View Full Version : Happy Agincourt Day!
Anonymouse
25-10-2007, 08:09
592 years to the day since our boys showed the French what they were made of - they went, they saw, they kicked serious derrière Française.
"For if these men do not die well...it'll be a black matter for the king who led them to it." - Henry V
He needn't have worried. A combination of excellent tactics, superb and incredibly rapid shooting (apparently one million arrows were shot in a single day! :Yikes:), rigid discipline in the English ranks and incredible luck in the form of heavy rainfall the night before secured the day - and, for a while, France - for England. Given the numbers - about 5,000 of our lads, over 30,000 French knights (though these numbers are somewhat uncertain, the English were definitely badly outnumbered) - it should have been a slaughter.
Well, in fact it was...only it was our side doing the slaughtering.
You'd think the French would have learned from Crècy and Poitiers, wouldn't you? But no, they were still sending knights in full armour against longbowmen. But even at 300 yards, a clothyard arrow tipped with a 4-inch bodkin loosed from a longbow with a draw weight of over 100 pounds will, if it hits head-on, pass through armour as if it wasn't there. At 200 yards or less, you might as well not bother with the armour.
Our casualties that day were in three figures. French casualties were in five. Nearly half of their army was taken prisoner and a sizable fraction of the French nobility was left dead on the field.
All this despite the fact that our lads were a) knackered because they'd already fought a number of engagements since arriving in France and were in no mood for this one, and b) suffering from dysentery and therefore definitely not in any mood for fighting.
It's always been a puzzle to me, though, why the French allowed Henry's army to occupy the high ground - that always affords a tactical advantage (as Darth Vader found out on Mustafar :p:). In this case, the French knights were marching uphill, and up a muddy slope at that, in full armour. Even the relatively few who actually got as far as the English lines would surely be too tired to fight...and the ones that didn't were mown down by the virtually constant rain of arrows. Without a doubt, it was the finest hour of English archery.
A shame Gordon Brown didn't remember his history when he sold out the UK to Brussels. :mad:
zing_deleted
25-10-2007, 08:17
And the French have hated us ever since and even with the fact they were occupied by the Nazis and freed by the Allies they still bare a grudge to this day.Lets face it the French are more ooolala than fighters on the whole (the resistance withstanding these were awesome people)
TheDaddy
25-10-2007, 08:41
And the French have hated us ever since and even with the fact they were occupied by the Nazis and freed by the Allies they still bare a grudge to this day.Lets face it the French are more ooolala than fighters on the whole
That's hardly fair, look at their casualties figures from WWI, then of course their was Napoleons antics. That said I agree with you they don't like us, that is why I think today, Trafalgar day and the anniversary of when Joan of Arc got burnt should become national holidays, see how they like that :D
zing_deleted
25-10-2007, 08:52
I know nothing about the casualties from WWI im going more on recent history :)
... they were occupied by the Nazis and freed by the Allies ...
Britain supported the Free French before liberation. Charles de Gaulle was given refuge in London for five years during the war, and was even allowed to make a speech on the BBC regarding his Free French movement. The French resistance movement was also helped by the British government in the form of information and equipment.
The French resistance movement was also helped by the British government in the form of information and equipment.
Plus 2 Airmen and a tubby French cafe owner.
Tightscot
25-10-2007, 09:50
and that copper with the outrageous french accent
And then in revenge William the Conquerer came and whipped us really good....:erm:
MovedGoalPosts
25-10-2007, 11:33
And then in revenge William the Conquerer came and whipped us really good....:erm:
Surely the date line is a tad mixed up here. Agincourt could be regarded as our Revenge for Hastings :confused:
Surely the date line is a tad mixed up here. Agincourt could be regarded as our Revenge for Hastings :confused:
<nerd>
Yes, except that William was Duke of Normandy, not King of France. The King of France at the time was Philip I.
</nerd>
:D
MovedGoalPosts
25-10-2007, 11:49
ooh, free history lessons :D
Graham M
25-10-2007, 11:58
Had enough of them at school, that's why I didn't do it for GCSE :p:!
And the Normans had been invaded by Vikings originally!!
And yes I got my history mixed up...But to remind everyone that we have been at the throats of our European cousins for centuries.Let's not remember the wars and conflicts with them except as past mistakes..lets accept them as trading partners instead even if we don't want to be in a federated Europe.Let's just not bring up old wounds and extremely old wars.:erm:
We could find ourselves having to apologise for old issues that frankly I and you are not responsible for..like slavery.I was annoyed that we were expected to apologise for that when it was centuries ago and I don't think that we bear any responsibility for what our forefathers did anymore than we can claim the glory/infamy for old wars that they lost or won either.
...We could find ourselves having to apologise for old issues that frankly I and you are not responsible for..like slavery.I was annoyed that we were expected to apologise for that when it was centuries ago and I don't think that we bear any responsibility for what our forefathers did ....
