Muh pavise

>>2350137
The funny thing is that they didn't get rekt by the english longbowmen but by the french cavalry marching over them

excluding napoleon, why were french military commanders so retarded throughout history?

File: Battle_of_Nicopole_battle_map_1396 (1).jpg (71KB, 704x633px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 704x633px

>>2350137
The nobility at that time were pumped up on the ideals of chivalry, even if they were aware that things like strategy, tactics, as well as crossbows and longbowmen were valuable assets on the battlefield, that didn't matter because they weren't there to win but rather to achieve glory. They would fight with the utmost honor; God would decide the victor. This is why England with its small but relatively highly trained army was able to repeatedly win significant victories despite being 5 times smaller.

This is also why the French ruined the last crusade at Nicopolis when they refused to allow the hungarian infantry to fight first, but rather charged in all their glory directly into the enemy without the aid of any of the allies.

The nobility in France did try to remedy the issue though, for a time in the 14th century they banned most games and decreed that all the only hobby that was allowed was archery training, which they got results from. However this came nothing as they did not want peasants capable of resisting the noble horsemen around so they quickly cancelled this project.

>>2350164
>Napoleon
>French

>>2350191
That is actually quite the obsolete viewpoint.

The French were simply divided in leadership and had poor command.

They actually did win a number of battles against the English, all with similar heavy cavalry charges but with proper timing and tactics instead.

>>2350462
It wasnt til the French started using cannons that they started to win, their cavalry charges always ended in defeat and strategic gains for the english

top kek;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_La_Brossini%C3%A8re

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jargeau

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Meung-sur-Loire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gerberoy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Formigny

>>2350507
The comment above was meant for you.

>>2350530
Its a stupid comment, they only started winning the important battles when they stopped using cavalry charges.

>>2350544

Not even him (check the number of posters) but it's idiotic to call Patay an unimportant battle. It was the one to turn the momentum around in the 1430s

>>2350544

btfo by

>>2350528

>>2350544
Dude, literally every battle stated had a cavalry charge in it keko keks kek

>>2350559
Sorry, I thought losing 2000 longbowmen was not the same as losing 10k knights and noblemen.

Of course it had an effect on the British army which was out on a limb, but the French did not decisively defeat the British until they changed tactics and started using cannon

>>2350645
> same as losing 10k knights and noblemen.

lol at the usual inflated numbers.

The entirety of France did not have 10 000 knights and noblemen lol, let alone the half of it that came to Crecy.

But that is beside the point, the point is that French knightly charges still won the day quite often even against the English, let alone others;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saint-Omer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muret

>>2350645

just because French commanders at Agincourt were retarded doesn't mean cavalry charges don't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon

but yes, the trench-works and artillery in this battle were in fact decisive.

>>2350164
Who is Louis XIV

>>2350544
You're fucking wrong, and that's all there is to it.
>>2350645
>MUH CANOOON
Literally didn't matter. The french centralizing,, learning something vaugely resembling discipline, and using large bodies of dismounted men were what mattered.

>>2350700
>yes, the trench-works and artillery in this battle were in fact decisive.

>>2352805
>and using large bodies of dismounted men were what mattered.

So were in agreement then, when the french stopped using cavalry charges against entrench british, they started to win

Like I said, right from the start

>>2350137
I hope you and your fellow shitposters get raped to death by a HIV infected nigger

>>2350645
>Sorry, I thought losing 2000 longbowmen was not the same as losing 10k knights and noblemen.
To slaughter defenseless captives you don't need any tactics or any professional army. And where did that number came from, from the same source stating longbow can pierce armours at distance of 700 meters?

>>2353192
t. cheese eating surrender monkey

File: Untitled.png (45KB, 600x180px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x180px

>>2353187
> when the french stopped using cavalry charges against entrench british, they started to win

TOP

KEK

>>2353258
Maybe they shouldn't have surrendered,shows what happens when you turn up to battle without a longbow,which is why cannon were the most effective weapon against bunched up longbowmen

>>2353321
Muskets and arquebuses proved to be quite devastating as well.

>>2353192
art thou irate?