# St. Crispin's speech... What fallacy is this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 8, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663 "2008-09-08T19:56:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/21 "2008-09-08T22:21:22Z")
Rather, let me reword that last part: > [@Chronos](#): > > Basically, it looks like all three of the premises (A or B, If A then C, and If B then C) are all individually true, and if those premises are true, then under the standard rules of logic, the conclusion C should be true, too. “If A then C” and “If B then C” are faulty premises (if the conditional is to be interpreted as the simple material conditional). “If necessarily A, then C” or “Conditionalizing on A, then C” are more accurate premises. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/22 "2008-09-08T22:21:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Of course, battles are not predetermined, and are in fact affected by how many people are involved. But that doesn’t change the truth of the statement “Either we will win the battle, or we will not”. > > Basically, it looks like all three of the premises (A or B, If A then C, and If B then C) are all individually true, and if those premises are true, then under the standard rules of logic, the conclusion C should be true, too. Another way to look at the flaw is that it’s not precisely correct to state the argument as "If we lose the battle, then it’s better to have less men, " and “If we win the battle, then it’s better to have less men” More correctly, it’s: “It’s better to lose the battle with few men than to lose the battle with many men,” and “It’s better to win the battle with few men than to win the battle with many men.” Which leaves room for the statement “It’s better to win the battle with many men than to lose the battle with few men,” which is useful to include if you care about winning and losing, and if you believe that the odds of winning with many men are significantly better than the odds of winning with few men. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/23 "2008-09-08T22:24:01Z")
> [@Manduck](#): > > Henry didn’t have the option of having more men, so he was putting the best face on the situation that he was presented with. You beat me to it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/24 "2008-09-08T23:19:54Z")
Quoth **Indistinguishable** : > [@](#): > > “If A then C” and “If B then C” are faulty premises. “If necessarily A, then C” or “Conditionalizing on A, then C” are accurate premises. OK, I’ll accept that resolution. I’m still a bit curious if this particular flavor of slipperiness of terms has a name. Quoth **Manduck** : > [@](#): > > Henry didn’t have the option of having more men, so he was putting the best face on the situation that he was presented with. I figured that was taken for granted. It’s still an interesting argument, regardless of its motivation. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/25 "2008-09-08T23:43:34Z")
> [@Manduck](#): > > Also, Henry didn’t have the option of having more men, so he was putting the best face on the situation that he was presented with. Yeah; if the Angel of the LORD had appeared and said “Hi, Harry; nice prayers last night. In answer to which God has authorized me to miraculously transport another 50,000 men from England–fully equipped, trained, and, y’know, not exhausted and hungry and suffering from dysentery–what say you?”, for all we know, Henry would have taken him up on it in a heartbeat. As it was, Westmoreland was basically just whinging at that point, and the speech is fundamentally an emotional appeal to a bunch of heavily outnumbered men (exhausted, hungry, and beset with disease) in the middle of a hostile country. > [@](#): > > Logic aside, this was the battle of Agincourt, where the French lost partly because they had too many men on the battlefield (they were overcrowded and getting in each other’s way). I think it’s something of a mistake to over-conflate “Henry V, historical King of England”, and “Henry V, fictional character based on the foregoing historical person”. The real Henry at the real Battle of Agincourt was no doubt a cold and calculating tactician, and perhaps due to considerations of terrain and strategy really couldn’t have made effective use of more reinforcements–but I doubt he ever really said anything so stirring as Shakespeare’s Henry. Shakespeare goes so far as to have his (fictional) Henry V claim that the battle was won “without stratagem/But in plain shock and even play of battle”, which bears very little resemblance to the real Battle of Agincourt. Shakespeare’s _Henry V_ isn’t about logic or the actual tactics and strategy and shape of the battlefield at the Battle of Agincourt; it’s about a bunch of stouthearted Englishmen defeating a vast horde of haughty cheese-eating Frenchmen in a stand-up fight because the English have God on their sides and any good Englishman\* is worth worth ten of those Frenchies any day. \*Or Welshman. ---
**Author:** ![Scuba\_Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Scuba\_Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scuba_Ben)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/26 "2008-09-08T23:46:06Z")
There are not two premisses **A** and **B** ; there is only **A** : “We will win the battle.” The reasoning is: **A** -\> **C** ! **A** -\> **C** Tf. **C**. QED. And **C** becomes a tautology. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/27 "2008-09-08T23:49:40Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Of course, battles are not predetermined… Did Henry know this? Having a look at the rest of the speecch though, I think **Mr. Excellent** has the right of it; Henry’s interest is more in the honour to be gained than the practicalities of winning while outnumbered: > [@](#): > > _But if it be a sin to covet honour, > I am the most offending soul alive. > No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England: > God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour > As one man more, methinks, would share from me…_ Something to consider when volunteering (or remaining a-bed in England): is the C-in-C a loon? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/28 "2008-09-09T00:33:29Z")
> [@Scuba\_Ben](#): > > There are not two premisses **A** and **B** ; there is only **A** : “We will win the battle.” > > The reasoning is: > > **A** -\> **C** > ! **A** -\> **C** > Tf. **C**. QED. > > And **C** becomes a tautology. **A** and **B** (= ! **A** ) aren’t the premises; it’s the lines **A** -\> **C** and ! **A** -\> **C** which are premises. (Erroneous ones, in this case; what we actually have is better understood as **A** -\> **C** and **!A** -\> **C** ) ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/29 "2008-09-09T00:37:10Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, I’ll accept that resolution. I’m still a bit curious if this particular flavor of slipperiness of terms has a name. Eh, what’s in a name? But if you insist, it’s been called “‘the’ modal fallacy” (see the discussion on Aristotle’s sea battle [here](http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/modal_fallacy.htm#ldeterminism)). ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2008, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663/30 "2008-09-09T00:44:25Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > Something to consider when volunteering (or remaining a-bed in England): is the C-in-C a loon? Must _every_ thread turn into a referendum on Iraq? Sailboat 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/st-crispins-speech-what-fallacy-is-this/462663.md?page=1)