Why were the French unable to learn that it was projectile weapons fucking their day up all the time during the Hundred...

Why were the French unable to learn that it was projectile weapons fucking their day up all the time during the Hundred Years War.

On three occasions, Crecy, Poitier, and Agincourt. The English army was able to absolutely throw France into a shitfit just because some commoners learned to shoot stuff at them.

Why didn't the French military command and nobility learn from their mistakes?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

They certainly learned from them by Castillon.

Was not Castillon disaster the result of Talbot's recklessness, and not so much France learning from their mistakes?

The French are dumb, when do they ever learn anything?
>let's invite Napoleon back, what could possibly go wrong

Both. Charging lightly armed archers directly at the dug in French gun positions wasn't the best of plans.

I don't understand what Napoleon has to do with French incompetence during the Hundred Years War?

Anglo seems to fap so much about the HYW yeah you have 3 big victory but the french also patay formigny and castillon and they don't make so much of a fuss about that . Also you all seems to forget that
HYW is more about a civil french war than english vs french one
France was hit by the black pest , civil unrest jacquerrie in the campaign revolt in the city ( etienne marcel )
Revolt of the baron , mad king , economic crisis , religious war and despite all that they won .
The french like to make a big fuss about Napoleon despite his loss the Anglo like the HYW i think its part of their relation .
Imagine both country united , the world couldnt have support it

Test

French incompetence is eternal.

What the fuck are you talking about? When was Napoleon 'invited' back? And how did his return change anything for France?

If France and England united there wouldn't be a world

three times in a hundred year plus conflict isn't much

Castillon was unironically a reverse Crecy.
At Crecy the French charged fortified English positions and got obliterated by guns.
Now the English charge a fortified French position and get obliterated by guns.
Why was this war full of so much autism?

Feudal structures meant military command was awarded based on nepotism rather than meritocracy. Armies were not usually expert led in this period.

How could they be this retarded? It's not like it's anything new to suggest smart people lead armies

>In many ways, this battle played out like the Battle of Crécy in "reverse".[15] The French guns obliterated the advancing soldiers. It is reported each shot killed six men at a time.[16][17] Talbot's reinforcements continued to arrive at the battle, only to suffer the same fate.
How ironic.
I swear France and England should fund a hit series following the HYW. Shit is already crazy, with a shit load of betrayals, battles and paradoxically anti-climatic stuff (black prince dying in his own shit), and not to forget the whole Charles VI and Jeanne d'Arc fanfiction tier stuff

Why do people overrate the value of archers when they were effortlessly mowed down by knightly cavalry whenever they weren't protected by infantry and fortifications?

Archers alone can't do anything.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

>Why were the French unable to learn that it was projectile weapons fucking their day up all the time during the Hundred Years War.

Because it wasn't.
The Longbow is plagued by a great myth that keeps being perpetuated, probably because the common longbowman is a nationalistic figure for the brits to revere since most of the aristocracy of England had trouble identifying themselves with an English "identity", unlike the commoners who built this identity during the HYW.
The truth is that the three battles that you decide to take exemple from aren't won simply because of the Longbow :

1) At Crécy it is true that the longbows had a decisive impact ; But not because they killed knights by the thousands (It is highly unlikely a longbow arrow could even penetrate plate armour), it is because they killed the charging knights' horses, which meant the french were without mobility and then were cut down by the english men-at-arms during the frontal assault. Also the french used projectile weapons, with their genoese crossbowmen who had to deploy without their pavise ; Had they had their shields and the french aristocracy was more disciplined, the battle would have been won.
2) Poitiers (Actually it is the battle of Maupertuis) found no direct evidence of the longobwmen's efficiency ; The french knights, knowing of their mistake, decided to attack dismounted. The chronicles we have of this battle talk about an ambush which cut the french army in half, and then the french King John II decided to send his sons away while he stayed behind to protect them ; his capture is the real disaster.
3) Agincourt is the worst ; The englishmen fought courageously to win this battle, yes, but the battle was not won because of the longbow ; They fired their steel volleys of course, but the french lost because they had to march through the mud, and ended up on the frontlines tired, asphyxiated and wounded. (cont.)

>Why do people overrate the value of knights when they were effortlessly mowed down by fortified archers whenever they weren't mounted on horses in open terrain?

