Agincourt, English genius or French hubris

Menshevik · Jan 28, 2013

I guess it's all their in the title. I started this in response to another thread regarding the efficacy of the Welsh/English longbow. I'm not doubting the awesome potential of this weapon, I'm just thinking right now that some of those English victories; Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers etc. were due to French stupidity more than English skill. For instance, at Agincourt, couldn't the French just have out waited the English? They were on top of a hill surrounded, in enemy territory, right? I don't expect all or any of you to agree, I just hope I'm making my question understood.

Tuor · Jan 28, 2013

I think that yes, French pride had a lot to do with all three of those famous English victories. Combined with things like repeated futile charges and refusal to charge the longbowmen because they considered the archers to be beneath them.

Toltec · Jan 29, 2013

Menshevik said:
For instance, at Agincourt, couldn't the French just have out waited the English? They were on top of a hill surrounded, in enemy territory, right?.

The English army advanced and attacked the French, so a little difficult for them to sit it out.

Mangekyou · Jan 29, 2013

Both. The English made the decision to advance ranks and took formation inside an area with both flanks protected, nullifying any French plans to outflank their position (which they did have). The French were equally arrogant and prideful of their ability to "squash" the English forces arrrayed before them.

Toltec · Jan 29, 2013

The French had a good plan of attack, it survives to this day, Charles I of Albret was an excellent commander. Had the English army stayed in position and the French executed this plan they would have won easily. They were caught by surprise by the English advancing, their army was a feudal levy so had a dismal staff structure and Charles I of Albret a low ranking noble so the higher ranking nobles resented his command and ignored him as he tried to make changes to the army to counter the English advance. Not really hubris just typical feudal army failures.

Mangekyou · Jan 29, 2013

Toltec said:
The French had a good plan of attack, it survives to this day, Charles I of Albret was an excellent commander. Had the English army stayed in position and the French executed this plan they would have won easily. They were caught by surprise by the English advancing, their army was a feudal levy so panicked and Charles I of Albret a low ranking noble so the higher ranking nobles resented his command and ignored him as he tried to make changes to the army to counter the English advance.

Yep, thats the exact one one I was thinking of.

They just allowed the English to move forward first. Key mistake and it changed everything in the battle. A good example of how "small decisions" can have "big effects"

Toltec · Jan 29, 2013

My personal view is the limitations of the French against the English was simply the limitations of feudal system armies, they are found again and again in medieval battles anywhere in Europe. When feudal armies face non feudal armies these limitations really became apparent such as when they met the Mongols or on crusade.

England had an advantage, it bordered Scotland and Wales and during the Scottish and Welsh wars learnt the hard way the flaws of feudal armies and quickly moved away from this style of fighting.

Mangekyou · Jan 29, 2013

Toltec said:
My personal view is the limitations of the French against the English was simply the limitations of feudal system armies, they are found again and again in medieval battles anywhere in Europe. When feudal armies face non feudal armies these limitations really became apparent such as when they met the Mongols or on crusade.

England had an advantage, it bordered Scotland and Wales and during the Scottish and Welsh wars learnt the hard way the flaws of feudal armies and quickly moved away from this style of fighting.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

The French were certainly limited in scope until Joan of arc appeared, and they managed to retain some momentum after that, despite her winnings being reversed shortly after her execution.

The chivalric system seemed to dictate things to the French, and they continued to use head on charges against defensive positions for most of the war, even when at times they did gain some success at outflanking archer positions.

Menshevik · Jan 29, 2013

Toltec said:
The English army advanced and attacked the French, so a little difficult for them to sit it out.

The English only advanced their position, and redeployed their stakes. Only then did they attack the French, with volleys of arrows. During the English redeployment, the French chose not to attack, hubris in my mind. The first army to close ranks was the French with the cavalry charge. So I'm still firm on my thinking that the French should have waited and drawn the English into more favorable ground. By favorable I mean some place where French numerical superiority would have been a helping factor, instead of being a hindrance.

