French accuse English of war crimes and exaggeration over Agincourt, (593 years ago. ahhhhhh)
on 10/25/2008 at 02:17 AM
Someone help out an old man’s memory here. Which battle did the French so fear the English Longbow that they cut off the fingers of every Englishman taken prisoner? Didn’t this later give rise to some classic English gestures, common to this day and frequently display by Sir Winston Churchill? How many helpless English prisoners did the French mutilate in this manner? What kind of follow up medical care was provided? How many unarmed Englishmen died from this mutilation, either through sepsis or shock?
I didn’t follow the link, but someone please tell me this was actually a joke. Even in a world gone insane I don’t want to believe that any group of people would gather gather and waste their time debating the English “war crimes” at Agincourt.
Pardon me for saying so, but THEY HAD TO HOLD AN EFFING CONFERENCE TO FIGURE THESE THINGS OUT????????
The English were not as overwhelmingly outnumbered as Shakespeare (in his bombastic and historically-questionable stories)? Color me shocked, shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU! But even the most Pro-French accounts and modern estmates say that they were outnumbered 3/5-1. Which is not an inconsiderable amount to say this least.
People did terrible things to each other in the Medieval Era? No SH*T, Sherlock. Guess what? THERE WAS NO CONCEPT OF “WAR CRIMES” OR “WAR CRIMINALS” AS WE WOULD UNDERSTAND IT! People raped, killed, massacred, looted, backstabbed, and ethnically cleansed on a mounthly basis. And it wasn’t like the French were all pure and innocent either. However, the idea that the English would intentionally kill the nobles sounds strange to me. In Medieval Warfare, you did whatever the hell you liked to those you couldn’t ransom (mostly the Plebs), but you ransomed the noblemen back for hard cash. The only way I could see this happening is if they were extremely skilled soldiers/officers, or they couldn’t pay. But even that I find unlikely under the Chivalric Codes.
“Which battle did the French so fear the English Longbow that they cut off the fingers of every Englishman taken prisoner?Didn’t this later give rise to some classic English gestures, common to this day and frequently display by Sir Winston Churchill?”
Sorry Jeff, sorry Pieper, but that is what you and I would call a VERY LIKELY URBAN MYTH. The English/Welsh Longbowmen were primarily recruited from the peasantry, poor gentry, or noblemen who could not ride a horse. In other words, most of them couldn’t pay the Chivalric ransom. And thus, the French would probably NOT cut off their fingers. They would K*I*L*L them. The only reasonable explanation for this is if the French did this to Noble Longbowmen (ie those few who COULD pay the ransom) to prevent them from taking up the feared longbow again.
“How many helpless English prisoners did the French mutilate in this manner?”
For the previously stated reasons, likely Very, Very Few.
“How many helpless English prisoners did the French mutilate in this manner?”
None save to nobles. Hell, the French couldn’t adequately treat THEIR OWN men, much less those of the enemy (and why would they?).
“How many unarmed Englishmen died from this mutilation, either through sepsis or shock?”
Thousands at least. Likely with similar rates for the English. Hell, thousands died IN THEIR OWN CAMPS from this without ANY help from the enemy. War in this era was simply hell.
Also, it is likely that the V-for-Victory sign NEVER ACTUALLY WAS USED BY THE ENGLISH IN THIS ERA. Hell, it is more likely that it is Italian in origin. Why?
Because, in Italy, there were conflicts between factions backing the Holy Roman Emperor (called Ghibellines) and those backing the Pope (Guelphs). When Fredrick II, HRE, tried to invade Italy as part of this continuing feud, the City-state of Genoa signed up on the side of the Guelphs. While the Chivalric codes of the day groomed nobles for a battlefield role as Commanders and Noble Cavalry (the Knights we are so familiar with), Genoa was famed throughout the Old World for her Crossbowmen, while her cavalry were never very large nor of great quality. So, this unusual disparity in prestige meant that most ambitious noblemen joined the Crossbow corps.
