[Ancestral Link: Harold William Miller, son of Edward Emerson Miller, son of Anna Hull (Miller), daughter of William Hull, son of Anna Hyde (Hull), daughter of Uriah Hyde, son of Elizabeth Leffingwell (Hyde), daughter of Sarah Abell (Leffingwell), daughter of Joshua Abell, son of Robert Abell, son of Frances Cotton (Abell), daughter of Mary Mainwaring (Cotton), daughter of Margaret Mainwaring (Mainwaring), daughter of Randle Mainwaring, son of Katherine Honford (Mainwaring), daughter of Margaret Savage (Honford), daughter of John Savage, son of John Savage, son of John Savage.]
[Ancestral Link: Harold William Miller, son of Edward Emerson Miller, son of Anna Hull (Miller), daughter of William Hull, son of Anna Hyde (Hull), daughter of Uriah Hyde, son of Ezra Hyde, son of William Hyde, son of Samuel Hyde, son of William Hyde, son of Robert Hyde, son of Jane Davenport (Hyde), daughter of Blanch Warburton (Davenport), daughter of John Warburton, son of Ellen Savage (Warburton), daughter of John Savage, son of John Savage.]
[Ancestral Link: Harold William Miller, son of Edward Emerson Miller, son of Anna Hull (Miller), daughter of William Hull, son of Anna Hyde (Hull), daughter of Uriah Hyde, son of Ezra Hyde, son of William Hyde, son of Samuel Hyde, son of William Hyde, son of Robert Hyde, son of Jane Davenport (Hyde), daughter of Blanch Warburton (Davenport), daughter of John Warburton, son of Ellen Savage (Warburton), daughter of John Savage, son of John Savage.]
Sir John Savage II 1370-1459,
Knighted 1415 at Battle of Agincourt by Henry V
Battle of Agincourt 25 Oct 1415 John Savage II Sir Knight Lord of Clifton
Birth 1370, Clifton, Cheshire, England
Marriage 1400, age 30, to MAUD Matilda De Swynnerton, Clifton, Cheshire, England
Death 1 August 1450, age 80, Clifton, Cheshire, England
Parents unknown
Spouse and Children
Maud Matilda De Swynnerton 1370 – 1415
William Arnold Savage 1393 –
George Savage 1394 –
Roger Savage 1396 –
Blanch Savage 1402 – 1450
Margaret Savage 1403 – 1450
Sir John III Knight Savage 1403 – 1463
Beatrice Savage 1404 –
Gracia Savage 1405 – 1480
Ann Savage 1406 – 1434
Mary Savage 1407 – 1434
Isabel Savage 1408 – 1480
Parnella Savage 1408 –
William Savage 1410 –
Arnold Savage 1411 –
George Savage 1413 –
Ellen Savage 1414 – 1465
Roger Savage 1415
from ancestry.com
John Savage 1376-1450
Fought at Agincourt 1415, Knight 1416 (Weis)
From Hal Bradley files 14jul051. Weis, Frederick Lewis, Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America before 1700 (7th ed., Baltimore, Md.: Genealogical Pub. Co., 1992.), 32-33, 233-37, Los Angeles Public Library, Gen 974 W426 1992.2. Roberts, Gary Boyd, The Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1993.), p. 348, Los Angeles Public Library, 929.273 R644-1.3. Weis, Frederick Lewis, The Magna Charta Sureties, 1215 (Baltimore, Md.: Genealogical Pub. Co., 1999. [5th Edition]), 96-9, 98A-9, 106-11, Los Angeles Public Library, 929.273 W426 1999.4. Cokayne, George Edward, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, extant, extinct, or dormant (London: St. Catherine Press, 1910.), 12:589, Los Angeles Public Library, 929.721 C682.5. Ormerod, George, The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester (London: Lackington, Hughes, Mavor & Jones, 1819.), 2:230, 3:89, Family History Library, 942.71 H2or.6. Ormerod, G., History of the County Palatine of Chester, 1:712.7. Barnes, Robert William, British Roots of Maryland Families (Baltimore, Md.: Genealogical Pub. Co., 1999.), p. 320, Los Angeles Public Library, Gen 975.2 B261-3.8. Richards, W. S. G., The History of the De Traffords of Trafford, circa A.D., 1000-1893 (Plymouth, England: W. H. Luke, 1896. FHL US/CAN Film #823,879 Item 1.), p. 29, Family History Library.9. Page, William, The Victoria History of the County of Derby (London: A. Constable and Company, Ltd., 1905.), Los Angeles Public Library, Gen 942.51 V645 folio.10. Boyer, Carl, Medieval English Ancestors of Robert Abell (Santa Clarita, CA: C. Boyer, 2001.), pp. 213-214, 229, Los Angeles Public Library, 929.2 A141-2.11. Young, Henry James, The Blackmans of Knight's Creek (Carlisle, PA : H. J. Young, 1980.), p. 83, Family History Library, 929.273 B565y.12. Beamont, William, An Account of the Ancient Town of Frodsham, in Cheshire (Warrington: Percival Pearse, 1881.), Family History Library, 942.71/F1 H2b.13. Richardson, Douglas, Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2004.), pp. 290, 638, Family History Library, 942 D5rd.14. Roskell, John Smith, The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1386-1421 (Stroud, Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton Pub. Ltd., 1992.), 3:755, Family History Library, 942 D3hp 1386-1421.15. Glover, Robert, The Visitation of Cheshire in the Year 1580 (London: 1882.), p. 215, Los Angeles Public Library, Gen 942.005 H284 v.18.
from ancestry.com
Sir John Savage
Some notes on the history of Clifton (Rocksavage) near Runcorn, in Cheshire
William the Conqueror's nephew, Hugh Lupus, received the County of Chester and most of North Wales, together with other special privileges. He in turn found it expedient to divide the greater part of his possessions amongst his own friends, and Nigell or Niell received the barony of Halton. Nigell had five brothers, though whether they were actually related to him of whether they were merely close friends or retainers is not certain. They were called Odard (or Hudard), Edard, Womere, Horswyne, and Wolfaith. Odard seems to have received the township of Dutton, or Duntune as it was called, and he became known as Hugh de Dutton.
