DOCSLIB.ORG

Agincourt Or Azincourt? Victory, Defeat, and the War of 1415 Transcript

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Agincourt Or Azincourt? Victory, Defeat, and the War of 1415 Transcript Agincourt or Azincourt? Victory, Defeat, and the War of 1415 Transcript Date: Thursday, 22 October 2015 - 6:00PM Location: Museum of London 22 October 2015 Agincourt or Azincourt? Victory, Defeat and the War of 1415 Dr Helen Castor I would like to begin this evening with a brief glimpse of a book that seems to be exactly the kind of historical digest we have all been waiting for. HISTORY'S GREATEST HITS, it is called: Famous events we should all know more about. The premise of that stern subtitle is probably unarguable; there are certainly plenty of famous events I, for one, should know a great deal more about. But my particular reason for starting with this book today is that it raises the question of what exactly history's 'greatest hits' are, and how they might be chosen. Let us take a look at what the contents page offers us from the five hundred years of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. It is a select bunch, starting with 1066 and the battle of Hastings, moving swiftly through the Crusades and past Magna Carta in 1215 before encountering the Black Death in the mid-fourteenth century. And then, right in the middle of the list, comes 1415 and the battle of Agincourt. Agincourt, if we look closely, is one of only two battles that make it into this medieval hit parade. The first, Hastings, was the last successful invasion of England – a battle that changed the course of this country's history for ever. The second, Agincourt, did not. So why is it there? The answer, in one word, is Shakespeare. In the English-speaking world – and we know we are in the English-speaking world because on this list is 1431, the execution of Joan of Arc, not 1429, the victories of Joan of Arc, which would be the more likely French selection – Shakespeare's play Henry V, written in 1599, has fixed this battle in our collective imagination, inserted it into our cultural DNA. And that is not just because of Shakespeare's genius with words, though there is plenty of that on display in Henry V. As the play moves from 'O for a muse of fire…' via 'Once more unto the breach, dear friends' all the way to 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers', it is packed with gorgeous lines. But it is also a play with an almost mythical narrative arc. A young man – a young king, newly come to his throne – is determined, after a misspent youth, to live up to the weight of dignity and responsibility he has now inherited. An ancient enemy does not take him seriously. (You may remember that at the very beginning of the play, the French send a gift to suit his temperament: 'Tennis balls, my liege' is a line that somehow always pairs itself with Lady Bracknell's 'A handbag?' in my theatrical memory.) But this young king has charisma, integrity, moral purpose and a vision of his country's destiny. He launches a great invasion of the kingdom across the sea which he claims as his. He takes the port of Harfleur, and marches on, only to be confronted by the might of the French army, an army made up of huge numbers and led by the princes of the blood who – with supreme disdain and condescension – assume victory is rightfully and naturally theirs before a blow is struck. (Another wonderful scene, the night before the battle, opens with the Constable of France declaring languidly, 'I have the best armour of the world!) Back in the English ranks, on the eve of battle Henry confronts a long dark night of the soul, and comforts his men with a 'little touch of Harry in the night'. But then, when battle is joined, this turns out to be the tale of David and Goliath. The proud and arrogant French are brought down, against all the odds, by the courage and heart, the resilience and endurance of the English army. And then, after this astonishing triumph, this moment of catharsis, at the end of the play Henry receives his just reward: the hand of a French princess – sweetly wooed across the divide of language – and is recognised as heir to the French throne. But of course, glorious as it is, this is a drama. And what I want to do today is to take a closer look at what we think we know about Agincourt, to consider whether the way we think about the battle is an accurate reflection of fifteenth-century reality; and to ask – Shakespeare aside – does it really deserve its place among history's 'greatest hits'? I ought to make clear first of all that I am not, in the specialist sense, a military historian; but of course it is impossible to write about any period of human history without writing at some stage about war. And in tackling the subject of my most recent book – Joan of Arc, the most famous female soldier ever – not only was war inescapable as the defining context of her life and her brutal death, but, when I came to write, it was Agincourt that presented itself as my starting-point. In doing so, my focus was not principally on troop movements and topography, battle plans and tactics – and not just because of my own lack of expertise, but also because, in dealing with the middle ages, those neat diagrams with rectangular blocs moving across battlefields under the leadership of large black arrows can be significantly misleading, in a context where it can be tricky even to establish how many soldiers fought on each side to the nearest couple of thousand, let alone where they stood and exactly what they did. Instead, what fascinates me is the psychology and the politics of war. So what I am going to start with, in talking about Agincourt today, is not the battlefield: it is the naming of things. The labels we attach to the past shape the way we think about history, and they do it so profoundly that we need to keep a close eye on what that process does to our understanding. Let us think for a moment even about the name of this battle: we call it Agincourt, but there is no such place on the French map. Over there, it is Azincourt – and a large part of what I want to talk about today is the French experience of the dreadful defeat of Azincourt, rather than the victory of the happy few at Agincourt. Straight away, it is clear that we might be dealing with two different stories, depending on where we stand to view the fighting. But Agincourt – or Azincourt, either way – forms part of a grander narrative, one that also deserves our attention for a moment: the narrative of the Hundred Years' War. If we want to understand the past, we have to understand how our protagonists saw themselves and the world in which they lived. We need to understand the choices they faced as seen through their eyes, knowing only what they knew when they formed their judgements and made their decisions, because once hindsight comes into play, we are no longer understanding the past in its own terms. The Hundred Years' War is a good example of why that matters. It only takes a moment, once we stop ourselves to think, to realise that those who fought in it had no idea it was the Hundred Years' War they were fighting. For them, it was not over till it was over, and they did not know when that would turn out to be. In fact, it is a term first coined in the nineteenth century, like so many of the other neat and evocative formulations we use about our medieval past – the 'Wars of the Roses' being another, although the 'Hundred Years' War', unlike the 'Wars of the Roses', was first coined in French, as 'La Guerre de Cent Ans'. The first usage recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1874, by J.R. Green in his Short History of the English People. In 1453, he declares, 'The Hundred Years' War … ended'. What Green (and the others who first used the term) was suggesting was that the many phases of conflict between England and France that took place between 1337 and 1453 – so, a period of 116 years, rather than a round 100 – had a unifying principle, a connecting cause; and that cause was the English claim to the French throne first made by Edward III in right of his French mother Isabella, daughter of Philip IV of France. This was a claim that Edward and the English kings who succeeded him tried to make good by military means until the moment in 1453 when all English lands in France were finally lost, bar the fortified town of Calais, which lasted one more century until the French recaptured it in 1558. So, put like that, it is entirely possible to see the case for treating this century of conflict as a whole, or at least as having some kind of continuity at its core. But if we look a little more closely, the picture gets more complicated. Kings of England had held territory in France ever since the Conquest of 1066. They held the Conqueror's own duchy of Normandy, until it was lost by King John in 1204; but by then the English also held the duchy of Aquitaine in south-western France that had been brought to the crown by John's mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, when she married Henry II in the middle of the twelfth century.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WAR, GOVERNMENT and ARISTOCRACY in the BRITISH ISLES, C.1150-1500
    WAR, GOVERNMENT AND ARISTOCRACY IN THE BRITISH ISLES, c.1150-1500 Essays in Honour of Michael Prestwich Edited by Chris Given-Wilson Ann Kettle Len Scales THE BOYDELL PRESS © Contributors 2008 All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner First published 2008 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 978-1-84383-389-5 The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP 12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library This publication is printed on acid-free paper Printed in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham, Wiltshire Contents List of Contributors Vll Introduction ix Abbreviations xvii Did Henry II Have a Policy Towards the Earls? 1 Nicholas Vincent The Career of Godfrey of Crowcombe: Household Knight of King John 26 and Steward of King Henry III David Carpenter Under-Sheriffs, The State and Local Society c. 1300-1340: A Preliminary 55 Survey M. L. Holford Revisiting Norham, May-June 1291 69 Archie Duncan Treason, Feud and the Growth of State Violence: Edward I and the 84 'War of the Earl of Carrick', 1306-7 Matthew Strickland The Commendatio Lamentabilis for Edward I and Plantagenet Kingship 114 Bjorn Weiler Historians, Aristocrats and Plantagenet Ireland, 1200-1360 131 Robin Frame War and Peace: A Knight's Tale.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dull Soldier and a Keen Guest: Stumbling Through the Falstaffiad One Drink at a Time
    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2017 A Dull Soldier and a Keen Guest: Stumbling Through The Falstaffiad One Drink at a Time Emma Givens Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd Part of the Dramatic Literature, Criticism and Theory Commons, and the Theatre History Commons © The Author Downloaded from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/4826 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Emma Givens 2017 All rights reserved A Dull Soldier and a Keen Guest: Stumbling Through The Falstaffiad One Drink at a Time A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Fine Arts at Virginia Commonwealth University. Emma Pedersen Givens Director: Noreen C. Barnes, Ph.D. Director of Graduate Studies Department of Theatre Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia March, 2017 ii Acknowledgement Theatre is a collaborative art, and so, apparently, is thesis writing. First and foremost, I would like to thank my grandmother, Carol Pedersen, or as I like to call her, the world’s greatest research assistant. Without her vast knowledge of everything Shakespeare, I would have floundered much longer. Thank you to my mother and grad-school classmate, Boomie Pedersen, for her unending support, my friend, Casey Polczynski, for being a great cheerleader, my roommate, Amanda Long for not saying anything about all the books littered about our house and my partner in theatre for listening to me talk nonstop about Shakespeare over fishboards.
