Revising Agincourt: this is merely a part of a generalised Marxist-Twaddle-Assault on the credibility of those few civilisations which could, or can, sustain liberalism.
AGINCOURT is today.
The slaughter at Agincourt, as has been well-known for some centuries, in fact from day-1, was terible. Juliet Barker’s 2005 book published by Abacus, a must-read even if you know all the other well-researched acounts, goes into astonishingly minute and also rather gory detail.
There were, fistly, all sorts of “issues” going on. The English, tired, depleted by adventures at Harlfeur and by dysentery (inevitable then) were with their backs to the wall: pooing what was left of their pants into the mud, hungry, cold, and not of a mind to surrender, since the political consequences would have been unbearable for decades if not longer. Whether their subsequent adventures and attempts to hold onto Englsih territory on the European Mainland were wise or not, history has shown.
The French, enraged rightly or otherwise by this impertinent fleabite of an attack on their sovereignty and amour-propre – triggered as it was by imperfectly-interpreted and imperfectly-drafted State-succession-case-Law, which was at best ambiguous, would inevitably wipe out this rump of an invading force if they could ride it down (and they planned to.) If the Oriflamme was shown (it was) then there “would be no quarter given”.
The issue was tactically settled on the day by the Longbowmen, largely – and by careful and intelligent choice of ground and cover, as well as the weather! The French were faced with ground and confinement of their front which would have been difficult in the best conditions, without having to endure the archers on top. Their fate was simply terribly unfortunate. Furthermore, if they had not tried to mount a flanking attack on the English baggage-train, or looked as if they were going to, then a number of prisoners would not have been killed out-of-hand (some were.)
There had been plenty of years since Crecy or even earlier, for them to learn the art of archery with the longbow, and to encourage their peasantry to use it and own it: the same trees were even available to them. Other nations’ failure to adopt the logical and cheapest antidote to this medieval equivalent of a thermonuclear device can thus only be put down to destructive xenophobia and the wrong kind of conservatism. Or perhaps they feared its distribution in their populations?
No. This is what’s happening now: English liberal (which is to say, conservative) civilisation looks weak right now – weaker than at any time I can remember, having been under constant and probably co-ordinated attack since the 19th century. This latest jab, by French “revisionist” historians (with nobody else invited) is but one more way to bully and twist the tail of an already wounded beast, which unlike real beasts of the Wild happens unconditionally to be in the moral right.
The problem of how to preserve a polity, together with its historical and philosophic canon on which it is based, that can, or could nurture liberalism and libertarianism in the end, ought to be a keytone.
How do we make the world safe for liberty?
This does not, moreover, even begin to address the problem we have of how we initiate (or, worse, have to re-initiate) liberty, in conditions where it has been expunged. Like modern Britain?
These small events and attacks may individually be but pinpricks. But, whether or no, we MUST treat them as co-ordinated, for they ultimately are, in a Gramscian sense. While yet having grand conferences (ours is going on right now) to decide the broad strategy for the defence and extensions of liberty, we MUST defeat these attacks IN DETAIL.
If we do not, then because the fascist lefties currently control the terms of discourse, ground lost becomes ground we don’t any more occupy in public in front of the undecided – and THAT is what matters.