So after watching this video, do you feel the the netflix movie THE KING depicts the battle correctly? To me it does not accuractly portray the full role of the archers.
I know that a lot of this is guesswork after six centuries, but through a comparison with contemporary sources (like the Gesta Henrici) The King's depiction of the battle is not very good. It makes Shakespeare look like a good historian in comparison.
The entire depiction of battle, soldiers suicidally intermingling on the battlefield in a big chaotic melee of thousand duels, is nonsensical and has nothing to do with real life or history. Battles were fought in lines, where onlny the first and maybe second ranks are doing the actual fighting until one side breaks and begans fleeing.
You cannot say killing the prisoners was unnecessary since the French didn't attack again... maybe the intimidation of the slaughter is WHY they didn't attack again.
The baggage wagon was attacked by French brigands (which the English thought of as an attack from the rear by the French army, even though it wasn't) and the French were going to regroup, so the English couldn't risk the prisoners rioting on top of their current problems, especially since even their numbers were bigger than the English forces present. They didn't want to risk being overwhelmed.
French Noble didn't use to fight in those cowards way. There were arrogant horsemen too confident to win a battle with honorable method. Also, the rain before the fight and choosing a short way in the forest to fight english were crucial.
The execution of the prisoners, was, unfortunately, absolutely necessary; the french were regrouping, the english had no arrows and the french wanted to rescue their prisoners. The french left the field when they saw they had nothing to fight for.
That wasn't the only reason. The prisoners outnumbered their captors and there was still a battle to be won, they feared they might revolt and overwhelm them or at least that's what I remember being told.
The armor would create an a slight disadvantage from exhaustion, but I wouldn't say it significantly hindered their movement as medieval armor was a lot lighter and more flexible than most people think, a modern soldier with his gear weighs more than a medieval knight on average. In most circumstances heavy armor offered a huge advantage as arrows had little effect on them. This advantage was lessened at Agincourt because the constant volleys of arrows from the English over time were able to wear down the French, killing the lightly armored soldiers and the heavily armored soldiers would eventually be worn down by constant bombardment in the muddy terrain.
You are still significantly more agile and less top heavy without armor or a modern military loadout. Were still talking at the very least 30kg of added weight, most of it on the chest and head. Heavy chest and head armor will restrict arm/neck movement and breathing significantly, including vision. It's important to note that you actually do fatigue faster with full gear. The video OP did note both the muddy terrain and the fact that the armored frenchmen were tightly crowded within that muddy area. I didn't get the impression OP assumed armor made you slow in any of the mythical ways.
+Daniel Styxwash Actually, medieval armor did NOT weigh 30 kg, rather 18 kg, and it was not focused most on head and chest. All forms of complete medieval armor, like maille, plate, etc., focused on equal protection, and if the suit of armor fit you, you wouldn't feel much of the weight. Also going by what I just said, if the armor fit you, your movement wouldn't be impaired too badly. We see this at Agincourt, where rich, professional French knights and men-at-arms had the best armor, but lost to the English because of 2 reasons: the mud, which played a massive role in the battle, and English arrows raining down on the French soldiers, whose armor protected them, but the arrows took away a lot of their stamina, like the video OP said. Also, the curved plates the French (and English) wore also would stick into the thick mud, for obvious reasons, slowing them down and making them easy targets. The video OP got the cavalry part right, where the archers shot the horses, bringing the horsemen and knights into the mud to suffocate in it and their armor, thanks to the air-restrictive visors of their helmets.
+Marbles McGee Blunt force trauma. An English longbow has a 100 to 150 pound draw-weight, and though it wouldn't be able to pierce the armor the French were wearing, blunt force trauma from the impact would essentially drive the air out of the French soldiers'/knights' lungs. That's what I learned, but correct me of I'm wrong.
Not correct, sorry. A counter attack by a newly arrived French noble (Duke of Brabant) almost turned the tide of battle and pushed the English back. This attack came so close to killing Henry that a French sword cut off a piece of the battle crown that Henry had on in battle, and only the bravery of Davy Gam, head of Henry's personal bodyguard, helped Henry cut his way out of the battle. Davy Gam paid with his life. The moment Henry escaped, in anger for what had just happened and in fear of what would happen if the French prisoners heard the battle drawing so near that they might decide to join in the fight, Henry ordered them all to be murdered. In today's world this would be considered murder and a horrendous act. In the age of chivalry when the surrender of these men had been accepted and then betrayed, it was way beyond that and a true act of cowardice.
@@mscottc1964 Cowardice? Ignorance. You are aware the French forces were flying their battle banners (Oriflamme) which when flown meant they'd take no prisoners right? So the French being the cowards they are initially thinking having numerical superiority allowed them the aroggance to unfurl the banners thinking the English had no chance of winning, therefor being to dictate such a no prisoners taking situation.
@@BroadHobbyProjects The Oriflamme was the standard of the King of France and was always carried at the head of any of the Kings forces when on the battlefield - including many battles previous where quarter WAS given. It was symbolic and meant to be intimidating, nothing more. And it had NOTHING to do with the decision to kill the prisoners. That happened at the end of the battle, and ALL historical accounts that I have read and viewed state that, INCLUDING the English account Gesta Henrici Quinti. "The Gesta Henrici places this after the English had overcome the onslaught of the French men-at-arms and the weary English troops were eyeing the French rearguard ("in incomparable number and still fresh").[34] Le Fèvre and Wavrin similarly say that it was signs of the French rearguard regrouping and "marching forward in battle order" which made the English think they were still in danger.[57] A slaughter of the French prisoners ensued. It seems it was purely a decision of Henry, since the English knights found it contrary to chivalry, and contrary to their interests to kill valuable hostages for whom it was commonplace to ask ransom. Henry threatened to hang whoever did not obey his orders." The English were out of arrows and exhausted tired and Henry ordered the prisoners executed, nothing to do with a banner, end of story. And let's not forget who the aggressors were, Henry was in France sacking and killing, the "coward" French of course had no right to defend themselves, right?
@@mscottc1964 The banner was unfurled specifically when they did not intent to take prisoners. Again, specifically states they used the banner unfurling to make nobles who'd usually expect to be captured think twice about fighting under threat of no mercy. So it's not the end of story at all, shows due to overconfidence they thought they were going to easily win so could dictate on their terms to give or take mercy. Yes the points you quoted were true, didn't refute this. The French who attacked the baggage train/English camp killed squires which was forbidden in the chivalric code, they were young teenage boys and were slaughtered. That was a reason you forgot to list as to why the French prisoners were executed. To state ignorantly that the English were apparent cowards for killing prisoners is idiotic, especially as the reasons you gave embolden their reasoning to kill a large amount of them. The estimates of the prisoners held apparently outnumbered the English men at arms by 4 to 1 too. So they had a huge risk, kill the prisoners and beat what was left of the French army, or likely be overpowered and killed by a vengeful seeking horde of Frenchmen who just had their asses handed to them by a much smaller force. I also didn't say the French had no right to fight. Like how the English had their rights to under their Kings claim to the French throne too.