Except that the Empire was largely built on the blood, sweat and tears of oppressed peoples around the world, including many slaves. Have you ever asked yourself where the money came from to build the stately homes that English Heritage likes to advertise? Sugar plantations, perhaps? Didn't many families in Bristol and Liverpool build up tremendous wealth by trading in slaves? Didn't the Church of England actively endorse slavery in the West Indies?
It is easy to say "forget about the past" when you are the inheritor of the estate.
papa smurf
25-10-2007, 17:07
the o/p was a pleasure to read :tu: and just remember you cheese eating surrender monkeys we're only 20 miles away :D
Except that the Empire was largely built on the blood, sweat and tears of oppressed peoples around the world, including many slaves. Have you ever asked yourself where the money came from to build the stately homes that English Heritage likes to advertise? Sugar plantations, perhaps? Didn't many families in Bristol and Liverpool build up tremendous wealth by trading in slaves? Didn't the Church of England actively endorse slavery in the West Indies?
It is easy to say "forget about the past" when you are the inheritor of the estate.
Still can't see why I have to apologise for something I never participated in...I'll claim responsibility for my own crimes..not anyone else's..though I'll also put my hand up if I've made a poor or good contribution to TODAYS' society.I certainly don't believe that old crap about sins of the father because that just gets you honour killings...
The secret to history is to LEARN from it, not apologise or claim credit for it.
TheDaddy
25-10-2007, 17:21
Except that the Empire was largely built on the blood, sweat and tears of oppressed peoples around the world, including many slaves. Have you ever asked yourself where the money came from to build the stately homes that English Heritage likes to advertise? Sugar plantations, perhaps? Didn't many families in Bristol and Liverpool build up tremendous wealth by trading in slaves? Didn't the Church of England actively endorse slavery in the West Indies?
It is easy to say "forget about the past" when you are the inheritor of the estate.
It's also easy to wonder how things would have turned out if it hadn't been for us, they'd have suffered a hell of a lot worse if the French, Spanish, Germans, Americans or even Belgiums had their way, when it comes to oppressing people we weren't even playing the same game as some mentioned
Still can't see why I have to apologise for something I never participated in......
So if the son of a gangster gets a new Lamborghini for his 18th birthday, he shouldn't feel apologetic to the families his father robbed to pay for it?
So if the son of a gangster gets a new Lamborghini for his 18th birthday, he shouldn't feel apologetic to the families his father robbed to pay for it?
Actually he would be committing a criminal act to accept the car so he would be guilty...;)
So if the son of a gangster gets a new Lamborghini for his 18th birthday, he shouldn't feel apologetic to the families his father robbed to pay for it?
I'm Catholic - we are still supposed to feel guilty about Adam's sin :erm:
Johnny-come-lately guilt-mongers - tchhhhhh.;)
I'm Catholic - we are still supposed to feel guilty about Adam's sin :erm:...
Or, as my grandmother used to say, "all men are guilty."
Lets face it the French are more ooolala than fighters on the whole (the resistance withstanding these were awesome people)
Napoleon
Foreign Legion
Those rock-hard special forces chaps whose name escapes me
Resistance
and don't forget that at the end of the 100 Years War it was us bogging back off across the Channel minus most of what we'd occupied in France (Calais being the exception). Incidentally, the French hate us not so much for Agincourt (which was just one of those things, really) but for the 100 Years War, which started off with us (population 4 million) taking on France (population 20 million and rich as hell) like that aggressive drunk little man you find in most pubs, basically invading every year and sacking the place*. That's the kind of repeated annoyance that can leave 800 years of right royal Gallic hump.
Anyway, in honour of the occasion, here's some patriotic art:
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/hogarth/images/works/o_the_roast_beef_of_old_england_the_gate_of_calais .jpg
* partly to avoid the Barons and their private armies sitting around at home with too much time on their hands. Iraq-watchers take note of the parallels.
Is that a painting of "that aggressive drunk little man you find in most pubs, basically invading every year and sacking the place"?
Nearly. The beef in the middle is meant to represent an invasion of France by Jolly Old England (being delivered to an English inn in Calais, no less), and the Frogs, representing tyrannical religious and military authority (the greedy fat monk is a dashed Papist, no less), are obviously coveting it. Evidently their country is so poor and backward as not to provide robust quantities of red meat, unlike good old England. 'Hands off, Froggy', is the rough message. Note also the comatose Scotsman in the foreground, recalling the French alliance with the Scots that ended in failure three years earlier (1745). Kicking a Jock when he's down, too, for good measure.
In the background on the left is Hogarth himself sketching the gate at Calais, for which he was arrested and deported. This may explain why he came across a bit 'Up Yours, Delors' when it came to do the painting. Interesting chap, a great inspiration for Ian Hislop, who I saw give a speech at the unveiling of Hogarth's statue a few years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hogarth#The_Gate_of_Calais
http://books.google.com/books?id=nwgIAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=%22William+Hogarth%22&as_brr=1&ie=ISO-8859-1#PPA64,M1
Wasn't Dick Whittington the mayor of Calais for a while?
I was in Calais earlier this week, but didn't see the gate. Is it still standing, or should I have looked for it before having the beer?
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.