and not Agincourt and Tramecourt, as suggested by Waurin. When a map of the land between Agincourt and Ruisseauville is consulted, JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 255 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 255 it can be observed that the boundary between the two villages meets in the base of a small valley that is aligned in a southwest to northeast direction (Fig. 2). Additionally, several historical texts clearly suggest that each army formed up on different types of ground. For example, the Chronique de Ruisseauville states that the English retired to their host and straight-away put themselves into battle order. The English were lodged on the unploughed land and on firm ground, and the French were in the grain fields between a wood and a hedge of stakes (haie de pieux). The French vanguard were in much discomfort and their feet often sank deep into the ground (Curry 2000: 125). If the armies were on different types of ground, they must have been fighting across a boundary of some form. However, the fact that only the French van- guard, or forward guard appears to have been on softer ground with their feet sinking into the surface, suggests that a strip of land between the English and the French was different from the other parts of the battlefield. If the battle was fought on almost level ground, as dictated by the cur- rently accepted site, then how would the land differ from one place to another to such an extent that the fact would be noted? If, however, the battle was fought on uneven ground, for example in a valley, then after a night of heavy rain, as several chronicles suggest (Chronique de Ruisseauville (ibid.), some land might have been more waterlogged than other parts. It can also be observed that there are what appear to be steep sections of the southern face of the valley as if there were once old strip fields in this area. The presence of these steps suggests that these fields have not been ploughed regularly enough to destroy these earthworks and therefore, for most of their history, they have been left unploughed. This area of ground would therefore have formed a good defensive front on which the English could have fought, giving them a certain advantage if they could entice the French towards them. By provoking the French Vanguard with storms of arrows, this might have been possible. Perhaps the most compelling evidence for an alternative battlefield, and an answer as to why the ground in the centre of the battlefield was so different to the remaining areas, is provided by the Gesta Henrici Quinti, possibly writ- ten ca. 1417, only two years after the battle. In her book, Professor Curry states that It is generally agreed that the Gesta Henrici Quinti [The Deeds of Henry V] offers the most reliable account of the campaign. The Gesta was written close to the event . . . in the spring of 1417 . . . and must stand as the earliest full narrative of the campaign (Curry 2000: 22). JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 256 256 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND The account describes the formation of the enemy troops and the topogra- phy of the battlefield thus: [The French forces], in compact masses, ‘battles’ and columns, their numbers being so great as not to be even comparable with ours, at length took up a posi- tion facing us and rather more than half a mile away, filling a very broad field like a countless swarm of locusts, and there was only a valley, and not so wide at that, between us and them (Taylor and Roskell 1975 in Curry 2000: 33). This text cannot be describing the same piece of land that Waurin describes as ‘. . . narrow and very advantageous for the English and the very opposite for the French’ (Hardy & Hardy 1864–91, in Curry 2000: 159). There is only one area of land on the road between Maisoncelle and Ruisseauville that matches the description of a valley, and this lies just to the south of the latter (Fig. 6). This area is characterised by a narrow, shallow valley with a slightly steeper face on its southern side, part of which is now uncultivated. This ground still holds evidence of what might originally have been field lynchets, or former terraces, which might have remained unploughed Fig. 6. Detailed map of the land between Agincourt, Maisoncelle and Ruisseauville showing the location of an alternative site of battle across a valley which has a boundary running along its length (IGN) JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 257 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 257 at the time of the battle and therefore would have been meadow. If this steeper ground, along what would have been the land lying in front of the English lines, was meadow in the 15th century, it might explain the reason for the different types of ground conditions described in many of the texts. It is therefore interesting that the three chroniclers, Le Ferve, Waurin and