But nobody overrate knights

All three of these victories have no direct link to the use of longbows, they were won because in the medieval era, the defense is always greater than the offense except on rare exceptions where the attacking side manages to attack before the defense can be dug up (Like in Patay where the french vanguard of scouts charged like crazy without waiting for the main army, and cut down the longbowmen who were defenseless).
It is also unfair to say that the french did not know how to use projectile weapons since in each of these battles they had archers carrying bows or crossbows ; The problem is that the french aristocracy was proud and full of itself, and always wanted to charge headfirst and without discipline. Before the battle Agincourt, the great french general Boucicaut, who fought all his life, including against the turks in Hungary, said to the young knights that it would be foolish to attack headfirst and advised them to send archers first to tire out the longbowmen, while he could do a great maneuver around with scouts attack the english on their rear ; They did not listen.

Also, another great myth that probably explains why so many people have a hard-on for longbow : Casualties figure. If you go on wikipedia you'll read that the english lost 100 men at Agincourt while the french lost 10000. The problem is that these accounts are completly fantasized and I notice that when I find out most people don't read about Agincourt safe for this little wikipedia infobox.
We have no direct eyewitness account of the battle, and the casualty figures never mention the number of non-noblemen who die or who fight. We know that many great english noblemen died at Agincourt, including the Duke of York. We know the battle lasted for hours and it was violent. We know that a thousand frenchmen, wounded and collapsing, were taken prisonner and then had their throat cut out because Henry V was scared after (cont.)

the Sire d'Azincourt attacked his rear and killed many of his men. I have read some more recent books on the HYW and the casualty figure is much more different ; According to Valérie Trouveille, the french lost 6000 men at Agincourt, and the english less than 2000 ; It is still three times more, but it is far from only 100 you see.

Also another proof that the longbow alone cannot win battles : At Verneuil the french attacked with many scottish longbowmen, yet still lost the battle despite pushing far and killing many englishmen ; Because the different units on the french side (From Lombardy, Scotland, Spain...) could not organize and fight together.

I think the true english weapon was mud. Had they had mud with them at Castillon, they could have won

Fortifying a battle position is always an important aspect that decides the fate of an engagement ; At Castillon Jean Bureau spent a lot of time making arrangements for the building of an artillery wodden fort to defend his guns near the Dordogne. That's why the people trying to compare armies like it's a video game often have a very poor grasp on History. Edward III and his son the Black Prince won battles not because their archers had medieval submachine gun who could kill 150000 knights or some bullshit like that, but because they had many advantages on the few battles they led that they provoked or used.

More mud

The point is that they weren't mowed down by archers but in melee combat after getting stuck in the mud. If you want to beat knights you need organised infantry with pole-arms, not archers.

I heard that the English won at Crecy because they used a type of cannon called Ribaldis which was the first deployed in European warfare.
Also longbowmen with a wall of wooden stakes are pretty effective. Furthermore the English had far more archers and far better training. If i recall correctly it was required by law that all yeomen train twice a week with a longbow so the English had large human resources for archers.
You didn't need men at arms to finish off downed chevaliers. Longbowmen carried shortswords and likely killed the knights as they lay in the mud (at Agincourt)
The remarkable thing to remember about English victories in the HYW is that they were typically badly outnumbered and had suffered a string of defeats.
Longbow arrows may not be able to penetrate plate armour, but against those without plate (the majority of the French forces, let's be real, they weren't all knights, it's just them that were remembered) a well placed bodkin point from a 100lb bow could cause serious damage against a man with gambeson and mail.
Regarding Henry V's order to execute the French prisoners; the English were outnumbered by their own prisoners and the threat of a rebellion was a real and serious threat. It was a tactical but unfortunate move

The english did use ribaldis at Crécy, but they weren't the first deployed in Europe and it is unlikely it had a large impact on the outcome of the battle : Early artillery was still inaccurate and slow to reload. Even the french victories of Formigny and Castillon, where they deployed artillery, can't be -entirely- explained by their use ; the french had to win with infantry, with cavalry, with use of terrain.
However, where you are right is that indeed the english longbowmen were trained and numerous ; Not "far more" than the genoese who were reknowned in Europe, but the English Kings relied heavily on the yeomen to make up for their armies. In fact, the genius of the English Kings was turning their great weakness compared to France (That is, their population) into a great strength. Imagine that while the English could rely on small, mobile, disciplined forces where only the best archers were sent on the continent during the chevauchées, the King of France had to call his banners and move around a great force of 20-30000 troops which varied a lot in discipine and battle experience (At Agincourt, the great veteran Boucicaut had to share leadership with young and proud men like Jean d'Alençon).
However, the longbow alone cannot explain the english great victories ; Because the longbow cannot wound knights and well-armed footmen. That isn't to say that a longbow is useless, the Kings of England would not have been through so much trouble to content the Chamber of Commons (Made up of yeomen who asked for more and more priviledges), import yew wood, and train archers if they had no use ; But the longbows' most important advantage was killing horses, hence erasing the french knight's most important strength, as well as having a great psychological factor in wearing down the french charges at Crécy, Maupertuis and Agincourt.
The archers were all trained soldiers who could also act as infantry. But they also needed men-at-arms and defensive positions.

