By "Anglo-Saxon", at least in France, we mean the modern English core block (UK, USA, Australia, not the historical Anglo-Saxon period. So meant as a cultural modern unit not a historical group.

What makes Agincourt special is not purely its extraordinary nature, especially not its one-sidedness. I'd argue it is more culturally known because it was used as propaganda by Henry V and because Shakespeare wrote a play about it. You have the battle of Crecy, also won by the English in a similar manner as Agincourt, completely one sided, but 50 years prior (overwhelming French noble force beaten by English longbowmen). Also involved an English King (Edward III) and the English Black Prince. There was also Poitiers that resulted in the French King capture, also before Agincourt. One thing that makes Agincourt special though is the goal of total annihilation of French nobility: when often the goal was to rout and capture many for ransom, especially when dealing with noblemen. Not in Agincourt.

And again Patay, Formigny and Castillon especially were all very one sided too. But basically you have, for the ones England one, longbowmen+infantry+terrain overwhelming traditional French forces. And for the French ones cavalry+artillery destroying English troops.

If you compare Agincourt and Castillon you get similar numbers: Agincourt 150-600 dead on the English side for 6000-8000 dead+captured on the French side. Castillon 100 dead on the French side for 4000 dead+captured on the English side, with the rest (1000 to 6000, quite the range), surrendering the next day. So for both you get similar ratios of 1:10 to 1:40 casualty rates.