They proved their worth at the Seige of Parma in 1247-48, when Fredrick’s Imperial Army of roughly 5,600 was layiing seige to the city and the vastly outnumbered defenders, who were members of the (Guelph) Lombard League. In 1248, with the situation growing desperate, the Genoese made a sally on February the 18th. This was successful beyond their greatest expection, and the numerically superior Austrians were to pieces, most of the treasury was seized, and Fredrick barely escaped. After this and other humiliations, Fredrick issued a proclamation declaring that all Genoese crossbowmen who were not of Noble Blood be killed (which was what they had been doing anyway), and all those of Noble blood who COULD pay the ransom have their index and middle fingers cut off (to prevent them from rejoining the crossbow corps). The key difference is that this policy would have been used more often, as the Genoese Crossbowmen were far more aristocratic in nature than the English longbowmen. So, it is more likely (though unprovable) that Italians, not Britishmen, invented the V-for-Victory sign.
“waste their time debating the English “war crimes” at Agincourt.”
Yes, especially when it is known that EVERYBODY committed what would now be called “war crimes” today. Why? Because THEY HAD DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF WAR THEN WE DO!
Hell, forget the Medieval period, look at Solferino 1859. When France and Piedmont-Sardinia joined forces to try and unify Northern Italy by defeating and evicting the Austrian Empire, the campaign was EXCEEDINGLY brutal. Not towards civilians, but between the armies. When the Italo-French finally defeated the main Austrian army at Solferino, they took no chances and simply killed the Austrian wounded where they lay. Why? Because they would have done the exact same thing to them. Entirely different concepts of warfare. As it turned out, Solferino marked a turning point often overlooked, as a Swiss businessman, Henri Durant, was looking for the French Emperor, Napoleon III, to try and appeal to him over a business dispute regarding water access in French Algeria. He arrived at Solferino, and spent the entire day running around trying to help the wounded with the help of local civilians and Austrian Medical POWs. Eventually, he published a book, “Memories of Solferino”, that started the movement towards the International Red Cross.
In other words, there was absolutely NO SUCH THING as “humanitarian rules of war” three centuries ago, and it was only 150 years ago that we START to see movement towards International law like that we have today. So does it REALLY come as surprising to ANYONE that, before that, people had a different, far more harsh, definition of what was passable in war?
We might as well go around labelling pretty much every Medieval battle a war crime, with the accompanying useless conference. What a waste of time.
Posted by Turtler
10/25/2008 at 04:55 AM
Turtler - I applaud you - I am so disgusted at this victim mentality here in the US re: ‘the original American sin of slavery’ rewrite of history. Every people has been conquered and every people have conquered at some point. Slavery continues to be a problem even today- hold it, gasp - with Africa leading the way. The victims in a number of cases are as part in parcel as the perp - stand up for yourself or you deserve what happens. Heck epidemics wiped out whole cities, towns and people - life is tough and was tougher the further back in time one goes.
Yes, much of the past is horrible in relation to warfare and how people treated others from different countries and/or color, religion etc. Take a look around - we aren’t doing much better these days - any where in the World.
But to judge the past by today’s standards (what I detested most about the Clarence Thomas hearings) or to continue agrieving a situation dealt with 143 years ago - Come on, grow up realize that it appears to be human nature to dislike and yes, even for some to thuggishly bully those more vulnerable.
Perhaps all this babble is the result of a generation of people who were not properly taught history - and so they don’t know much beyond their lifespan - how sad is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt
Agincourt - The French marched heavily armored men at arms across a narrow, recently plowed field between two large patches of woodland after DAYS of heavy rain. A fair number of their casualties among the footsoldiers were people who quite literally got stuck in the mud and either drowned in it or were trampled by those coming behind. Quite a large number of those captured were mired so deeply in the mud that they were picked up like so many beetles on their backs.
And yes, Henry V killed a fair number of prisoners out of hand, at least according to the accounts I have read. Why? 1) Because they were commoners, that’s what you did with them, no matter what side you were on. That was simply the nature of war in the Middle Ages. Or, 2) because they were minor nobles, and there were SO FREAKING MANY OF THEM PULLED OUT OF THE MUD that putting a watch on them would reduce Henry’s force more than he was willing to put up with, being already outnumbered by at least 3 to 1, even by the admission of the revisionist French the article is about.From the Wikipedia article linked above:
“In any event, 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.[29] 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 original American sin of slavery’ - I’ll grant that allowing slavery was probably the one major flaw left in the US Constitution when the country was founded. But the African slave trade can be documented back to the Phoenicians. And often the entire economy of a given tribe was based on capturing members of a different tribe and selling them as slaves. To me, anyone getting their britches in a wad over slavery makes as much sense, for much the same reasons, as me (largely of Scots ancestry) having an attitude about modern day Italians because of the Roman invasion of Britain.