About 100 years later there is a record of the village of Clifton being given to Galfrid or Geoffrey of Dutton, a son of the then Lord of Dutton, by John the Baron and Constable of Chester.In due course this branch of the Dutton family lapsed and the two daughters of Sir Roger de Cheadle were the co-heirs. The elder daughter named Clemence chose Clifton as part of her share of the estate and later married Raufe de Baggiley. Their daughter Isobel married Sir Thomas Danyers of Bradley and Appleton who greatly distinguished himself at the battle of Cressy in 1346 by rescuing the Royal Standard of the Black Prince and also capturing the Chamberlain of France. For this service the Black Prince granted him an annuity charged on his Royal Manor of Frodsham.
Sir Thomas and Lady Isobel had a daughter, Margaret, who married Sir John Savage in 1357. She received as her dowry her mother's lands and lived with her husband at the Old Hall at Clifton. It is possible that it may have been erected as part of the dowry, as there is no mention of it before this time.The name "Clifton" is interesting, and may derive from the fact that the township was founded on a steep rocky slope rising from the flat land that was covered in those days with water - hence Cliff-Town - Clifton.Through his marriage John Savage seems to have succeeded to the royal favour granted to his father-in-law, Sir Thomas Danyer, for in 1397 Henry III appointed him bailiff of the Royal Forest of Macclesfield. Although Clifton long remained the home of the Savages, they had close ties with Macclesfield and Congleton, and are buried in the Parish Church at Macclesfield.
The first Sir John Savage died in 1386 and his son, also John, succeeded him. He was knighted by Henry V for his services at the Battle of Agincourt and died in 1450, succeeded by his son. This third son John was, by contrast, a quiet countryman and he was married to the daughter of Sir William Brereton. He died in 1463.
The fourth John Savage was knighted by Henry VI. He was a Mayor of Chester, held offices connected with the Royal Manor and Forest of Macclesfield, and Henry VI made him one of the "feofees" or trustees of the Duchy of Lancaster. He was married to the daughter of Lord Stanley. One of his sons, Thomas, eventually became Archbishop of York, and was buried there in 1508, his heart alone being buried in Macclesfield.The eldest son of the fourth Sir John Savage never lived to inherit the estates because he died during his father's lifetime. He was a warlike character, a Knight of the Garter, having fought at the Battle of Bosworth. He was killed during the siege of "Boloigne".
His son, the sixth Sir John, fought valiantly at Flodden field. He and his son had quarrelled with a man called Pauncefote, and killed him. For this they were put in the Tower, and would have been executed but for the influence exerted on their behalf by Cardinal Wolsey and the Earl of Worcester ( a near relative). They were both pardoned and then released on condition that neither of them should ever set foot inside the counties of Chester or Worcester without special permission of the King. Sir John died in this banishment seven years later, but the sentence on his son was revoked in four years.
The seventh Sir John Savage succeeded his father in 1527 and although he was released from the sentence on banishment he never returned to the house at Clifton, dying in Rythin Castle in 1528 and leaving a son of three as the heir.
By the time that this eighth Sir John grew up he had lost the family desire for martial glories, and had resolved to devote himself to the arts of peace. He became High Sheriff of Cheshire and was later appointed Seneschal of Halton by Queen Mary. He was also re-appointed to this post by Queen Elizabeth on her accession. In 1565 he was again High Sheriff and filled this office seven times in all, a unique achievement. It was he, who feeling the need for a more imposing home to enhance his high office, erected Rocksavage, a name derived from the rocky situation of the place and the family name. The old hall became a granary and outbuildings. The fine Tudor building was erected in 1568 by the same architect who designed Brereton Hall, a very similar place. It has been said that Queen Elizabeth herself put down the foundation stones of both these places.Sir John was elected one of the two M.P.s for Cheshire in 1585 and again in 1588, and he died in 1598 after serving as High Steward of Macclesfield and for a third time as the Mayor of Chester.
His son John was the ninth in direct succession of the same name, and seems to have been much of the same outlook as his respected father. When visiting Congleton officially he found that a cockfighting and a bear baiting had been arranged for his amusement, but although he attended the cock fight he could not be induced to attend the bear baiting and the crude festive orgies which followed it.
About this time the King required money for colonising and pacifying Ulster, his form of pacification being to maintain a large number of soldiers there. This cost a great deal of money, and Sir John assisted, together with 99 other men by contributing sufficient to maintain 30 soldiers. His Baronetcy followed in due course.
He died in 1615, and the continuity of the name was broken because his eldest son has also died, and the heir was named Thomas. This Thomas was created Viscount, and thus became the first member of the family to enter the Peerage. Sir Thomas married the daughter of Lord D'Arcy afterwards created Earl Rivers, and entertained King James I at Rocksavage on 21st August, 1617. In the reign of Charles I he was appointed Chancellor of the Queens Court at Westminster and he died in London in 1635. Buried at Macclesfield.
His son John, who succeeded him, was made Earl Rivers through his mother, and fell under suspicion as a "recusant, malignant, and delinquent", and became involved in the unhappy troubles arising between Charles I and Parliament. He put Halton Castle in a state of defence on behalf on the King, and the Brookes of Norton were on the side of Parliament. During the ensuing Civil War, Halton was besieged and taken by Sir William Brereton, who dismantled it and ruined it. Rocksavage was also looted and rendered uninhabitable, and Earl Rivers retired to Frodsham Castle, stripped of the family honours and estates, and died there a few years later in 1654. On the same night, with his body lying within, the Castle was set on fire and burned down and it was only with great difficulty that the body was rescued, later to be buried unostentatiously at Macclesfield.
Thomas, his son, was Earl Rivers in his own right, and had been freed from prison when a charge against him of plotting against the life of the Protector was proved false. Halton, Rocksavage, and Frodsham all lay in ruins, and pending the restoration of Rocksavage he lived in London.Although a Royalist he was a strong Protestant, and when the heir to the throne declared his adherence to Popery, and the people raised the cry to exclude him from the succession, Sir Thomas was on the side of the people. He and his eldest son, the Duke of Colchester, entertained the Duke of Monmouth at Rocksavage during his progress through Cheshire, and for thus taking part in a "seditious rising" Lord Colchester was afterwards tried at Chester and ordered to find sureties for his keeping the peace. Undeterred by this he was the first to greet the Prince of Orange when he landed at Exeter in 1688.
