"Henry V's Greatest Victory Is Beseiged by Academia"

[The Brain]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

[Drakken]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

The main problem the French had was to zergrush the English lines with fully armored men-at-arms, three ranks deep, in muddy terrain, in a funnel space about a few hundred yards wide. Hilarity ensured. Monty Python wouldn't do any better in absurdity.

The "truth" is even more humiliating to the French. The English didn't beat the French at Agincourt, the French defeated themselves at Agincourt.

[Cecil]

You may be able to argue that the Kings of France had ready cash reserves 5-10 times that of England.  The accounts of the war are full of stories about the English kings being desperate for coin.

I'm not sure you could even argue that.  The Kings of England was always begging parliament for more cash, but he may not have been that much poorer then the King of France.  The France was much wealthier then England but the King couldn't direct most of those resources due to poor government and civil wars.  The middle class uprisings, wandering bands of mercenaries and the English armies burning and looting across France probably didn't help his fiances.

Right in part IIRC. A politically skillful king that could persuade parliament to the wars neccessity could wield economical might similar or even greater to that of the french king. On the flipside an unwilling parliament could make any military moves completely impossible. This explains part of the rising and ebbing fortunes of the english during the war. The english system of taxation was a lot more efficient as well rather than that of france which was a hodgepodge of weird taxes and dues. A lot of french coin during much of the war came from reducing the amount of gold and silver in the coins since the king had control of the mint and technically he owned all of the coins in circulation. Obviously this didnt do any good for the economy or for the popularity of the french royals, quite a few local troubles they had originated in the debasement of the currency. My memory is a bit shaky on the exact circumstances though as its been some time since I read about it.

[grumbler]

Right in part IIRC. A politically skillful king that could persuade parliament to the wars neccessity could wield economical might similar or even greater to that of the french king. On the flipside an unwilling parliament could make any military moves completely impossible. This explains part of the rising and ebbing fortunes of the english during the war. The english system of taxation was a lot more efficient as well rather than that of france which was a hodgepodge of weird taxes and dues. A lot of french coin during much of the war came from reducing the amount of gold and silver in the coins since the king had control of the mint and technically he owned all of the coins in circulation. Obviously this didnt do any good for the economy or for the popularity of the french royals, quite a few local troubles they had originated in the debasement of the currency. My memory is a bit shaky on the exact circumstances though as its been some time since I read about it.

Actually, from the histories I have read, the English military fortunes were tied to the ability of the British king to borrow, not tax.

Yes, the English tax system was more efficient than the French, but the direct expenses of the crown were greater, too.  It seems at every turn the French can afford mercenaries and the English could not (or had just lost them) and that speaks of cash:  "No money, no Swiss."

[Alatriste]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

Well, some would say 116 years of intermittent war should be enough to put to rest that stale piece of English propaganda. By way of contrast, each time an enemy army has landed on England it has been to stay. And the last two times, 1066 and 1688, they conquered the whole country quite swiftly too. One would say English are a piece of cake, consistently outclassed on land by everyone but Scots...

[saskganesh]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

Well, some would say 116 years of intermittent war should be enough to put to rest that stale piece of English propaganda. By way of contrast, each time an enemy army has landed on England it has been to stay. And the last two times, 1066 and 1688, they conquered the whole country quite swiftly too. One would say English are a piece of cake, consistently outclassed on land by everyone but Scots...

not to barrage your thesis but there were two other invasions that need to be recognised and accounted

1215 (Prince Louis captures London, proclaimed King, but can't crack Dover and is forced to leave by defecting nobles by 1217)
and  1485 (a welshman invades from France, kills King Dick in battle ... thanks to defecting nobles ... and becomes Henry VII)

[Josquius]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

Well, some would say 116 years of intermittent war should be enough to put to rest that stale piece of English propaganda. By way of contrast, each time an enemy army has landed on England it has been to stay. And the last two times, 1066 and 1688, they conquered the whole country quite swiftly too. One would say English are a piece of cake, consistently outclassed on land by everyone but Scots...

1066 was a pretty hard fought thing.
And to call 1688 a foreign invasion is a bit of a stretch.

[citizen k]

And to call 1688 a foreign invasion is a bit of a stretch.

How extensive were the foreign forces involved?

[Josquius]

And to call 1688 a foreign invasion is a bit of a stretch.

How extensive were the foreign forces involved?

I've no clue. A thousand or so?
Its not too relevant as they didn't do very much, there were just one or two minor scuffles. It was the English parliament deciding it wanted a new king, not a foreigner invading.

But anyway, not too relevant, I'm not trying to sound all "England will never loooooooooose" here.
With the HYW though I would regard that too as far more of a French internal conflict where the leaders of one side just so happened to also be king of England.

[Richard Hakluyt]

No, the invasion force was essentially the Dutch army. But, William III was married to James II's protestant daughter Mary; and James was not in fine form during the crisis, essentially he ran away and few people were prepared to stick thier necks out to look after his rights.