Didn't the English archers move forward before the battle to draw the French to attack. They then retreated behind their stakes when the battle commencef
The whole question of “sharpened wooden stakes is in some doubt”, it is supposed that each archer had one stake which formed part of his battle equipment, the sharp end would most logically be driven into the ground with the upward facing end being hammered. If the protruding end needed hammering it would then need sharpening. That’s fine for single use but means if re-positioned later in a battle or for retention in future deployment, it’d become shorter and less usable each time. Besides, a horse would be equally unlikely to charge through a line of unsharpened stakes as it would sharp ones.
according to abbot of a nearby church and an account of the mayor , the English where down to less than six thousand men , French casualties where 26,000 many more died in the church of wounds,
@@BroadHobbyProjects No, say the medieval historians, including English historians like Anne Curry, Professor of Medieval History at the University of Southampton. Check that: www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2016/05/the-truth-about-agincourt.page Read the second part of the article called "Enduring myths" Sorry, bro
Not sure about the English numbers there mate, they had 8000 on the march from Harfleur, they lost many on the march, so contemporary accounts had them at about 6000.
primrosehill24 The English had about 8,500 men. English historians particularly Tudor historians have always chiseled the English numbers down and augmented the French. Adds to the heroic aspects I guess. No question the French outnumbered. After leaving Harfluer Henry got wind of a 6,000 strong force gathering in the south, by the time of the battle that number had grown easily twice perhaps three times that. I would estimate the French had anywhere between 12,000 - 20,000 troops however many more troops later turned up but did not fight or even get involved, the French didn't even use their archers/crossbowmen. I believe from studying the 1415 campaign that the English lost around 1,000 - 1,500 troops at Agincourt and the French around 3,500 - 6,000. About a quarter of the French casualties being the prisoners.
Still, a 6-1 casualty ratio is incredible for the time, especially considering the apparent mismatch of heavy infantry. To think that each man in Henry's army on average killed 6 men EACH. It's far more likely that the three small knots of English men at arms did horrendous damage, perhaps capturing or killing 9-12 men each while the archers would only account for a small percentage of actual causalities, although their arrows probably wounded and bludgeoned half the French army senseless before it made it across the field. It just brings home the scale of the feat. To disarm, wound, or kill 6-12 men in armed combat...you can see why they would have said "Praise be to god, and not our strength for it"
Well, that's *_up to_* six kills for every man lost (On the other end of the spectrum it is 2.3 men killed for every one lost, which is still pretty incredible. The full range is from the lowest implied rate of 1500 English for 3500 French to the highest implied rate of 1000 to 6000.). But each man in Henry's entire army would have killed 1 to 0.4 men on average (3500-6000 French casualties against 6000 to 8,500 English soldiers). All assuming that Joe Steers's numbers are accurate.
The movie 'The King' did injustice to the battle. It was underwhelming compared to the real thing. Even the battle was a one big hollywood trope, where it's depicted like a disorganized mess where people just fought chaotic individual duels all over the battlefield. Sad.
Tbh compared to many other medieval movies this one got the closest to reality. At least they didn't take of their helmets in the middle of battle for no reason at all or dual wielded swords. Looking at you *outlaw king*.
@@BlackWolf9988 I still feel like the chaos in Outlaw King was a bit more justified (although still shitty), since the cavalry got impaled on the wooden stakes or got stuck in the swampy area. I do, however, applaud this movie that they finally made the armor tough. But when you look at the tactics involved or the silly chaos that they made, it makes no logical or tactical sense and that really bugs me off. Have you seen Alexander's Battle of Gaugamela? Although not historically accurate (and a shitty movie in general), it has pretty nice battlefield dynamics, I think the most realistic of all.
Well, they wore full plate armour, the only weak spot is their visor, around neck and armpits. That's why they wrestle each other like that and try to drown each other in the mud + the battlefield were muddy and slippery, it's hard to move and not falling with heavy full plate armour
@@AbhikamaP The battlefield wasn't slippery. How the movie depicted is totally wrong. It was a freshly ploughed field - that's deep and soft mud in which it's very hard to walk. If the English would engage with French in a chaotic brawl like was depicted in the movie, they would lose all their advantage.
@@enlightenedterrestrialthe French knights is the one who's charged at the English man-at-arms in the middle while the English long bow shooting through the flanks until the arrows run out and then they join the battle in melee. The English have their advantage because the French knights already tired when they reach English line + the English long bow have lighter armour so they can move more easily in the mud
I'm going to disagree about the armour's weight being a factor. My understanding was it's lack of friction with the mud by comparison with other materials used by the English archers making it difficult to fight / gain footing. Armour of the period was quite light weight-wise but effective against the bow (more so when you consider gambeson underneath. The majority of French dead were probably disbatched with knives etc. as they flayed about in the mud or crushed / suffocated in the crowd dynamics created by the layout of the battlefield?
This is why you use scouts. You should also expect a smaller army not hanging around, but rather fortifying themselves. I have to give the French the efficiency of their battle: once they saw it wouldn't work, they had only spent a fifth of their army.
Henry married the Daughter of the then french king Charles . She , Catherine de valois , was married to Henry after an agreement was made that should charles die , then Henry would become joint King of England and France . It was not a later decision . His heir ship was agreed on his marriage to Catherine .
Even a bit more detail would have been good while staying short and manageable. What about cold and hunger, how much marching was done prior, how far to the ships and escape.....?
The storms of arrows supposedly darkened the sky. Surely lots got into eye slots and joints in armor, and into horses. And no valor in sitting back a mile and waiting. I read that Henry was trying for the coast and re-board ships. This must have been French force's best chance at stopping him and giving a defeat. Cold, wet, tired and hungry all around must have figured in as well: "Let's get this over with!"
The French were blocking the English on the road to Calais. The prolonged resistance at Harfleur meant that Henry could not proceed with the planned campaign so late in the year. Henry could have gone back to England from Harfleur but decided that honour required he make a demonstration march across French territory, so he left a garrison for Harfleur and set out with a force much reduced and ill with dysentry due to eating shellfish from the polluted waters a round Harfleur to the English held port of Calais. The French forces gathered, pursued and also got ahead of the English and blocked the road to Calais at Agincourt. They greatly outnumbered the English and were supremely confident of a crushing victory. Henry did not fancy his chances either. He sent a message to the French saying that a battle could be avoided if the French allowed the English army to pass on to Calais. The French were eager to get at the hated English who they were sure they had trapped and at their mercy, so refused. Shakespeare correctly has Henry telling the French herald that they did not choose to fight in that condition, reduced in numbers, hungry and diseased, but if they had to, they would fight. The French and the English stood about a kilometre apart for hours in the morning. Henry decided to bring on the battle and his army advanced to within extreme bow shot, about 250 yards from the French, the archers replanted their stakes and let loose which provoked the mounted attack. Last month I made a detour from visiting where my great grandfather and great uncle fought with the Australian army in France and Belgium in WW1 and visited Crecy, the first great long bow victory of the English over a much larger and overly confident pursuing French Force in 1346 and Agincourt, just a little further south.
