Redpill me on Joan of Arc...

God knows the Eternal Anglo better than anyone else

Is that a serious question...?

Can't argue with that!

>the french
>the english

>I really don't understand anything about the 100 years war
I can tell.

What did he mean by this?

You mean the war that solidified France and England as nation states?

The Hundred Years War was a French civil war. Both sides were French. The only "English" involved were some of the cannon-fodder used by the Angevin side, but England itself had nothing to do with the entire affair.

>England itself had nothing to do with the entire affair.

Jesus Christ why do Veeky Forumsposters have to take things to such extremes? The ruling dynasties that were fighting it out were French, yes, but the armies themselves were made up of English and Frenchmen, from Henry V onwards English became the language of the nation's monarchs and a good deal of French and English identity was formed during the Hundred Years War.

I believe I did mention the English cannon-fodder.

>You mean the war that solidified France and England as nation states?
The concept of the nation state was created in the 18th century so no

Oh look, it's the obligatory retard post we were all waiting for.

.t retard who doesn't actually read contemporary accounts of HYW stuff, preferring dank /int/ memes.
deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/agincourt.htm

>CHAPTER CXLIII - THE KING OF FRANCE COLLECTS A GREAT BODY OF MEN-AT-ARMS FROM ALL PARTS OF HIS KINGDOM TO OPPOSE THE ENGLISH.

>After fifteen days’ residence in Harfleur, the king of England departed, escorted by two thousand men-at-arms and about thirteen thousand archers, and numbers of other men, intending to march to Calais. His first quarters were at Fauville and in the adjacent places: then, traversing the country of Caux, he made for the county of Eu. Some of the English light troops came before the town of Eu, in which were several French men-at-arms, who sallied out to oppose them:

>The minority of five gave substantial reasons against fighting the English army at the time they had fixed on;

>The duke of Orleans sent, in the nighttime, for the count de Richemonte, who commanded the duke of Aquitaine’s men and the Bretons, to join him; and when this was done, they amounted to about two hundred men-at-arms and archers: they advanced near to the quarters of the English, who, suspecting they meant to surprise them, drew up in battle array, and a smart skirmish took place.

It's the truth, the nation state is a modern concept. Also i said 18th century i menant 19th century.

Because God is an Englishman, and as we all know, the English are perfidious and commit treachery with ease.

Every fucking thread we get one of you pedantic cunts.

It's not pedantic, it's simply wrong. Contemporary chroniclers had a very clear idea that you had one side of "The English" and another side of "The French".

bartleby.com/35/1/

No it isn't, just because it didn't exist in Germany or Italy until the French brought it there, doesn't mean it didn't exist elsewhere long before that. It didn't just fucking pop into existence out of nowhere.

You probably also think WW1 was fought against actual Huns from Central Asia.

Joan of Arc isn't real, it's anti-English propaganda

>Get proven wrong
>Better strawman the hell out of the guy providing the evidence
>Nobody will see through my cunning plan.
You should probably go back to grade school, or whatever they call it wherever your live.

>get BTFO
>better use names of logical fallacies I don't understand

The fact that they were referred to as English by the French doesn't actually make them English you tit. It was simply the obvious nickname because the Angevin's highest ranking title was king of England.

>The fact that they were referred to as English by the French doesn't actually make them English you tit
First off, why the hell not? Who died and made you the arbitrator as to who was actually English or not? Secondly, why the fuck does that matter at all? You're the retard claiming this is a "French Civil War". Well, when you have ACTUAL French civil wars, you get terms like "The Armagnacs" and "The Burgundians", but the English aren't the Angevins, they're well, "The English".

> It was simply the obvious nickname because the Angevin's highest ranking title was king of England.
This is so profoundly stupid I have no idea what to say. When talking about Crecy, you don't see guys like Froissart talking about the Genoese as "French" because they're in the employ of a French king. You get to see actual regional lords identified all over the place, and commanding "Men of Warwickshire" and other local areas. But CLEARLY [/sarcasm] he doesn't actually mean "The English" as a separate group. Nobody noticed that they would speak a different language, or that they dressed, ate, acted, etc. differently.