    [Show full text]
  • Orson Welles's Deconstruction of Traditional Historiographies In
    “How this World is Given to Lying!”: Orson Welles’s Deconstruction of Traditional Historiographies in Chimes at Midnight Jeffrey Yeager, West Virginia University ew Shakespearean films were so underappreciated at their release as Orson Welles’s Chimes at Midnight.1 Compared F to Laurence Olivier’s morale boosting 1944 version of Henry V, Orson Welles’s adaptation has never reached a wide audience, partly because of its long history of being in copyright limbo.2 Since the film’s debut, a critical tendency has been to read it as a lament for “Merrie England.” In an interview, Welles claimed: “It is more than Falstaff who is dying. It’s the old England, dying and betrayed” (qtd. in Hoffman 88). Keith Baxter, the actor who plays Prince Hal, expressed the sentiment that Hal was the principal character: Welles “always saw it as a triangle basically, a love story of a Prince lost between two father figures. Who is the boy going to choose?” (qtd. in Lyons 268). Samuel Crowl later modified these differing assessments by adding his own interpretation of Falstaff as the central character: “it is Falstaff’s winter which dominates the texture of the film, not Hal’s summer of self-realization” (“The Long Good-bye” 373). Michael Anderegg concurs with the assessment of Falstaff as the central figure when he historicizes the film by noting the film’s “conflict between rhetoric and history” on the one hand and “the immediacy of a prelinguistic, prelapsarian, timeless physical world, on the other” (126). By placing the focus on Falstaff and cutting a great deal of text, Welles, Anderegg argues, deconstructs Shakespeare’s world by moving “away from history and toward satire” (127).
    [Show full text]
  • For God's Sake, Let Us Sit Upon the Ground and Tell Sad Stories of the Death of Kings … -Richard II, Act III, Scene Ii
    The Hollow Crown is a lavish new series of filmed adaptations of four of Shakespeare’s most gripping history plays: Richard II , Henry IV, Part 1 , Henry IV, Part 2 , and Henry V , presented by GREAT PERFORMANCES . For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings … -Richard II, Act III, Scene ii 2013 WNET Synopsis The Hollow Crown presents four of Shakespeare’s history plays: Richard II , Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2, and Henry V . These four plays were written separately but tell a continuous story of the reigns of three kings of England. The first play starts in 1398, as King Richard arbitrates a dispute between his cousin Henry Bolingbroke and the Duke of Norfolk, which he resolves by banishing both men from England— Norfolk for life and Bolingbroke for six years. When Bolingbroke’s father dies, Richard seizes his lands. It’s the latest outrage from a selfish king who wastes money on luxuries, his favorite friends, and an expensive war in Ireland. Bolingbroke returns from banishment with an army to take back his inheritance and quickly wins supporters. He takes Richard prisoner and, rather than stopping at his own lands and privileges, seizes the crown. When one of Bolingbroke’s followers assassinates Richard, the new king claims that he never ordered the execution and banishes the man who killed Richard. Years pass, and at the start of Henry IV, Part 1 , the guilt-stricken king plans a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to wash Richard’s blood from his hands.