Oops.
Re: Agincourt. In other words, the French defeat at Agincourt was primarily caused by STUPID ASS generalship by the French, as shown by the circumstances of the battle. I can’t find documentation of this, but I understand that the French force actually did have some gifted tacticians. However, they were born as commoners and elevated through merit, and so the French princes wouldn’t listen to them, nor follow their orders.
The instant I saw this post I just KNEW Turtler would have to weigh in. Well done.
What’s next? Are they going to revision the battle of Crécy?
Oh, and Turtler.... the most pro-French account I can find is written by this very same Professor Anne Curry, where she calls the odds at 4 to 3 (12,000 French vs. 9,000 English).
Let’s look at the facts:
1. 9,200 English left Harfleur after the successful siege. Some sources say they were reinforced after this, but I can find no records of it.
2. The English army marched toward Calais, spending the next 18 days marching 250 miles, in rainy weather, in hostile territory, under constant harassment. That’s an average of 14 miles a day, which is a pretty fast pace for an army on foot in the rain. It is most certainly verifiable that the English took heavy casualties from dysentery. You can decide for yourselves the likelihood of them taking as few as 200 casualties from the combination of disease and enemy action in 18 days. All the eyewitness accounts, both French and English, place the numbers of the English at Agincourt in the immediate neighborhood of 6,000.
3. The French arrayed themselves in waves, or “battles”. There were either 2 or 3 of these battles, depending on which source you believe. If you believe Prof. Curry’s numbers, that means the French attacked an army of 9,000 with an army they had deliberately split into 2-3 groups of 4,000 - 6,000 each, sent in waves, one at a time. I make no claims of being a professional soldier or tactician, but for those who ARE professional soldiers to split their force so as to ensure the part of their army that was *actually attacking* would be outnumbered AT LEAST 3 - 2… that seems doubtful at best.
4. French and Burgundian accounts describe their vanguard *alone* as containing 5,000 men at arms. Regardless of their numbers, it is known they were able to push the English line back at first. This after having walked, in 50 lbs. or more of armor, through knee-deep mud in the teeth of a withering longbow fire from 5,000 English archers for 300 yards. While armor *can* stop arrows, it is hardly guaranteed to stop them. Charles I d’Albret, Count of Dreux, Constable of France, is said to have personally led these troops. And even after that 300 yard long gauntlet of longbow fire, there were enough to push the English line back.
5. French sources cite casualties between 4,000 and 10,000, with anywhere from 700 to 2,200 taken prisoner. If you use the highest figures, this means 200 more French were killed or captured at Agincourt than Prof. Curry claims were even there at the time.
6. All accounts, English, French and Burgundian, have the rearguard fleeing the scene after seeing the vanguard and the main body get trashed and captured or killed. This rearguard was 1200 men by the lowest estimate, and possibly as much as 4 times that. Also, no account is made, nor can realistically be made, of the numbers of armed French local peasantry.
7. Depending on your sources, the French numbered anywhere from 12,000 to 50,000. Most authorities place the numbers between 30,000 and 36,000. Regardless, a bare minimum of 5,000 French were captured and/or killed, and at least another 1,200 fled. The total numbers could be as much as 3 times that amount. This from a force of 6,000 or so who were sick, hungry and exhausted. You can nitpick the numbers all you please, but really there are only 3 possible reasons for such a stunning defeat:
- The French soldiers were, quite simply, pussies. They couldn’t do the job.
- The French leadership was arrogant and stupid.
- Henry and the English were just that freakin good.
Personally, I tend toward explanation #2. But regardless, I can’t imagine what the modern French hope to accomplish by bringing this up. Current quasi-mythology surrounding the battle casts Henry V as almost godlike in his abilities as a soldier and general. Yes, they could make the case that he really wasn’t, but only by choosing one of the other options. Do they really want to prove to the world that French soldiers were pussies, or that French generals were morons?
