Battle Of Agincourt

>On the 25th of October 1415, the day of Saint Crispin, an army of 6000 English faced an army of 36,000 French on the field of Agincourt.

Stop lying, Nigel
Estimates vary between 6,000 vs 12,000 or 9,000 vs 36,000, but there's no 6,000 vs 36,000 claim

Attached: frog btfo.png (329x521, 98K)

Sorry, i just thought it was 6,000 vs 36,000 from memory
Regardless the odds were fearful for the English

>people thinking it was actually england vs france instead of england(france) vs france
>people not realising that the people of "england" were for centuries essentially tossed around and sent to the slaughter over disputes between english(french) and french nobles
>people not realising that by the time "english" and french nobility weren't fucking indistinguishable from one another all disputes over european territories between England and France were settled

>Not realizing the peasant longbowmen defeated the noble knight

God I wish we lived in the timeline where Henry V actually inherited France.

I think if it were 6000 vs 5000 with the equipment remaining the same it would still be an amazing feat. The reality is it was VERY likely that the English were outnumbered at least 2>1 because even French accounts admit this disparity in numbers.

If anyone hasn’t read it, I *highly* recommend Ian Mortimer‘s “1415: Henry V’s Year of Glory”, which recounts in incredible detail each day of the year 1415. One of the most exciting and ambitious history books I’ve ever read.

Actually it was 600 english against 360 000 french, but thanks to their Longbow 1412 (able to pierce armor up to 10km of distance), the english victory was crushing

Because such goals were never materialized. After the death of Henry V the conflict resumed with disastrous consequences for the Plantagenets.

This is incorrect.
The nobles assimilated to the English language and culture (which was already similar to French culture) very quickly and the monarchy by the time of Henry III could fluently speak English and were tied to England as they lost their Angevin lands.
The King was Francophone, but not French. The nobles by the time of the HYW would certainly identify as English.
It's sort of like saying the American war for independence was an Emglish civil war. The colonists themselves took up an American identity despite cultural similarities.

What's the point of the French - they always get beaten by the English (Agincourt, Nile, Poitiers, Crecy Trafalgar, Waterloo etc ad nauseum), well unless they leave it for a 17 year old girl to lead em - say's it all lol. I guess they learn't that the best thing to do in the long run was to haul up their main battle flag - the White one - at the earliest possible opportunity. Then rely on the UK to come and bail them out - not that we ever get any thanks of course...

We won. Does it make you happy as well?

France won the 100 years war

Attached: pepette.png (389x395, 61K)

Gentlemen, let us keep this thread civil and simply marvel at the English accomplishment at Agincourt, desist from derogatory comments

You only won because of other nations and because your pathetic ancestors had to deal with niggers and poo-in-loos

The starving English ate the French POW’s. My favorite detail from the battle.

>and the monarchy by the time of Henry III could fluently speak English

Wrong
It's Henry IV (long after Henry III, pic related) who was the first English king post-1066 to speak English natively

Attached: 2ad.jpg (506x780, 129K)

AKSHUALLY

Attached: riv.png (788x878, 116K)

It's less than an accomplishment than a complete failure on the french side. Sure the English fought well, but the more important thing is that the French didn't at all

Fantastic bait, I'll take it

Henry III was fluent in the English language, but he spoke French natively. You are indeed correct that Henry IV was the first to speak it natively, however this doesn't define their nationality.
It is merely their language. They are defined by their nation of birth, culture and peoples.
The English nobility was distinct from the French nobility

14 to 8. And still counting.

Attached: 1490798423043.png (960x581, 217K)

>People thinking the war was between countries

It was at the end

Well national identity in England and France developed in the war and thus it went from a dynastic dispute to a national war

This argument only works for the first parts of the war. The end of the war is the emergence of both entities as modern states, with national distinct identities.

It's also important to remember that there was intermarriage between the two populations such that ethnic assimilation occurred.
Please try to keep this civil and don't let it devolve into generalisation of facts

Attached: Screenshot_20180311-231524.jpg (720x849, 220K)

Attached: Screenshot_20180311-230601.jpg (720x519, 145K)

>The colonists themselves took up an American identity despite cultural similarities.
Old Yankees weren't a quarter as different from their cousins across the pond, by that point, as the English nobility were from the French nobility.
As a proud Anglo-Saxon, this makes me feel warm inside.

This is quite an amusing thing i found

Attached: Screenshot_20180312-223515.jpg (720x257, 71K)

Identity supersedes ethnicity however

t. Scholomo

They didn't see themselves as that different. They saw themselves as Englishmen. A very particular sort of Englishmen, certainly, but Englishmen nonetheless.

Pardon?

Anglos BTFO

Attached: e0c9be92a6c1e1b5924ba0f97ab15b43.jpg (589x877, 95K)

Hmm, well i don't want to take away from American history, i imagine that the modern Americans can rightly identify with the Patriots as much as i can identify to medieval English nobility

You heard me. "Oooh, the only identity that matters is the one (((you))) choose" "There's no such thing as race" "It's all social contracts, not about blood". It's an obvious line of shit from a line of shitty people.