Earl Rivers died in 1698, succeeded by his second son, Richard, as Lord Colchester had died the year before. Richard was a Privy Councillor, and attained high honour. His adulterous connection with the Countess of Macclesfield resulted in the birth of Richard Savage, the poet. He gave him his own name, but the poet's mother tricked him out of the estates by telling the Earl when he lay dying that the poet was dead. She herself was divorced from her husband by a ruling of Parliament, and the instance is remarkable for being the first divorce not to be first sanctioned by the Church. There was a "minority report" after the proceedings in Parliament - "Dissentient" - because we conceive that this is the first bill of that nature that hath passed, where there was not a divorce first obtained in the Spiritual Court: which we look upon as an ill precedent, and may be of dangerous consequence in the future.
The Earl died in 1714 leaving a daughter, Elizabeth, wife of the Earl of Barrymore. After the Earl's death the estates and title passed to a cousin, John Savage, a Roman Catholic priest, who, because of his vows, declined them. By an Act of Parliament the estates passed to Earl Richard's daughter, and she and her husband lived at Rocksavage as the Earl and Countess of Barrymore. The priest, John, died in 1728, and thus the direct male line of the Savage family became extinct.
The building itself was restored and enlarged at this period. The daughter of the Earl of Barrymore, Penelope, was married to the Hon. James Cholmondeley in 1730,so the estates passed to the Cholmondeley family, and are still their property (1898).As this family had many estates, Rocksavage became neglected, and its decay and dilapidation followed rapidly. Its downfall was hastened by the stones being used in the building of the farm on the site.
Online source: http://www.runcornhistsoc.org.uk/rockandclifton.html
from ancestry.com
Sir John Savage 1370-1450
May and June 1390, Inglevere, near Calais, France
During the truce between England and France, three French Knights held a atournament at Inglevere, and defended the lists, for thirty days, against all comers, from England or elsewhere (May and June 1390). Their names were Sir Boucicaut the Younger, the Lord Reginald de Roye, and the Lord de Saimpe.
"On the 21st of May, as it had been proclaimed, the three Knights were properly armed, and the horses ready saddled, according to the laws of the tournament. . . . The King of France," Froissart tells us, "was present at these jousts. Being young, and desirous of witnessing extraordinary sights, he would have been much vexed if he had not seen these tournaments. He was therefore present at the early part and latter end of them, attended by the lord de Garencieres; but both so disguised that nobody knew of it, and they returned every evening to Merquise."
"The ensuing day, Wednesday, was as fine as the foregoing, and the English who had crossed the sea to take part in or view the tournament, mounted their horses at the same hour as on the preceding day, and rode to the place appointed for the lists, to the delight of the French, who were rejoiced to see them. It was not long after their arrival that an Englise Squire, a good tilter, called JOHN SAVAGE, a squire of honor, and of the body to the Earl of Huntingdon, sent to touch the shield of Sir Reginald de Roye; the Knight answered, he was ready and willing to satisfy him. When he had mounted his horse, and had his helmet buckled and lance given to him, they set off at full gallop, and gave such blows on the targets that, had the spears not broken, one or both must have fallen to the ground. The course was handsome and dangerous, but the Knights received no hurt, though the points of the lances passed through the targets and slipped off their side armour. The spears were broken almost a foot from the shaft, the points remaining in the shields, and they gallantly bore the shafts before them as they finished their career. The spectators thought they must have been seriously wounded, and the French and English hastened each to his companion, whom to their joy, they found unhurt. They were told that they had done enough for that day, but JOHN SAVAGE was not satisfied, and said, 'He had not crossed the sea for only one tilt of the lance.' This was reported to Sir Reginald, who replied 'He is in the right, and it is but just that he should be gratified either by me or one of my companions.' When they had rested themselves awhile, and received new lances, they began their second course, each aiming well at the other; but they failed from the swerving of their horses, to their great vexation, and retired to their posts. Their lances, which they had accidentally dropped, were given to them, and they set off in their third course. This time they hit on the visors of their helmets, and by the force and crossing of their lances, both were unhelmed as they passed. The tilt was much applauded for its correctness and vigour. When returned to their posts, the English told JOHN SAVAGE that he had very honourably performed, and that it was now time for him to make way for others to tilt as well as himself. He complied with this, and, laying aside his lance and target, dismounted, and rode on a hackney to witness the performance of others."
from ancestry.com
John Savage was Knighted by King Henry V during the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.....Part of the Hundred Years War. The armies involved were those of the English King Henry V and Charles VI of France. The battle was also immortalised by William Shakespeare as the centrepiece of his play Henry V.
from ancestry.com
Agincourt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle of Agincourt
Part of the Hundred Years' War
The Battle of Agincourt, 15th century miniature
Date25 October (Saint Crispin's Day) 1415
Location Agincourt, France
Result Decisive English victory
Belligerents Kingdom of England Kingdom of France
Commanders Henry V of England, Charles d'Albret †
Strength About 5,900 (but see a modern re-assessment). 5/6 archers, 1/6 dismounted knights and men-at-arms.Between 20,000 and 30,000 (but see a modern re-assessment). About half dismounted knights and men-at-arms, about 1,200 mounted knights and men-at-arms, and the rest mostly crossbowmen and archers.Casualties and losses, At least 112 dead, unknown wounded [1]7,000–10,000 (mostly killed) and about 1,500 noble prisoners[2][show]
v • d • e
Hundred Years' War
Edwardian – Breton Succession – Castilian – Two Peters – Caroline – Lancastrian[show]
v • d • e
Hundred Years' War (1415-1429)
Agincourt – Rouen – 2nd La Rochelle – Baugé – Meaux – Cravant – La Brossinière – Verneuil – Orléans – Jargeau – Meung-sur-Loire – Beaugency – Patay – Compiègne – Gerbevoy – Formigny – Castillon
The Battle of Agincourt[a] was an English victory against a much larger French army in the Hundred Years' War. The battle occurred on Friday 25 October 1415 (Saint Crispin's Day)[3], in northern France. Henry V's victory started a new period in the war, in which Henry married the French King's daughter and his son was made heir to the throne of France, but his achievement was squandered by his heirs.
