Ok seen as this board is largely Francophile please explain this to me.
The Anglo tries to conquer both Scotland and France in the late middle ages
France >has 5 times the population of England and at least 5 times the wealth >have the English Channel seperating you and England, meaning it cost a shitload of Englands war budget just to transport troops over >gets pillaged for roughly 100 years >large amounts of French land taken by the English for a long time >lose many large scale pitched battles >forced to sign treaties either giving away either much or all of the country to England >only win in the end because England runs out of cash and Castille has been financing France like crazy >have the added bonus of Scotland as an ally, meaning England can never divert its full attention to you or else its north gets pillaged >never manage to invade England beyond a couple of coastal raids over 100 years and that time they landed an army in Wales and fled before an engagement >even after the English were drove out they still managed to hold onto Calais for another hundred years
Scotland >much smaller population and much less wealthy than England >gets invaded by England but the English don't hold much for significant amounts of time >when it came to pitched battles the Scots won half the time >Manages to pillage and raid northern England as far down as York on many occasions >have a land border with England making it much easier for them to send armies their >no significant allies other than France who don't really help much >even takes the fight to the English in their Irish territories >force the English to sign treaties recognising their independence
Yes I know the Scots had the advantage of mountainous terrain, but that's mainly in the highlands, most of the population was located in the lowlands, which had practically the same geography as northern England. So you can't just shrug it off by claiming guerrilla warfare.
Seen as how this board always claims France has always been one of the most successful countries in war, explain why they couldn't put up as good a fight as a country that had all the odds stacked against them.
Samuel Allen
>has 5 times the population of England and at least 5 times the wealth >have the English Channel seperating you and England, meaning it cost a shitload of Englands war budget just to transport troops over >gets pillaged for roughly 100 years >large amounts of French land taken by the English for a long time
You start with the false implication that "England" conquered these lands, when in reality their French nobles on the English throne inherited them (it was their falmily ancestral lands) and lost it all at war
Also your rant about population is wrong The HYW was basically a war between two French families, not between the French and the English people Being French, the family that ruled England had no problem gaining the support of the inhabitants of the French lands they ruled (especially since as you can see on pic related, the whole of Western France had been ruled by the Plantagenets for much longer than it had been by the Valois)
Daniel Perez
But i'm an Anglophile
Joseph Hernandez
>Seen as how this board always claims France has always been one of the most successful countries in war, explain why they couldn't put up as good a fight as a country that had all the odds stacked against them.
Fact is that, if you look at the whole of history, France has done much more impressive things at war than England/Britain ever did
The part between 1792 and 1815 alone is one of the most impressive stuff in the entire military history of the world, and only WW2 Germany even come close from it among european countries
Henry Young
At the time of the start of the Hundred Years War they only had Gascony, they greatly expanded that during the Edwardian phase, and then flat out controlled half of France during the 1st Lancastrian phase. You can't claim that map from 1154 is relevant at all just because the territories had been ruled together over two hundred years ago, as large parts of Scotland had previously been recognised as parts of England and before that part of Northumbria, one of the kingdoms that made up England.
Yes the hundred years war was a dynastic conflict, but it also involved the armies of both countries, you haven't answered my question of why Scotland performed so well when France did not?
Ayden Jackson
Yes, having the largest military in history and yet getting conquered by a notoriously bankrupt nation in a single month is very impressive.
