1214 Battle of Bouvines France defeated england and allies and conquers Flanders (winner france) *
1214 Battle of Tournai France defeats Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor and King John of England (winner France) *
1347 Battle of Crecy.French Heavily defeated by inferior force of English.(English victory)
1356 Battle of Poitiers(English victory)
1364 Battle of Auray(English victory)
1415 Battle of Agincourt October 25 English longbowmen under Henry V defeat French (English victory)
1424 Battle of Verneuil.Franco-Scots army defeated.French flee,Scots stand there ground and are massacred where they stand.Fewer Scots willing to cross the channel and fight the "Auld enemy" in France after this battle.(England victory)
1421 Battle of Bauge. The French and Scottish forces of Charles VII commanded by the Earl of Buchan defeat the forces of Henry V commanded by the Duke of Clarence.(France and scotland win)*
1428 Battle of Orleans English forces commanded by the Earl of Salisbury with duke of Bedford besiege French city and are driven off with the loss of their siege engines by Joan (french victory)*
1428 Battle of Patay The English flush a stag and Joan runs down all the English archers capturing the leaders; Earl of Shrewsbury (Talbot) and Fastolff (french victory)*
1429 Battle of the Herrings. English food supply and its escort attacked by Franco-Scottish army with 2 Cannon.Despite this and their superior numbers,French and Scots defeated.French dead and dying lay amongst dead fishes after Cannon had exploded English food wagon,thus the name.(English victory)
1450 Battle of Formigny The Count of Clermont and the Earl of Richmond use cannon to break up archers and defeat the English under Kyriell (french victory)*
1453 Battle of Castillone The Valois use cannon to defeat the Lancastrians to end the Hundred Years War(french victory)*
1513 Battle of Guinegate “The Spurs” Henry VIII defeats French.Lots of French Knights Spurs collected at the end of battle as trohpy's thus the name.(English Victory)
1690 Battle of Fleurus Louis XIV's marshal Montmorency (French win over a coalition including britain, there 2 battles of Fleurus)*
1690 Battle of the Boyne. French and Irish Catholics heavily defeated by English and Dutch Protestants.(English victory)
1704 Battle of Blenheim. Glorious victory for the Duke of Marlborough.(English victory)
1706 Battle of Ramilles or Battle of Ramillies May 23 - Duke of Marlborough defeats the French in the War of Spanish Succession (english victory)&
1708 Battle of Oudenarde July 11 Duke of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy defeat French and besiege Lille(English victory)&
1709 Battle of Malplaquet.Bloody battle ending in French defeat.(English victory)
1755 Battle of the Monongahela Valley - also called Braddock's defeat, British lose two thirds of their force to French and Indian allies in Virginia backcountry; both enemy generals die in the engagement (french victory)*
1756 Battle of Fort Oswego - French and Indian allies take the only British trading post on Lake Ontario, thus re-establishing French exclusivity on europeen products in Great Lakes commerce with native populations (French victory)*
1758 Battle of Ticonderoga (1758) July 8 - also called Carillon, British badly routed after attacking French fort (french victory)*
1759 Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) - British capture French fort (english victory)&
1759 Battle of Beauport July 31 - French stop British attempt to land near Quebec city; notable naval bombardment with British ships and batteries firing 4000 rounds in 8 hours on French shoreline entrenchments (french victory)*
1760 Battle of Montreal - Three British armies converge on Montreal forcing general capitulation of Canadian portion of New France (english victory)&
1794 battle of Tourcoing (french vicotry)*
1799 Battle of Bergen September 19 - French beat English and Russians(french vcitory)*
1808 Battle of Vimeiro August 21 - English, Portuguese forces under Arthur Wellesley defeat French under Junot (english vcitory) &
1809 Battle of Corunna January 16 - French defeat Sir John Moore in Peninsular War (french victory)*
1812 Battle of Salamanca July 22 - Wellington defeats French under Marmont. French evacuate Madrid, but soon return (english victory)&
1813 Battle of Vittoria June 21 - Wellington defeats French under Joseph, forced to withdraw towards France English victory)& this the battle where some ignorants claim wellington defeated napoleon when in fact it was his brother joseph Bonaparte.
1815 Battle of Waterloo June 18 - Napoleon attacks Wellington's army all day, but disastrously defeated on Blücher's arrival with reinforcements.The last ever major battle between English and French troops ends in French defeat.(English victory)*
Battles fought: 33
French Victories: 15
English Victories: 18
No of English Victories on French soil: 9
No of French Victories on English soil: 0
No of Battles fought on Neutral ground: 14
No of Battles where French outnumbered English: 19
No of Battles where English outnumbered French: 5
No of Battles where French had Twice as many men as English: 5
No of Battles where English had twice as many men as French: 0
"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"
This message has been edited by ChongLi on Mar 20, 2004 1:05 PM
"1815 Battle of Waterloo June 18 - Napoleon attacks Wellington's army all day, but disastrously defeated on Blücher's arrival with reinforcements.The last ever major battle between English and French troops ends in French defeat.(English victory)*"
IIRC there were more Germans present than English and the battle was won because of the arrival of German/Prussian forces, so why do you Brits hold this win in such a high regard?