Nice work GOF. I was going to mention the rampant dysentry the English soldiers were suffering from but you beat me to it. Sad that the French still bring up nonsense like this. It was over half a millenium ago when will they get over it?
In the UK the BBC produced a good series on historical battle sites. The presenter was Richard Holmes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Holmes_(military_historian)if they show it in PBS it’s worth watching. He covered the battle at Agincourt in some detail. It was quite interesting to see the discussion on the physique of the English archers. They had to practice with the bow from an early age and the strength required to draw the bow meant that a lot of the archers looked like apes!
GOF:
“Oh, and Turtler.... the most pro-French account I can find is written by this very same Professor Anne Curry, where she calls the odds at 4 to 3 (12,000 French vs. 9,000 English).”
Um, I THINK I ALREADY POINTED THAT OUT. As you can see from this:
“But even the most Pro-French accounts and modern estmates say that they were outnumbered 3/5-1. Which is not an inconsiderable amount to say this least.”
Now, who do you think I was referring to with the “they?” The French?
“2. The English army marched toward Calais, spending the next 18 days marching 250 miles, in rainy weather, in hostile territory, under constant harassment. That’s an average of 14 miles a day, which is a pretty fast pace for an army on foot in the rain. It is most certainly verifiable that the English took heavy casualties from dysentery. You can decide for yourselves the likelihood of them taking as few as 200 casualties from the combination of disease and enemy action in 18 days. All the eyewitness accounts, both French and English, place the numbers of the English at Agincourt in the immediate neighborhood of 6,000. “
As much as I appreciate how you are explaining this to those who may be new to the subject, I actually am aware of what happened in the Anglo-French 100 Year Wars. So I was NOT disputing what you said.
“3. The French arrayed themselves in waves, or “battles”. There were either 2 or 3 of these battles, depending on which source you believe. If you believe Prof. Curry’s numbers, that means the French attacked an army of 9,000 with an army they had deliberately split into 2-3 groups of 4,000 - 6,000 each, sent in waves, one at a time. I make no claims of being a professional soldier or tactician, but for those who ARE professional soldiers to split their force so as to ensure the part of their army that was *actually attacking* would be outnumbered AT LEAST 3 - 2… that seems doubtful at best. “
OK, as good as you are at checking things, you apparently don’t know about medieval organization. Firstoff, they would almost certainly not have been SPLIT UP into battles at the field unless there were strange circumstances indeed. More likely, those battles were ORGANIZED PRIOR TO THE BATTLE (see the difference)? The “Battle” was a relatively standard unit of the day, and so I find it hard to believe the French would not have organized their army along those lines. And secondly, any other ideas? Certainly, the French were feeding their army piecemeal into the cauldron, but did they have any other real choice? The terrain prevented them from coming out all at once, and so they were in a nasty bind as to how to get their men from THEIR side of the field to the English one.
“4. French and Burgundian accounts describe their vanguard *alone* as containing 5,000 men at arms. Regardless of their numbers, it is known they were able to push the English line back at first. This after having walked, in 50 lbs. or more of armor, through knee-deep mud in the teeth of a withering longbow fire from 5,000 English archers for 300 yards. While armor *can* stop arrows, it is hardly guaranteed to stop them. Charles I d’Albret, Count of Dreux, Constable of France, is said to have personally led these troops. And even after that 300 yard long gauntlet of longbow fire, there were enough to push the English line back. “
I am also well aware of the Franco-Burgundian accounts, and I do not dispute what you are saying.
“5. French sources cite casualties between 4,000 and 10,000, with anywhere from 700 to 2,200 taken prisoner. If you use the highest figures, this means 200 more French were killed or captured at Agincourt than Prof. Curry claims were even there at the time.
