>''a rabble of archers (basically plebs) winning

>we were super-weak, outnumbered and unprepared but our bravery and witt saved the day

Doesn't everyone spout that same bullshit? Or atleast some variation of it. The British are not unique in that case.

>>1433154
Well, sometimes, but English really spin every fucking event in that direction.

This thread will be a QUALITY thread without lie
,butthurt and other Muh Longbows.

>>1433149
They're mostly defensive battles which get exaggerated over time.

>>1433149

It always makes for a better narrative when you are defending and winning against the odds.

Also, it keeps your enemies underestimating you, "they only won cause of luck, let's attack them!" and then your enemy gets whooped because you actually have manpower and resources enough to take them on

>>1433149
>Why are they so desperate to make themselves look weak as fuck, and facing everyone alone?
Because that makes it a lot easier for them to justify it to themselves when they keep picking fights. There's never anyone more aggrieved than a violent narcissist.

File: 1449568368615.jpg (104KB, 656x652px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 656x652px

Someones mad

>>1433245
>greatest victory of the latter half of the 19th century is against a bunch of spear chuckers

>>1433252

I'm not sure where you are referring to the Boers, the Chinese or the Russians as spear chuckers.

>>1433252
>only win against a bunch of spear chuckers and later some hillbillies due to materical supority

>>1433149
>England was always rich as fuck, populated as fuck, and coming at their enemies from a position of strength.
England used to be poor backwater. The winning against overwhelming odds makes for agood story and occasionally is true.

>north vietnamese fought against tied the United States air force ace kills while using gliders and harpoons as weapons

This is 100% true.

File: Riseandfall1.png (12KB, 434x389px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 434x389px

>>1433245

>>1433149
All of that is true except the bit about the longbowmen. They were well paid and well equipped. Yes. This means that they each had a dagger and/or mallet in addition to their bows, and a helmet. They were by no means comparable to heavy knights or armoured men-at-arms in melee combat and the bare fact of the matter is that Agincour' should have been a French victory; but excellent defensive positions and generally poor command from the French meant that the battle was practically a slaughter.

The most conservative estimates place it at 9000 vs 12000, which is significant already considering that no matter how you cut it the English had no cavalry and the French really, really did, in addition to a significant amount (thousands) of armoured men at arms on foot.

They got beaten because ranged weapons and light feet win out in situations where terrain is excessively difficult to traverse. The mud was so deep that the charge was barely a charge and whether or not longbows could actually pierce plate, the horses got absolutely panicked by having arrows pierce them. Then they reach the stakes. So what you ended up with was a bunch of knights in heavy armour forced to dismount directly in front of lines of archers with arguably the most powerful bows ever used in warfare, sinking past their ankles because the mud is so deep and they are so heavy, while nasty commoners with mallets dance around bashing their helmets and sliding knives through their visors while their horses gallop madly about.

Then once it is clear that the charge has failed the French decide to order their heavy infantry to march on foot across the mud to the English lines. By the time those that survived the arrows got there, they were so exhausted from the trek through the mud that they couldn't fight back.

Honestly, the English deserve to feel proud about Agincourt.

t. not English

>>1433266
Yup, and they only won against the hillbillies because they literally emptied the countryside of all civilians (and then shoved them in concentration camps to starve and die of disease reparations when)

>>1433252
Falklands was 20th century mate.

File: 0216-british.jpg (320KB, 1024x792px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1024x792px

>>1433149
>So, why is English historical narrative so full of ''we were super-weak, outnumbered and unprepared but our bravery and witt saved the day'' bullshit?

Because reminiscing about those times is way more enjoyable than remembering the times you got your ass stomped hard.

>>1433149
For Agincourt >>1435216 explains it pretty well.

For the Spanish Armada the reality is far from heroic, but it came at a time when England faced great uncertainty in a war with the super power of the time, so the it was a propaganda victory. The storm that fucked up the Spanish was given as much credit as the English fleet.

For Waterloo the British contingent in the Allied Army was inexperienced, many of Wellington's Peninsula veterans having been sent elsewhere. As well as that the difficulty Wellington faced in commanding an army of Dutch, British, Belgian and German troops shouldn't be underestimated. Not to mention the fact that he was lacking in heavy cavalry and faced a commander who still scared the leaders of Europe. The arrival of the Prussians was essential,but for the British the legend of Waterloo lay in the fact that the British infantry, who bore the brunt of French attacks, were able to hold off the French for as long as they did.

The Battle of Britain is important because at the time Britain felt increasingly isolated in the fight against Hitler; France having fallen and America not directly helping. For the ordinary British civilian it's easy to see why the battle became a legend. For months you've heard of nothing but defeat, the Germans conquering many countries. Now German planes are overhead and the only thing stopping them from bombing the shit out of your country is the RAF. Is it surprising that their victory became a legend?

The English historical narrative is a story of going to war under-prepared, being dealt early defeats, yet winning the war when the resources of the Empire can be brought to bear. Having an Empire and being rich doesn't always equate to having a super military that is prepared for anything, especially in Britain where the existence of a large standing army in peacetime isn't historically welcomed. Plus Britain never enjoyed the population advantage of, say, France.