Isn't it because (and why some, like me , consider it a British victory) it was British troops that forced the routing of Napoleans as of yet undefeated elite guards and it was under overall British command.
>>LOFL, yeah. Only if the Prussians didn't show up it would have been a complete defeat too.<<
But both the British and Prussians played significant roles, get it?
There are many battles where French led or English led Alliances won.In some battles there were equal or more Scots present than French but they are still considered a French victory or defeat.Same goes where there were less English than other Allies in battle i.e Patay and where there more English than others i.e Agincourt.
"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"
This message has been edited by ChongLi on Mar 20, 2004 1:05 PM
"Maybe, but my list is just a revised version of Eryx list but with more English victories(justifiably) added.
Reaver,
If Bouvines can be considered an English defeat then Waterloo can be considered an English victory.
Besides enough English(not to mention British) blood was spilled for it to be considered an English victory as much as a Prussian."
You SOB, I've in fact spared your @ss by not including small scale battles. Just give me one hour, I'm taking out all the encyclopedia of wars.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Mar 21, 2004 2:51 AM
**** I get d/c and lost my list have to do it again. it will take 15 mins.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
Battle of Quebec 1690(french victory, not to confused with the other battle of quebec)
The Battle of Almansa, part of the War of the Spanish Succession, took place in 1707.
The allied forces of Portugal, England and the United Provinces (lead by the Count of Galloway and Marqués de las Minas) have a great battle with the forces of Spain and France near of the castle of Almansa (Spain). The Portuguese-English forces are soundly defeated; more than 4000 men are killed and 8000 taken prisoner.
6-8 SEP 1793 Battle of Hondeschoote British vs. French(Britain and Hanover were defeated at the Battle of Hondeschoote in September and failed to regain Dunkirk. The French General, Houchard, was guillotined for not following up his victory rigorously enough)
19 SEP 1799 1st Battle of Bergen-Op-Zoom French vs. British, Russians(french victory)
6 OCT 1799 Battle of Castricum French vs. British, Russians French (french)
16-24 MAY 1810 Siege of Mequinenza French vs. British (french victory)
10 JUL 1810 battle at Barquillo French vs. British French
24 JUL 1810 battle at the Coa River French vs. British French
11 AUG 1810 battle at Villagarcia French vs. British French
27 SEP 1810 Battle of Bussaco British, Portuguese vs. French Allies (english)1
13 OCT 1810 Siege of Fuengirola French vs. British French (french victory)
12 APR - 10 MAY 1811 Blockade of Almeida French vs. British French
22 APR - 12 MAY 1811 2nd Siege of Badajoz French vs. British French
19 MAY -10 JUN 1811 3rd Siege of Badajoz French vs. British (French)
22 JUN 1811 Cavalry battle at Elvas French vs. British (French victory)
29 DEC 1811 battle of Membrillo French vs. British (French victory)
16 MAR - 6 APR 1812 4th Siege of Badajoz British, Portuguese vs. French (Allies and english)(2)
11 AUG 1812 Combat at Majalahonda French vs. British French
19 SEP - 22 OCT 1812 Siege of Burgos French vs. British, Portuguese French
23 OCT 1812 battle at Venta del Pozo French vs. British (French)
25 OCT 1812 battle at Villa Muriel French vs. British French
28 OCT 1812 Battle at Tordesillas French vs. British French
30 OCT 1812 Combat at Puente Larga British vs. French British (3)
25 JUL 1813 Battle of Roncesvalles French vs. British, Portuguese French
25 JUL 1813 2nd Combat of Maya French vs. British, Portuguese French
26 JUL - 31 AUG 1813 2nd Siege of San Sebastian British, Portuguese vs. French Allies (4)
26-28 JUL 1813 1st Battle of Sorauren British, Portuguese vs. French Allies (5)
30 JUL - 1 AUG 1813 2nd Battle of Sorauren British, Portuguese vs. French Allies (6)
13 SEP 1813 battle of Ordal French vs. British French
14 SEP 1813 2nd battle of Villafranca French vs. British French
23 FEB - 26 APR 1814 Siege of Bayonne French vs. British French
Add 26 for france and 6 for britain. This put us at 42 to 24. Tomorrow I addt more salt to the wound of those losers by listing the campaign of louis the Sun king. The number of victories is enormous. Well, this prove also one thing the english were incapable of fighting france of their own, in most battles they were allied with other europeans forces(and being merciful to the losers I gave them the victories). If the european were hostile to the english, they would have there tails in between their legs just like the always beaten dogs they are. Only the prussian balanced out in the number of victories. No one else came close.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Mar 21, 2004 5:56 AM This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Mar 21, 2004 5:52 AM This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Mar 21, 2004 5:47 AM This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Mar 21, 2004 5:30 AM This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Mar 21, 2004 5:26 AM
You guys are too bloody close! Can't you just forget about this and make up stuff on how many times you guys defeated the Russians or something? They're the world's second power.