There was also a strong over-confidence on the French side as well. They vastly outnumbered the English, and were well rested. There were accounts of French nobility betting each other as to who would capture Henry V. Because of this, the French nobility took little or no notice of the battle plan drawn up by Marshall Boucicault, they were that certain of an easy victory.
Wrong. The number of Welshmen present at Agincourt was no more than 500 according to documents at the time. The majority came from the Shires of the North of England, Derbyshire and Lancashire provided many archers.
Did I miss the bit about Henry 5 capturing the French Kings battle plan and digging himself in to a suitable bit of protected real estate. The greatest fear of Henry was that the French would not attack but wait him out. But you can alawys rely on the French to to attack which is why the longbow never played a great apart in the French army as it is a defensive weapon. French Archers....Snipers English Bowmen....Machine gunners When an archer heavy (6000) army attacked the French at Formingy they lost with the archers playing a minimum role.
I may be a bit late but the reason can be amounted tot he fact that it was better off to fight in lines than straight on with their weapons from what I heard. Could be wrong though
A good few factual errors in this recounting. It didn’t quite play-out the way described, and the relative sizes of the armies was probably smaller. The French were more likely at about 12,000.
I don't think the start of the battle was accurately depicted in this, I'm not an expert so if anyone wants to see the videos where the actual experts talk about it, comment and I'll link. However, if memory serves me right, the French nobles in their normal tradition of being over confident disregarded their commander's orders to send the archers forward first (he was an upstart and not worthy of giving orders to true nobles) -- I saw this on the history channel a long time ago before it got shitty. Additionally, and more to the point, the English long-bowmen (as shown in the expert video) almost absolutely did not fire volleys at range. As demonstrated in the video, despite would Hollywood shows, arrows cannot pierce plate. Not even the heavy arrows the English archers used and certainly not at massive range. Their impact came in when the French were close and fighting the English soldiers, the archers on the flanks loosed an endless barrage of arrows targeting the weak points in the French armor.
And the horses, with plenty of exposed areas, eyes too, where 3' arrows would do serious damage? Intolerable to a knight/noble/warrior, to sit placidly while his horse is disabled. One commenter said range was 250 yards, not close. But any range within which a war arrow flies point-forward means trouble.
It was raining.. The mercenary Swiss crossbowmen, could not remove their bow strings. The english could quickly and easily. This made the crossbowmen ineffective. Gut and sinew shrink when wet. This is a major problem for stringed weapons. Not being able to cock a crossbow renders them useless.
The French really failed to capitalize on their numbers in this battle. Their arrogance really got the better of them. It's weird to think that with all that superior technology at the time compared to 1000 years earlier that they still had inferior battlefield tactics compared to great Captains like Alexander the Great...
You would've thought they would've tried to flank them. I'm sure it's appealing to stay in the open but the trees would've given the flanking soldiers cover and the arrows would've been wasted on them while the main force advances. Too much arrogance with their cavalry, using them to try and immediately break the enemy rather than wear them down from gaps in the battle line.
Henry squandered a huge opportunity to advance his claim to the French throne. With so many French nobility dead, could he not have marched on fiefdoms in NE France to demand their allegiance, installing liege lords agreeable to him? The psychological advantage would gave been his, with a seeming invincible army that destroyed so many French nobles at his back. Also the murder of prisoners would play in his favour, many chamberlains might be willing to surrender than face massacre.
Nope he faced too many casualty before and he was in hostile territory . The french army lost a serious amount of soldier but henry new he couldn't do that again with so few soldier .
@@stormbringer2840 Also as I understand it, it was October, so winter weather would soon make campaigning even more difficult and deadly. Time to get the weary troops back home so they can sit by their warm hearths and relate (and embellish) their stories of glorious and heroic combat! :)
This is incorrect. Henry stationed his archers on both flanks but in the forest with sharpened stakes in front. Most of the English force was made up of archers, the rest were men at arms and knights
I think more then likely the English king decided if the prisoners captured were ransomed he would end up fighting them again down the road so he let his troops kill them and take there stuff to never again have to fight them. It makes more sense then they killed them because the French might attack again. Ugly but more likely
Theodore Smith: According to most accounts (including those who were actually there) the prisoners were killed because a group of French troops had attacked the English "waggon train" (food & other supplies) and killed most of the old men and boys who were guarding it.
@@ukguy7761 any links? In any case, I would imagine they came up with something to justify murdering them all with some excuse. I doubt it really bothered royals that other royals killed some peasants. Also the British are the best excuse makers of all time as far as battles or wars lost or atrocities. Zulu battles, American Revolution, boar war, Singapore and any other stain on the english and you can bet there is an excuse for it. Who gained big time from them all dying? The king of England. Thats why they died. Ransoms were paid to who caught them. Then he has to fight them again.
@@ukguy7761 according to most accounts of the American army soldiers of the 7th cav. At wound knee they fought a great battle against the Lakota. The truth is they killed many females and children to get rid of the tribe. I dont sugar coat any history even my own countries. Most americans, unlike British. do not look back and try to justify it.
@@theodoresmith5272: This is from Wikipedia.....I've seen other accounts but can't remember where at the moment. "The only French success was an attack on the lightly protected English baggage train, with Ysembart d'Azincourt (leading a small number of men-at-arms and varlets plus about 600 peasants) seizing some of Henry's personal treasures, including a crown. Whether this was part of a deliberate French plan or an act of local brigandage is unclear from the sources. Certainly, d'Azincourt was a local knight but he might have been chosen to lead the attack because of his local knowledge and the lack of availability of a more senior soldier. In some accounts the attack happened towards the end of the battle and led the English to think they were being attacked from the rear. Barker, following the Gesta Henrici, believed to have been written by an English chaplain who was actually in the baggage train, concluded that the attack happened at the start of the battle." (Wikipedia).
TifaX: According to wikipedia the English had about 6,000 - 8,000 men and the French had about 14,000 - 15,000 men so it was was approx 2 to 1 in favour of the French. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
Yet another battle "historian" who talks of "firing" arrows. You shoot arrows, you don't fire them; it's guns that you fire, you know to light the gunpowder so that it goes bang. For archers the corresponding action is to "loose" the drawn bow - no fire involved. Sometimes, I hear some say, the arrows had burning tips to set fire to things. Very rarely on land, but useful for burning enemy ships at sea, and only really possible, with arrows of normal length, because the longbow was never held at full draw for more than a fraction of a second.
And also nobody beats all coalised Europe like the French at Fontenoy, Bouvines, Malplaquet... France also beat Europe five times in a row from 1792 to 1809, no one else has ever done that.
@Mac Productions The French did defeat Britain on the battlefield during the Revolutionnary and Napoleonic wars, ilke at the siege of Toulon (1793), the siege of Roses (1808) or the battle of Corunna (1809). And Britain was an active member of the 5 coalitions that lost to France, so Britain lost 5 wars in a row to France from 1793 to 1809 even it was helped by several other countries. And don't worry, even before that time France defeated Britain several times: battle of fort Carillon, battle of Fontenoy, battle of the Chesapeake...
