"Agincourt at the Royal Armouries" Topic

Superb!

From here
link

Amicalement
Armand

That really is fantastic. Thank you for pointing this one out.

Cute! Nicely put together. And very clearly laid out to suit the sources as much as possible. The only criticisms I have are: lumping all the English MAA in one place; and they are TOO DEEP: the eyewitness who was right there specifically said that the English MAA were four ranks deep. There were archers between the three battles of MAA. That is why the French vanguard divided into the three "columns" seen in the diorama, so that they could attack where the English standards were. The way it is modeled, there would be no reason to divide into columns to reach the English standards, since the French vanguard overlaps the entire English center. But if there were archers between the three English battles of MAA, the French vanguard would have to divide naturally to avoid the archers and concentrate on the English standards.

It's too bad that most of the piccies are blurry….

The diorama is based on the Anne Curry interpretation of the battle. The blurry pictures are taken though the periscopes that give an eye level view of the diorama.

Glad you like it my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

@Will Fire: that explains a lot!

I'm not aware that the "Anne Curry interpretation" adheres dogmatically to the MAA massed in the English center. She explores that optional interpretation, but also admits that the "archers between the battles" source exists; while at the same time examining the problematic (for some) detail that that eyewitness was some distance behind the fighting, while he makes a point of saying that he watched everything from horseback, i.e. could actually see what he described. And he positively describes the separation of the English MAA by bodies of archers between them. Now, we can argue about how large those bodies might have been; the only thing that we know is that they were smaller than the archer wings of the entire army. Why historians insist on eliminating what our eyewitness said is the problem, not what he said….

Well said GWA. There is a long-standing problem of historians selecting material (especially from narrative evidence) to suit the interpretation they like rather than the other way around.
Mind you, it's a fab bit of eye-candy is n't it?

I'd really like to see the thing "in the flesh". I love well done dioramas. As a little boy, the Utah State capitol building had a hallway with dioramas of Utah history, and I was captivated by those. My parents had to pull me away. And thus was my interest in miniatures gaming being born by degrees. :)

Glad you like it too my friend!.

Amicalement
Armand

Don't blame the incorrect positioning of the Men at Arms on Ann Curry. She just mentions it as an alternative (and not well suppported) theory.

Perry Brother figures – very nice but quite wrong on English deployment.

TomT

I suggested something like this for the new Bannockburn centre and recommended the Perrys. Instead National Trust for Scotland decided to have a historically incomprehensible computer game run by 'battle masters' in fantasy leather costumes.

@Ugly: did/do you have difficulty sleeping at night with that knowledge? ;)

No, but I've ground my teeth right down to the jawbone. The NTS felt that a diorama would be 'passe' (sorry – don't know how to add an accent over the 'e' in 'passe'). Those of you who have visited locations like Pamplin Park just don't know how lucky you are.

Hold down the CTRL key and use the number pad to type 130. Make sure "NUM LOCK" is on. Passé….

Much obliged GWA!