- This topic has 75 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Why were the English so strong throughout most of the Hundred Years War? Yeah, they lost, but they really shouldn’t have done nearly as well as they did in the first place.
-
>Yeah they lost but
cope a teenage girl kicked your ass.-
Joan of arc was a freemasonic ur-zog servant
she was best buddies with a child murdering demon worshipper-
State what ever schizo cope or bullshit claim you want but the second the French started trying you lost as you should have. You should never be mainlanders and apparently God agrees.
-
The English were the most anti zog forces in all of western europe at the time. this is why freemasonic scots and garden gnome controlled freemasonic demon worshipping french attacked them
-
>freemasons
>14th century
-
-
-
Can someone fill me in on this? I’ve seen it before here but can’t remember the guy’s name.
-
Gilles de Rais.
Maybe tortured some kids, maybe didn’t. LULZ tries to be smart asses and contrariant so they’ll tell you he didn’t do it, but maybe he did.-
he was framed
>contrarian
that’s the general scholarly consensus though.-
it really isn’t
-
-
-
-
-
At least half of France would be speaking English right now if Henry V hadn’t abruptly died after Agincourt.
-
Pretty much the contrary, England would still be speaking french if the plantagenet had win.
-
In point of fact, England did not speak French. This is why the Plantagenet kings eventually started speaking English as their primary language rather than France, in fact it was Henry V’s own father, Henry IV, who was the first Plantagenet king whose mother tongue was English rather than French, and the same was true of Henry V. You may have a point though, that if Henry V had become King of France, the primacy of French may have returned to the royal court as the importance of the title of King of England waned in the Plantagenet dynasty. Losing their claim to the French throne essentially cemented the shift to being English-speaking for the remaining Plantagenet kings.
-
-
Everything revolves around luck and bad luck my friend.
Agincourt wouldn’t have happened if Henry V hadn’t been trying to retreat back to his island in disgrace after losing half of his army while besieging the irrelevant village of Harfleur for over a month.
Nor would have it been a victory if not for the mud.
Luck did him and then undid him.-
he didnt retreat you freaking idiot, he dilibertaly walked down to calai as a show of power after he succesfully besiged that shithole, he had the advantage with the mud becuase he’s a better tactition he also had spikes placed becuase he was just that much smarter than the french and god willed it
-
Holy cope
-
>he didnt retreat you freaking idiot
-
-
-
Delusional
Even if if the plantagenets conquer all of France, the court is always going to be moved to somewhere in France. The plategenets would probably never return to England seriously, London would be irrelevant, and the who whole swamp island would become like the Scotland in our timeline.-
>he said in English
lmao-
I bet you think you’re clever
-
>he said in English
-
-
Which wouldn’t have been the case if the plantagentes won. Be glad you lost.
-
-
-
-
France had 20 million people and england 2 million.
The war should have been over in 6 months yet somehow took 100 years
-
You don’t understand war at all if you think it’s all population. Also again you got your ass kicked by a teenage girl and didn’t even have the balls to take her out yourselves.
-
It’s not ALL population but to beat someone 10x stronger than you, it will take one Hell of a strategy plus all the luck in the world.
-
Yeah, but as already pointed out in this thread:
1. A large amount of the French total pop was on their side when counting allied duchies and owned lands
2. They didn’t win
-
-
-
What the fuck. How did England not get raped especially considering the fact they were the ones invading
-
Ghastly French military incompetence multiple times.
-
-
Keep in mind the english crown already owned tons of land in france at the outset of the war. Probably quite a few of the soldiers involved on the english side were natively french.
-
The French Nobility did a lot of fuckery. France was also less centralized than England, so couldn’t use harness resources and manpower pool as well. Note this trend ended the with conclusion of the 100 years wars, English Invasions say even during the French Wars of Religion were resounding failures.
-
That’s actually mind blowing. The fr*nch are pathetic
-
the ratio was more around 1:5 if we’re comparing the geographical areas, but the "english" oftenc controlled up to 1/2, certainly if you count the burgundian controlled areas as "english"
-
That’s not how it works, kiddo.
Firstly, "England" (aka the House Plantagenet) had several of the most populous and powerful French duchies on its side.
And secondly, total population size hardly mattered in warfare until the advent of mass conscription in the 19th century. Before that, some countries such as Prussia often found themselves with a larger army than countries twice their size in total population. -
>France had 20 million people
Either this is bullshit, either one must wonder what the heck the French were doing in the next five centuries because in 1800 France proper had 26 millions inhabitants
-
Black death and great famine killed plenty frogs, and the french became poor breeders
-
Black Death occurred during the very beginning of the war.
-
>began
>effects lasted years, decades evenYes
-
-
-
-
-
You know she died, right? France lost that battle and the war went on for another 20 years.
-
He is American clearly, so probably learned history from Age of Empires 2
-
kek, accurate
I don’t know any other reason why non-frogs would simp so much for that schizo roastie-
Pain, suffering and lack of waemon.