@Mac Productions It took Britain and Europe 5 wars to finally defeat France. 5 times Britain launched a coalition against France, 5 times Britain failed and 5 times the coalition was beaten and signed a treaty of peace. The British speciality was to constantly avoid the battle against the French (cause they knew they'd get their asses handed to them) and let Germans, Austrians or Russians fight and die. And then they stole the credit and claimed Waterloo was a British victory. A French tradition? Are you just an ignorant troll? Britain capitulated countless times. Bitain capitulated in 1781 at Yorktown, then had to come in France to sign a humiliating peace treaty in Versailles in 1783, abandonning compeletely the US territory. Britain gave up in 1714 after the battle of Malplaquet and gave up on invading France Britain gave up at the battle of Saint Cast in 1758, failing pitifully to invade France (as always) Britain capitulated in 1758 at the siege of Carillon (against the French again) Britain capitulated in 1841 against the Afghani Britain capitulated in 1879 against some African tribes (Zulus) You want some more? Cause you also capitulated a lot against the Spanish and the Dutch, that's why you went conqueting third world countries, cause you've always been the losers of Europe.
@@debatteurrespectueux7560 Well of course britain avoided battle. They fought at sea instead and smashed the french there. Britain had a far smaller population than France so could only field much smaller armies. You think it would have been braver if the british landed 20,000 men at the start of the war only to get crushed by 60,000 or more frenchman? I call it idiocy. The british played to their strengths and won in the end. You do also seem to forget Napoleon's humiliation in egypt and his middle eastern campaign. Oh and also, you say british attempts to attack france are always pitiful. You forget we once owned half of your country. Not to mention we liberated you so some appreciation would be nice.
@@user-sc9oy1kz8g And what about Prussia? They had a smaller population too, but they fought. What about Austria? They had a smaller population too, but they fought. And I remind you the French were almost always vastly outnumbered on the battlefield (Austerlitz, Friedland, Eylau, Marengo, Arcole, Rivoli...), so your 20,000vs 60,000 scenario is not credible. I'm not saying all attempts were pitiful, just that they all failed, which is true. Your attempts were actually well executed, with some great victories, but France is not english right now, so France always won in the end. About WWII, you never liberated us, you were just part of it, even though I know how much you love to forget those who helped you (US, Canada, Australia), stop hogging all the credits (like you do with Waterloo), and don't forget what the French did for you at the battle of Dunkirk. Everyone in France know you helped us, no one knows in England what we did for you, do you find that fair?
🤦♂️ Armour (Full plate and chain mail) isnt as heavy as you think. Sure the numbers may seem insane but remember it spreads evenly across your whole body which makes it feel lighter. And it doesnt make you less agile
The French Cavalry would not be able to manoeuvre effectively in the woods, and they thought the French cavalry charge straight at the enemy would beat the English position anyway.
The woods are very thick either side at the supposed battlefield, and although there was a designated French commander, there were numerous French aristocratic knights that sought glory for themselves and charged at their own discretion
It will surprise you then to learn that the French, while having lost that particular battle, eventually won the war. I really don't know why you Americans insist on misrepresenting the French as cowards. Anyone who has studied history even a little bit, knows that the opposite is true. Everyone in Europe respects them as strong allies and/or formidable adversaries. It's only the English and Americans who think otherwise. The English, because of their pride, and the Americans, because of their ignorance.
If you think I'm racist, then you're an idiot. Now you're wrong on two things instead of just one. The more you write, the more foolish you look to everyone who can read your comments.
This is amazing. I love how people can dissect battles and give them a visual aspect for us to watch.
Thanks pal :)
Virgin French Knight vs Chad English Longbowman
th-cam.com/video/HK5OsDWYJmQ/w-d-xo.html
english flag was good back then
Yes.
So whos the Stacey
@@oliva6352 Who's Stacey?
So after watching this video, do you feel the the netflix movie THE KING depicts the battle correctly? To me it does not accuractly portray the full role of the archers.
I know that a lot of this is guesswork after six centuries, but through a comparison with contemporary sources (like the Gesta Henrici) The King's depiction of the battle is not very good. It makes Shakespeare look like a good historian in comparison.
At least you have new visuals
The entire depiction of battle, soldiers suicidally intermingling on the battlefield in a big chaotic melee of thousand duels, is nonsensical and has nothing to do with real life or history.
Battles were fought in lines, where onlny the first and maybe second ranks are doing the actual fighting until one side breaks and begans fleeing.
The most accurate representation= Medieval 2 lol
@@garrettyoung5838 Yeah, it's pretty sad that a game can get it better than movies
You cannot say killing the prisoners was unnecessary since the French didn't attack again... maybe the intimidation of the slaughter is WHY they didn't attack again.
The baggage wagon was attacked by French brigands (which the English thought of as an attack from the rear by the French army, even though it wasn't) and the French were going to regroup, so the English couldn't risk the prisoners rioting on top of their current problems, especially since even their numbers were bigger than the English forces present. They didn't want to risk being overwhelmed.
French Noble didn't use to fight in those cowards way. There were arrogant horsemen too confident to win a battle with honorable method. Also, the rain before the fight and choosing a short way in the forest to fight english were crucial.
Only a small amount of the French were mounted
@@vaevictis3960 motto don't fk with the English
Finally! Someone who can explain battles. I’m a visual learner.
Thanks! :)
The execution of the prisoners, was, unfortunately, absolutely necessary; the french were regrouping, the english had no arrows and the french wanted to rescue their prisoners. The french left the field when they saw they had nothing to fight for.
This was a shame and dishonor
All is fair in love and war
A shameful display!
That wasn't the only reason. The prisoners outnumbered their captors and there was still a battle to be won, they feared they might revolt and overwhelm them or at least that's what I remember being told.
Why do we care so much about some french people who died 600 years ago?
Love how concise and to the point that was. Great vid.
The armor would create an a slight disadvantage from exhaustion, but I wouldn't say it significantly hindered their movement as medieval armor was a lot lighter and more flexible than most people think, a modern soldier with his gear weighs more than a medieval knight on average. In most circumstances heavy armor offered a huge advantage as arrows had little effect on them. This advantage was lessened at Agincourt because the constant volleys of arrows from the English over time were able to wear down the French, killing the lightly armored soldiers and the heavily armored soldiers would eventually be worn down by constant bombardment in the muddy terrain.
You are still significantly more agile and less top heavy without armor or a modern military loadout. Were still talking at the very least 30kg of added
weight, most of it on the chest and head. Heavy chest and head armor
will restrict arm/neck movement and breathing significantly, including vision. It's important to note that you actually do fatigue faster with full gear.
The video OP did note both the muddy terrain and the fact that the armored frenchmen were tightly crowded within that muddy area. I didn't get the impression OP assumed armor made you slow in any of the mythical ways.