What was the ratio of archers to men at arms (including knights) in the English army typically?

Long range weapons are for cowards

The English had three archers for one man-at-arms. On the contrary, the french had two man-at-arms for one archer at the begining of the HYW, but after the disaster of Agincourt where the french aristocracy completly bled out, they had to rely more and more on foreign mercenaries and eventually, with the institution of the "franc-archers" that tried to copy in a way the english yeomen, they had more archers.

Also it should be noted that Bertrand du Guesclin, the french commander who managed to return all of the territories Edward III conquered on the continent to the King of France, managed to do so without any battle ; He simply led a small army of 5000 men, mostly made of mounted crossbowmen and more "disciplined" men-at-arms, including noblemen, but who were not so obsessed with honour and great victories like the rest of the chivalric aristocracy. Du Guesclin conquered castle after castle, in quick sieges where he relied on ruse (At one point he conquered a castle by disguising himself as an english soldier).

Why did the tide of the war turn in French favour after 1429? What significant change facilitated French victory?

Well first the french were incredibly lucky : Henry V of England has the good taste of dying a month before French King Charles VI, who had promised in his peace treaty to give his throne to Henry after he died. This small month apart allowed Charles' son, Charles VII, to get back on the political stage and prepare his revenge before he could attack again.
Charles VII was much more politically competent than his father (Which is not hard, since his father was crazy and needed to have a regency). He pardonned many of his ennemies, which some people found as weak, but actually allowed him to end factionalism. Henry V managed to win a lot by pitting the different factions of the french civil war against one another, helping both the Burgundians and the Armagnac to kill each other while he came back in Normandy and Aquitaine.
Charles VII at the begining relied heavily on mercenaries and local communes. Joan of Arc helped him a lot for his personnal propaganda, even if she's not the angel who alone saved the french ; Even after his coronation at Reims, Charles VII's position was still very weak and he had to fight again against local factions.

Three great reforms allowed Charles VII to win :
- The "Compagnies d'Ordonnances" : After having imposed a new tax (La taille) which had to be paid by every subject of the Kingdom, Charles VII founded this institution which is the ancester of the french main, permanent army. Basically, every mercenary on the french soil (And there were many, many of them at this time) had to prove that they were experienced, loyal and well trained to be paid and part of these permanent companies. All of the others had to be weed out and surrender their arms.
(cont.)

- The "franc-archers", an attempt to copy somewhat the yeoman system of England ; Everywhere in France's parishes or cities, men had to train with the use of a bow or crossbow (And a bit later pikes, arquebus and halberds) ; however, they were despised as they were often undisciplined and only joining because of the taille's tax exemption. Still they were numerous.
- The artillery, build by Jean and his brother Gaspard Bureau, two commoners who gained the King's favor. These two ingeneers built a modern, varied and fine artillery. At this time artillery was still fragile and not useful in battle, but they were not used in battle, they were used for sieges with great, great effectiveness. Think that to conquer all of Normandy, the english army in 1418 had to besiege city after city (It took them 8 month to take Rouen, 10 to take Cherbourg...), while with his artillery Jean Bureau reconquered Normandy extremly fast.

Also, the new french army was much more disciplined and organized, mostly between their leaders ; The captain of the Companies of Ordinance were chosen because of their experience by the King, they were no more important members of the feudal hierarchy or of the King's court. At Formigny, the two commanders Charles de Bourbon and Arthur de Richemont bothered to speak with each other and prepare a common battleplan before attacking Thomas Kyriell's army ; If they had been like the french uppity cunts of Agincourt or Crécy, each of them would have charged Kyriell's archers blindly in hope of glory.

