Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by 5dits, Oct 25, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
They will be saying we abandoned them to the Germans in 1940 next.
So they've had to go back over 500 years to find a battle old (and therefore relatively obscure) enough to muddy the waters regarding what took place.
War criminals? How different was the world that long ago?
Perhaps they are too ashamed of this:
So are trying to muddy the waters :w00t:
Maybe they fancy a replay......when we are not busy....but then...???
Ok so they think another War they lost was someone elses fault, can't remember who said....
"Going to war without France is like going to war without your banjo.."
How would they know unless they had eyes in the 'back' of their head
Henry ordered the slaughter of what was perhaps several thousand French prisoners, with only the most illustrious being spared. His fear was that they would rearm themselves with the weapons strewn upon the field, and the exhausted English (who had been fighting for about three hours) would be overwhelmed. This was certainly ruthless, but arguably justifiable given the situation of the battle; perhaps surprisingly, even the French chroniclers do not criticise him for this. This marked the end of the battle, as the French rearguard, having seen so many of the French nobility captured and killed, fled the battlefield.
The above is taken from a fairly detailed coverage of the battle by Wikipedia
see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt which includes some recent research and opinions. Obviously the French forces were superior in numbers and the English had to do what was necessary to prevail in that situation. We took out the cream of their knights and leadership on the day and we continued to do this with Frog Clogs right through the centuries to the Napoleonic Wars which is why the Frogs are such a sorry bunch of bastards today. We only left them the dregs of humanity to build their new republic on.
Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
2,599,480 articles in English
Thats on the Wiki home page.
Nobody editing here just quoting the text as presented on the site.
It was a terribly unsporting of us to allow common archers to shoot at their noble men. Not the done thing dont you know :dwarf:
No no I'm not suggesting that you have.
My point was that Wiki is not a site to be trusted for content.
Fcuk the French. Remember the Falklands. Bastards
Ok so we did bump off all the prisoners, something definitely not on, even in those days! Chucking them in a barn and setting fire to it could be verging on the 'not playing the game'.
If you ever go to Agincourt you'll find the museum and the displays very even handed. If anything slightly biased towards the English.
Look lads if you are going to trample across marshlands in heavy armour; having failed to take into account your knights wouldn't be able to ride their horses. Towards thousands of men that wielded what was then the most powerful weapon known to man. One that in the right hands, could shoot up to ten accurate rounds per minute; right through the slits in your armour. Then frankly you can't expect to come off to well.
If you put 80 percent of your aristocracy in the front line? Once again you could be the victim of your own dodgy planning. You did a brilliant job of ridding yourself of the aristocracy a few centuries later, but, it has to be said we poor English did an equal job, if not better, at Agincourt.
Yet you managed to kill one Englishman with a new weapon, the cannon. Now had you used that to greater effect instead of depending on horseless, over weighted (probably in all senses) members of your aristocracy. Well, things could have been a tad different.
There you go and the fortunes of war.
Many thanks though for preserving the site so well. Many thanks as well for putting up lots of signs reminding the English that though they won the batttle, they still have to drive on the right!
I take your point that maybe more accurate historic accounts of the battle can be found at other sources. However, I maintain that there will not be too much disparity in the numbers from any account that denies we were certainly well outnumbered on the day. There are some excellent factual books written about the battle:
Agincourt - Cristopher Hibbert
Crispins Day - The Glory of Agincourt - Rosemary Hawley
Agincourt - Juliet Barker
The latter is a very recent and much researched work but even its author speaks about the slaughter of approx 7,000 French knights and nobles on the order of Henry V. The bottom line has to be that we won by foul means or fair taking into account the brutality of the times in 1415 or your personal viewpoint (especially if you happen to be a Frenchman).
If my memory serves me correctly I believe that was against Argentina
"Milices redoubtable. La fleur des archiers du monde"
The English archers were mainly from Pays de Galle as indeed was Henry himself; so the English are getting a bad rap on behalf of the Taffs. The Welsh yew bow had a draw of around 120 lbs and evidence from skeletons show that the archers left shoulders were invariably deformed from bowery practice.
The arrows were another thing and the metallurgy of the bodkin heads showed that case hardening of steel was well understood by the fletchers and that armour-piercing, socketed, bodkin heads were designed to detach from the stele on impact. They were, in fact, prototype APFSDS rounds. There are several reports of knights being pinned to their horses by arrows that had passed through armour, through the thigh, through the saddle and into the horse itself. You had to be pretty brave to face an armour-piercing arrow-storm - with anything up to 60,000 arrows in flight at one time. Just like today, it wasn't the arrow with your name on it that was a problem; it was the thousands that were addressed "To Whom It May Concern" :thumright:
And funnily enough the English / Welsh longbow was probably French:-
When Richard de Clare (Strongbow) invaded Ireland in 1170 from his power base in Gwent, he took with him Welshmen trained as archers and they served to great effect. It has even been suggested that the heavy draw-weight war weapon, attributed to the native Briton, and which gave the bowmen of Gwent such a fearsome reputation, may have been introduced to them by Richard de Clare and - far from being a native weapon, and the implied forerunner of the English longbow - was thus the product of an archery conscious Norman Lord!
frankly who cares what they think,they have a history of losing everything and now their language is gone in sharp decline they have to find something else to blame on us.
Napoleon was a loser who did a runner in two defeats leaving his men at Waterloo and the Russian retreat.
Wellington beat the crap out of every army he sent to Spain,great General he was not so why was the Arc De Triumph built?
Pity because with less arrogance they have much to better the world in science,medicine etc.but they won't change and who cares?
i think he means Le Exocet and zee Mirage/Dagger combo.
You've probably got one of those Euro memories.
Just read a book about Agincourt, quite interesting (may have been one of the ones previously quoted, but took it back this morning, so can't tell). The story of the French prisoners being burnt in a barn is true, but the sole survivor reckoned it was only about a dozen of them. The real slaughter of the French nobility occured DURING the battle - Les Frogs were hammered first by the archers, then by the English men-at-arms, then the archers joined in and fought as infantry. The prisoners were killed by some 200 archers, commanded by one man at arms. If the Frogs were massacred in the numbers suggested, a little bit of resistance against 200 knackered archers would not be too much to expect, especialy as the killing was allegedly done at close range. Bad losers, trying to rewrite history - France 1, England 5000 not out.
Separate names with a comma.