Your video contain an enormous and blatant mistake. You make the usual english claim that ALL of France agreed to sign the treaty of Troyes, only to treacherously renege on it after Henry V's death. That's flatly untrue. The treaty of Troyes was never accepted by anyone beyond the territories which the english and burgundians already effectively controlled, and the true legitimate heir to the French throne, Charles VII, was still supported by all the unoccupied territories and continued to resist the invaders after 1420. In fact in 1421, a franco-scottish army crushed an english one led by Henry V's own brother, who was even killed in battle. And Henry V himself died of illness, not just by sheer luck, but because he was forced to wage a protracted winter siege against a FRENCH city, Meaux, which seriously deteriorated his health. Not exactly what you would expect in a pacified country.

There was already a first 'Agincourt', at Crecy. This would be the third.

Before I get pedantic I just want to say I enjoyed the video and learned about an engagement I had previously not heard of...now that I've said that, I'd like to push back on the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) made during the video that Agincourt was where the flank archery deployment was first pioneered. If I am not mistaken, Dupplin Moor, an obscure battle between a small English force of 1,500 and a Scottish host of 15,000 (!!), was where the English discovered the efficacy of positioning longbowmen en masse to the flanks of their men at arms. Dupplin Moor was a decisive English victory, and though aided by terrain, this is still quite an upset given the odds. From what I gather this battle and many others against the Scots allowed the English to develop the optimal use of their longbowmen against an opponent not as well equipped (though no less fierce) as the French. I will concede that I could be intentionally misinterpretting/misremembering things in order to show off the fact that I read a single Wikipedia article (an amazing feat no one doubts!). Agincourt may very well have been the first time these tactics were used against the French, and this is what the script-writer meant when it was said that this deployment was used given the success of Agincourt.

@@Valchrist1313 Also Poitiers 1356. So Verneuil would be at least the fourth. Basically, excepted at the last decades, England won most big battles in open field, but lost most sieges (far more sieges than big battles btw). Other smaller battles were more balanced between the parties.

Yeah the Eastern Roman empire lost to the Muslims because of this as well happened way too much

I view cavalry commanders/ generals who were able to *stop* their troopers doing this as a mark of singular ability. Being able to get your cavalry to stop a successful charge and charge again is basically a mark of prowess.

If you add in pursuing the enemy off the battlefield, without the baggage train element, then missing cavalry contributed to even more famous losses.

@@gerardjagroo Cromwell was a master at maintaining that discipline.

That may be squire but do thoust remembereth the battle of kebabistan in the olde Shippy?

Not like they broke the entire flank of the english or something . They earned their pay . The fault lies with the french and scots mismanaging the attack on the center (despite heavily outnumbering the english) and also due to the skill of the english commander .

@@pp-wo1sd You are right in what you say. The French and Scots mismanaged their attack, and (not the Scots) eventually broke and ran. However, despite the errors of the French and Scots, the Milanese cavalry could have swung the battle the other way if only they had chosen to attack the rear of the English army instead of the riches of the baggage train. It is always a risk employing mercenaries because their primary motivation is money not “the cause”.

My immediate thought was they saw this as a brilliant outcome for themselves

Using baggage as a lure for elite mercenaries .. what a masterful tactic ! French King should have commanded the Merc Knights himself or someone he trusted.

Indiscipline and looting were very common in armies of the day, before the advent of national standing professional armies with strict training and discipline.

How wonderfully Italian of them!

😂😂😂😂😂

​@@christianadams9114😂😂😂😂😂

Historians were like "Meh, the English didn't have the additional handicap of shitting all over themselves with dysentery like in Agincourt so its a less impressive win" lol

Many other battles of the 100 year war were as dramatic and important as Agincourt and yet have been completely ignored. Strangely they are mostly French victories.

@@belis35 Unfortunately, none of them had Shakespeare write a play about them.

Shows that Agincourt victory are not just about the heavy rain before but a better quality army. The fact that the archers are regrouping then attacking in melee is very impressive.

You know what is completely ignored ? France many victories that ended up with them completely crushing the english. Yet people only remember agincourt and crecy

English always talking about Agincourt but forgetting Patay, Orleans, Castillon, etc. Funny how AngloSaxon propaganda works. Last one in 2003, "French cowards" for refusing to go in Irak.

what about two siege of helm's deep?

They didn’t muller the Scotch till after they had mullered the Scots. I would also imagine that the English probably buggered off with a lot more loot due to the actions, or lack of them, from the Milanese.