The French king of the time was Charles VI; however, he did not command the French army himself as he was incapacitated. Instead the French were commanded by Constable Charles d'Albret and various prominent French noblemen of the Armagnac party.
The battle is notable for the use of the English longbow, which Henry used in very large numbers, with longbowmen forming the vast majority of his army. The battle is the centrepiece of the play Henry V, by William Shakespeare.
Contents[hide]
1 Campaign
2 Battle
2.1 Situation
2.2 Terrain
2.3 Fighting
2.3.1 The assault on the baggage train and the killing of the prisoners
2.4 Aftermath
2.5 Notable casualties
2.6 Sir Peers Legh
3 Modern re-assessment of Agincourt
3.1 Were the English as outnumbered as traditionally thought?
4 See also
5 References
5.1 Bibliography
5.2 Explanatory notes
5.3 Notes
Campaign
Main article: Hundred Years War
Henry V invaded following the failure of negotiations with the French. He claimed the title of King of France through his great-grandfather Edward III, although in practice the English kings were generally prepared to renounce this claim if the French would acknowledge their claim on Aquitaine and other French lands (the terms of the Treaty of Bretigny).[4] He initially called a great council in the spring of 1414 to discuss going to war with France, but the lords insisted that he should negotiate further and moderate his claims. In the following negotiations Henry said that he would give up his claim to the French throne if the French would pay the 1.6 million crowns outstanding from the ransom of John II (who had been captured at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356), and the lands of Normandy, Touraine, Anjou, Brittany and Flanders, as well as Aquitaine. Henry would marry Princess Catherine, the young daughter of Charles VI, and receive a dowry of 2 million crowns. The French responded with what they considered the generous terms of marriage with Princess Catherine, a dowry of 600,000 crowns, and an enlarged Aquitaine. By 1415 negotiations had ground to a halt, with the English claiming that the French had mocked their claims and ridiculed Henry himself.[5] In December 1414, the English parliament was persuaded to grant Henry a "double subsidy", a tax at twice the traditional rate, to recover his inheritance from the French. On 19 April 1415, Henry again asked the great council to sanction war with France, and this time they agreed.[6]
Morning of the Battle of Agincourt, 25th October 1415
Henry's army landed in northern France on 13 August 1415 and besieged the port of Harfleur with an army of about 12,000. The siege took longer than expected. The town surrendered on 22 September, and the English army did not leave until 8 October. The campaign season was coming to an end, and the English army had suffered many casualties through disease. Henry decided to move most of his army (roughly 7,000) to the port of Calais, the English stronghold in northern France, where they could re-equip over the winter.
During the siege, the French had raised an army which assembled around Rouen. This was not a feudal army, as sometimes has been said, but an army paid through a system very similar to the English. The French hoped to raise 9,000 troops, but the army was not ready in time to relieve Harfleur. Then after Henry V marched to the north, the French moved to blockade them along the River Somme. They were successful for a time, forcing Henry to move south, away from Calais, to find a ford. The English finally crossed the Somme south of Péronne, at Béthencourt and Voyennes [7] [8] and resumed marching north. Without the river protection, the French were hesitant to force a battle. They shadowed Henry's army while calling a semonce des nobles, calling on local nobles to join the army. By October 24 both armies faced each other for battle, but the French declined, hoping for the arrival of more troops. The next day the French initiated negotiations as a delaying tactic, but Henry ordered his army to advance and to start a battle that, given the state of his army, he would have preferred to avoid. The English had very little food, had marched 260 miles in two-and-a-half weeks, were suffering from sickness such as dysentery, and faced much larger numbers of well equipped French men at arms. However Henry needed to get to the safety of Calais, and knew if he waited, the French would get more reinforcements.
The French suffered a catastrophic defeat, not just in terms of the sheer numbers killed, but also because of the number of high-ranking nobles lost. It took several years more campaigning, but Henry was eventually able to fulfil all his objectives. He was recognised by the French in the Treaty of Troyes (1420) as the regent and heir to the French throne. This was cemented by his marriage to Catherine of Valois, the daughter of King Charles VI.
[edit] Battle
King Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt, 1415
[edit] Situation
Henry V and his troops were marching to Calais to embark for England when he was intercepted by French forces which outnumbered his. English effectiveness and readiness was questionable as a result of their prior manoeuvres consisting of an 18 day march across 250 miles of hostile territory under constant harassment. They suffered from dysentery and exhaustion, and were further hampered by inclement weather.
The lack of reliable and consistent sources makes it very difficult to accurately estimate the numbers on both sides. Most contemporary English sources have the English outnumbered by 10–1 or more. The Burgundian sources use numbers of 50,000 for the French, and 11,000 or 13,000 for the English.[9] The other French sources include at least one which has the English army as slightly larger than the French. Another has the French "more than half again as numerous as the English".[10]
Estimates used by recent historians vary from 6,000 to 9,000 for the English, and from about 12,000 to about 36,000 for the French. Most of these historians would have accepted that the English were outnumbered by 3-1 or more, but Anne Curry has recently argued that the odds were much less in favour of the French than traditionally thought, at about 4–3 (12,000 French to 9,000 English). See modern reassessment for a detailed discussion.
The battle was fought in the narrow strip of open land formed between the woods of Tramecourt and Agincourt (close to the modern village of Azincourt). The French army was positioned by d'Albret at the northern exit so as to bar the way to Calais. The night of 24 October was spent by the two armies on open ground.
The battle of Agincourt
Early on the 25th, Henry deployed his army (approximately 900 men-at-arms and 5,000 longbow men, the latter commanded by Thomas Erpingham) across a 750 yard part of the defile. (It has been argued that fresh men were brought in after the siege of Harfleur; however, other historians argue that this is wrong, and that although 9,200 English left Harfleur, after a 250 mile march and more sickness had set in, they were down to roughly 5,900 by the time of the battle.) It is likely that the English adopted their usual battle line of longbow men on either flank, men-at-arms and knights in the centre, and at the very centre roughly 200 archers. The English men-at-arms in plate and mail were placed shoulder to shoulder four deep. The English archers on the flanks drove pointed wooden stakes called palings into the ground at an angle to force cavalry to veer off.