Lincoln Bennett
My point in making this thread wasn't to claim that France is bad at war, simply challenging the rabid belief that half of this board has that they were some sort of eternal warrior race that just got unlucky in WW2
Austin Ortiz
>You can't claim that map from 1154 is relevant at all just because the territories had been ruled together over two hundred years ago, It is in explaining why the population in these lands supported the Plantagenets and why your rant about population numbers is thus irrelevant
>Yes the hundred years war was a dynastic conflict, but it also involved the armies of both countries Armies werent huge conscripted armies like in the WWs and were absolutly not linked to population numbers The Plantagenet and Valois armies were roughly the same size for most of the war
>you haven't answered my question of why Scotland performed so well when France did not? Easy, because Scotland wasnt the main focus of the Plantagenet Regaining their ancestral lands in France was
Wyatt Johnson
How could 1940 France have "the largest military in history" when the French military and the BEF combined has smaller numbers than the Germans during the Battle of France
Landon Anderson
>simply challenging the rabid belief that half of this board has that they were some sort of eternal warrior race that just got unlucky in WW2
Then you might as well use something else than a civil war between two French factions to prove your point
Evan Gray
>most of the population was located in the lowlands, This doesn't really become true until the Highland Clearences. In fact until the establishment of the Burgh system, the Highlands had a higher population than the Lowlands.
Kayden Allen
>It is in explaining why the population in these lands supported the Plantagenets and why your rant about population numbers is thus irrelevant They'd lost those lands well over a hundred years ago, no one alive would remember their rule.
>Armies werent huge conscripted armies like in the WWs and were absolutly not linked to population numbers The Plantagenet and Valois armies were roughly the same size for most of the war >Size and quality of an army was linked to wealth though, which was linked heavily with population.
>Easy, because Scotland wasnt the main focus of the Plantagenet, regaining their ancestral lands in France was I'm talking about the Scottish Wars of Independence, you absolutely can't deny that the Plantagenets' full focus was on Scotland and not France during this time, the Hundred Years War hadn't even started at this point
Nathan Wright
>have the added bonus of Scotland as an ally, meaning England can never divert its full attention to you or else its north gets pillaged
Yeah, but let's totally ignore how "England" had Gascony, Flanders, Brittany, Blois and Burgundy as allies, thus totally encircling "France" (and changing the balance of population numbers you care so much about)
Pic related, the situation at the start of the 100 Years War
Bentley Perry
>that just got unlucky in WW2
The freemasons literally placed their incompetent pawns in power
During both WWs French military was led by the fat and cowardly bourgeoisie instead of the Nobility.
>I'm talking about the Scottish Wars of Independence
Oh, so you're talking about a completly unrelated war during a different time? Well, did Scotland have treacherous cancerous tumors all over its territory like it was the case for France? ( )
Probably not The reason? Because all of Scotland saw the English kings as foreigners, while many lords in France saw them as "just another French family that may treat us better than the current ruling one" Hence why Scotland fought them united while the HYW was a shitfeast of betrayals and alliances of all sorts
Anthony Collins
Even if you believe the french civil war meme it doesn't make a difference to my point. Whether its England vs France or Plantagenet vs Valois it doesn't change anything
Plantagenets used all the military resources they could from England to try and conquer Scotland, the Scots resisted with what resources they had, Plantagenets failed pretty badly.
Plantagenets used all the military resources they could from England to try and conquer France, the Valois resisted with all the resources available to them, ie the resources of nearly all of France. Plantagenets failed eventually, but in this case they always had the odds stacked against them.
The Scots drove out the Plantagenet/English much more decisively and with way less resources at their disposal. That's what I'm trying to say
For the duration of the Hundred Years War Brittany was either in civil war or supporting Valois. Flanders was not a productive ally for England, eventually costing it money. Burgundy was however a valuable ally and one of the main reasons the 1st Lancastrian phase went so well for England, but they still fought for Valois during the first half
Nathaniel Davis
See The situation in France was very different from the one in Scotland
Noah Green
>For the duration of the Hundred Years War Brittany was either in civil war or supporting Valois.
Not at the start (when it really mattered) During the Edwardian Phase, Brittany was fully supporting the Plantagenets
Cooper Barnes
It led up to just before the start of the Hundred Years War, I think its a fair comparison because it means the full military capacity of England was against them in both cases.
And yes, Scotland did have these cancerous tumours, probably more so than France, with the Bruce and Balliol claims so contested Scotland was severely politically divided and pretty much going through a civil war
Michael Moore
When did Blois support Plantagenet??
Grayson Clark
If you say the start is when it really matters then Burgundy is on the side of Valois