-
-
-
From French people after pushing the English back and utterly reversing the momentum of the war. I suppose you don’t like acknowledging history that angers you.
-
-
woke af
-
look, i like Joan as much as the next guy, but you have to admit, England had France on the ropes quite a few times during the HYW, especially right before the Castilian campaign.
-
An ugly win is a win and a pretty loss is a loss. No one cares about losers no matter how good they looked at half time.
-
if we’re going by that logic, wouldn’t Napoleon be a giant loser? perhaps the biggest loser of all time?
-
He did indeed lose in the end though that was just the last war. He won other wars and did succeed in more than just war. France as a whole lost in the end but his system was then adopted so in a way they still followed his vision. Hell modern education is due greatly to Napoleon.
-
that’s what i’m saying, it’s stupid to reduce it all just to whether they won or lost in the end, when why they lost or won is much more important, and what they did before they lost or won. like in the case of the Hundred Years War, Franc was on the ropes because of how decentralized the country was and it won because they managed to centralize it. The English were originally winning due to heir superior tactics and strategies, but lost because they couldn’t adapt to France changing their tactics and strategy, as well as an inability to keep England’s political system stable. this war shouldn’t be viewed solely through the lenses of "England lost, lol," or "Frogs btfo by Longbowmen, lol." it’s should be about how England lost, how close they got to winning, what mistakes they made that set them back, why longbowmen were effective sometimes, and sometimes not, how the war affected these countries and their history.
-
-
-
-
-
-
>Why were the English so strong
They werent -
The question isn’t why was England so strong, but why was France so weak? And the answer is that they the nobles weren’t always the feeling fond for their king.
-
The war actually went back and forth a few times, the english did not constantly win for most of the time like popular history dictates.
What really turned the tide of the war toward the end was france reorganising their military, creating a more modern standing army and coming up with various tactics to counter the english tactics (which, once countered, the english really had no answer for). Ontop of that, england was becoming embroiled in a civil war and couldn’t focus as much attention on france..-
What really turned the tide of the war toward the end was the fact the Duchy of Burgundy (which had been responsible for most English successes in the war, including the capture of Joan of Arc) decided to become neutral.
Once deprived of their strong allies, the English got buttraped within a decade.-
The Burgundians were only English allies for a brief period of the war during Henry V’s campaign. Interesting that in your chronology they built a time machine to go back to Crécy and Poitiers and lose those battles for the French.
-
>Duchy of Burgundy (which had been responsible for most English successes in the war).
Huh? I don’t agree with that. The english commanders, archers and tactics was what was winning battles for them. I’m not even sure what burgundy supplied to the english. Maybe money? men-at-arms? safe passage? supplies? and I don’t really care for joan of arc. She didn’t have much effect apart from morale boosting.
-
-
-
This site’s joan of arc cult has to be the biggest cringe going and that’s saying a lot. Imagine simping for a yaaas queen fantasy because you have an anglo mind worm
-
Imagine being ass blasted about a loss that happened centuries ago.
-
funny poster
>be like joan of arc who saved her country
>from who
>uhhh…. us-
I actually wrote a paper about how every group from every political faction across the planet somehow finds a way to try and appropriate her for their causes even at the same time for very contradictory things. One hardcore feminist might use her as a symbol while a traditional values guy brings up her harrying of the hookers where she thot patrolled on the soldiers behalf as a sign of her conservatism. It’s insane how everyone loves her but is willing to twist her for anything.
-
-
-
On sites like plebbit they simp for joan for feminist reasons, on sites like LULZ they simp for joan because they’re waifuscrote incels who latch on to and obsess over women they will never interact with
-
She’s like the proto-nationalist. Imagine being a demoralized solider fighting for this or that king and a peasant girl comes to you and says you need to drive off the foreign invaders of your land. Of course it’s popular on LULZ and other nationalists movements.
-
-
More you say than the bongs who whine about a loss and pretend it didn’t happen after centuries? You people are pathetic. I personally just love any event that brought misery and humiliation on you vermin.
-
You obviously haven’t checked out other boards if you think that’s the biggest cringe here.
-
That’s not cringe it’s hilarious
https://youtu.be/Sj_d8If_3Zo
-
-
Strong government.
The Anglo-Saxon government of England was one of the most well-organized in the world at that point in time and the Normans inherited it without freaking it up too badly. -
>only the English had allies
??? -
Wasnt France equal to the HRE in population? So yeah preety embarrasing it took so long for the French to win
-
why is this board so full of idiots?
The 100 years’ war was NOT an invasion of a united French state by the English state. You’re a special kind of stupid if you believe that Medieval wars, let alone the 100 years’ war, were like modern wars where state armies formed by citizens of those states and supplied with state resources fight each other. That war was a feudal war where one aristocratic family (Plantagenêt) and another aristocratic family (Valois) fought for the title of "King of France". Both owned lands in France, both were French nobility. Technically the Plantagenêts were vassals to the King of France BECAUSE they owned lands in France (Normandy, Aquitaine, Poitiers etc) – and they wanted to stop being simple vassals and become the Big Man themselves. A classic war of succession. The Plantagenêts also owned lands outside of France, namely the kingdom of England. This was IN ADDITION to their French titles. They recruited English people as well for their wars, of course, after all they ruled over the English.