+Daniel Styxwash Actually, medieval armor did NOT weigh 30 kg, rather 18 kg, and it was not focused most on head and chest. All forms of complete medieval armor, like maille, plate, etc., focused on equal protection, and if the suit of armor fit you, you wouldn't feel much of the weight. Also going by what I just said, if the armor fit you, your movement wouldn't be impaired too badly. We see this at Agincourt, where rich, professional French knights and men-at-arms had the best armor, but lost to the English because of 2 reasons: the mud, which played a massive role in the battle, and English arrows raining down on the French soldiers, whose armor protected them, but the arrows took away a lot of their stamina, like the video OP said. Also, the curved plates the French (and English) wore also would stick into the thick mud, for obvious reasons, slowing them down and making them easy targets. The video OP got the cavalry part right, where the archers shot the horses, bringing the horsemen and knights into the mud to suffocate in it and their armor, thanks to the air-restrictive visors of their helmets.
+Conner Dale (Continuation) and crashed into the English stakes, killing both them and their horses
Conner Dale...you're an idiot. How do arrows take away stamina?
+Marbles McGee Blunt force trauma. An English longbow has a 100 to 150 pound draw-weight, and though it wouldn't be able to pierce the armor the French were wearing, blunt force trauma from the impact would essentially drive the air out of the French soldiers'/knights' lungs. That's what I learned, but correct me of I'm wrong.
Short, sweet, and highly educational.
Excellent video!
I love these short straightforward videos.
The killing of the prisoners actually happened because of a false alarm about a supposed attack from the rear at the english
Not correct, sorry. A counter attack by a newly arrived French noble (Duke of Brabant) almost turned the tide of battle and pushed the English back. This attack came so close to killing Henry that a French sword cut off a piece of the battle crown that Henry had on in battle, and only the bravery of Davy Gam, head of Henry's personal bodyguard, helped Henry cut his way out of the battle. Davy Gam paid with his life. The moment Henry escaped, in anger for what had just happened and in fear of what would happen if the French prisoners heard the battle drawing so near that they might decide to join in the fight, Henry ordered them all to be murdered. In today's world this would be considered murder and a horrendous act. In the age of chivalry when the surrender of these men had been accepted and then betrayed, it was way beyond that and a true act of cowardice.
Its unknown so far. Many theories
@@mscottc1964 Cowardice? Ignorance. You are aware the French forces were flying their battle banners (Oriflamme) which when flown meant they'd take no prisoners right?
So the French being the cowards they are initially thinking having numerical superiority allowed them the aroggance to unfurl the banners thinking the English had no chance of winning, therefor being to dictate such a no prisoners taking situation.
@@BroadHobbyProjects The Oriflamme was the standard of the King of France and was always carried at the head of any of the Kings forces when on the battlefield - including many battles previous where quarter WAS given. It was symbolic and meant to be intimidating, nothing more. And it had NOTHING to do with the decision to kill the prisoners. That happened at the end of the battle, and ALL historical accounts that I have read and viewed state that, INCLUDING the English account Gesta Henrici Quinti. "The Gesta Henrici places this after the English had overcome the onslaught of the French men-at-arms and the weary English troops were eyeing the French rearguard ("in incomparable number and still fresh").[34] Le Fèvre and Wavrin similarly say that it was signs of the French rearguard regrouping and "marching forward in battle order" which made the English think they were still in danger.[57] A slaughter of the French prisoners ensued. It seems it was purely a decision of Henry, since the English knights found it contrary to chivalry, and contrary to their interests to kill valuable hostages for whom it was commonplace to ask ransom. Henry threatened to hang whoever did not obey his orders."
The English were out of arrows and exhausted tired and Henry ordered the prisoners executed, nothing to do with a banner, end of story.
And let's not forget who the aggressors were, Henry was in France sacking and killing, the "coward" French of course had no right to defend themselves, right?
@@mscottc1964 The banner was unfurled specifically when they did not intent to take prisoners. Again, specifically states they used the banner unfurling to make nobles who'd usually expect to be captured think twice about fighting under threat of no mercy.
So it's not the end of story at all, shows due to overconfidence they thought they were going to easily win so could dictate on their terms to give or take mercy.
Yes the points you quoted were true, didn't refute this. The French who attacked the baggage train/English camp killed squires which was forbidden in the chivalric code, they were young teenage boys and were slaughtered.
That was a reason you forgot to list as to why the French prisoners were executed.
To state ignorantly that the English were apparent cowards for killing prisoners is idiotic, especially as the reasons you gave embolden their reasoning to kill a large amount of them. The estimates of the prisoners held apparently outnumbered the English men at arms by 4 to 1 too.
So they had a huge risk, kill the prisoners and beat what was left of the French army, or likely be overpowered and killed by a vengeful seeking horde of Frenchmen who just had their asses handed to them by a much smaller force.
I also didn't say the French had no right to fight. Like how the English had their rights to under their Kings claim to the French throne too.
I love the simple animation, i love cossack game series
Didn't the English archers move forward before the battle to draw the French to attack. They then retreated behind their stakes when the battle commencef
Fascinating battle. Great presentation style, too. I'd love to see many more battles covered on your channel.
Cheers, more soon!
0:20 That feel when you realise that your hat is actually your hair.
truly great video indeed
The whole question of “sharpened wooden stakes is in some doubt”,
it is supposed that each archer had one stake which formed part of his battle equipment, the sharp end would most logically be driven into the ground with the upward facing end being hammered. If the protruding end needed hammering it would then need sharpening. That’s fine for single use but means if re-positioned later in a battle or for retention in future deployment, it’d become shorter and less usable each time.
Besides, a horse would be equally unlikely to charge through a line of unsharpened stakes as it would sharp ones.
love the vids man! keep it up!
Thank you for the support!
Whats the song in the background?
"Upon your fathers death I shall assume this kingdoms crown"
Henry V, the king
Fun fact: A single Englishman was killed by a projectile fired from a gun, thus signaling the beginning of a new type of warfare.
according to abbot of a nearby church and an account of the mayor , the English where down to less than six thousand men , French casualties where 26,000 many more died in the church of wounds,
Actually, William Shakespeare lied a lot about that battle, the myth of a French army so vastly superior in number comes from him
@@debatteurrespectueux7560 Says a Frenchmen.
@@BroadHobbyProjects No, say the medieval historians, including English historians like Anne Curry, Professor of Medieval History at the University of Southampton. Check that: www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2016/05/the-truth-about-agincourt.page
Read the second part of the article called "Enduring myths"
Sorry, bro
Not sure about the English numbers there mate, they had 8000 on the march from Harfleur, they lost many on the march, so contemporary accounts had them at about 6000.
primrosehill24 The English had about 8,500 men. English historians particularly Tudor historians have always chiseled the English numbers down and augmented the French. Adds to the heroic aspects I guess. No question the French outnumbered. After leaving Harfluer Henry got wind of a 6,000 strong force gathering in the south, by the time of the battle that number had grown easily twice perhaps three times that. I would estimate the French had anywhere between 12,000 - 20,000 troops however many more troops later turned up but did not fight or even get involved, the French didn't even use their archers/crossbowmen. I believe from studying the 1415 campaign
that the English lost around 1,000 - 1,500 troops at Agincourt and the French around 3,500 - 6,000. About a quarter of the French casualties being the prisoners.