    [Show full text]
  • King and Country: Shakespeare’S Great Cycle of Kings Richard II • Henry IV Part I Henry IV Part II • Henry V Royal Shakespeare Company
    2016 BAM Winter/Spring #KingandCountry Brooklyn Academy of Music Alan H. Fishman, Chairman of the Board William I. Campbell, Vice Chairman of the Board BAM, the Royal Shakespeare Company, and Adam E. Max, Vice Chairman of the Board The Ohio State University present Katy Clark, President Joseph V. Melillo, Executive Producer King and Country: Shakespeare’s Great Cycle of Kings Richard II • Henry IV Part I Henry IV Part II • Henry V Royal Shakespeare Company BAM Harvey Theater Mar 24—May 1 Season Sponsor: Directed by Gregory Doran Set design by Stephen Brimson Lewis Global Tour Premier Partner Lighting design by Tim Mitchell Music by Paul Englishby Leadership support for King and Country Sound design by Martin Slavin provided by the Jerome L. Greene Foundation. Movement by Michael Ashcroft Fights by Terry King Major support for Henry V provided by Mark Pigott KBE. Major support provided by Alan Jones & Ashley Garrett; Frederick Iseman; Katheryn C. Patterson & Thomas L. Kempner Jr.; and Jewish Communal Fund. Additional support provided by Mercedes T. Bass; and Robert & Teresa Lindsay. #KingandCountry Royal Shakespeare Company King and Country: Shakespeare’s Great Cycle of Kings BAM Harvey Theater RICHARD II—Mar 24, Apr 1, 5, 8, 12, 14, 19, 26 & 29 at 7:30pm; Apr 17 at 3pm HENRY IV PART I—Mar 26, Apr 6, 15 & 20 at 7:30pm; Apr 2, 9, 23, 27 & 30 at 2pm HENRY IV PART II—Mar 28, Apr 2, 7, 9, 21, 23, 27 & 30 at 7:30pm; Apr 16 at 2pm HENRY V—Mar 31, Apr 13, 16, 22 & 28 at 7:30pm; Apr 3, 10, 24 & May 1 at 3pm ADDITIONAL CREATIVE TEAM Company Voice
    [Show full text]
  • The Life of King Henry the Fifth Study Guide
    The Life of King Henry the The Dukes of Gloucester and Fifth Bedford: The Study Guide King’s brothers. Compiled by Laura Cole, Duke of Exeter: Director of Education and Training Uncle to the [email protected] King. for The Atlanta Shakespeare Company Duke of York: at The New American Shakespeare Cousin to the King. Tavern Earl’s of Salisbury, Westmoreland and 499 Peachtree Street, NE Warwick: Advisors to the King. Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: 404-874-5299 The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely: They know the Salic Law very well! www.shakespearetavern.com The Earl of Cambridge, Sir Thomas Grey and Lord Scroop: English traitors, they take gold Original Practice and Playing from France to kill the King, but are discovered. Scroop is a childhood friend of Henry’s. Shakespeare Gower, Fluellen, Macmorris and Jamy: Captains in the King’s army, English, Welsh, The Shakespeare Tavern on Peachtree Street Irish and Scottish. is an Original Practice Playhouse. Original Practice is the active exploration and Bates, Court, Williams: Soldiers in the King’s implementation of Elizabethan stagecraft army. and acting techniques. Nym, Pistol, Bardolph: English soldiers and friends of the now-dead Falstaff, as well as For the Atlanta Shakespeare Company drinking companions of Henry, when he was (ASC) at The New American Shakespeare Prince Hal. A boy also accompanies the men. Tavern, this means every ASC production features hand-made period costumes, live Hostess of the Boar’s Head Tavern: Nee’ actor-generated sound effects, and live Quickly, now married to Pistol. period music performed on period Charles IV of France: The King of France.