The English must have feared that they wouldn't get out alive. In fact, an English account describes the day before the battle as a day of remorse in which all soldiers cleansed themselves of their sins to avoid hell. The English nobles were lucky to be able to ransom themselves back if they were captured. French accounts state that, prior to the battle, Henry V gave a speech reassuring his nobles that if the French prevailed, the English nobles would be spared, to be captured and ransomed instead. However, the common soldier would have no such luck and therefore he told them they had better fight for their lives.
The French, on the other hand, were confident that they would prevail and were eager to fight. The French believed they would triumph over the English not only because their force was considerably larger, fresher and better equipped, but also because the large number of noble men-at-arms would have considered themselves superior to the large number of commoners (such as the longbow men) in the English army. The English army contained approximately 1,000 men-at-arms; using the lowest detailed French estimate (the Herald of Berry), the French army contained 10,000 men-at-arms (1,200 of which were mounted).[11] Provided they could close with the English army, the French would therefore have been confident that their much larger number of heavily armoured troops would prevail in hand-to-hand fighting. Another reason for impatience was that many had fathers and grandfathers who had been humiliated in previous battles such as Crécy and Poitiers, and the French nobility was determined to get revenge. Several French accounts emphasise that the French leaders were so eager to defeat the English that they insisted on being in the first line. For example: "All the lords wanted to be in the vanguard, against the opinion of the constable and the experienced knights".[12]
The French were arrayed in three lines called "battles". Chronicler Jehan de Waurin says there were 8,000 men-at-arms, 4,000 archers and 1,500 crossbowmen in the vanguard, with two wings of 600 and 800 mounted men-at-arms, and the main battle having "as many knights, esquires and archers as in the vanguard", with the rearguard containing "all of the rest of the men-at-arms".[13] The Herald of Berry uses somewhat different figures of 4,800 men-at-arms in the first line, 3,000 men in the second line, with two "wings" containing 600 mounted men-at-arms each, and a total of "10,000 men-at-arms".[14] The Herald does not mention a third line.
There appear to have been thousands of troops in the rearguard, containing commoners who the French were either unable or unwilling to deploy. Waurin gives the total French army size as 50,000. He says: "They had plenty of archers and crossbowmen but nobody wanted to let them fire. The reason for this was that the site was so narrow that there was only enough room for the men-at-arms."[15] Similarly the monk of Saint-Denis says: "Four thousand of their best crossbowmen who ought to have marched in the front and begun the attack were found to not be at their post and it seems that they had been given permission to depart by the lords of the army on the pretext that they had no need of their help."[16]
The rearguard played little or no part in the battle however, with English and French accounts agreeing that a significant proportion of the French army fled after seeing so many French nobles killed and captured in the fighting.
[edit] Terrain
Arguably, the deciding factor for the outcome was the terrain. The narrow field of battle, recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland, favoured the English.[17][18] An analysis by Battlefield Detectives has looked at the crowd dynamics of the battlefield.[19] The 900 English men-at-arms are described as shoulder to shoulder and four deep, which implies a tight line about 225 men long (perhaps split in two by a central group of archers). The remainder of the field would have been filled with the longbow men behind their palings. The French first line contained between four and eight thousand men-at-arms, outnumbering the English men-at-arms at least four to one, but they had no way to outflank the English line. The French, divided into the three battles, one behind the other at their initial starting position, could not bring all their forces to bear: the initial engagement was between the English army and the first battle line of the French. When the second French battle line started their advance, the soldiers were pushed closer together and their effectiveness was reduced. Casualties in the front line from longbow fire would also have increased the congestion, as following men would have to walk around the fallen. The Battlefield Detectives state that when the density reached four men per square metre, soldiers would not even be able to take full steps forward, lowering the speed of the advance by 70%.[19] Accounts of the battle describe the French engaging the English men-at-arms before being rushed from the sides by the longbow men as the melée developed. The English account in the Gesta Henrici says: "For when some of them, killed when battle was first joined, fall at the front, so great was the undisciplined violence and pressure of the mass of men behind them that the living fell on top of the dead, and others falling on top of the living were killed as well". Although the French initially pushed the English back, they became so closely packed that they are described as having trouble using their weapons properly. The French monk of St. Denis says: "Their vanguard, composed of about 5,000 men, found itself at first so tightly packed that those who were in the third rank could scarcely use their swords."[20], and the Burgundian sources have a similar passage. In practice there was not enough room for all these men to fight, and they were unable to respond effectively when the English longbow men joined the hand-to-hand fighting. By the time the second French line arrived, for a total of perhaps 8,000 men (depending on the source), the crush would have been even worse. The press of men arriving from behind actually hindered those fighting at the front.
As the battle was fought on a recently ploughed field, and there had recently been heavy rain leaving it very muddy, it proved very tiring to walk through in full plate armour. The French monk of St. Denis describes the French troops as "marching through the middle of the mud where they sank up to their knees. So they were already overcome with fatigue even before they advanced against the enemy".[21] The deep, soft mud particularly favoured the English force because, once knocked to the ground, the heavily armoured French knights struggled to get back up to fight in the melée. Barker (2005) states that several knights, encumbered by their armour, actually drowned in it. Their limited mobility made them easy targets for the volleys from the English archers. The mud also increased the ability of the much more lightly armoured English archers to join in hand-to-hand fighting against the heavily armed French men-at-arms.
Fighting
On the morning of the 25th the French were still waiting for additional troops to arrive. The Duke of Brabant, the Duke of Anjou and the Duke of Brittany, each commanding 1,500–2,000 fighting men, were all marching to join the army. This left the French with a question of whether or not to advance towards the English.