Still, a 6-1 casualty ratio is incredible for the time, especially considering the apparent mismatch of heavy infantry. To think that each man in Henry's army on average killed 6 men EACH. It's far more likely that the three small knots of English men at arms did horrendous damage, perhaps capturing or killing 9-12 men each while the archers would only account for a small percentage of actual causalities, although their arrows probably wounded and bludgeoned half the French army senseless before it made it across the field. It just brings home the scale of the feat.
To disarm, wound, or kill 6-12 men in armed combat...you can see why they would have said "Praise be to god, and not our strength for it"
Well, that's *_up to_* six kills for every man lost (On the other end of the spectrum it is 2.3 men killed for every one lost, which is still pretty incredible. The full range is from the lowest implied rate of 1500 English for 3500 French to the highest implied rate of 1000 to 6000.). But each man in Henry's entire army would have killed 1 to 0.4 men on average (3500-6000 French casualties against 6000 to 8,500 English soldiers). All assuming that Joe Steers's numbers are accurate.
all you people speak as if you were all there. Bet you there was no battle. Prove it.
Whats the song please?
1346, 1356, 1415 - longbows. The French never learnt their lesson.
en développant l'artillerie de campagne, voir Castillon en 1451. Ils ont ont appris, puisqu'ils ont gagné à Patay, Formigny, Orléans...
The movie 'The King' did injustice to the battle. It was underwhelming compared to the real thing. Even the battle was a one big hollywood trope, where it's depicted like a disorganized mess where people just fought chaotic individual duels all over the battlefield. Sad.
Tbh compared to many other medieval movies this one got the closest to reality. At least they didn't take of their helmets in the middle of battle for no reason at all or dual wielded swords. Looking at you *outlaw king*.
@@BlackWolf9988 I still feel like the chaos in Outlaw King was a bit more justified (although still shitty), since the cavalry got impaled on the wooden stakes or got stuck in the swampy area.
I do, however, applaud this movie that they finally made the armor tough. But when you look at the tactics involved or the silly chaos that they made, it makes no logical or tactical sense and that really bugs me off.
Have you seen Alexander's Battle of Gaugamela? Although not historically accurate (and a shitty movie in general), it has pretty nice battlefield dynamics, I think the most realistic of all.
Well, they wore full plate armour, the only weak spot is their visor, around neck and armpits. That's why they wrestle each other like that and try to drown each other in the mud + the battlefield were muddy and slippery, it's hard to move and not falling with heavy full plate armour
@@AbhikamaP The battlefield wasn't slippery. How the movie depicted is totally wrong. It was a freshly ploughed field - that's deep and soft mud in which it's very hard to walk.
If the English would engage with French in a chaotic brawl like was depicted in the movie, they would lose all their advantage.
@@enlightenedterrestrialthe French knights is the one who's charged at the English man-at-arms in the middle while the English long bow shooting through the flanks until the arrows run out and then they join the battle in melee. The English have their advantage because the French knights already tired when they reach English line + the English long bow have lighter armour so they can move more easily in the mud
I'm going to disagree about the armour's weight being a factor. My understanding was it's lack of friction with the mud by comparison with other materials used by the English archers making it difficult to fight / gain footing. Armour of the period was quite light weight-wise but effective against the bow (more so when you consider gambeson underneath. The majority of French dead were probably disbatched with knives etc. as they flayed about in the mud or crushed / suffocated in the crowd dynamics created by the layout of the battlefield?
You are correct about the armour. It was lightweigh but strong and well designed.Arrows would not penetrate the armour , despite the myth
Please make The Battle of Tewkesbury.
The English were reported at about half that number due to dysentery from shellfish consumed post the Siege of Harfleur in transit to Caleigh.
This is why you use scouts. You should also expect a smaller army not hanging around, but rather fortifying themselves.
I have to give the French the efficiency of their battle: once they saw it wouldn't work, they had only spent a fifth of their army.
Henry married the Daughter of the then french king Charles . She , Catherine de valois , was married to Henry after an agreement was made that should charles die , then Henry would become joint King of England and France . It was not a later decision . His heir ship was agreed on his marriage to Catherine .
Great video, could you please tell me what the music is called?
Thanks, glad you liked it, I think its called 'Nevada City' and its from the TH-cam Audio library.
Thank you so much, we were learning about this in class and I was really struggling but this really helped! Much appreciated
Even a bit more detail would have been good while staying short and manageable. What about cold and hunger, how much marching was done prior, how far to the ships and escape.....?
Similarities with the battle of Watling Street, where the Romans used terrain and tactics to force superior numbers into a bottleneck.
Nice, Rise of Nations game picture ftw.
I love music and video! What is music?
Why did the French attack? They could have just sat back and force the Englishmen to attack or starve.
The English did attack they fired longbow arrows at the French, forced them to attack, then slaughtered them.
The storms of arrows supposedly darkened the sky. Surely lots got into eye slots and joints in armor, and into horses. And no valor in sitting back a mile and waiting. I read that Henry was trying for the coast and re-board ships. This must have been French force's best chance at stopping him and giving a defeat. Cold, wet, tired and hungry all around must have figured in as well: "Let's get this over with!"
English archers won that battle easily,
The French were blocking the English on the road to Calais.
The prolonged resistance at Harfleur meant that Henry could not proceed with the planned campaign so late in the year. Henry could have gone back to England from Harfleur but decided that honour required he make a demonstration march across French territory, so he left a garrison for Harfleur and set out with a force much reduced and ill with dysentry due to eating shellfish from the polluted waters a round Harfleur to the English held port of Calais.
The French forces gathered, pursued and also got ahead of the English and blocked the road to Calais at Agincourt. They greatly outnumbered the English and were supremely confident of a crushing victory.
Henry did not fancy his chances either. He sent a message to the French saying that a battle could be avoided if the French allowed the English army to pass on to Calais. The French were eager to get at the hated English who they were sure they had trapped and at their mercy, so refused. Shakespeare correctly has Henry telling the French herald that they did not choose to fight in that condition, reduced in numbers, hungry and diseased, but if they had to, they would fight.
The French and the English stood about a kilometre apart for hours in the morning. Henry decided to bring on the battle and his army advanced to within extreme bow shot, about 250 yards from the French, the archers replanted their stakes and let loose which provoked the mounted attack.
Last month I made a detour from visiting where my great grandfather and great uncle fought with the Australian army in France and Belgium in WW1 and visited Crecy, the first great long bow victory of the English over a much larger and overly confident pursuing French Force in 1346 and Agincourt, just a little further south.
There was also a strong over-confidence on the French side as well. They vastly outnumbered the English, and were well rested. There were accounts of French nobility betting each other as to who would capture Henry V.
Because of this, the French nobility took little or no notice of the battle plan drawn up by Marshall Boucicault, they were that certain of an easy victory.
Did testudo get lost in history?