Monstrelet, whose accounts are generally very similar, all make the following statement, regarding a certain piece of ground: Then the archers who were in the meadow also raised a great shout and fired with great vigour on the French (Le Ferve Waurin and Monstrelet, Curry 106). The Gesta Henrici Quinti clearly describes a small valley between the two forces, with the French taking up position in a very broad field opposite the English side of the valley. This is not the only text to describe the battlefield in terms of its topography. In the slightly later Chronique de Normandie (Williams 1850 in Curry 2000: 185), the author confirms that, ‘on that day they [the two armies] were drawn up in order of battle in a valley near Agincourt’, thereby confirming the text in the Gesta. If it had been raining all night, the surrounding fields would have drained into the valley and this would have been significantly wetter in its base. This corresponds with a description of the ground between the two armies: ‘Because of the muddiness of the place, however, the French did not want to proceed far into the field’ (from The St. Albans Chronicle ca. 1420–22 Latin, in Curry 2000: 51). In fact, it was noted how the French attempted to avoid this piece of ground: ‘The [English] king realised the astuteness of the French in standing firm in one place so that they might not be exhausted by advancing on foot through the muddy field’ (Galbraith 1937 in Curry 2000: 51). Because of the narrow nature of the valley, the armies, which formed on both sides of it, would have been on dry ground, whilst it is possible that the French forward guard stood in the base of the valley. This within itself sug- gests that there was an obstruction behind the French and therefore little room for the French army to retire further back so that the vanguard could remain on dry ground. If the village of Ruisseauville lay immediately to the rear of the French troops (Fig. 6) then this hypothesis is strengthened. When eventually, the English archers began the battle by provoking the French with an intense arrow storm (Douet-D’Arcq 1862 in Curry 115), the French would have had little option but to attack, even if this meant cross- ing the unsuitable ground. If, therefore, the new site were accepted as the actual battlefield of Agincourt, the French would initially appear to have chosen a good piece of ground on which to fight a Medieval battle: JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 258 258 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND – they were located outside a small village which would have contained enclo- sures that they would have kept at their back to prevent an outflanking manoeuvre (however unlikely this might have been); – the field was broad so that they could easily outflank the enemy, who were fewer in number; – there was a valley before them, which contained boggy ground that would have encumbered the enemy’s progress north; – as the French initially refused to advance, they must have held the better ground, a typical tactic in Medieval battles, whilst the English were forced to advance from Maisoncelle to meet them. It should therefore be considered more likely that the French would have cho- sen the site close to Ruisseauville, rather than the narrow piece of land between Agincourt and Tramecourt suggested by Waurin. In fact, if the French had retained their archers in the forward position instead of sending them to the rear, and remained in the better position, they should easily have won the battle. Additionally, if the French had carried out their original strategy, as described in a battle plan that was re-discovered in the late 20th century (Phillpotts 1984 in Curry 2000: 464), instead of charging towards the English into, what might have been, a recently waterlogged piece of ground, they might also have been victorious. A Comparison with another Medieval Battlefield In order to contrast Agincourt with another Medieval battlefield, the results are compared with those gained from the Towton Battlefield Archaeological survey (Sutherland, forthcoming). This battle was fought between the forces of the House of Lancaster and those of the House of York, in 1461, approx- imately fifty years after Agincourt. The archaeological evidence from Towton is extensive, with mass graves (Fig. 7), Medieval arrowheads (Fig. 6), and other fragments of 15th century artefacts to denote precisely where the battle took place (Fig. 5). There are a number of parallels between the two battles. At Towton, the Lancastrian King Henry VI, Henry V’s father, was attempt- ing to block the road to prevent the enemy, Edward Earl of March, from travelling north to York. Henry VI lined up his troops to the south of the village of Towton on the northern side of a small valley, blocking off the route to the north (Fig. 8). The Yorkist troops were forced to advance to meet their enemy until the armies were in range of