    [Show full text]
  • The Calamity of Violence: Reading the Paris Massacres of 1418
    The Calamity of Violence: Reading the Paris Massacres of 1418 Michael Sizer University of Minnesota, Twin Cities The biggest problem facing the historian of medieval political culture is how to access the consciousness and beliefs of those outside the nobility and clergy. Even when members of the lower orders are given voice in sources, such as judicial records, or when their actions are described at length in chronicle accounts of revolt or town ceremonies, this version of their experience is mediated not only by the fact that it passes through a text, but further by the fact that this text was written by someone from a literate minority, generally from a position of power and often hostile to the concept of an active and politically engaged populace.1 Many scholars are content to allow elite expressions of a political ideal to stand in for the whole of medieval society and, thereby, incorrectly characterize the commons as essentially apolitical or as eager participants in the maintenance of the authoritarian ideology that undergirded 1 In this paper, I use phrases such as the commons, lower orders, and populace almost interchangeably. This practice reflects a vagueness present in the medieval sources themselves, in which the definition of who constitutes the common people shifts according to the context, sometimes including the urban patriciate and sometimes not. See Pierre Boglioni, Robert Delort, and Claude Gauvard, "Preface," in Le Petit Peuple dans l'Occident médiéval: Terminologies, perceptions, réalités. Actes du Congrès international tenu à l'Université de Montréal 18-23 octobre 1999, ed. Pierre Boglioni, Robert Delort, and Claude Gauvard (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2002), 7-8.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare's
    Shakespeare’s Henry IV: s m a r t The Shadow of Succession SHARING MASTERWORKS OF ART April 2007 These study materials are produced for use with the AN EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH OF BOB JONES UNIVERSITY Classic Players production of Henry IV: The Shadow of Succession. The historical period The Shadow of Succession takes into account is 1402 to 1413. The plot focuses on the Prince of Wales’ preparation An Introduction to to assume the solemn responsibilities of kingship even while Henry IV regards his unruly son’s prospects for succession as disastrous. The Shadow of When the action of the play begins, the prince, also known as Hal, finds himself straddling two worlds: the cold, aristocratic world of his Succession father’s court, which he prefers to avoid, and the disreputable world of Falstaff, which offers him amusement and camaraderie. Like the plays from which it was adapted, The Shadow of Succession offers audiences a rich theatrical experience based on Shakespeare’s While Henry IV regards Falstaff with his circle of common laborers broad vision of characters, events and language. The play incorporates a and petty criminals as worthless, Hal observes as much human failure masterful blend of history and comedy, of heroism and horseplay, of the in the palace, where politics reign supreme, as in the Boar’s Head serious and the farcical. Tavern. Introduction, from page 1 Like Hotspur, Falstaff lacks the self-control necessary to be a produc- tive member of society. After surviving at Shrewsbury, he continues to Grieved over his son’s absence from court at a time of political turmoil, squander his time in childish pleasures.
    [Show full text]
  • Henry V Plays Richard II
    Colby Quarterly Volume 26 Issue 2 June Article 6 June 1990 "I will...Be like a king": Henry V Plays Richard II Barbara H. Traister Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cq Recommended Citation Colby Quarterly, Volume 26, no.2, June 1990, p.112-121 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Colby Quarterly by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Colby. Traister: "I will...Be like a king": Henry V Plays Richard II "I will . .. Be like a king": Henry V Plays Richard II by BARBARA H. TRAISTER N BOTH RichardII and Henry v, the first and last plays ofthe second tetralogy, I kings engage in highly theatrical activity. Each play, however, has a very different metadramatic focus. In Richard II acting becomes a metaphor for the way Richard sees himself. The focus of audience attention is the narcissistic royal actor whose principal concern is his own posturing and who is his own greatest, and eventually only, admirer. Richard is an actor and dramatist, the embodiment of Elizabeth I's comment: "We Princes, I tell you, are set on stages, in the sight and view of all the world duly observed" (quoted in Neale 1957,2:19). However, his self-ab­ sorption and blindness to the world around him lead the audience to make few, if any, connections between him and the actor-dramatist who created him. The play is nearly empty of self-reflexive dramatic overtones despite its complex portrait of a player king.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle Speeches of Henry V
