Mfw a french knight comes within 400 yards of me

>mfw a french knight comes within 400 yards of me

Other urls found in this thread:

mud defeated the french, not english peasant with bows

The retarded commander who order his knights to cross a mile in heavy mud as fast as they could defeated the French.

And then Patay...

English longbowmen were highly paid and highly-demanded mercenaries. Not unlike crossbowmen from Italy.

i r8 8/8

the "an arrow can do significant damage" meme really has to stop

check death toll for agincourt
report back

Ill do it for you
England At least 112 dead, unknown wounded
France 7,000–10,000 (mostly killed) and about 1,500 noble prisoners
Hisotrical estimates have the English outnumbered 4-3 at most conservative and most liberal is 6-1. Historical ass whooping. In my opinion, on par with winter war

And not a single recorded death by bow and arrow

>French get to the English line
>still lose despite outnumbering the English
Gee, the Frankaboos on this board really know nothing


But in reality

>To protect themselves as much as possible from the arrows, the French had to lower their visors and bend their helmeted heads to avoid being shot in the face—the eye and air-holes in their helmets were among the weakest points in the armour. This head lowered position restricted both their breathing and their vision. Then they had to walk a few hundred yards through thick mud, a press of comrades and wearing armour weighing 50–60 pounds (23–27 kg), gathering sticky clay all the way. Increasingly they had to walk around or over fallen comrades.[50]

>The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point-blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows, they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them.

>The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour) combined with the English men-at-arms. The impact of thousands of arrows, combined with the slog in heavy armour through the mud, the heat and lack of oxygen in plate armour with the visor down, and the crush of their numbers meant the French men-at-arms could "scarcely lift their weapons" when they finally engaged the English line.[51]

>The exhausted French men-at-arms are described as being knocked to the ground by the English and then unable to get back up.

The plate armour of the French men-at-arms allowed them to close the 300 yards or so to the English lines while being under what the French monk of Saint Denis described as "a terrifying hail of arrow shot". A complete coat of plate was considered such good protection that shields were generally not used,[47] although the Burgundian contemporary sources specifically distinguish between Frenchmen who used shields and those who did not, and Rogers has suggested that the front elements of the French force may have used axes and shields.[48] Modern historians are somewhat divided on how effective the longbow fire would have been against plate armour of the time, with some modern texts suggesting that arrows could not penetrate, especially the better quality steel armour, but others suggesting arrows could penetrate, especially the poorer quality wrought iron armour. Rogers suggests that the longbow could penetrate a wrought iron breastplate at short range and penetrate the thinner armour on the limbs even at 220 yards (200 m). He considers a knight in the best quality steel armour would have been more or less invulnerable to an arrow on the breastplate or top of the helmet, but would still have been vulnerable to shots hitting the limbs, particularly at close range.

Not a single kill right. Even though it could penetrate. Meaning it could kill. Limb shots are just as dangerous. Many arteries. I promise that many deaths occurred. Since, you know, many weren't using shields

The best way would be to disprove it by counter example, which means going through every single record about the battle which i'm not going to do.
If you happen to find a case of penetrated armour at agincourt please post it.

just did
if you choose not to believe it possible, then fuck it


>one guy suggests that thing could have been the case

Still no record fampai

>losing to mud

When longbow fanboys say that an arrow could "penetrate" they usually mean a quarter inch of penetration.


Then also completely ignoring the fact that everyone wore chainmail and gambeson underneath plate armour

Are the english aware they actually lost that war?

hence the fame of agincourt. this is how we grease the wheels of nationalism

Yeah, it only took the french 80 fucking years to get it right

It was multiple wars, and they won several battles, which for what was a fairly insignificant island nation up against a continental power, aint fucking bad.

What matters isn't that they ultimately lost. What matters is that they were able to beat the French, and become a player in continental wars and politics, whereas before the war they were considered something of a backwater kingdom. They became a european power as a result of the wars

The English actually talk shit about themselves to look better...