And herein lies the reason why I put relatively little faith in medieval chronicles AND historians who come to their conclusions before they do their research: the former certainly are valuable as primary sources, but you simply cannot trust them to be accurate. See the chronicles relating to the Battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg, and how the Pole/Lithuanian forces apparently got reinforcements from half the world in spite of the small, insignificant fact that THERE IS NO F*ING WAY TO SUPPORT SO MANY MEN! In addition, they often cannot satisfy things, especially relating to joint forces. For instance, let us say we have A Reconquista battle fought by an allied army that is 90% Spanish and 10% Portuguese. So, when it mentions the “Spanish” casualties, there is no way to know if they are really referring only to “SPANISH” casualties, or casualties as a whole. You see the problem?
And the problems with biased research are something I hope would be obvious.
“7. Depending on your sources, the French numbered anywhere from 12,000 to 50,000. Most authorities place the numbers between 30,000 and 36,000. Regardless, a bare minimum of 5,000 French were captured and/or killed, and at least another 1,200 fled. The total numbers could be as much as 3 times that amount. This from a force of 6,000 or so who were sick, hungry and exhausted. You can nitpick the numbers all you please, but really there are only 3 possible reasons for such a stunning defeat:
- The French soldiers were, quite simply, pussies. They couldn’t do the job.
- The French leadership was arrogant and stupid.
- Henry and the English were just that freakin good. “
You are not saying anything revolutionary or unknown to me. The reason the French were defeated is probably a combination of the above three. While the French soldiery may not have been “pussies”, they never really recovered from the beatings they took at Crecy and Poitiers, and so were not fighting with the “A-Team”, by any means.
So, as a whole, I wonder why you addressed this to me, when it neither contradicts nor is opposed to anything I presented in my post.
Posted by Turtler
10/25/2008 at 06:39 PM
Sorry Turtler. The only part I had actually intended as addressed to you was the part right at the top, that says Prof. Curry claims odds of 4 to 3 instead of 3 to 1 or worse.
Copied from The Anglo Saxon Chronicle
http://saxontimes.blogspot.com/
The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be “Can we count on the French?” but, rather, “How long until France collapses?”
Lessons from History:
1. Gallic Wars – Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2,000 years of French history, France is conquered by, of all things, an Italian.
2. Hundred Years War – Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: “France’s armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.”
3. Italian Wars – Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion – France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots
4. Thirty Years War – France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
5. War of Devolution – Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
6. The Dutch War – Tied.
7. War of the Augsburg League / King William’s War / French and Indian War. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
8. War of the Spanish Succession – Lost. The war also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
9. American Revolution – In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as “de Gaulle Syndrome,” and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: “France only wins when America does most of the fighting.”
10. French Revolution – Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
11. The Napoleonic Wars – Lost. Temporary victories (remember the Second Lesson!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
12. The Franco-Prussian War – Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk fat boy to France’s ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
13. World War I – Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
14. World War II – Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel song.
15. War in Indochina – Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
16. Algerian Rebellion – Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: “We can always beat the French.” This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
17.War on Terrorism – France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald’s.
GOF: It is OK. I was just wondering WTH was going on. No harm no foul.
LyndonB: You REALLY want me to debunk that to hell, don’t you?
“2. Hundred Years War – Mostly lost, saved at last by a female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: “France’s armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.””
Asides from the laughably false (even if stereotypical) “First Rule of French Warfare”, it is not known what conditions, if any, Joan of Arc was suffering from.
“Italian Wars – Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.”
Firstoff, the Italians Wars were between the French and the Austro-Spanish Hapsburg Empire of Charles V. The Italians themselves, at first united under the League of Venice, later split and sided both with the French and the Hapsburgs. Secondly, France was NOT the only country to loose two wars fighting Italy. We have Austria (1859 War, 1870 War, WWI), Turkey (1911 War, WWI), and the Libyan tribesmen (1911 War, 1912-1931 Rebellion).
“Thirty Years War – France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.”
France intervened in the ongoing conflict in order to grab land, and try to weaken its Hapsburg rivals while breaking the strategic encirclement (Spain-Austria-Spanish Netherlands) that it was it. By all accounts, they did well, seizing several Austrian provinces and their mercurial Prince de Conde is credited with the downfall of the Spanish Tercio on the battlefield, which led to the eventually peace leaving a far weaker Hapsburg Empire and a far more powerful .
“5. War of Devolution – Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.”