Contemporary writers knew the difference between a Frenchman and an Englishman, and whomever did your educating left a fucking lot out. Try actually reading something. It really will help you out.

Are you retarded? Obviously French people aren't going to refer to their French enemies as "the French", since they're French themselves. They'll pick on whatever distinguishes them. Like the leader being king of England. That doesn't actually make him English you tit.

>"The Armagnacs" and "The Burgundians"
Exactly, and according to your logic, the Armagnac were literally people from Armagnac, and that part of the Hundred Years War was fought between the duchy of Burgundy and the county of Armagnac down in the Pyrenees.

And they don't have to refer to them as the "French". You could call them the Angevins, the villains, the enemies, the invaders, the pretenders (a common one for someone who didn't support a claimant's claim to a throne). Do you see those terms? No, we see ENGLISH. For fuck's sake, the claim to the crown of France wasn't even connected to the crown of England, so the important title for purposes of a Frnech history of the HYW is that of duke of Aquataine. How many contemporary chronicles call then Aquitains?

And let's not forget that people outside of France did this too. Christine de Pizan (three guesses as to where she's from) also called the sides 'The English' and 'The French' sometime around 1410. Jean de Wavrin (Flemish) does the same.

>That doesn't actually make him English you tit.
Again, who the fuck died and made you in charge of deciding proper demonyms? If there are apparently no English, why the fuck do we have all these authors calling people Englishmen? Do you think there was a long parade of confused readers going up to their doors wondering who teh fuck these people were and why they used this strange adjective in their chronicles?

Meanwhile, you've yet to offer anything other than your own retard autism as to why there were no "English" in the 14th-15th centuries. Back your stupid shit up, asswipe.

>You could call them the Angevins, the villains, the enemies, the invaders, the pretenders (a common one for someone who didn't support a claimant's claim to a throne). Do you see those terms? No, we see ENGLISH.

Because no insult could be worse than that.

>If there are apparently no English, why the fuck do we have all these authors calling people Englishmen?
So you're saying the Armagnacs were literally from Armagnac in the Pyrenees? Otherwise why would authors call them that? derp

fpbp

>Exactly, and according to your logic, the Armagnac were literally people from Armagnac, and that part of the Hundred Years War was fought between the duchy of Burgundy and the county of Armagnac down in the Pyrenees.

No, that is not what my logic is at all. Please go back to grade school until you learn how to read, although given your previous comment, I doubt they can cure whatever it is that is wrong with your brain that causes you to sperg out and make random stupid accusations.

Meanwhile, back in reality, both groups, Armagnac and Burgundian, were French, and acknowledged as such, because you know, 15th century people weren't completely retarded. So your "claim", that they needed to call then "English" not because they were English, but because they needed to call them something to not call them French, is objectively wrong. But I await more of your retard pretzel logic to squirm out of the dungpile you've enthusiastically jumped into. Because (and read this part closely, it could really help), if you're just trying to call them something other than French, you could call them Londoners, which would be the common parlance for the major city of the region your opposing party is from. Or Aquatins, or Gascons, or men of various counties and shires, which by the way, they do go into those details when among other things, talking about English revolts as side-shows to the main war. "English" wasn't pulled out of a hat, you goddamn retard.

>So you're saying the Armagnacs were literally from Armagnac in the Pyrenees? Otherwise why would authors call them that? derp
No, that is not what I'm saying, and that you could so badly misread what I did say heavily implies you are born out of some sort of horrible incest.

>both groups, Armagnac and Burgundian, were French, and acknowledged as such
But they weren't, they were referred to as "Armagnac" and "Burgundian", which according to your retard logic means they weren't French, just like the "English".

>if you're just trying to call them something other than French, you could call them Londoners
That's retarded. Nobody gave two shits about London or even knew where it was, whereas England is an easily identifiable island. And most importantly the Angevin leader wasn't king of London but king of England.

...

Oh so we finally agree that "Armagnac" is just a nickname used to distinguish between French factions, and doesn't refer to actual Armagnacian people, same as "English" is another such nickname for a different French faction. Good.

oldest daughter of the church and all that