An excellent summary, even if you have confused "Scots" and "Scotch"

​@@daviddavidk2352 lack of action? The Milanese cavalry routed the entire English right and attacked their 500 to 2000 or so reserves near the baggages. I'd say that's a fair amount

Typical behaviour. From the Italians/Milanese. Take the money and...run.

Based on the annihilation of the right wing, the casualties would have been predominantly Scottish?

i believe much of it had to do with the encirclement of the Army of Scotland

How is that ironic?

It’s because there was no hero King

Not ironic at all. The consequences are, in fact, massively distinct. As Procole Cornwal points out above, the losses for French nobility as such were minimal here compared to Azincourt.

I think that Shakespeare played a big part in popularising Agincourt.

@@kengamby2482---I think your right

Heavy Calvary and sorrowful Golgotha!

and losing your right flank during the first part of the engagement with enemy heavy cav behind your lines.

All soldiers in history had balls of steel, imagine hacking & slashing at each other until death. Add that if you go back even further, survivors of the losing team either became slaves or were killed if they were injured.

I mean heavy cavalry sounds dumb to me, Archers is the meta, they can just shoot from afar and has the best damage potential. . Not to mention some people with very long stick make Cavalry obsolete

@@theunknownfencer6336none of this is correct at all. It was well known at the time that archers were incredibly vulnerable to heavy cavalry charges, as seen here as well as later in the battles such as patay. It was also possible to charge home on pike formations fairly reliably if you knew what you were doing. The French gendarms were considered some of the best soldiers in Europe, even decades after the pike was wide spread. Even after the battle of Pavia, when they were defeated by the Spanish tercios, they remained incredibly effective for decades. Heavy horse cavalry remained effective well into the 19th, and even occasionally in the 20th century. It wasn’t until the invention of the tank when they finally became obsolete.

True, but people should remember that most "battles" back then were sieges, and French were rather good at it. At Orleans 4 years after Verneuil, English lost a more crushing battle strategically, and the Earl of Salisbury, victor of Verneuil and Cravant, was killed. I believe Verneuil was the last great English Victory of the 100 years war. Thus I don't get why it's even less known than Patay, a French victory (and French victories were the norm after 1427).

Oh he was. He and Henry V were a terrifying duo.

Most battles are about balls. I remember a story about my wife's uncle. He got knocked on his arse by a local bully but got up out of the gutter and gave the boastful bully a flogging.

The English had a lot of fighting experience. If they weren't fighting the French, they were fighting each other.... with the occasional battle against the Irish or Scots

Though if the title is Second Agincourt it should be slightly more obvious

its far more due to the mistake of the greedy knights than it was an outstanding play from the english

@@fgfgdgdfgdfgiidfgdfgdfgdfgdfgd English discipline played a big part but knightly arrogance and greed stole the victory

@@fgfgdgdfgdfgiidfgdfgdfgdfgdfgd I mean that logic can also be applied to the Battle of Agincourt where French incompetence played as much if not more of a role in the English victory than the English their competency.

Accursed be England

the french were the french for a long time

England had to keep discipline and keep good commanders in battle because they where usually outnumbered. Especially on the continent. Even Nevilles crossing against the Scots they where hugely outnumbered and still came out on top because of discipline And good commanders.

People tend to forget the discipline of the English men at arms due to the fame of the archers, but they were extremely well organised in most of the famous battles of The Hundred Years War. They fought on foot early on in their campaigns. At Poitiers only one man left formation and was killed. The Duke of Bedford rallied his men at arms after the Milanese cavalry attack and turned a near defeat into a very bloody victory. So many French knights were killed that their bodies filled a ravine up to five knights deep.

Remember that this wasn't nation states. Instead this was *kingdoms*. Many probably considered the English king the *rightfull* heir to the previous king given the treaty, while the French king was seen as a usurper keeping the war and suffering of the French people going.

@@Luredreier I think you're right. Today, we project our understanding of nation states onto a social context where allegiance to a feudal structure seems to have been the dominant loyalty. When you combine that with the realization that the upper tiers of the feudal hierarchy were obtained from a limited pool that tended to inseminate itself all over a geographical region, then the divisions melt away into a colour palette.

Not for long.

@@thibaultsardet7399 Five years to be accurate before the miracle of Orleans halted their run of straight success. As Although that and Maid's short career, was only a blip and real turning point did not occur until 1435.

Also, no doubt the English realised what pests the Scots were. Realised the need to clean up their own backyard.

@@redtobertshateshandles probably they were seeing red this whole battle, Bedford was avenging his older brother, the Duke of Clarence, and they all were washing away the stain of the Battle of Bauge; just capturing and then ransoming back the scottish noblemen hardly had been a solution of any kind, Buchan had been captured and released at Cravant and again they find him here and Douglas had been a thorn on their side since the days of Richard II.