‘‘Italy unfortunately has been long excluded from the number of European powers. If Italians today are worthy of resuming their rights, someday they will see their country arise with glory among the powers of the earth.’’--Napoleone Buonaparte
>>You SOB, I've in fact spared your @ss by not including small scale battles. Just give me one hour, I'm taking out all the encyclopedia of wars.<<
Bull****!
Your original list was full of small ****ty French victories i.e Bouvines. Yet at the same time you missed massive battles such as Poitiers,Blenheim and Malplaquet! 25,000 men were killed at Malplaquet alone, how can you consider this small scale?
My list was one showing Major battles fought if you dont like the truth then thats your problem.Maybe next time you'll spare us all the **** about France's "Warrior" spirit, eh?
"Garlic......and bread?? Garlic bread??"
This message has been edited by ChongLi on Mar 21, 2004 1:26 PM
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Major land battles between England and France
March 21 2004, 3:25 PM
"Reaver,
If Bouvines can be considered an English defeat then Waterloo can be considered an English victory.
Besides enough English(not to mention British) blood was spilled for it to be considered an English victory as much as a Prussian."
Fair enough it is just that history or rather Wellington himself changed the facts in his reports so that most people think it was the British alone.
"Isn't it because (and why some, like me , consider it a British victory) it was British troops that forced the routing of Napoleans as of yet undefeated elite guards and it was under overall British command. "
Actually Wellingtons forces despite having inflicted disproportionate losses on the French were starting to lose ground, even on the centre. The arrival of the Prussians eased the pressure and forced the French on the defence. And another thing, Wellington was only the commander of the Anglo-Dutch-German army, not of the Prussian Army so he was hardly in overall command.
>>Fair enough it is just that history or rather Wellington himself changed the facts in his reports so that most people think it was the British alone<<
Well we do view Waterloo as great victory(Wellington had earned it afterall)and it was the sheer hard fighting of our troops that dragged the battle out for so long but we never forget that all could have been lost if not for the Prussians.
Funnily enough I have just read a copy of yesterdays Times which I found lying about and they had a full page article about Wellington trying to write the Prussians out of history. Bit of a coincidence.
Wellington's Battle of Waterloo? Just don't mention the Germans
By Jack Malvern
March 20, 2004
THE Duke of Wellington’s victory over Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo was as much a German as a British triumph, according to a leading historian who has discovered evidence of a cover-up.
The truth lies in the story of the official model of the battle, first revealed to the public in 1838, that showed 48,000 soldiers coming to the aid of the British Army. When the model was displayed for the second time seven years later, 40,000 of the German soldiers had disappeared. The shrinking of the Prussian forces on the model, now on display at the National Army Museum in London, can be attributed to a bitter dispute between William Siborne, the model’s maker, and the Duke of Wellington.
The Iron Duke realised from the beginning that Waterloo would be his making. He wrote his official account, the Waterloo Despatch, the day after the battle and it was published in The Times four days later on June 22, 1815.
Despite acknowledging the “cordial and timely assistance” of the Prussians, Wellington only mentions their arrival at 7pm, when the battle was coming to a close. It was a prime example of the winner writing the history books, but Siborne, a former captain in the British Army, discovered that the Prussians played a far more important role. Rather than arriving in the evening after Wellington had repelled the French attack, they appeared at 4.30pm. Nor did they come in small numbers, Siborne learnt.
Wellington’s army of 68,000 men was bolstered by about 48,000 Prussians against Napoleon’s force of 72,000. Peter Hofschröer, a British Napoleonic expert who has examined Siborne’s archive at the British Library, said that the model maker was meticulous in his research. “He sent a questionnaire to all surviving British officers, to the German forces in Wellington’s army, the Prussian General Staff and to the Ministry of War in Paris,” Mr Hofschröer wrote in BBC History magazine. “He also obtained a copy of the papers of the Prince of Orange, who had commanded the Netherlanders, and then cross-referenced all this material, sought corroboration, and marked up the positions on a map of the battlefield.”