Most archers were Welsh, the Kings standard was raised in Crickhowell, in Wales to recruit these superlative bowmen.
Wrong. The number of Welshmen present at Agincourt was no more than 500 according to documents at the time. The majority came from the Shires of the North of England, Derbyshire and Lancashire provided many archers.
Most Archers were English.
There were only 400 Welsh Archers...The Welsh were supposed to raise 500 but could not or did not
Did I miss the bit about Henry 5 capturing the French Kings battle plan and digging himself in to a suitable bit of protected real estate. The greatest fear of Henry was that the French would not attack but wait him out. But you can alawys rely on the French to to attack which is why the longbow never played a great apart in the French army as it is a defensive weapon.
French Archers....Snipers
English Bowmen....Machine gunners
When an archer heavy (6000) army attacked the French at Formingy they lost with the archers playing a minimum role.
Why didn't the French move some units into the woods and flank them they have the numbers why out them in a choke point that the enemy want you to use
Maybe it's honourable to fight head on.
They were arrogant and probably thought they couldn't lose.
I may be a bit late but the reason can be amounted tot he fact that it was better off to fight in lines than straight on with their weapons from what I heard. Could be wrong though
see, this is why you shouldn't let the cavalry in front of the infantry. *sighs in battle of winterfell*
hey i learned stuff
France could avoid this battle letting Henry to retreat, but they gave a delivery Victory to the english. Lol
C'est un truc de fou les recettes de cupcakes
A good few factual errors in this recounting. It didn’t quite play-out the way described, and the relative sizes of the armies was probably smaller. The French were more likely at about 12,000.
When you are crushed in a war but won that battle anc can't stop talking about it...
I don't think the start of the battle was accurately depicted in this, I'm not an expert so if anyone wants to see the videos where the actual experts talk about it, comment and I'll link. However, if memory serves me right, the French nobles in their normal tradition of being over confident disregarded their commander's orders to send the archers forward first (he was an upstart and not worthy of giving orders to true nobles) -- I saw this on the history channel a long time ago before it got shitty. Additionally, and more to the point, the English long-bowmen (as shown in the expert video) almost absolutely did not fire volleys at range. As demonstrated in the video, despite would Hollywood shows, arrows cannot pierce plate. Not even the heavy arrows the English archers used and certainly not at massive range. Their impact came in when the French were close and fighting the English soldiers, the archers on the flanks loosed an endless barrage of arrows targeting the weak points in the French armor.
And the horses, with plenty of exposed areas, eyes too, where 3' arrows would do serious damage? Intolerable to a knight/noble/warrior, to sit placidly while his horse is disabled.
One commenter said range was 250 yards, not close. But any range within which a war arrow flies point-forward means trouble.
It was raining.. The mercenary Swiss crossbowmen, could not remove their bow strings. The english could quickly and easily. This made the crossbowmen ineffective. Gut and sinew shrink when wet. This is a major problem for stringed weapons. Not being able to cock a crossbow renders them useless.
The French really failed to capitalize on their numbers in this battle. Their arrogance really got the better of them. It's weird to think that with all that superior technology at the time compared to 1000 years earlier that they still had inferior battlefield tactics compared to great Captains like Alexander the Great...
You would've thought they would've tried to flank them. I'm sure it's appealing to stay in the open but the trees would've given the flanking soldiers cover and the arrows would've been wasted on them while the main force advances. Too much arrogance with their cavalry, using them to try and immediately break the enemy rather than wear them down from gaps in the battle line.
0:33 0:37 0:41 0:43
Henry squandered a huge opportunity to advance his claim to the French throne. With so many French nobility dead, could he not have marched on fiefdoms in NE France to demand their allegiance, installing liege lords agreeable to him? The psychological advantage would gave been his, with a seeming invincible army that destroyed so many French nobles at his back. Also the murder of prisoners would play in his favour, many chamberlains might be willing to surrender than face massacre.
Nope he faced too many casualty before and he was in hostile territory . The french army lost a serious amount of soldier but henry new he couldn't do that again with so few soldier .
@@stormbringer2840 Also as I understand it, it was October, so winter weather would soon make campaigning even more difficult and deadly. Time to get the weary troops back home so they can sit by their warm hearths and relate (and embellish) their stories of glorious and heroic combat! :)
Not forgetting that a great number of the archers were Welsh!
There was only 400 Welsh Archers..the Welsh were meant to raise 500 but did not.
Why didn't the French flank the English through the woods? Easy to take cover for arrows and they had the numbers to do it.
Terrain would be hard to navigate, they couldn't form attack lines, plus accounts suggest the English hid some archers within
Similar to the Battle of Nagashino
i think u forgot one huge detail: wet terrain because of rain... Mud for horses = bad things
Bad for armored knights too that were unhorsed...
This is incorrect. Henry stationed his archers on both flanks but in the forest with sharpened stakes in front. Most of the English force was made up of archers, the rest were men at arms and knights
Rise of Nations?
Well yeah but then Henry V died of dysentery and the French went on to win the war by 1415.
TheLoyalOfficer: Correct.....but that's what happens when you eat French food :-)
@@ukguy7761 Fish n' Chips forever! Mmmmmmmm
it's Honfleur not Harflrur
its me Eric. from 7st
Age of empires art without age of empires animation? :(
its rise of the nations, not age of empires.
THANKS FATE FOR THE ENGLISH, WELSH & CORNISH ARCHERS. THE WEATHER ALSO HELPED, HURRAY FOR ENGLAND, WALES & CORNWALL.
Cornwall is part of England.
Were they humpback wales?
huray 4 caps
@@ggarlick46 : True.....but don't tell that to anyone from Cornwall :-)
How many packs of cigarettes does this guy smoke a day?
I think more then likely the English king decided if the prisoners captured were ransomed he would end up fighting them again down the road so he let his troops kill them and take there stuff to never again have to fight them. It makes more sense then they killed them because the French might attack again. Ugly but more likely
Theodore Smith: According to most accounts (including those who were actually there) the prisoners were killed because a group of French troops had attacked the English "waggon train" (food & other supplies) and killed most of the old men and boys who were guarding it.
@@ukguy7761 any links? In any case, I would imagine they came up with something to justify murdering them all with some excuse. I doubt it really bothered royals that other royals killed some peasants.
Also the British are the best excuse makers of all time as far as battles or wars lost or atrocities.
Zulu battles, American Revolution, boar war, Singapore and any other stain on the english and you can bet there is an excuse for it.
Who gained big time from them all dying? The king of England. Thats why they died. Ransoms were paid to who caught them.
Then he has to fight them again.
@@ukguy7761 according to most accounts of the American army soldiers of the 7th cav. At wound knee they fought a great battle against the Lakota. The truth is they killed many females and children to get rid of the tribe. I dont sugar coat any history even my own countries. Most americans, unlike British. do not look back and try to justify it.
@@theodoresmith5272: This is from Wikipedia.....I've seen other accounts but can't remember where at the moment.