The Spanish sure as hell did not see it that way, nor did anyone else. The fear was so great that the “Sun King” and his army would push on to conquer the rest of the Spanish Netherlands that England, Sweden, and the Netherlands formed the Triple Alliance, going over Spain’s head to hand him the territories he had gained and demanded while warning him that to continue his offensive would force the Triple Alliance to declare war on him. For Spain, this campaign was an unqualified fiasco, as their mobile army was destroyed early in the campaign, and the French could reduce the Spanish forts in the region while the overall command in Madrid could do absolutely nothing against them. Overall, a significant victory for France, if not as decisive as Louis XIV and his planners wanted.
“6. The Dutch War – Tied.”
No Objection.
“7. War of the Augsburg League / King William’s War / French and Indian War. Three ties in a row induces deluded Francophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.”
Very, Very far from the height of French military power by ANY estimate. However, the Seven Year’s War (French and Indian War in the Americas) was actually a decisive DEFEAT for France, not a tie. Not only did they not gain anything in Europe, they LOST massive chunks of their colonial empire to the British, which is believed to foreshadow their intervention in the American Revolution and the upcoming French Revolution.
“8. War of the Spanish Succession – Lost. The war also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.”
I would have to say an overall draw. Granted, they did suffer a crippling defeat on several fronts (They were evicted from the Rhine and saw their Bavarian Ally overrun after the spectacularly bloody battles of Blenheim and Ramilles, and were more-or-less kicked out of Italy) but they managed to prevent an Allied breakthrough in their home defensive line, and they managed to win the crucial Spanish campaign, which was what they had come for in the first place. It was ugly, yes, but it was not the clear-cut defeat it is often portrayed as. And also, since when is 1759 (French-Indian War) right next to 1697 (Nine Year’s War, 1697)?
9. “American Revolution – In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as “de Gaulle Syndrome,” and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: “France only wins when America does most of the fighting.””
The reason France claimed a victory even though we did most of the fighting is simple: they in large part viewed the US victory as their victory, and with good cause. Even before their declaration of war following Saratoga, they were providing 90%+ of our gunpowder, and they helped spread the term “Lock, Stock, and Barrel” to the Americas after the number of Charleville muskets they shipped over in three parts (as was standard) for assembly later.
Following their declaration of war, they began to take an even more active role in the fighting, as they attacked and reconquered several holdings in the British Caribbean, managed to inflict several naval defeats on Britain, aided Spain in the Conquest of British Minorca, and unsuccessfully helped them besiege Gibraltar. In addition, those “English Colonists” also benefitted from the French intervention, as they began to contest dominance of the Atlantic seaboard with the British, and, indeed, the final decisive battle of the war (Yorktown), could not have happened the way it did without French help in beating the British fleet back from helping Cornwallis AND landing ground troops to support Washington. Overall, it was a pyrrhic victory, but only because France got far less out of it then it thought it would.
“10. French Revolution – Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.”To in extent, but the opponent was also Austrian, Russian, Spanish, British, and Piedmontese, while the Royalists were largely gone by 1797, so that hardly explains the decisive victory the French won.
10. “1. The Napoleonic Wars – Lost. Temporary victories (remember the Second Lesson!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.”
How is the “Second Lesson” applicable to this? How does the paltry American participation in the Quasi-War and the War of 1812 compare to the titanic war in Europe? It doesn’t. The fact is that Napoleon went far from Corsica to the farthest reach of Europe (in the Russian Campaign), but he simply made too many enemies and lost too many soldiers to win. But not without giving a hell of a fight to all involved and giving military historians the material for countless lectures and essays.
“12. The Franco-Prussian War – Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk fat boy to France’s ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.”
While I would not phrase it in so benign a fashion, given Otto Von Pikehat’s general sleaziness and role in foreshadowing two of the most terrible regimes in history, I ultimately cannot contest this.
“13. World War I – Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.”
False, false, and false. For starters (and I mentioned this elsewhere), the idea that the Western Allies were saved by the US in 1917 is highly conjectural at best, and is ONLY valid if one thinks that the nascent AEF was the “edge” that prevented the Germans from occupying Paris, something I do not find much evidence for. The fact remains that the AEF, while large, did not mean the US “saved” the Western Allies, as it was the latter who provided material, transport, training, and support to the former, not the other way around. Indeed, this is emphasized by the fact that our showing in WWI was lukewarm against an Imperial German military that largely had its heart torn out in four bloody years of war, with the capitulation of all its allies save Austria-Hungary, and then Italy’s knocking Austria out of the war. In spite of this, the main American Campaign, the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, stalled in large part to staunch German resistance, while the other Western Allies had already cut through the German line elsewhere in far more depth. While the Offensive was saved in large part by staunch American fighting, the fact remained that the main Allied victory was elsewhere, where American participation was miniscule.
“14. World War II – Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel song.”
And here we come to the classic example of a French defeat: 1940. This is rightfully heralded as a crushing defeat which gained Hitler’s Reich dominance over the European mainland. However, it is worth noting that German battlefield casualties were, in fact, larger then the Allied battlefield casualties, which showed that the Germans were overly reliant on enemy surrenders to achieve victory. Likewise, while the French certainly played a smaller role in the Second World War then in the First one, that doesn’t mean they sat around, as the Free French engaged in a defacto civil war with Vichy France, and fought in every theater of the European War, eventually mustering over a million men in arms.
“15. War in Indochina – Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.”
Perhaps, but only because of demoralization at home and a nearly-bottomless source of supply and support for the VM that bordered the warzone in the form of Communist China, which was not such an advantage that the VC and NVA had later due to the Sino-Soviet Split. However, by all accounts, the French did rather well, cleaning South Vietnam of VM (something we were never entirely able to do, though we did come close at times), kicked both the Thai military and VM out of Cambodia, and did rather well in the North. Indeed, even Dien Bien Phu was not the decisive victory people like to paint it as, and the French actually signed a CEASE FIRE, not a surrender, and, to the very end, were still capable of being an organized force resisting. Ultimately, it was home moral, not much else.
“16. Algerian Rebellion – Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a Western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: “We can always beat the French.” This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.”
The “First Rules” of Italian, Russian, German, English, Dutch, Spanish, Muslim, and Vietnamese warfare are patently false. I could name several examples if I had the time, but to counter the “First Muslim Rule”, I put forth the French Conquest of Algeria and Tunisia, The Battle of Navarino (which helped solidify Greek Independence from Turkey) ,The French participation in the War against Ottoman Turkey in WWI, The Rif War (where France in large part saved a tottering Spain from a massive Moroccan Rebellion) the Infi War (another Franco-Spanish victory over Moroccan nationalists), and several others. Ultimately, Algeria was another “Vietnam-esque” conflict where decisive military victories failed to bring about political victory. This is even moreso in Algeria then in Indochina, where the French had virtually crushed the revolt when DeGaulle pulled out.
And, thirdly, the idea that this is the “First defeat of a Western Army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades” would probably require that “Non-Turkic Muslim force” to actually BEAT THE ENEMY IN BATTLE. So, the honor you bestowed upon it belongs not to France but to Spain, who were nearly tossed out of their Moroccan protectorate by Moroccan rebels led by Abd-el-Krim. The Rif defeated the Spanish in several pitched battles, most notably the disastrous Battle of Annual, in the 1920’s. They were saved *drumroll* by France.
“17.War on Terrorism – France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald’s.”
Like it or not, France is a sizable Nuclear power in Western Europe and the prime opening into the Atlantic, so, for God’s sake, let us hope that does not happen.
Posted by Turtler
10/26/2008 at 03:26 PM
No Turtler I don’t want you to debunk it. This is what we call humour in England. You need to lighten up or get a sense of humour.
LyndonB:
I do have a sense of humor. I just am not inclined to use historical misinformation in it, nor to tolerate it.
Posted by Turtler
10/26/2008 at 04:51 PM
Look for the next instalments “Trafalgar - Perfidious Albion reduced to sending half-blind amputees to command fleet, lets call it a draw”, and “Waterloo - British and Prussian bullies invade Belgium and threaten French Peacekeepers.”
Posted by algy
10/27/2008 at 10:37 AM
Algy:
“British and Prussian bullies invade Belgium and threaten French Peacekeepers.”
All you have to do is remove the “British and” and the “Peacekeepers”. and it becomes applicable to 1914, 1940, and 1944.
