What was the most destructive medieval European war? In terms of sheer casualties not lasting impacts

Fun fact: if France's population as a percentage of the world population was kept the same from 1300 to 2017 (the world had 360-432m in 1300, 7.5b today), it would have about as many people as the USA.

War of the roses. The battle of Towton is even today the most destructive day in British military history rivaled only by the first day of battle of Somme. It took 25-30 000 lives. In single fucking day.

It did destroy Islamic culture in Western Europe and set back the development of Europe for centuries.

With the increased diversity that Andalusia bought to Europe we would probably be have a colony on Moon by now. And we would almost certainly have had gay marriage decades ago.

We can be pretty certain (70-80%) that the Holocaust would never have happened and six to nine million Jews would never have been genocided of there was more of the Islamic tradition of tolerance influencing Europe.

>about 15 million in 1300
current borders or 1300 borders?

1300 borders I presume.

I don't think the world could handle so many French.

It couldn't handle them 700 years ago either.

That figure is believed to be exaggerated.

They were the 'Wars' of the roses because there were only a few weeks of actual fighting between nobles over the course of like 35 years, so no.

How do you know?

In 1300, France had around 13 millions people within the era's borders and 17 millions if regarding current borders
That's big but not that huge either
Italy had 10 milions and the HRE had around 18 millions

I found a self-admitted lower-end estimate of 13.4 million for France in 1328 from the book "Late Ancient and Medieval Population", by J. C. Russell: Vol. 48, No. 3, p. 106. The author specifically notes that France's population was contained in an area smaller than France's borders today to emphasize how huge it was.

So I assume that other historians who throw out estimates along the same lines are using the same borders, as they're all in the from of 13-20 million.

Nice bait Ahmed

30 years war.

1/3 of the HRE's population.

People often mention this but forget that it doesn't mean that tens of percents of Europeans were killed. Population dropped but that happened in the time span of two or three generations. They didn't just all die off, they just stopped to replace the population that did.

Indeed, but the Napoleonic Wars and WW1 were worse

What a stupid comment. It decreased 1/3, this is unprecedented in European history. It's like saying the Nazis only killed 1 million jews per annum.

No it isn't. It's 30 years, in that time many people tend to die, naturally or not, and if you don't make new ones or they don't survive to adulthood, the overall population drops even without direct genocide.

That bait is a little to big for this pond.

You're implying that these people died from natural causes. Which is plain stupid.

Some did, some did not. And many didn't even die, they were never born to begin with.

>15 millions french people
>3 millions british people

Why was it so hard for the french to win this war ? I mean they could have crushed the brits with that much people

Because it wasnt France vs England, But parts of France + England vs other parts of France

Pic related, the beginning of the HYW
Green and Grey vs Orange

Charlemagne destroyed France's chance in the future with his huge focus on the Frankish lands. The fact that it thrived and developed an Aryan branded nationalism in an otherwise dived Europe, meant that population and trade would naturally go up, leading to and eventual plague or war or revolution... black plague... Hundred years war... and even further French revolution. Charlemagne, more like Charledirus

30 years war and it isnt even close. In terms of percentage of population lost, it is worse than WW2.

How does that change the fact that it's largest battle of those few weeks of campaigning was proportionally more destructive than the entire British involvement in the First World War?

If the 30 Years War is a medieval war even though it took place in the 17th century, then WW2 may as well be one too

>Why was it so hard for the french to win this war ?
The experience of Crécy and Poitiers taught the French that they could not defeat the English in the field: the English had a more effective order of fighting, and their great companies of longbow men were a force to be feared. Hence harassment, attrition and scorched-earth tactics became the preferred French methods of warfare.

In the long run, England was always going to lose France, given the permanent problems of shipping soldiers across the Channel and supplying them once they were abroad

Essentially, there was a trend over the whole war of the English nobility having the king's back and the French nobility all backstabbing everyone in reach and especially the king for personal gain. The entire Hundred Years War is peppered with random nobles, particularly in Brittany, dropping everything and getting into successor feuds over land while the two kings pick sides to back.

Not to mention the French kept fucking themselves over in times of financial difficulty by diluting the coinage with shittier metals for short-term benefit.

>Crécy and Poitiers taught the French that they could not defeat the English in the field: the English had a more effective order of fighting, and their great companies of longbow men were a force to be feared.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay
>Hence harassment, attrition and scorched-earth tactics became the preferred French methods of warfare.
That was literally what the British did. The French spent most of their time chasing after the Brits.
>permanent problems of shipping soldiers across the Channel
Sluys solved this problem.
> supplying them once they were abroad
See above.
>posting a pic of Bouvines

See.

I'm not an expert.

>Polish 'art'

cringey

...

>that fucking rainbow

my eyes!

>/Battle_of_Patay
Yes, one field victory in 100 years of war, because the French were better?

>See above.
How about you "see above" posting about how France had a population advantage over Britian and any small army it could field due to distance and supply constraints.

France was always going to win an attritional war because of this, strange how it took them 100 years to do so.

Life isn't your little war game and just because you have x amount of people and x amount of land supposedly under your control doesn't mean that everyone will respond to your orders

Well they certainly wont respond to a philosopher king like you

>one field victory in 100 years of war
What?

...

>In the long run, England was always going to lose France, given the permanent problems of shipping soldiers across the Channel and supplying them once they were abroad

t. Know nothing about the HYW
"England" (aka the French family Plantagenet) used mostly troops they recruited in French lands they owned for most of the war
That's also why the total populations of France and England at the time are tootally irrelevant

It wasn't so nationalist war between France and England; it was a dynastic war between two French houses, and both sides used lots of French troops

>used mostly troops they recruited in French lands

So now you going to tell me the English armies at Crecy,Poitiers and Agincourt were actually French?

Shakespeare sure got his story wrong.

Agincourt was the beginning of the Lancastrian phase, so it was mostly English and Welsh troops that had landed with Henry V not long before

But Crecy is well known to have counted many Breton and Flemish troops on the English side, and at Poitiers, half the troops on the English side were natives from Gascony and Aquitaine

You're a funny goy there, have a (You) since you're desperate Mohammed.

>England
>controlling that much of Gascony before the Treaty of Bretigny

pick one

Plantagenets were thoroughly Anglicised by the time of the HYW. Only Edward III spoke French.

>English armies

probably made up mostly of Britons.

man brits are deluded

>Shakespeare
>Making shit up
surely not

They were still French enough for many French lords to side with them rather than the Valois

>nationalism
>14th century

yeah but while campaigns were short they tended to be brutal, far more battles relative to sieges.

wasnt quite that bad, but patay is somewhat overstated as a achievement, although characteristically of french victories during the hundred years war it came only when the english were unprepared, in this case mostly still in open order and not in the customary prepared positions and formation.

cavalry charging unrepared and unsupported archers in the open should be able to win

>Crecy is well known to have counted many Breton and Flemish troops on the English side, and at Poitiers, half the troops on the English side were natives from Gascony and Aquitaine
Yet both battles were won by the english longbow, which was my point in the beginningAnd no, the English army at Crecy had English and Welsh only

>And no, the English army at Crecy had English and Welsh only

No need to lie, Lindy

>The English army was led by Edward III; it comprised English and Welsh troops along with allied Breton, Flemish and German mercenaries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crécy#The_English_army