Kevinmeath · Jan 29, 2013

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy7DT_FTms0]Agincourt's Dark Secrets - Battlefield Detectives - YouTube[/ame]

Menshevik · Jan 29, 2013

Kevinmeath said:
Agincourt's Dark Secrets - Battlefield Detectives - YouTube

"Catastrophic French failure."

DS1967 · Jan 29, 2013

French were too aggresive,they thought their heavy cavalry could ride them down like grass

Kevinmeath · Jan 29, 2013

Menshevik said:
"Catastrophic French failure."

It allowed you to watch? doesn't always.

Thought it was a quite good programme

Menshevik · Jan 29, 2013

Kevinmeath said:
It allowed you to watch? doesn't always.

Thought it was a quite good programme

It did allow me. Yes, I agree, very informative.

typhoon57 · Mar 28, 2016

Toltec said:
My personal view is the limitations of the French against the English was simply the limitations of feudal system armies, they are found again and again in medieval battles anywhere in Europe. When feudal armies face non feudal armies these limitations really became apparent such as when they met the Mongols or on crusade.

England had an advantage, it bordered Scotland and Wales and during the Scottish and Welsh wars learnt the hard way the flaws of feudal armies and quickly moved away from this style of fighting.

The problem with the french knights was that they sought out the likeliest candidates for capture and ransom and charged where the money was.the Archers on the flanks were never as important as the nobles available for ransom in the middle.the longbow Archers were battle hardened soldiers who had no care for ransom and did not play by the French knights rules.the french were facing an army that did not get the memo about their rules of engagement. The failure of the french knights was that they expected special treatment in warfare but we're given a grim reality as to the new face of warfare given out by the English.
Agincourt was probably the beginning in the death of the feudal army in Europe and no longer could knights expect capture and ransom on the battlefield.

Mangekyou · Mar 28, 2016

Menshevik said:
The English only advanced their position, and redeployed their stakes. Only then did they attack the French, with volleys of arrows. During the English redeployment, the French chose not to attack, hubris in my mind. The first army to close ranks was the French with the cavalry charge. So I'm still firm on my thinking that the French should have waited and drawn the English into more favorable ground. By favorable I mean some place where French numerical superiority would have been a helping factor, instead of being a hindrance.

I agree with what you are saying, though I don't think the weather would've helped the French either way. On the tactical side though, it shows awareness by Henry when he moved his forces forward, to maximise his potential.

AlpinLuke · Mar 29, 2016

May be not proper "genius", but not far from that: it was about mind flexibility and capability to adapt strategies, tactics and organization to the ongoing situation on the battlefield.

In this the English commands showed to be smarter.

On the other hand, like when you play chess, it may happen that your opponent leaves you the "advantage of move", planning something ... it happens that this let you see the path to victory.

AlpinLuke · Mar 29, 2016

Was the battle lost as soon as the English army begun to advance?

It's a well known argument of debate. I tend to agree with whom underlines that the French commanders had all what was necessary to stop the English troops, 5,000 bowmen included [but French commanders didn't employ them in the most proper and effective way to face the incoming enemy forces, they substantially left them arriving at about 200mt from the French lines].

If we want to go back to the comparison with chess, you can leave the advantage of move to your enemy, if you gain, at least, the advantage of position. French commanders didn't: they gave to the English commanders both the advantages ... move and position.

notgivenaway · Mar 29, 2016

mix of both.

The French used knights, but since the English had bastard feudalism, and King Henry and his nobles used many retainers and paid them wages, this was a factor.

Plus the French used rules of war that King Phillip Augustus and King John would have been familiar with, they didnt' realise times were changing, or had changed.

The longbow was a factor, but for me it was poor tactics and planning.

notgivenaway · Mar 29, 2016

but then i don't see why the French didn't go to England, get some yew seeds, and then grow them and nullify the advantage.

Search

Search

Agincourt, English genius or French hubris

Menshevik

Tuor

Toltec

Mangekyou

Toltec

Mangekyou

Toltec

Mangekyou

Menshevik

Kevinmeath

Menshevik

DS1967

Kevinmeath

Menshevik

typhoon57

Mangekyou

AlpinLuke

AlpinLuke

notgivenaway

notgivenaway

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions