It is true that there are some differences in the accounts. According to de Wavrin, before Henry V even made it to the French coast, a fire broke out among his fleet and destroyed three large ships (de Wavrin 183-184). The account by de Monstrelet failed to mention this event. It is uncertain if he simply was not aware or if he deemed it not worthy of note. According to de Wavrin, the fleet that left England numbered eight hundred ships (de Wavrin 184). According to de Monstrelet, the fleet numbered one thousand and six hundred ships (de Monstrelet 332). According to de Wavrin, in regards to the number of men that left England, “they numbered, as it was then said, about twenty thousand fighting men, of whom more than ten thousand were archers” (de Wavrin 181). According to de Monstrelet, in regards to the same matter, “The kings army was composed of about six thousand helmets and twenty-three thousand archers” (de Monstrelet 332). Neither account states from where the chroniclers got these numbers for the English army before they left England. According to de Wavrin, during the night before the battle, when both sides lodged in adjacent villages, the English were silent and the French were loud (de Wavrin 201). However, according to de Monstrelet, on that same night, the English were the ones who were boisterous …show more content…
Of the events of the battle that were consistent, these events were most critical and important to recall and describe consistently across all sources. One can tell by looking at the accounts on the battle of Agincourt that differences in perspective does not always lead to inaccuracies and inconsistencies when one summarizes the event using both accounts, and compares and contrasts the most important factors. It is important to be able to identify which accounts of history are accurate, for if future generations learn of the wrong history, the consequences can be dire, and history will remember in one way or