I was actually quite happy with the Agincourt one. The only show on the battle I've ever seen (or book for that matter) that didn't just automatically chalk the victory up to the 'almighty English Longbow'. Showed just the sort of thing I've been saying for years about the armor and weaponry of the time, but nobody ever listens. And actually tried to show how the French were beaten tactically instead of just spouting the 'endless hail of armor piercing arrows' explanation. That ep was the first one I actually sat and watched, and I got hooked on the show from it.
Tactically my ass. Their conclusion was that one French guy tripped and fell into the mud, and everyone else fell down with him.
They COMPLETELY botched their arrow "test." Which consisted of smashing an arrow point down on a flat sheet of steel LAYING ON A HARD SURFACE. Yeah, when you have a freakin' concrete block beneath your test sheet of COURSE that arrowhead is going to bend when it hits. Nevermind the curves, angles and gaps in the plates. Compare this to other programs which actually fire an arrow at a period cuirass that show that at the proper range an angle, the longbow will INDEED punch straight through, especially if you find a gap between the plates. Nevermind the fact the even MORE devastating effect those arrows would have had on the French horses, turning your fearsome cavalry charge into infantry. Strike One.
Then they talked about the armor. And their "test" to show the French heavy armor would cause them to get stuck in the mud was to first press their flat block of steel down into the mud--flat surface down--to show that it gets sucked down and harder to draw out, making it harder to walk. Then they wrapped that same block of steel in cloth and did the same to show that this made it easier to withdraw. Which is TOTALLY pointless since the French didn't wear flat blocks of steel on the soles of their feet, and the English weren't walking around with their feet wrapped in burlap sacks. The armored "boots" fit over a regular old pair of leather or fabric shoes or boots, your foot was NOT completely enclosed in steel. Strike Two.
When they FINALLY started talking about the terrain I thought, "Ok, here we go, this is where they redeem themselves." Nope. Not at all. They didn't say ONE word about the English being in a choke point that would prevent the French from deploying the full weight of their army at once. Their entire focus was on crowd dynamics, and that if one Frenchman tripped the entire army trips with him. They didn't talk about the caltrops, trenches and stakes the English laid out to break up the French cavalry charge. Nope, the English won at Agincourt entirely because one Frenchman tripped.
Total, absolute load of crap. They didn't have ONE military historian or ONE person who's actually an expert on the weapons or tactics of the period. These guys may be forensic experts, but they are RANK AMATEURS when it comes to military history. It's just another of that channel's "psuedo-history" programs, and yet another reason why I less and less turn it on anymore.