Still not an "invasion of France by England". Goddamn dumbasses. The fact that Americans recruited people from Guam to fight their wars in Korea and Vietnam doesn’t make the Korean civil war an "invasion of Korea by Guam".-
Wow that seems complicated and quite different from my paradox games
Sorry but I’ll stick with the "2 millions English vs 20 millions French" take
England stronk!!! England (temporarily) coloring the map!!!-
>Wow that seems complicated and quite different from my paradox games
Wait, can’t you be a vassal to some king in Country A but own lands as an independent king in Country B at the same time in CK3? Like, you can own a county in Germany so you must pay vassal money to the emperor of Germany, but at the same time you can be king of Denmark and have your own vassals inside Denmark? Because that was more or less the situation in 14th century feudal Europe.
-
-
That’s ok, but you can still paint as one side led by the king of England vs another side led by the king of France. Also England didn’t posess territories in France at the beginning except for Guyenne.
The side led by the king of England was cohesive, meaning England was a sort of centralized state under clear authority of the King. France wasn’t. The nobility was more independent and rebellious than the english one. Also the english intrigued a lot in France, sewing discord and turning many nobles and states against the king and sponsoring rebellions in Flanders, Normandy and etc. Classic anglo stuff. So France, initially, was never neither cohesive nor united.
Still, the forces of France were always superior to those of England and her goys. Problem is they opted for a classic honorable chevalier warfare type of strategy meaning garrisoning cities and awaiting pitched battles. But the english never looked for pitched battles nor laying sieges on well defended cities for a long time. Their strategy was moving fast and going Gengis Khan on the civilian population, looting and burning everything on their way, avoiding strong opposition and pitched battles. The 2 significant battles of the first stage, Crecy and Poitiers were those in which the typical English raid,kill and loot party was finally caught by a French army and force into an entrenched defensive position. The french would then proceed to then attack and charge chivalric style with disastrous consequences.
-
Eventually a)they would learn that a you cannot fight perfidy in a knightly manner, c)the internal unrest, quarreling and division sponsored by the english slowly receded once everyone, including the burgundians, realized that letting France fall under English rule was surely not a great idea and c)the civilian population, with figures like Joan of Arc, began building a strong national french sentiment, courtesy in part to the anglos genghis khan treatment on them.
And with no internal unrest and division in the french side, and no knightly attitude at warfare, that was it, the end for the english.
-
-
-
-
The french made some stupid mistakes during the war, which allowed the english to get as far as they did. The moment the french started to see themselves as a single nation it was over for the english. France then gained the advantadge in weapon technology and kicked the english out.
-
>yet another nationalist pissing contest thread where people know less than nothing about medieval politics
-
so much frog cope here lol
thr hundered year was is pretty kino though, cicil wars, betrayals, succession crisies, medieval alliances and dukes/nobility, full plate armour knights and cav
good back and forwards balance of power, nationalist icons like joan of arc, henry V, tudors, war of roses etc -
Pretty easy to understand when you get down to it:
>France constantly getting bailed on by its constituent regions (Guyenne, half of Brittany, Flanders, Burgundy) – hell the chevauchée of the Black Prince mainly involved French knights from Guyenne, not English knights
>not to mention the war devolving into not just a French-English conflict, but an Bourguignon-Armagnac civil war between the elder Valois line and the subordinate Valois line
>early naval defeat at Sluys destined all the campaigning to be in France (and Spain) – completely disastrous for France, bands of outlaws roaming the countryside, trading in Champagne grinding to a halt, while English armies funded their war effort with chevauchée in France
>early French defeats at Poitiers and Crécy (sheer French incompetence, paired with some bad luck for the French) dooming the country for the next fifty yearsThere’s four phases to the conflict, and everytime that France picked itself up, it was struck by another disaster (English armies beaten by du Guesclin, only for the French king Charles VI to become insane and undo all the progress).
-
Sluys was exclusively "english" vs "french" There was no "spanish" (castillian) involvement. The intervention was much later and corresponded to the french recovery phase after Bretigny, which was marked by Du Guesclin’s tactics of slow but relentless sieges and reconquest of cities avoiding field battles and the intervention of the castillian fleet in La Rochelle, annihilating the english navy in that battle, and then seizing this strategic city, preventing the arrival of english reinforces, supplies and moneys with which to defend Guyenne, leaving the English with no other choice than to demand onerous tributes from their own cities and nobilities in Aquitaine to sustain their own efforts, which in turned resulted in many of them turning to the French side and thus precipitating a swift loss of most of Aquitaine in the following years.
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.