Nah, the battles in Southern and Eastern Europe are much more overlooked than everything that happened between the French and the English. Surely there are equally interesting wars or battles in this same era, but due to the existing overexposure of the Hundred Years War, they are totally overlooked.

@ Battle of Didgori is interesting

Both Baugé (1421) and Battle of La Brossinière (1423) are overlooked.

​@@thibaultsardet7399 because the french and scots outnumbered the english so its only natural for them to win

@@QuintusFabiusMaximusVerr-vf9sb No, because this was not English victories.

Was thinking the same. Seems strange tbh. You'd think they'd just punch a hole, scatter the horses and ride through

@@Atraa they probbably got -n movement points for being disarrayed when meeting the tied horses , dice roll was loaded 😂

@@Atraa one horse cant simply ride through another

@@jamiecullum5567 or a bunch of dead horses. You can always eat them for the evening meal.

I always thought they just dug trenches and placed wooden spikes to avoid rear charges. That’s pretty brilliant and way less time consuming.

Happy new year!!

Don't believe everything you read/see about history, numbers come from english claims and french claims are not the same. Obviously, anglo-word took the english version and run away with it. They underrated english numbers, and overrate french numbers, same with Azincourt.

@@baptistev9630 This is a good point, though my main idea was to focus on the general composition of the armies and less the exact numbers. Outside of mounted archers, you rarely see an army with this high a percentage of archers winning battles. All that to point out how novel this battle is and how odd that bowmen were able to be this effective. Some of that is due to the bowmen reforming after they are pushed back by the dismounted knights.

France, with a population 4/5 times the size, suffered major setbacks after these defeats. If anything French losses are underestimated.

​ @thesnoopmeister Snoops France was decentralized at that time, and some vassals of France were even stronger than the french Kings. France wasn't an united entity at all. The Burgundians, one of strongest vassal and some others minors, sided with the English side.

Happy new year!

I will cover all battles of the HYW in no particular order and add them to the playlist. I also plan to re-do Poitiers since the information in my video is now outdated. Patay and Castillon are in production, and so is Siege of Rouen. Eventually we will have a playlist of videos that cover the entirety of the HYW timeline.

Because they technically were...

They were human tanks but what good is a tank if it can't be bothered to make sure the battle is won before running off to plunder.

Why are the French so cowardly and stupid? They become arrogant by relying on their armor, but run away when the going gets tough. There are so many examples of this.

the arrogance of knights cost kingdoms and Europe itself many victories, they seemed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by thinking they were infallible.

Well, actual tanks are not that effective if not well supported. And knights were quite prone to unsupported attacks towards the enemy line.

Ola from Australia.

I really dont see this. The archers did basically nothing in this entire battle. It was lost because the Milanese ran off and the english were way more disciplined than the French. The deciding factor was the French getting flanked and buckling

I agree-What is easy to overlook is that the French "Infantry" Were dismounted men at arms, encased in plate armour, with limited mobility and very restricted vision the archers were extremely agile, fast moving light infantry, armed with knives, hatchets and whatever weapons they could salvage. they were a formidable enemy.

Thank you so much for the support. Very kind of you.

Isn't La Hire pronounces La Heer

Lol

Ah, the power of sarcasm ...

Milan is based

@@kokotaughs La ear, h is silent

Longbows were a minor factor

@@samsonsoturian6013 Initially, the longbow ranks were shattered by the Milanese heavy cavalry; but, while chasing the bowman, the Milanese chose to loot the English baggage train, which allowed the archers to rejoin the fight against the Franco-Scottish units.

@@samsonsoturian6013 Fair

Another student of the gnome overlord.

It was mainly due to a lack of professionalism, which would later be solved and turn France into the military powerhouse of Europe, at least land wise.

That's always nice to see!

Nice one :)

😇

He still would have lost and not be remembered as fondly as we remember him today

@@apostalote possibly. In a way I'm glad though. Can you imagine the French playing cricket???

@@dave1234aust England is much more a French colony than the opposite. That's why English is the most latinized germanic language of the world.

Burned as a witch by her own people...

Perhaps it's under represented, in your opinion, because the battles were little more than skirmishes compared to the European conflict.

They might manage, if someone who knows how to cheese Total War games, such as LegendofTotalWar, was put in command. 😇

Thunderous attack ! 40.000 winged hussars saved the christianity in Europe, otherwise now, we could have said "Allahu Akbar"

Dramatic effects