    The Battle Speeches of Henry V Anne Curry University qfSouthampton In the attack on Constantinople in 1204, when Peter of Amiens saw Murzurphlus spurring his horse towards him, he shouted to his followers Now lords, stand firm' We will have a fight on our hands: see the emperor is coming. Take care that there is no one so bold as to run away. But now resolve to stand firm,l Such scenes arc commonplace in medieval chronicles. As Bllese observed, chroniclers wrote hundreds of battle orations. harangues to the knights before or during combat, that show in detail the kinds of motive appeals the chroniclers believed would be most effective in building morale.' . One of the most famous battle speeches of all must be that of Henry V at Agincourt, well known not from its chronicle versions but from the stirring words of Shakespeare.' Shapiro has alerted us to Shakespeare's use of expressions he heard in daily life as well as those he read in the printed histories which informed his works. In the case of the battle speech, Shapiro detects the influence ofa sermon delivered to the royal court on Ash Wednesday 1599 by Lancelot Anclrewes. 4 The theme was war, the context the preparations for the expedition of the earl of Essex to Ireland. Andrewes' 'thumping reiteration of "this time" and "this day''', Shapiro argues, inspired Shakespeares similarly repeated emphasis on 'St Crispin's day'. Shakespearean scholars have detected other influences on the composition of the speech, ranging from popular sayings,' to biblical passages,6 to accounts of other battles in the histories of Hall and Holinshed.' But Henry V's battle speech has a much longer pedigree which can be traced back to the earliest chronicle narratives of the battle.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Battle Tactics in the Hundred Years War
    The Development of Battle Tactics in the Hundred Years War Matthew Bennett Arms, Armies and Fortifications in the Hundred Years War (1994) It is a common aphorism that the history of war is too important to be left to military historians. They tend to be seen as obsessed with battle with no further interest or wider understanding of the warring societies.1 In truth, they have done themselves no favours in the past by emphasising ‘decisive’ victories. This overvalues the long-term impact of even the most significant battle and distorts by undervaluing the other, far more common, activities of raid, attrition, fortification and siege in the warfare of any period. By their very nature battles are ephemeral events, and historians have to rely upon largely subjective accounts in reconstructing them. Some consider this an uncongenial or even inappropriate task for their profession. `Real’ history is to be found in the study of `real’ information, such as can be found in the administrative records of governments: musters lists, tax records, accounts, diplomatic correspondence, building records and so on. Biased and `journalistic’ reportage of chroniclers and government propagandists or the partial and often confused recollection of participants scarcely qualifies as history. Furthermore, the study of battles has tended to be conducted by soldiers. There may seem nothing wrong with this, but it has led to them drawing upon their own military experience of modern warfare without making due allowance for the differences of another place and time. Just as the historians might benefit from some practical experience of, for example, `living in the field’, the soldier historians’ often impressionistic accounts need more historical rigour.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin D'inscription a L'itinerance
    BULLETIN D’INSCRIPTION A L’ITINERANCE AU PAYS DES 7 VALLEES DU 17 AU 22 JUIN 2019 Inscriptions jusqu’au samedi 25 mai 2019 inclus. Mme, Mr ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Adresse mail : …………………………@...................................................... ...................... Téléphone (portable de préférence) : …………………………………………………………………… Adhérent FFRandonnée OUI □ NON □ n° adhérent : ……………. Association : (si licencié) …………………………………………………………………… Inscriptions par journée pour l’autocar. Date Nombre de personnes Bus Nombre d’adhérents FFRandonnée 17 juin …………. OUI □ NON □ ………….. 18 juin …………. ………….. 19 juin …………. OUI □ NON □ ………….. 20 juin …………. ………….. 21 juin …………. OUI □ NON □ ………….. 22 juin …………. ………….. Réservation des visites guidées. Musée éphémère d’Azincourt OUI □ NON □ Abbaye Sainte-Berthe à Blangy-sur-Ternoise OUI □ NON □ et Moulin de l’abbaye Musée de l’Abeille à Bouin-Plumoison OUI □ NON □ Pépinières Hennebelle à Boubers-sur-Canche OUI □ NON □ Cave du Perlé Delobel à Loison-sur-Créquoise OUI □ NON □ Visite guidée d’Hesdin OUI □ NON □ Réservation du déjeuner du samedi . Au Manoir de la Canche OUI □ NON □ Les paiements pour la journée (transport et visite) s’effectueront chaque matin au départ. Pour ceux qui arriveraient par le train pour la semaine, un covoiturage peut être organisé sur demande. ITINERANCE 2019 : AU PAYS DES 7 VALLEES. Du lundi 17 juin au samedi 22 juin 2019 Le Comité Départemental FFRandonnée du Pas-de-Calais vous invite a une randonnée itinérante dans le Pays des Sept Vallées, en lien avec le week-end des sports de nature des 7 Vallées : AUROCH Partagez une journée, deux journées, voire toute la semaine, faites quelques visites guidées, si vous le désirez, avec le groupe (sans aucune obligation)... dans une ambiance conviviale. Pour ces étapes, rendez-vous chaque matin à 8h45 au point d 'arrivée de la journée pour un transport en autocar vers le point de départ, pour les étapes en ligne, et à 9h 15 au point de départ pour les étapes en boucle.
    [Show full text]