[Razgovory]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

Well, some would say 116 years of intermittent war should be enough to put to rest that stale piece of English propaganda. By way of contrast, each time an enemy army has landed on England it has been to stay. And the last two times, 1066 and 1688, they conquered the whole country quite swiftly too. One would say English are a piece of cake, consistently outclassed on land by everyone but Scots...

not to barrage your thesis but there were two other invasions that need to be recognised and accounted

1215 (Prince Louis captures London, proclaimed King, but can't crack Dover and is forced to leave by defecting nobles by 1217)
and  1485 (a welshman invades from France, kills King Dick in battle ... thanks to defecting nobles ... and becomes Henry VII)

There were plenty of other small "invasions" where an enemy force landed and burned a town and left.

[Alatriste]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

Well, some would say 116 years of intermittent war should be enough to put to rest that stale piece of English propaganda. By way of contrast, each time an enemy army has landed on England it has been to stay. And the last two times, 1066 and 1688, they conquered the whole country quite swiftly too. One would say English are a piece of cake, consistently outclassed on land by everyone but Scots...

1066 was a pretty hard fought thing.
And to call 1688 a foreign invasion is a bit of a stretch.

1066? Well, yeah, one lost battle and the whole kingdom falls in pieces. Three or four years of crushing rebellions and afterwards William is so sure of his position that he spends 75% of his time in France. Hard? Perhaps. But brief indeed...

And regarding 1688... What can one call it but a Dutch invasion? William didn't land alone, rather the opposite, he assembled a huge fleet and a big, veteran army (according to the Wikipedia, the invading army was 20,000 strong - 15,000–18,000 on foot and 3,660 cavalry - and the fleet four times bigger than the 1588 Armada). That the English army disintegrated with very limited fight is a fact, but a fact worthy of a motto: 'beer-drinking surrender monkeys', for example. 

@Sakganesh

You are right. I didn't know French participation had been so important in both occasions (actually I didn't know they had been involved at all in the war of King John and the barons)

[Sophie Scholl]

I think the main problem the French had was their tendency to surrender all the time. Surrender.

Well, some would say 116 years of intermittent war should be enough to put to rest that stale piece of English propaganda. By way of contrast, each time an enemy army has landed on England it has been to stay. And the last two times, 1066 and 1688, they conquered the whole country quite swiftly too. One would say English are a piece of cake, consistently outclassed on land by everyone but Scots...

not to barrage your thesis but there were two other invasions that need to be recognised and accounted

1215 (Prince Louis captures London, proclaimed King, but can't crack Dover and is forced to leave by defecting nobles by 1217)
and  1485 (a welshman invades from France, kills King Dick in battle ... thanks to defecting nobles ... and becomes Henry VII)

Recurring theme?  No sense of loyalty amongst those at the top.  The nobility seems far more willing to defect or negotiate with the new power than to wage a concerted effort to save England as it was.

[Josquius]

And regarding 1688... What can one call it but a Dutch invasion? William didn't land alone, rather the opposite, he assembled a huge fleet and a big, veteran army (according to the Wikipedia, the invading army was 20,000 strong - 15,000–18,000 on foot and 3,660 cavalry - and the fleet four times bigger than the 1588 Armada). That the English army disintegrated with very limited fight is a fact, but a fact worthy of a motto: 'beer-drinking surrender monkeys', for example. 

They were the army of the king of England even if they were the army under his Dutch hat instead of his English one.
You don't call the British army in France in WW1 an invasion, they were meant to be there and had the full encouragment of the French government.

[Alatriste]

And regarding 1688... What can one call it but a Dutch invasion? William didn't land alone, rather the opposite, he assembled a huge fleet and a big, veteran army (according to the Wikipedia, the invading army was 20,000 strong - 15,000–18,000 on foot and 3,660 cavalry - and the fleet four times bigger than the 1588 Armada). That the English army disintegrated with very limited fight is a fact, but a fact worthy of a motto: 'beer-drinking surrender monkeys', for example. 

They were the army of the king of England even if they were the army under his Dutch hat instead of his English one.
You don't call the British army in France in WW1 an invasion, they were meant to be there and had the full encouragment of the French government.

That's, quite simply, mistaken. There was only one King of England, James II. Actually, not only William hadn't claimed the crown when he landed, but did announce the opposite, that he didn't mean to depose James.

Embarkations, started on September 22 (Gregorian calendar), had been completed on October 8 and the expedition was that day openly approved by the States of Holland; the same day James issued a proclamation to the English nation that it should prepare for a Dutch invasion to ward off conquest. On October 10 William issued the Declaration of The Hague (actually written by Fagel), of which 60,000 copies of the English translation by Gilbert Burnet were distributed after the landing in England,[19] in which he assured that his only aim was to maintain the Protestant religion, install a free parliament and investigate the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales. He would respect the position of James. On October 14 he responded to the allegations by James in a second declaration, denying any intention to become king or conquer England. Whether he had any at that moment is still controversial.   

His army was, plainly and simply, the Dutch army, composed by "Dutch" soldiers ("dutch" because they were in pay of the States... as usual for the Dutch, the soldiers actually included Dutch, Germans, Swiss, English, Scots, French Huguenots... )