Also, it seems that we were quite nasty to them on the battlefield, and probably caused their soldiers a lot of pain and suffering. Gosh - anyone might think we were at war with them at the time, or that it was, like, the Middle Ages or something.
I might be inclined to give all this some credence, except that:
no English academics have been invited to today's conference in France
together with the small point that they've had 593 years to think up a good explanation and this is the best they can manage. So, maybe not, then.
Admit it. You were panned. Now stop whinging and get on with something more useful.
Yet when the frenchies won at Patay by not repeatedly charging forward across a muddy field under a hail of arrows, that is in no way linked to learning the crushing lessons of Agincourt?
ReplyDeleteProbably the two sides were more even in numbers than the English had claimed, but so what?
We like to be seen as outnumbered. It suits us.
So what if in the Battle of Britain the numbers were a lot more even than we allow for. { We always count Nazi bombers and fighters against just our fighters}.
It doesn't matter.. we still won.
The French always claim they were defeated by superior Nazi numbers in WW2. But we know they faced fewer troops, fewer planes, and more but lesser quality AFV's.
They still lost.
So at Agincourt even if numbers of troops are more even its Heavy Cavalry that counts. As the Tank of the battlefield at Agincourt it should have been a war winner.
English archers mashed up the frog heavy horse by using better tactics and training.
The French should have won..They expected to win..They prepared for the win.. And they lost! And have never quite got over it.