Peiper:
OK, if you want. Here are my responses:
Sean McGlynn: While it does carry a touch of self-promotion, he puts my point very clearly:
“Today, maybe; in the Middle Ages, no.”
Exactly. Remember: as late as 1859 in the West and even later elsewhere, there was NO exact set of rules regulating wartime behaviour. Certainly, there were some generally accepted “rules”, such as Chivalric codes and for the sanctity of oaths and agreements, but these were hardly binding and were broken by almost everyone.
“copious examples of even worse atrocities committed by French medieval kings”
Agreed, though some may take this as the idea that “The French were worse then the English”, which was NOT true. Just the fact that there were FAR worse things then the executions at Agincourt by both sides.
“he mass executions served Henry’s intended purpose of scaring off the enemy: they withdrew from the field. “
This is disputable, and the sources disagree on what the French were doing while their comrades were being executed by their English captors. However, the French certainly confirm that it had an unsettling effect on their ranks.
“Contemporary French chronicles largely pass over the massacre, accepting the defeat as the will of God. Instead, they are more preoccupied with the shame of such a defeat, one crying: “O eternal dishonour! Most galling of all was the thought that the defeat would make France feeble and the laughing-stock of other countries.””
Thank you Sean my man, because THIS makes my point more effectively then almost anything could: The French themselves, at the end of the day, DID NOT count the massacre as being beyond the pale NOR overly unusual (and trust me when I say that they would have made a stink of it if it was, as, regardless whose chronicles you look at, half of their content is strait propaganda). Indeed, IN SPITE of the fact that several of the best and brightest of France were ruthlessly killed under circumstances going directly against both Modern laws and the Chivlaric codes of the era, THEY DID NOT THINK MUCH OF IT! And why would they? This is, after all, BUSINESS AS USUAL! If there is a better way to illustrate how far apart Modern Western and Medieval Western views on the Conduct of War are, I do not know of it.
Charles Penfold: “Sir - I thought the whole point of the raising of the Oriflame standard was to show that the French did not intend to take any prisoners.”
Now, this is a bit tricky, but it must be noted that, to the uninitiated, the Oriflamme was the first real French Flag, as it was the personal standard of the King of France. It was stored at the Abbey of Saint-Denis in peacetime, and only brought out in war. Yes, it was flown INTO battle as a signal of no quarter, but it was primarily an order to the French rather then psychological warfare on the enemy, and it was only carried into battle on special occasions. So, rather then “Showing” that the French would give no mercy (and thus implying that the French usually DIDN’T show quarter), it was “Ordering” the French to take no quarter.
Slight difference. Splitting hairs? I don’t think so.
Roy Hughes: It must be remembered that Normandy and France were, at the time, two different political bodies. William the Bastard/ the Conqueror may have been culturally French, but he was not actually a subject of the French king. Vassal? Maybe. But not a defacto subject. But the point is well enough: everybody does horrific things to each other in the Middle Ages.
Nicholas Cox: Actually, this I would dispute. Charles VI often DID believe he was glass (not all the time, but often enough), and was not entirely screwed-on the right way. But he, by most accounts, was competent enough, and his accounts are thus valuable (provided they are vetted for your typical Medieval propaganda Grandstanding). But, I agree in the sense that, while he may be reliable most of the time, his mental issues (nice to know the results of centuries of Inbreeding, no?) mean that his descriptions need to be backed up.
Regards.
Posted by Turtler
10/27/2008 at 09:50 PM
In 2015, seven years from now, it will be the 600th anniversary of Agincourt. In any normal country, this would be cause for real celebration and an absolute history-fest.
I think that it is no coincidence that these French moonbat academics are mobilising to nullify the anniversary now. They figure that it will take seven years to expunge the date from the British schools system.
They hope that the only people mentioning this (to them) inconvenient fact will be grumpy old gits like myself, who they feel can be safely ignored.
Once again, it shows the parlous state of Western academia, perverted by Marxists producing revisionist history - not unlike revisionist physics which led to AGW.
10/30/2008 at 06:27 AM
Next entry: Obama No Merci Beaucoup
Previous entry: MORE FUN AND IT'S THE ONLY ONE I EVER LEARNED.