>sir, our pavises are in the baggage train and we've been marching all day; we'll be cut to pieces by the english longbows
>stfu pussy and attack
was...was it autism?
Muh pavise
Nathan Lewis
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Kayden Sullivan
The funny thing is that they didn't get rekt by the english longbowmen but by the french cavalry marching over them
Jordan Edwards
excluding napoleon, why were french military commanders so retarded throughout history?
Grayson Hernandez
The nobility at that time were pumped up on the ideals of chivalry, even if they were aware that things like strategy, tactics, as well as crossbows and longbowmen were valuable assets on the battlefield, that didn't matter because they weren't there to win but rather to achieve glory. They would fight with the utmost honor; God would decide the victor. This is why England with its small but relatively highly trained army was able to repeatedly win significant victories despite being 5 times smaller.
This is also why the French ruined the last crusade at Nicopolis when they refused to allow the hungarian infantry to fight first, but rather charged in all their glory directly into the enemy without the aid of any of the allies.
The nobility in France did try to remedy the issue though, for a time in the 14th century they banned most games and decreed that all the only hobby that was allowed was archery training, which they got results from. However this came nothing as they did not want peasants capable of resisting the noble horsemen around so they quickly cancelled this project.
Ethan Nelson
>Napoleon
>French
Jaxson Jackson
That is actually quite the obsolete viewpoint.
The French were simply divided in leadership and had poor command.
They actually did win a number of battles against the English, all with similar heavy cavalry charges but with proper timing and tactics instead.
Jordan Jones
It wasnt til the French started using cannons that they started to win, their cavalry charges always ended in defeat and strategic gains for the english
Chase Robinson
Mason Miller
The comment above was meant for you.
Ryan Johnson
Its a stupid comment, they only started winning the important battles when they stopped using cavalry charges.
James Mitchell
Not even him (check the number of posters) but it's idiotic to call Patay an unimportant battle. It was the one to turn the momentum around in the 1430s
Sebastian Cox
btfo by
Kayden Turner
Dude, literally every battle stated had a cavalry charge in it keko keks kek
Justin Davis
Sorry, I thought losing 2000 longbowmen was not the same as losing 10k knights and noblemen.
Of course it had an effect on the British army which was out on a limb, but the French did not decisively defeat the British until they changed tactics and started using cannon
Parker Brown
> same as losing 10k knights and noblemen.
lol at the usual inflated numbers.
The entirety of France did not have 10 000 knights and noblemen lol, let alone the half of it that came to Crecy.
But that is beside the point, the point is that French knightly charges still won the day quite often even against the English, let alone others;
Xavier Ortiz
just because French commanders at Agincourt were retarded doesn't mean cavalry charges don't work.
en.wikipedia.org
but yes, the trench-works and artillery in this battle were in fact decisive.
Julian Garcia
Who is Louis XIV
Julian Hall
You're fucking wrong, and that's all there is to it.
>MUH CANOOON
Literally didn't matter. The french centralizing,, learning something vaugely resembling discipline, and using large bodies of dismounted men were what mattered.
Ian Ross
>yes, the trench-works and artillery in this battle were in fact decisive.
>and using large bodies of dismounted men were what mattered.
So were in agreement then, when the french stopped using cavalry charges against entrench british, they started to win
Like I said, right from the start
Carson King
I hope you and your fellow shitposters get raped to death by a HIV infected nigger
Chase Watson
>Sorry, I thought losing 2000 longbowmen was not the same as losing 10k knights and noblemen.
To slaughter defenseless captives you don't need any tactics or any professional army. And where did that number came from, from the same source stating longbow can pierce armours at distance of 700 meters?
Camden Lewis
t. cheese eating surrender monkey
James Smith
> when the french stopped using cavalry charges against entrench british, they started to win
TOP
KEK
Ethan Jenkins
Maybe they shouldn't have surrendered,shows what happens when you turn up to battle without a longbow,which is why cannon were the most effective weapon against bunched up longbowmen
Jace Nelson
Muskets and arquebuses proved to be quite devastating as well.
Kayden Wright
art thou irate?