each other. Both sides made extensive use of the longbow until one side forced the other to advance. However, on this occasion the Lancastrian troops were forced into action, not because their archers had been sent to the rear but because the strength of the wind gave the Yorkist archers a longer striking distance (Ellis 1809). JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 259 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 259 Fig. 7. Plan of an archaeological trench across one of the mass graves from the battle of Towton (AD 1461) It is therefore probably more than a coincidence that both battlefields incor- porate a valley across which the battle either was fought, as at Towton, or might have been fought, as at Agincourt. The Graves The main problem at Agincourt, however, is that the area of the graves, where the French dead were apparently buried, lies far to the south of the valley. It is this site that has formed the basis for many interpretations of the battle. If the dead from the battle lie half a mile from the alternative loca- tion of the battlefield then, presumably, an alternative hypothesis is made redundant as the dead would surely not have been carried so far from the scene of the combat? However, the battle at Agincourt is also famed for one particular event. Following the battle, fearing that the French were attempting to attack his troops from behind, Henry V ordered that all of the French prisoners, held to the rear of his army, should be killed. Large numbers of French were JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 260 260 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND Fig. 8. Map of troop alignments, on either side of a valley, as recorded during the Towton Battlefield Archaeological Survey therefore slaughtered by their captors. The French then retired from the field and the English were victorious. If the French were killed near to the baggage train, that is, behind the English lines (Cole 1858, 113–24 in Curry 46), it is possible that the graves are those of the French prisoners and not of those killed in battle. This would explain why the graves might lie to the south of the battlefield and not at its centre. Over time, historians might have inadvertently moved the site of the battle to lie next to the site of the graves. These lay next to the road that led from the English camp at Maisoncelle to the battlefield, which must lie somewhere to the north of this village. As the graves were also situated on land that was dominated by the castle at Agincourt, the alleged location of the battle could therefore have progressively moved south over the centuries. JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 261 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 261 The Chapel on the Battlefield In the early 18th century, the Marquise de Tramecourt erected the memo- rial ‘chapelle de la Gacogne’ to the dead from the battle near the graves (Wylie 1919: 225). The chapel might have been associated with the battlefield, and vice versa. It would therefore have fossilised the location of the battlefield in a particular spot. Later that century, during the French Revolution, this chapel was destroyed. By the time Woodford excavated the graves, the remains of the chapel had probably been erased completely, as Woodford does not mention it. The site of the chapel has been lost ever since. In August 2002, as part of the archaeological assessment, the author car- ried out geophysical surveys around the site of the graves. The survey revealed that to the south and east of the site appears to be evidence of large pits. To the north of the site, the survey revealed what appear to be the remains of a large rectangular structure (Fig. 9). These are probably the grave pits and the foundations of the ‘chapelle de la Gacogne’, built by the Tramecourt family. This geophysical evidence now awaits confirmation through evaluation. Fig. 9. Earth resistance survey showing possible grave pits and a former chapel on land bordering ‘The Graves’, near Agincourt JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 262 262 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND Conclusions As the current archaeological data are interpreted, the question is raised as to why there is so little evidence of a Medieval conflict on the accepted site of the battle. Does the chapel commemorate the dead from the battle, or those killed in its bloody aftermath? Can positive evidence of the battle be found nearer to Ruisseauville? Until further investigations take place this cannot be determined. This paper is not claiming that the location for the battle of Agincourt should be moved, as there is currently insufficient evidence to make such a claim. However, there is also insufficient evidence to state categorically that it took place in the accepted location. The simple solution would be, as the Towton Battlefield Archaeological Survey has clearly shown (Sutherland, 2003), to assess each site archaeologically until evidence of the battle is located. However, the problem of development on the battlefield still exists, whichever site is correct. If the battle did take place just to the south of Ruisseauville, then it should be observed that this village is slowly encroaching upon the valley from the north (Fig. 6). Additionally, a large number of trees have recently been planted across the site of, what would be the English lines to the south of the valley. Instead of several wind turbines spoiling the view of the edge of the battlefield, these trees would bisect the site almost in two. The presence of a small woodland would also render future archaeological surveys more difficult. Is it therefore not reasonable to evaluate the location of a battlefield archae- ologically before it is ‘protected’ from development? Clearly, if too much emphasis is placed on an incorrect location, attention might be diverted from the correct site and whilst the wrong site is being ‘saved’ it is possible that, like so many other historic battlefields, the real battlefield and all of the evi- dence that it contains, might be lost forever. R Blanchard, J. 1983: (ed.) Le Pastoralet. 198–207 Paris, in Curry, A 2000 The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Cassini de Thury, C.-F. 1744–89: Carte de France, levée par ordre du Roy. [Facsimile: G. Pye, 2002] Cole, C.A. 1858: Memorials of Henry the Fifth, King of England, 113–24, translated from ‘Liber Metricus de Henrico Quinto’ (c. 1418, Latin), in Curry, A 2000 The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Curry A. 2000: Chronique de Ruisseauville (?1420s–1430s, French Translated from Bacquet, Agincourt, 91–6), in Curry, A. 2000: The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. ——. 2000: The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Douet-D’Arcq 1859: La Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet, ed. L. 6 vols (Société de l’Histoire de France, 1857–62). 3, 89–124, in Curry, A 2000 The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. JCA, 15072_F13_244-263 6/24/05 2:49 AM Page 263 THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 263 Ellis, H. (ed.) 1809: Hall’s Chronicle (with the editions of 1548 and 1550). Johnson et al.: London Galbraith, V.H. 1937: (ed.) The St. Albans Chronicle 1406–1420. Oxford, in Curry, A. 2000: The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Green, H. 1969: Famous Engagements and their Battlefields Today. London, in Curry, A. 2000: The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Hardy, R. 2004: ‘In pursuit of historical truth’, Daily Telegraph—Letters to the editor, 27 January (http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml) Hardy, W.L. and Hardy, E.L.C.P. (eds.) 1864–91: Receuil des Croniques et Anchiennes Istories de la Grant Bretagne, a present nomme Engleterre par Jehan de Waurin. 2, 185–222 (Rolls Series, London), in Curry, A. 2000: The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Institut Geographique National (IGN) 1980 Map of Fruges 2205E, 1:25000 3615 IGN. France. Knight, C. 1862: History of England. 2, 57–64 London, in Curry, A. 2000: The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Nicholas, H. 1832: History of the Battle of Agincourt (2nd edition), in Curry, A 2000: The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Phillpotts, C. 1984: ‘The French plan of battle during the Agincourt campaign’, English Historical Review 99, 59–68. in Curry, A. 2000 The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Samaran, C. and De Saint-Rémy H. 1934 Les Classiques de l’Histoire de France au Moyen Age 1, 34–49, Paris, in Curry, A 2000: The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Sutherland, T.L. 2003: ‘The Towton Battlefield Archaeological Survey Project: an integrated approach to battlefield archaeology’, Landscapes 4, 15–25. ——. (forthcoming): The Towton Battlefield Archaeological Survey Project: The Application of an Integrated Prospection Methodology to the Understanding of the Archaeological Landscape of the Towton Battlefield. PhD Thesis in preparation, Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford. Taylor, F. and Roskell, J.S. 1975: The Gesta Henrici Quinti (ca. 1417, Latin) Reprinted from Gesta Henrici Quinti. The Deeds of Henry the Fifth, translated from the Latin by permission of Oxford University Press in Curry, A. 2000 The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations. Boydell: Woodbridge. Waller J. 2004: Personal communication. Copies of letters from Sir John Woodford dated 1818, written whilst he was excavating the graves at Agincourt. Handed to the author by John Waller. Woodford, J. 1818: Plan of the Ground on Which the Battle of Agincourt was Fought 25th Oct. 1415, Surveyed 1818. British Library MS 16368, Map C. Wylie, J.H. 1919: The Reign of Henry the Fifth 2, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.