Would the French have been averse to rule by an English king and would he have been deposed?

This text is completly wrong. Knights did use bows and crossbows, for hunting AND for war. What they hated was the fact that commoners could fight and kill, but between themselves in the knightly fashion they did not care if they used bows or crossbows.

That's a tricky question, because it is debatable if the King of England was "English".
I'm not going to do like some frogs on this board and spam you that "we wuz anglo knights", but it was really a phobia that englishmen had at the time ; The HYW is the slowly building of French and English identity, on both side, and on both side it was at the expense of an intense hate between the two countries.
Had Henry V won and kept the french throne, what englishmen were afraid of is that the union of France and England would have been at the expense of England ; You really have to imagine the great economical and demographical difference between the two countries. Even weakened and plagued by civil war, France had opportunities to build itself back. Henry V could speak both french and english ; he could have installed his court in France and, slowly, frenchmen would begin to mengle with the English's institutions.

Of course what I'm saying there is only suppositions. Because the french also were fed propaganda to hate on the english, especially as Charles VII used Joan of Arc : She was the girl sent by God to push them out of the territory and end their rapes and pillages, with such image slowly given to the population it is hard to imagine if the french would have been a easy people to rule for the Plantagenêts.

After 1453 and the loss of Aquitaine by the english, the King of England did not think it was the end of the HYW, but the parliament, and especially the Commons, refused him a new tax to levy new troops and try to go to France again : Because they no longer wanted a war, even won, who might have endangered their english way-of-life.

>Had Henry V won and kept the french throne, what englishmen were afraid of is that the union of France and England would have been at the expense of England ; You really have to imagine the great economical and demographical difference between the two countries. Even weakened and plagued by civil war, France had opportunities to build itself back. Henry V could speak both french and english ; he could have installed his court in France and, slowly, frenchmen would begin to mengle with the English's institutions.
So much for "God for Harry, England, and Saint George!"

How did the economies of France and England compare during the HYW (per capita as France had 5 times the population)?

I like the episode where they steal the British tunneling bomb from the real war and gave it to the Germans. Was that explained in the book? She had to have something to do with that plan because it’s just like what the British did.

It's difficult to give an exact figure, especially since it depends of the time and place.
What's interesting to note however is that Normandy and Aquitaine, the two regions that kept changing hands between France and England, were two extremly important regions for trade and finances ; Normandy's soil was extremly fertile and the region of Bordeaux had a great trade network of wine with London which explains why the gascons fought along with the english in 1453.
England was poorer than France but its political and fiscal tools were more advanced, the King of England could milk his population better ; But he relied on the Parliamant who had to be given priviledges each time the King raised taxes to prepare an expedition on France.

That monk/abbot/whatever at Agincourt wasn't an eyewitness?

Veeky Forums in a nutshell

Henry V was very much more English then French, it was he who personally pushed English as the language of court.

He was basically as French as William the conquer was viking.

Edward III first pushed for an english language at court ; My point isn't that Henry V was not a King who was part of England's identity, my point is that, had Henry V managed to unite the crowns of England and France, many englishmen were scared that it would have hindered the english people for the profit of the french, with the court of the King probably going back to Paris.

Y'know you'd think the nobility of England would like that the Kings Court would have went too Paris.

I mean after all, the Greater and Lesser Nobles of England during the middle ages were always deciding to do their own thing. I would've thought having an absentee King would've just allowed them to begin steering the country in a direction they would've wanted. An English direction.

See the barons' war

I haven't read the thread yet, but I really want to know more abut that painting.

As stated, longbows weren't decisive at Agincourt or Poitiers.
At Agincourt, the Marshall was against charging the English, but the younger and more inexperienced knights vetoed his decision.

>There is some debate over the exact circumstances of Talbot's death, but it appears as though his horse was killed by a projectile, its mass pinned him down, and then a French archer killed him with an axe.
It's hilarious, really.

Also wrong. Master of the Crossbows was a very lofty title in France.

The Shimabara Rebellion by Takato Yamamoto.

Oh, fyi Yamamoto likes to draw tied up people too for some reason (mainly women, but some are men).

The English would be 100% justified in expelling the French from much of "France" and re-establishing Crown Rule.

Lmao the UK is on the verge of becoming an EU vassal state. They lost. Again.

Is it safe to conclude that Charles VII was the root of French power in the Modern Era?

>named "the victorious"
Yeah you can