Happy Bastille Day!

[Drakken]

I think you are being just a little harsh on Cromwell.  He didn't set out to do those things, all of that developed organically out of the Civil War.

He was a military dictator but after the chaos and terror of the Civil War what the English really wanted was order and Cromwell brought them that...and then conveniently died after only 9 years.  Hobbes and Leviathan and all that.

I am being harsh, yes, but fair.

Nowhere did I say that Cromwell willfully established that out of machiavellian purpose. Cromwell is, all and all, a good monarch and did contribute to restore order. But politically, his position was far too powerful compared to the worst times of Charles I. Cromwell was offered the crown because Parlement finally saw what they couldn't see before: that Parliament was made even more useless under Cromwell than under the worst of Charles I's dreams of absolutism, and that no constitutional framework was limiting his regime. And it made them very, very uneasy.

However, we must see what he has done without tainted lenses. Saying that Cromwell establish a more constitutional or democratic system in the end is patently wrong. In fact Charles I would have wet his pants for the rest of his life he had even fathomed to establish what Cromwell did.

[Neil]

The French Revolution was good.  The kingkilling was not.  Still, they are two seperate phenomena.  France might have become a civilized constitutional monarchy rather than some crazy America-lite.

[Syt]

Tragic day.

What with the result, the great unwashed killing aristocracy.

Result.

I'm not certain what you mean, if it's the British never turned back as teh #1..

Unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility FTW!

[Drakken]

The French Revolution was good.  The kingkilling was not.  Still, they are two seperate phenomena.  France might have become a civilized constitutional monarchy rather than some crazy America-lite.

Burke would disagree with you here. 

[Neil]

I have certain advantages that Burke does not.

[Valmy]

Unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility FTW!

FTL at Patay and Formigny though.  Not that anybody English speaking wants to remember those battles.

[saskganesh]

Agincourt would have been a very shitty battle. The archers all had dysentery.

anyhow, the modern Republic of France should be championed as they seem to do a good job keeping Church away from State.

[Neil]

Unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility FTW!

FTL at Patay and Formigny though.  Not that anybody English speaking wants to remember those battles.

Not really.  Patay wasn't a failure of English longbows so much as it was a failure of Englishmen.  And by Formigny, artillery and tactical mobility had advanced enough to take the longbow largely out of the picture.  Formigny wasn't a battle of unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility, it was a battle of the medieval period against the beginnings of Renaissance warfare.

[Drakken]

Agincourt would have been a very shitty battle. The archers all had dysentery.

anyhow, the modern Republic of France should be championed as they seem to do a good job keeping Church away from State.

The French lost by themselves at Agincourt, the English weren't necessary: The English lost only 450 casualties over 7000+ soldiers there, and the French almost 10,000! And it wasn't because of "We Happy Few", buy because of "We Unhappy Too Many".

In truth the French should have squashed the English there. If Maréchal Boussicot had been listened to and his plan got carried out the chances of the French would have been very good. But the high noblemen commanders didn't, they wanted to fight people of equal rank for ransom and chivalric prestige, and their plan to charge full speed ahead into a restrained 350-meter wide terrain resulted in one of the worst cases of crowd disaster in military history.

Most of the dismounted men-at-arms got stuck over one another, the density reaching four men per square metre, and then got to get stuck in the mud, not because of the weight itself, but because the soil at Agincourt was porous and quite sticky when wet. And the more people got stucked, the less organized the lines became, and the less people could actually reach the lines because the way the terrain was shaped like a funnel. And those who were caught in the mud could not retreat, because the other line of men-at-arms were advancing behind them and towards them! So, the only way to survive was to advance, and the result is that they piled up over one another.

I am sure the English nobles at the rear were flabbergasted with a big "wtf" face when looking at the scene of these French noble crashing into one another trying to reach their lines into a hap-hazard disorganized formation, among the scattered knights and their horses around in front of them, most of them falling into the mud and barely able to get up from the ground because the stickiness kept them down.

Funnel-like terrain with muddy soil with good power of succion + overkill in numbers + heavy equipment + asinine noble leadership obssessed by ransoming = lots and lots and lots of dead weights at Agincourt.

Most of the casualties there were because Henry had almost all prisoners executed, not because of the battle itself. Even Henry's knights were disgusted at this order because it meant losing the fortune in ransom all these noble prisoners meant. So they sent the archers do it instead.

When you beat yourself in your own battle because of bad terrain and class hubris, and that the casualties would have happened even if the enemy wasn't present, it is the epicest of epic fails.

[Neil]

When you beat yourself in your own battle because of bad terrain and class hubris, and that the casualties would have happened even if the enemy wasn't present, it is the epicest of epic fails.

How would the prisoners have been executed if the enemy wasn't there?

You've described that the terrain would be a major and dangerous logistical problem, but not a massacre.

[Drakken]

When you beat yourself in your own battle because of bad terrain and class hubris, and that the casualties would have happened even if the enemy wasn't present, it is the epicest of epic fails.

How would the prisoners have been executed if the enemy wasn't there?

Lots of casualties would still have been suffered because the sheer amount of people walking over one another, getting stuck in the mud, dying of wounds, of exhaustion, of being drown in the mud, or by trampling. Henry executing them just ensured that those who got stuck end up dead 100%.

But yet, no English means no battle, so I should formulate it differently: If the English had stayed there and did absolutely nothing but defend their line, they would still have won.

[Drakken]

You've described that the terrain would be a major and dangerous logistical problem, but not a massacre.

The massacre was possible because so many Frenchmen got stucked in the first place, unable to even move out to flee.

Henry had them executed because they was simply too many French prisoners laying around, which could revolt when gathered together and overwhelm their small army anytime. Better to get rid of them now when they are down.

[Valmy]

Not really.  Patay wasn't a failure of English longbows so much as it was a failure of Englishmen.  And by Formigny, artillery and tactical mobility had advanced enough to take the longbow largely out of the picture.  Formigny wasn't a battle of unwashed English longbows vs. French nobility, it was a battle of the medieval period against the beginnings of Renaissance warfare.

The artillery at Formigny did not play a big role in the battle though they were used.  Repeated cavalry charges were what won that battle.  The artillery was far more of a factor at Castillon.

Pfft you could just easily say Agincourt and Poitier were not lost by the French Cavalry but by the French.

[Neil]

The artillery at Formigny did not play a big role in the battle though they were used.  Repeated cavalry charges were what won that battle.  The artillery was far more of a factor at Castillon.

I would say that outflanking the English was the key part of the battle.  Getting ground up by two superior forces is ugly.

Pfft you could just easily say Agincourt and Poitier were not lost by the French Cavalry but by the French.

Some idiot didn't give away the French position at Agincourt.