For three hours after sunrise there was no fighting. The French, knowing that the English were trapped, and perhaps aware of their previous failures attacking English prepared positions, would not attack. Henry would have known as well as the French did that his army would perform better in a defensive battle, but he was eventually forced to take a calculated risk, and move his army further forward. This entailed pulling out the palings (long stakes pointed outwards toward the enemy) which protected the longbow men, and abandoning his chosen position. (The use of palings was an innovation: during the Battle of Crécy, for example, the archers were instead protected by pits and other obstacles.) If the French cavalry had charged before the palings had been hammered back in, the result would probably have been disastrous for the English, as it was at the Battle of Patay. However the French seem to have been caught off guard by the English advance. The tightness of the terrain also seems to have restricted the planned deployment of their forces. A battle plan had originally been drawn up which had archers and crossbowmen in front of the men-at-arms, with a cavalry force at the rear specifically designed to "fall upon the archers, and use their force to break them".[22] However in the event the archers and crossbowmen were deployed behind and to the sides of the men-at-arms, where they seem to have played almost no part in the battle, except possibly for an initial volley of arrows at the start of the battle. The cavalry force, which could have devastated the English line if it had attacked while they moved their position, only seems to have charged after the initial volley of arrows from the English. It is unclear whether this is because the French were hoping the English would launch a frontal assault (and were surprised when the English instead started firing from their new defensive position), or whether the French mounted knights simply did not react fast enough to the English advance. French chroniclers agree that when the mounted charge did come, it did not contain as many men as it should; Gilles le Bouvier states that some had wandered off to warm themselves and others were walking or feeding their horses.[23]
In any case, within extreme bow shot from the French line (approximately 300 yards), the longbow men dug in their palings, and then opened the engagement with a barrage of arrows.
The French cavalry, despite being somewhat disorganised and not at full numbers, charged the longbow men, but it was a disaster, with the French knights unable to outflank the longbow men (because of the encroaching woodland) and unable to charge through the palings that protected the archers. Keegan (1976) argues that the longbows' main influence on the battle was at this point: only armoured on the head, many horses would have become dangerously out of control when struck in the back or flank from the high-elevation shots used as the charge started. The effect of the mounted charge and then retreat was to further churn up the mud the French had to cross to reach the English. Barker (2005) quotes a contemporary account by a monk of St. Denis who reports how the panicking horses also galloped back through the advancing infantry, scattering them and trampling them down in their headlong flight. The Burgundian sources similarly say that the mounted men-at-arms retreated back into the advancing French vanguard, "causing great disarray and breaking the line in many places".[24]
The constable himself led the attack of the dismounted French men-at-arms. French accounts describe their vanguard alone as containing about 5,000 men-at-arms, which would have outnumbered the English men-at-arms by about 5–1, but before they could engage in hand-to-hand fighting they had to cross the muddy field under a bombardment of arrows. The armour of the French men-at-arms is described by the Burgundian sources Jean Le Fevre and Jehan de Waurin as follows:
In addition, the French were so weighed down by armour that they could hardly move forward. First, they were armed with long coats of armour, stretching beyond their knees and being very heavy. Below these they had 'harnois de jambes' (leg armour) and above 'blans harnois ' (white i.e. polished armour). In addition they had 'bascinets de carvail'. So heavy were their arms that as the ground was so soft they could scarcely lift their weapons.[25]
Such heavy armour allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as "a terrifying hail of arrow shot".[20] However they had to lower their visors and bend their heads to avoid being shot in the face (the eye and air holes in their helmets were some of the weakest points in the armour), which restricted both their breathing and their vision, and then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, wearing armour which weighed 50–60 pounds.[26]
The French men-at-arms reached the English line and actually pushed it back, with the longbow men continuing to fire until they ran out of arrows and then dropping their bows and joining the melée (which lasted about three hours), implying that the French were able to walk through the fire of tens of thousands of arrows while taking comparatively few casualties. The physical pounding even from non-penetrating arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers, meant they could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line however.
When the English archers, using hatchets, swords and other weapons, attacked the now disordered and fatigued French, the French could not cope with their unarmoured assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud). The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as being knocked to the ground and then unable to get back up. As the mêlée developed, the French second line also joined the attack, but they too were swallowed up, with the narrow terrain meaning the extra numbers could not be used effectively, and French men-at-arms were taken prisoner or killed in their thousands. The fighting lasted about three hours, but eventually the leaders of the second line were killed or captured, as those of the first line had been. The English Gesta Henrici describes three great heaps of the slain "which had risen above a man's height" around the three main English standards.[27]
One of the best anecdotes of the battle involves Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, Henry V's youngest brother. According to the story, Henry, upon hearing that his brother had been wounded in the abdomen, took his household guard and cut a path through the French, standing over his brother and beating back waves of soldiers until Humphrey could be dragged to safety.
[edit] The assault on the baggage train and the killing of the prisoners
The only French success was a sally from Agincourt Castle behind the lines attacking the lightly protected English baggage train, with Ysembart d'Azincourt (leading a small number of men-at-arms and about 600 peasants) seizing some of Henry's personal treasures, including a crown. In some accounts this happened towards the end of the battle, and led the English to think they were being attacked from the rear. Barker (2005) prefers the Gesta Henrici however, believed to have been written by an English chaplain who was actually in the baggage train, who says that the attack happened at the start of the battle.
Regardless, there was definitely a point after the initial English victory where Henry became alarmed that the French were regrouping for another attack. The Gesta Henrici puts this after the English had overcome the onslaught of the French men-at-arms, and the weary English troops were eyeing the French rearguard ("in incomparable number and still fresh"). Le Fevre and Waurin similarly say that it was signs of the French rearguard regrouping and "marching forward in battle order" which made the English think they were still in danger.
In any event, Henry ordered the slaughter of what was perhaps several thousand French prisoners, with only the most illustrious being spared. His fear was that they would rearm themselves with the weapons strewn upon the field, and the exhausted English (who had been fighting for about three hours) would be overwhelmed. This was certainly ruthless, but arguably justifiable given the situation of the battle; perhaps surprisingly, even the French chroniclers do not criticise him for this.[28] This marked the end of the battle, as the French rearguard, having seen so many of the French nobility captured and killed, fled the battlefield.
[edit] Aftermath
Due to a lack of reliable sources it is impossible to give a precise figure for the French and English casualties. However, it is clear that though the English were considerably outnumbered, their losses were far lower than those of the French. The French sources all give 4,000–10,000 French dead, with up to 1,600 English dead. The lowest ratio in these French sources has the French losing six times more dead than the English. The English sources vary between about 1,500 and 11,000 for the French dead, with English dead put at no more than 100. The lowest ratio in the English sources has the French losing more than fifty times more dead than the English.[29]
Barker identifies from the available records "at least" 112 Englishmen who died in the fighting (including Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York, a grandson of Edward III), but this excludes the wounded. One fairly widely used estimate puts the English casualties at 450, not an insignificant number in an army of 6,000, but far less than the thousands the French lost, nearly all of whom were killed or captured. Using the lowest French estimate of their own dead of 4,000 would imply a ratio of nearly 9–1 in favour of the English, or over 10–1 if the prisoners are included.
The French suffered heavily. The constable, three dukes, five counts and 90 barons all died. Estimates of the number of prisoners vary between 700 and 2,200, amongst them the Duke of Orléans (the famous poet Charles d'Orléans) and Jean Le Maingre, Marshal of France.[30] Almost all these prisoners would have been nobles, as the less valuable prisoners were slaughtered.
Notable casualties
Antoine of Burgundy, Duke of Brabant and Limburg (b. 1384)
Philip of Burgundy, Count of Nevers and Rethel (b. 1389)
Charles I d'Albret, Count of Dreux, the Constable of France
John II, Count of Bethune (b. 1359)
John I, Duke of Alençon (b. 1385)
Frederick of Lorraine, Count of Vaudemont (b. 1371)
Robert, Count of Marles and Soissons
Edward III of Bar (the Duchy of Bar lost its independence as a consequence of his death)
John VI, Count of Roucy
Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York (b. 1373)
Michael de la Pole, 3rd Earl of Suffolk
Jean I de Croÿ and two of his sons.
Waleran III of Luxembourg, Count of Ligny
Sir Peers Legh
When Sir Peers Legh was wounded, his mastiff stood over him and protected him for many hours through the battle. Although Legh later died, the mastiff returned to Legh's home and became the forefather of the Lyme Park mastiffs. Five centuries later, this pedigree figured prominently in founding the modern English Mastiff breed.
Modern re-assessment of Agincourt
[edit] Were the English as outnumbered as traditionally thought?
Until recently, Agincourt has been fêted as one of the greatest victories in English military history. But, in Agincourt, A New History (2005), Anne Curry contradicts what previous historians have argued, and other contemporary Agincourt historians continue to argue; in Curry's view, the scale of the English triumph at Agincourt has been overstated for almost six centuries.[31][32]
Basing her research on contemporary administrative records rather than chronicles, Curry estimates that the French still outnumbered the English, but at worst only by a factor of three to two (12,000 Frenchmen against 7,000 to 9,000 Englishmen). According to Curry, the Battle of Agincourt was a "myth constructed around Henry to build up his reputation as a king". The legend of the English as underdogs at Agincourt was given credence in popular English culture with William Shakespeare's Henry V in 1599. In the speech before the battle, Shakespeare puts in the mouth of Henry V the famous words, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers," immediately after numbering English troops at twelve thousand, versus sixty thousand Frenchman. (Westmoreland: "Of fighting men they have full three-score thousand." Exeter: "There's five to one ..." (Act IV, scene 3). Shakespeare equally overstated the French and understated the English casualties as well; at the end (Act IV, Scene 8), when Henry's herald delivers the death toll, the numbers are 10,000 French dead and just "five and twenty" English. (The well known Olivier film version of 1944 has this as "five and twenty score" i.e. 500, which is closer to the modern estimate of casualties.)
Many documentaries about the Battle of Agincourt use the figures of about 6,000 English and 36,000 French, with a French superiority in numbers of 6–1. The 1911 Encylopædia Britannica puts the English at 6,000 archers, 1,000 men-at-arms and "a few thousands of other foot", with the French outnumbering them by "at least four times". Other historians put the English numbers at 6,000 and the French numbers at 20,000–30,000, which would also be consistent with the English being outnumbered 4–1. Curry is currently in a minority among international scholars in putting the odds at significantly less than this, although she is also the only one to have relied primarily on contemporary French administrative records when estimating the odds (rather than contemporary accounts). Curry does not include the numbers of armed French locals who answered the call to arms (for which there is little good documentary evidence to provide a precise figure), nor explain why many of the French (as well as English) chroniclers suggested the odds were more in favour of the French than 4–3.
Juliet Barker in Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle (published slightly after A New History) argues the English and Welsh were outnumbered "at least four to one and possibly as much as six to one". She prefers the figures given by Jehan de Waurin (who is relatively detailed about the composition of the French army), and suggests figures of about 6,000 for the English and 36,000 for the French, "based on [Waurin's] suggestion that the French were six times more numerous than the English". Curry's book was published too late to significantly influence Barker's work. In the Acknowledgements, however, while paying tribute to Curry's scholarship, Barker says: "Surviving administrative records on both sides, but especially the French, are simply too incomplete to support her assertion that nine thousand English were pitted against an army only twelve thousand strong. And if the differential really was as low as three to four then this makes a nonsense of the course of the battle as described by eyewitnesses and contemporaries."
from ancestry.com
Biography
Sir John Savage, of Clifton, Knight, was knighted at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. He married Maude, daughter and heiress of Sir Robert Swynnerton, Knight of Barrow, Cheshire and of Rushton, Comford, and Austenfiled, Staffordshire.
It is possible that this Sir John was the Sir John Savage whose brilliant tilting at the tournament held at Inglevere, near Calais in May and June of 1390, was described in one of the chapters of Froissart's Chronicle (Chapter 13). This took place during a truce between England and France. Three French Knights held a tournament at Inglevers and defended the lists for thirty days against all comers from England and elsewhere. Their names were Sir Boucicaunt the Younger, the Lord Reginald de Roye and the Lord de Saimpè "On the twenty-first of May, as it had been proclaimed the three Knights were properly armed, and the horses ready saddled, according to the laws of the tournament . . . The King of France," Froissart tells us, "was present at these jousts. Being young and desirous of witnessing extraordinary sights, he would have been much vexed if he had not seen the tournaments. He was therefore present at the early part and latter end of them, attended by the Lord de Garenciers; but both so disguiesed that nobody knew of it, and they returned every evening to Merquise. . . . The ensuring day, Wednesday, was as fine as the foregoing, and the English who had crossed the sea to take part in or view the tournament, mounted their horses at the same hour as on the preceding day, and rode to the place appointed for the lists, the delight of the French, who were rejoiced to see them. It was not long after their arrival that an English Squire, a good tilter, called John Savage, a squire of honor, and of the body to the Earl of Huntingdon, sent to touch the shield of Sir Reginald de Roye; the Knight answered, he was ready and willing to satify him. When he had mounted his horse, and had his helmet buckled and lance given to him, they set off at full gallop, and gave such blows on the targets that, had the spears not broken, one of both must have fallen to the ground. The course was handson and dangerous, but the Knights received no hurt, though the points of the lances passed trought the targets and slipped off their side armour. The spears were broken almost a foot from the shaft, the points remaining in the in the shields, and they gallantly bore the shafts before them as they finished their career. The spectators thought they must have been seriously wounded, and the French and English hastened each to his campanion, whom, to their joy, they found unhurt. They were told that they had done enough for the day, but John Savage was not satisfied, he said 'He had not crossed the seas for only one tilt of the lance.' this was reported to Sir Reginald, who replied, 'He is in the right, and it is but just that he should be gratified either by me or one of my campanions.' When they had rested themselves awhile and received new lances, they began their second course, each aiming well at the other; but they failed from the swerving of their horses, to their great vexation, and retired to their posts. Their lances, which they had accidentally dropped, were given to them, and they set off in their third course. This time they hit on the visors of their helments, and by the force and crossing of the lances, both were unhelmed as they passed. The tilt was much applouded for it correctness and bigour. When returned to their posts, the English told John Savage that he had very honourably performed, and that it was now time for him to make way for others to tilt as well as himself. He complied with this, and, laying aside his lance and target, dismounted, and rode on a hackney to witness the performance of others."This John Savage, combined the arms of his father, six lincels, with the arms of his mother, a pale fusillée sa., and for a crest, a unicorn's head, which his mother grated to him afther the death of her father in 3 Henry V. Sir John, held the distinguished office of Seneschal of Halton Castle, the royal fortress near his own manor of Clifton. Sir John died in 1450, and was succeeded by his eldest son, also named Sir John Savage, Knight. ~The Ancient and Noble Family of Savage, pg. 17-20 from ancestry.com
John Savage - 1370
http://histfam.familysearch.org/getperson.php?personID=I54007&tree=Dodge
Sir John Savage about 1378-1450
Birth about 1378 of, Clifton, Cheshire, England
Died 1 August 1450 of, Clifton, Cheshire, England
Europe: Royal and Noble Houses (predominantly England and France)
Father Sir John Savage, died 1386, of, Clifton, Cheshire, England
Mother Margaret Daniel, died 24 June 1428 Married about 1375/1376
Family: Maud de Swynnerton, born about 1370, died date unknown Married about 1400
Children:
1. Margaret Savage, born c. 1403, died after 1450
2. Sir John Savage, born c. 1410, of, Clifton, Cheshire, England, died 29 June 1463
3. Mary Savage, born c. 1415, died date unknown
4. Ellen Savage, born about 1420, died Yes, date unknown
1. Margaret Savage, born c. 1403, died after 1450
2. Sir John Savage, born c. 1410, of, Clifton, Cheshire, England, died 29 June 1463
3. Mary Savage, born c. 1415, died date unknown
4. Ellen Savage, born about 1420, died Yes, date unknown
"John, son of John Savage, knight, sued Richard Peshale, son and heir of Matilda, late wife of John Savage, knight...(for property) as his right and inheritance, from John Daniell, knight, his ancestor, to one Margaret as daughter and heir, and from Margaret to one John Savage, knight, as son and heir, and from John Savage to the plaintiff as son and heir." #798 The Wallop Family and Their Ancestry, Watney, Vernon James, (4 volumes. Oxford: John Johnson, 1928), FHL book Q 929.242 W159w; FHL microfilm 1696491 it., vol. 3 p. 747.
from ancestry.com
He married first, about July 1401, Maude Swynnerton, widow of Humphrey de Peshale and William de Ipstones. She brought him the manor of Barrow. This marriage caused a feud between the Savages and the Peshalls, involving suits over her estates as well as violence. He married second, by 1428, Elena, widow of James de Haryngton. He fought at Agincourt in 1415, and was knighted in 1416.
from ancestry.com
John - biog info
John II SAVAGE, of Clifton and Macclesfield, Sir
Sex: M
Birth: about 1375 in Clifton, Runcorn, Cheshire, England
Death: 1 August 1450 in Macclesfield Forest, Cheshire, England.
Sir John Savage of Clifton, Knight, died 1 August 1450, fought at Agincourt 1415, Knight 1416, by Maud de Swynnerton. [Ancestral Roots]2.
Sir John Savage (died 1450), lord of Clyfton, deputy steward of Macclesfield in 1412 and 1420. By 1401 became third husband of Maud (Matilda) Swynnerton. On 10 February 1414/5 called John Savage esquyre. In 1417, as Sir John Savage, granted two messuages on Fleshmongers Lane, Chester. In 1420 called John Savage chevalier. In 1436 is dated a letter of attorney by Sir Thomas Stanley, Richard Bolde, and others to receive seisin of lands in Cheshire from Sir John Savage Knight and his son John Savage esq. He had a son William who appeared in 1454 in the Mayor's Books of Chester. [ToddWhitesides, SGM, 2 Jun 2005]
From jweber site
from ancestry.com
from ancestry.com
John - biog info
John II SAVAGE, of Clifton and Macclesfield, Sir
Sex: M
Birth: about 1375 in Clifton, Runcorn, Cheshire, England
Death: 1 August 1450 in Macclesfield Forest, Cheshire, England.
Sir John Savage of Clifton, Knight, died 1 August 1450, fought at Agincourt 1415, Knight 1416, by Maud de Swynnerton. [Ancestral Roots]2.
Sir John Savage (died 1450), lord of Clyfton, deputy steward of Macclesfield in 1412 and 1420. By 1401 became third husband of Maud (Matilda) Swynnerton. On 10 February 1414/5 called John Savage esquyre. In 1417, as Sir John Savage, granted two messuages on Fleshmongers Lane, Chester. In 1420 called John Savage chevalier. In 1436 is dated a letter of attorney by Sir Thomas Stanley, Richard Bolde, and others to receive seisin of lands in Cheshire from Sir John Savage Knight and his son John Savage esq. He had a son William who appeared in 1454 in the Mayor's Books of Chester. [ToddWhitesides, SGM, 2 Jun 2005]
From jweber site
from ancestry.com
No comments:
Post a Comment