There would have been a couple probably

Dont forget that most of the dead were prisoners who were executed when henry started to panic and thought he was going to lose

>More than 100 years of domination
>couldn't even fucking destroy France

English'men' everyone


Why do bongs act like it was a war between France and England when it really was a civil war between two French families, with one of them happening to own England?

There is no "little irrelevant island" or "ruled you for 100 years", the fact is that the side of this war that ignorants call "England", the Plantagenets, had shitload of continental possessions (which they owned before ever owning England since it was their original territory) and they lost it all in the war

>mfw a frenchman comes within a channel of me, leading english troops to invade France

happend a few times iirc

Great refute user. English and Welsh longbowmen were well regarded and sought after by contemporary sources.

Great refute user. English and Welsh longbowmen were well regarded and sought after by contemporary english sources*.


>companies of well-paid english longbow mercenaries in italian and burgundian armies is british fabrication


> They became a european power as a result of the wars
No they did not. The result of the war was that they lost most of their continental possessions and the ability to wage war there for real, ability that they only regained after 1815.
France was the one that became a european power instead of just another princedom.

England became a european power when they won their wars with the dutch.

well, having the ability to lie to sell yourself doenst refute my point, user.
Any country on earth would rather hire British troops rather than French troops atm, even when you fled your positions at Dunkirk, and were defeated as we were in the battle of France. Yet we take all the blame, and you took the glroy of dunkirk. Hell you'll even make a movie out of it. my only source of confort is that hary fucking nostyle will have a lead role in it, so it will probably be shit. As you'd desserve for dinner.

>In my opinion, on par with winter war

It's a battle though, not a war
If it's on par with something, it would be closer from these

>tfw english troops come from France invade England

Now this is one butthurt frenchman.

you would be too user, you would be too. history has been very (very) unjust to France.

>Any country on earth would rather hire British troops rather than French troops atm, even when you fled your positions at Dunkirk, and were defeated as we were in the battle of France. Yet we take all the blame, and you took the glroy of dunkirk.

Well, in my country (Denmark), both France and Britain are viewed as pathetic when it comes to WW2
America is the one country seen as heroic, despite the fact Russia did all the job


They did it from the Netherlands quite a few times too
Brits are truly the masters at evacuating the continent like pussies when a country tries to take over it

Proof, got any proof?

What a fucking retard

Because this war historically made France, faggot. It's not only a civil war, it's the rise of a national feeling, and the apparition of France as modern state.

English have rekt french hard but in the end it only made them stronger

Because the Angevin Empire collapsed in 1214 when King John was forced to recognize Capetian rule over Anjou, Poitou, Maine, and Normandy; the English only held half of the Aquitaine and some shit near Callais at the outset of the Hundred Years War

>mfw two extremely cucked nations are fighting over previously had empires because at this point they can only be proud of their history

whats a good book on the 100 years war?


Thats like how you kill the AI on Total War.

Probably because you surrendered after 5 days in ww2.

Haha whats the matter frenchie, sit on a baguette?

Jonathan Sumption.

The entire country was war-weary after the Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, Prussian wars and the Great War

They couldn't send another generation of men to their slaughter.


Everyone else could.

I'm not French, but if there's one country that shouldnt be allowed to mock France for WW2, it's Britain
Reminder that you both got raped by the Germans in 1940.
The French surrendered, the Brits ran away and hid



No one had as much loss as France, have some respect.


Because of their incompetent, petty, squabbling and infighting chain of command.

The French army was better trained and better equipped than the Germans, but they had not a single competent commander to lead them.

Pretty sad really.

Just like the Franco Prussian war.

Frenchies dont learn.

Britbongs love pulling this crap. Try them on the War of 1812 sometime--they are convinced they won it.

>losing an army to mud

That has to be the worst commander of all time surely?

You ever tried to fight mud?

That's even worse!

What I don't get is that the English love to talk about how great their archers were at Agincourt...but they completly forget that the french cavalry took its revenge at Patay with the same tactic.