"The only French success was an attack on the lightly protected English baggage train, with Ysembart d'Azincourt (leading a small number of men-at-arms and varlets plus about 600 peasants) seizing some of Henry's personal treasures, including a crown. Whether this was part of a deliberate French plan or an act of local brigandage is unclear from the sources. Certainly, d'Azincourt was a local knight but he might have been chosen to lead the attack because of his local knowledge and the lack of availability of a more senior soldier. In some accounts the attack happened towards the end of the battle and led the English to think they were being attacked from the rear. Barker, following the Gesta Henrici, believed to have been written by an English chaplain who was actually in the baggage train, concluded that the attack happened at the start of the battle."
(Wikipedia).
English archers were in the woods and closed behind the French
So we are not going to talk of how amazing is Rise of nation's?
PD: nice vid
Wait! i thought english army was just around 1000 men
TifaX: According to wikipedia the English had about 6,000 - 8,000 men and the French had about 14,000 - 15,000 men so it was was approx 2 to 1 in favour of the French.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
Considering the prisoners outnumbered the size of Henrys army I think it was justified
they captured more prisoners than they had in their army?
Yeah but the French didn't realize it at the time and Henry didn't intend to give them the chance
Brave men
god dude whats with ur mic
Yet another battle "historian" who talks of "firing" arrows. You shoot arrows, you don't fire them; it's guns that you fire, you know to light the gunpowder so that it goes bang. For archers the corresponding action is to "loose" the drawn bow - no fire involved. Sometimes, I hear some say, the arrows had burning tips to set fire to things. Very rarely on land, but useful for burning enemy ships at sea, and only really possible, with arrows of normal length, because the longbow was never held at full draw for more than a fraction of a second.
Fire
verb
1.
discharge a gun or other weapon in order to propel (a bullet or projectile).
Shut up you wannabe smartass
Omg I’m dead
Nobody snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, like the French.
And also nobody beats all coalised Europe like the French at Fontenoy, Bouvines, Malplaquet... France also beat Europe five times in a row from 1792 to 1809, no one else has ever done that.
@Mac Productions The French did defeat Britain on the battlefield during the Revolutionnary and Napoleonic wars, ilke at the siege of Toulon (1793), the siege of Roses (1808) or the battle of Corunna (1809). And Britain was an active member of the 5 coalitions that lost to France, so Britain lost 5 wars in a row to France from 1793 to 1809 even it was helped by several other countries.
And don't worry, even before that time France defeated Britain several times: battle of fort Carillon, battle of Fontenoy, battle of the Chesapeake...
@Mac Productions It took Britain and Europe 5 wars to finally defeat France. 5 times Britain launched a coalition against France, 5 times Britain failed and 5 times the coalition was beaten and signed a treaty of peace. The British speciality was to constantly avoid the battle against the French (cause they knew they'd get their asses handed to them) and let Germans, Austrians or Russians fight and die. And then they stole the credit and claimed Waterloo was a British victory.
A French tradition? Are you just an ignorant troll? Britain capitulated countless times.
Bitain capitulated in 1781 at Yorktown, then had to come in France to sign a humiliating peace treaty in Versailles in 1783, abandonning compeletely the US territory.
Britain gave up in 1714 after the battle of Malplaquet and gave up on invading France
Britain gave up at the battle of Saint Cast in 1758, failing pitifully to invade France (as always)
Britain capitulated in 1758 at the siege of Carillon (against the French again)
Britain capitulated in 1841 against the Afghani
Britain capitulated in 1879 against some African tribes (Zulus)
You want some more? Cause you also capitulated a lot against the Spanish and the Dutch, that's why you went conqueting third world countries, cause you've always been the losers of Europe.
@@debatteurrespectueux7560 Well of course britain avoided battle. They fought at sea instead and smashed the french there. Britain had a far smaller population than France so could only field much smaller armies. You think it would have been braver if the british landed 20,000 men at the start of the war only to get crushed by 60,000 or more frenchman? I call it idiocy. The british played to their strengths and won in the end. You do also seem to forget Napoleon's humiliation in egypt and his middle eastern campaign.
Oh and also, you say british attempts to attack france are always pitiful. You forget we once owned half of your country. Not to mention we liberated you so some appreciation would be nice.
@@user-sc9oy1kz8g And what about Prussia? They had a smaller population too, but they fought. What about Austria? They had a smaller population too, but they fought. And I remind you the French were almost always vastly outnumbered on the battlefield (Austerlitz, Friedland, Eylau, Marengo, Arcole, Rivoli...), so your 20,000vs 60,000 scenario is not credible.
I'm not saying all attempts were pitiful, just that they all failed, which is true. Your attempts were actually well executed, with some great victories, but France is not english right now, so France always won in the end.
About WWII, you never liberated us, you were just part of it, even though I know how much you love to forget those who helped you (US, Canada, Australia), stop hogging all the credits (like you do with Waterloo), and don't forget what the French did for you at the battle of Dunkirk. Everyone in France know you helped us, no one knows in England what we did for you, do you find that fair?
🤦♂️ Armour (Full plate and chain mail) isnt as heavy as you think. Sure the numbers may seem insane but remember it spreads evenly across your whole body which makes it feel lighter. And it doesnt make you less agile
The archers played a minor part? Rubbish.
Reverend JimJones those were the French archers who played a minor part,according to the narration.
Fucking wrecked😂
😀🎉🙏🎉😀🙏😀🎉🙏😀🎉🙏😀🎉🙏😀🎉🙏
Jabzy anyone
Agincourt pfffff
Azincourt please what is this shit to change a name 😭😭
Why didn't the French take about 4k of they're cavalry and flank both sides of the english army.
The French Cavalry would not be able to manoeuvre effectively in the woods, and they thought the French cavalry charge straight at the enemy would beat the English position anyway.
@@cj4857 they could of dismounted and surrounded them on three sides attack them simultaneously man who ever was in command must of been a real genius
The woods are very thick either side at the supposed battlefield, and although there was a designated French commander, there were numerous French aristocratic knights that sought glory for themselves and charged at their own discretion
Rise of nations!!!
Age of Empires 2, not RON.
@@ACHU-DETE That is RON. I remember the units clearly.
@@theunfortunategeneral Well, he spliced it all up. The land is AOE2, the units are RON.
French lose again? who suprise? not me.
You have much to learn about history, French military history in particular. Study up, Jr.
It will surprise you then to learn that the French, while having lost that particular battle, eventually won the war. I really don't know why you Americans insist on misrepresenting the French as cowards. Anyone who has studied history even a little bit, knows that the opposite is true. Everyone in Europe respects them as strong allies and/or formidable adversaries. It's only the English and Americans who think otherwise. The English, because of their pride, and the Americans, because of their ignorance.
If you think I'm racist, then you're an idiot. Now you're wrong on two things instead of just one. The more you write, the more foolish you look to everyone who can read your comments.
whoever calls the french cowards without their knowledge of history are either trolling or just plain thick headed
Croatian: So... are you a troll, or an idiot?
i think u forgot one huge detail: wet terrain because of rain... Mud for horses = bad things