Race doesn't exist

The last three are all that matters

Identity is what matters because that preserves language, culture and values
You don't choose ethnicity, but you can choose identity

You're right. This shithole is filled with people who don't belong. But not me. I'm a WASP and a true Yankee.

Ethnicity is less important the closer the people involved are. All Northwestern Europeans are closely related. The English and French are very close.

Indeed this is true
There is little ethnic variation between France and England

Attached: Haplo-distributionIncludingIceland.jpg (1056x825, 165K)

Pierre please

Attached: 1519949776036.png (570x500, 622K)

Bump

Fuck off stormnigger

In a discussion about England and France? You're a fucking moron, the fact that they have different identities is what separates them, not their ethnic makeup which is basically identical.

>Assuming your conclusion and then using it as proof
No, there was nothing separating them. That's why it was a war between two conflicting French dynasties out for the same thing. Telling that your kind can't actually come up with an argument, just shout ad-homs.

The English channel separated them

If you post that unironically you should die

He's obviously trolling

Bump

HE'S OUR LAD!

Bump

Scotland won

I quite patently referred to to the Hundred Years War but simply England and France. Who have not for many centuries now been merely two competing dynasties. I'd also very much challenge the moronic statement 'there was nothing separating them' because certainly towards the end it had become something of a national struggle.

>ad-homs
Says the person slinging anti-Semitic shit around.

*referred not to

Once more unto the breach

>it took nearly the entire world to truly even merely check their dominance
You mean some autistic krauts and the natives who were sick of your shit.

>and their language is spoken throughout the world
Yes the USA earned that from winning both World Wars. Dog bless.

US just did the dirty work in spreading the language

Attached: gXzHP5q.png (247x401, 8K)

I mean Britain never gave up in any of the wars of the x coalition, hence why they kept happening, to say they lost is pretty silly when they didn't capitulate...

>I mean Britain never gave up in any of the wars of the x coalition

Wrong
After all its allies had been defeated in the war of the 2nd coalition, Britain pussied out and sued for peace, which resulted in the Treaty of Amiens

after the revolution France fought all of Europe for 20 years and actually took over most of it

Bump

I mean the peace lasted a year then kicked off again and it was really more of a truce?

France was destroyed by Britain's refusal to surrender and Russian being desperate for British goods.

I think to say Britain lost all those wars is kind of dumb, they weren't defeated and indeed kept fighting until Amiens and after it for the entire period.

Personally i think if they're going to split the napoleonic wars like that, they should do the same to the 100 years war

As an American of English descent this greatly moves me :')

medieval history 101

France an England are ethnically identical and culturally very similar

Despitevwhat nigel tells you

Don't let this thread die

englel lost the war, they had a french king before and they also got frenched way before that

butthurt bingbongs yapping about some lucky battle doesnt change the fact:

France teached bongs a lesson in warfare. Now go cover in fear of russians sissy brit boys.

PS. im not even french

>doesn't matter
*chortle*

Attached: Britain1429.gif (348x411, 19K)

I'll take the bait

Attached: 1487836069868.jpg (500x619, 64K)

Why did this have to become a nationalist debate? This happens whenever a thread is made about medieval England and France. Why can't people just take pride in their country without being rude to another?
>Haha England wuz ruled by French forever
>fuck off pierre and actually contribute something
Same stuff all the time

Bump

It's not about the heats, its about the final.

Attached: 1500994567142.png (1304x904, 726K)

>when Anglo-Saxons disappeared after aflfred the great to make the Aenglish
Next you’ll say huegonots didn’t become part of british culture

>the crusader states were actually French
>the Spanish kingdoms before 1453 were actually French
>the Italian City states were actually Roman because Venice uses a senate and spoke Latin

>>when Anglo-Saxons disappeared after aflfred the great to make the Aenglish
?

>Saintonge war
>literally just a minor skirmish and siege about inheritance

Attached: images-19.jpg (238x211, 8K)

>moustaches are Anglo
Did they also take up the tact of grey skin and hungering for the blood of aryans

>treaties exist if their tenants aren’t held to
South Africa is rightful English clay along with Malta

Him peacing out with the Danes and then stuff like daneaxe becoming common among retainers shows a new culture developed

Excuse me?

You can split up the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) in six
Three won by the French (Third Coalition, Fourth Coalition and Fifth coalition) and three won by the English (Peninsular War, Sixth Coalition, Seventh Coalition)

And you can split the HYW in three
Two won by the French (Caroline War and Lancastrian War) and one won by the English (Edwardian War )

So in the end, if we don't split them it gives 1 for France and 1 for England, while of we do it gives 5 for France and 3 for England

Hang on. What about where Henry V is made heir to the throne

It was in the middle of the Lancastrian War, which the "English" lost
Dude had won one battle, thought it would be enough but turns out it wasn't

The whole idea of a single contiguous "Hundred Years' War" is a French invention from the late 19th Century. It was more or less an attempt to save face because they were curbstomped so badly during the Edwardian phase and couldn't accept it.