>Well, in my country (Denmark), both France and Britain are viewed as pathetic when it comes to WW2

Is this bait? Denmark was invaded and crumbled in less than a fucking day.

Start shit, get hit

>Denmark thinking it has the right to call other countries pathetic

The knights were defeated by horrible leadership and mud, not so much the longbows.

well, maybe not to a fully armored knight but a to horse maybe

probably alot of horses tho

bruh, wtf are you doing!?

Yup, because retreating in battle is cowardice.
You can cherry-pick occasions from across a thousand years of war if you want, but don't delude yourself in thinking it means anything.

Oh ffs, I thought this was meant to be the history board. The hell would you have done? Are you really saying surrender is a better option than retreating to fight another day?

No one said that, but it's pretty ironic the brits are mocking the french for giving up because the only difference was that the british had a island to fuck off back to while the french lost everything already

I don't know, both are in the same basket to me

>You can cherry-pick occasions from across a thousand years of war if you want

It's not cherrypicking when it happened each time a country tried to take over Europe (Napoleon and WW2)

>Sixteen Danish soldiers died in the invasion, but after two hours the Danish government surrendered, believing that resistance was useless and hoping to work out an advantageous agreement with Germany.
>two fucking hours

clearly the Danish don't know WW2 history then, how the Brits helped liberate Norway, fought the North African front pretty much alone, won the battle of Britain despite being outnumbered, led the Italian front under Montgomery, hindered German Nuclear technology by busting heavy water factories, flattened Dresden, destroyed the German submarine base at the raid of St Nazaire (look it up it's good shit, pic related) this also allowed D-day to happen, and then fought on two beaches the same as America, all that whilst having one of the smallest armies during WW2
grow up mate, get a clue

oh and I forgot to mention, we also worked out the German enigma code

Who do you think dropped arms to Holger Dansk and BOPA?

oh and won in Burma against the Japs, although we took heavy losses at the start because of stupid communication (we thought we were heavily outnumbered), but we won it back in the end

>w-we helped too!!

The bulk of the Japanese Army was committed in Burma and India (or on the borders of India); as vicious as the Island campaigns were, they were essentially a sideshow.

"English arrows can't pierce steel armor"

[spoiler] I never get to post this and this seems like a good enough place to do it. [/spoiler]

are the english and the french aware that at the time the english nobility all spoke french, and so it was really just french nobles vs. french nobles fighting over who got to rule france?

>reading bourgeois nationalism into medieval history
poor form lad

The "english" were still just frenchmen. England was just their backup plan/staging place from which they attempted to take france, which was what they really wanted. And to that end, they levied english peasants to fight and die.

Somehow, the english take national pride from this. Sort of how they take pride in the magna carta, which preserved the rights of the french speaking barons to rape their english serfs.

France has been in more wars than any other country ever, and they have a really good win ratio. France was literally neutered of any capable men by the time of the world wars.

As for shitters on brits in ww2, they could easily have held their own against the germans. The RAF rekt the luftwaffle, the only true threat.

Not to forget hitler really didn't want to go to war with Britain in the first place

Ahhh, I don't know what Magna Carta you've been reading but it sure isn't the one I'm used to. What are you talking about?


>Those nobles retaining fiefs in England came to identify themselves as English by nationality, whatever their language might have been. In the 1250s a barons' revolt against Henry III had as one of its grievances a resentment against the mainland French cronies of Henry III and the inevitable associated French influence. Some of these barons, descended from eleventh century French-speaking Normans, demanded that those fief-holders in England who could not speak English should be dispossessed of their holdings, or even killed! In 1258, at the end of the Barons' Revolt, a proclamation was issued in both English and French, describing some of the settlements made as a result of the revolt. This is the first known official document that was written in English since the time of Henry I (ca. 1154).

> this meme again

The English nobility had been speaking English and considering themselves English for generations by the time of Agincourt.