He sent his plan to Wellington for approval. Despite Wellington saying in a memorandum to his closest adviser that he did not know “the position of each body of the troops under my command, much less of the Prussian Army”, he realised that Siborne’s map downplayed his glory.
The Prussians were shown sweeping to the rescue while Wellington’s troops fended off the French attack. Worse still, it humiliated Wellington because it contradicted the Waterloo Despatch.
The duke’s displeasure with the model plans was made clear in a sinister letter from “Lindsay”, a Horseguards officer, inviting Siborne to clarify his numbers. The letter explained that Lord FitzRoy Somerset, Wellington’s adviser, wished to discuss “some points which are very material to the perfect accuracy of your plan, especially touching the share the Prussians actually had in deciding the battle”. Lindsay warned Siborne: “Keep the object of your journey quiet but believe me you will do well to come.”
Siborne refused, but it was a move he came to regret. In 1833, three years after he was commissioned to build the model, the War Office queried his expenses and said that he would have to fund the rest of the building costs himself.
Freshly discovered preparatory drawings show the depth of his research into the exact regimental colours of each unit, a level of dedication that was to push the cost of the model to more than £3,000, about £160,000 today.
Even after the model went on display to public acclaim in 1838, Siborne received only £800 of the £5,000 raised from ticket sales because of an unscrupulous organiser. In an attempt to ease the flow of funds from the Government, Siborne wrote to Wellington to ask what alterations he required.
When Wellington refused to reply, Siborne made a conciliatory gesture by announcing publicly that he was removing 40,000 Prussians from the model. Still he received no money, and he died in poverty in 1849.
Alastair Massie, head of archives at the model’s new home, the National Army Museum, said that he would not restore the missing 40,000 Prussians, but would be prepared to add a notice explaining their disappearance.
Despite some historians’ doubts as to Siborne’s accuracy, Mr Hofschröer said: “Siborne would check every detail even though it took him years.”
Wellington’s Smallest Victory: The Duke, the Model Maker and the Secret of Waterloo, by Peter Hofschröer, will be published in April.
This message has been edited by jamesthegren on Mar 21, 2004 8:07 PM
Your original list was full of small ****ty French victories i.e Bouvines. Yet at the same time you missed massive battles such as Poitiers,Blenheim and Malplaquet! 25,000 men were killed at Malplaquet alone, how can you consider this small scale?"
Alright Malplaquet was missed my mistake. However, You are full of sh!t, you know it well. Bouvine was a massive battle where the french defeated a combined English-flemish-havonerian army. It saved the capetian dynasty. And we fought alone. And cvnt, you weren't outnumbered most of the time, you were in an alliance. So stop being a cry baby and a whiner.
"My list was one showing Major battles fought if you dont like the truth then thats your problem.Maybe next time you'll spare us all the **** about France's "Warrior" spirit, eh?"
Well where is hondeschoote, castricum and almansa with more than 30,000 soldiers on both sides. Yet you have to include silly battles like montreal where a few hundreds starve french soldiers faced thousands of british soldiers.What would you expect from an idiot think Bouvine wasn't an important battle. Also apart from the initial battles of the hundreds years war, can you name me one single land battle where you, losers fought alone.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
>>And cvnt, you weren't outnumbered most of the time, you were in an alliance. So stop being a cry baby and a whiner.<<
In 19 of the battles fought a French force outnumbered an English force,thats a fact.At battles such as Crecy and Agincourt French forces outnumbered the English forces by as much as 5-1.
Well where is hondeschoote, castricum and almansa with more than 30,000 soldiers on both sides. Yet you have to include silly battles like montreal where a few hundreds starve french soldiers faced thousands of british soldiers.
Er no you idiot, Montreal was one of your battles.
Actually i added; Blenheim,Auray,Poitiers,Malplaquet,Vernuil,Guinegate
and The Herrings.
Unlike you i dont need to scrape the barrel for victories.
Everyone of these except maybe the Herrings can be considered Major but i liked the idea of the French dead among the fishes so i included it.
>>What would you expect from an idiot think Bouvine wasn't an important battle. Also apart from the initial battles of the hundreds years war, can you name me one single land battle where you, losers fought alone.<<
Verneuil.
You should like this ;D
An entirely English force of around 10,000 destroys a much larger Franco-Scottish army.
~~A strong force of men-at-arms and archers, acting on their own initiative, charged into the right flank of the Scots, crumpling them into a mass, and then Bedford's own contingent, having followed the fleeing French back to Verneuil, returned to strike them in the rear. What followed was a massacre. The Scots, fighting stubbornly and refusing to flee, were annihilated to the last man, only a handful of their 6,000 strong contingent being captured or allowed to flee.
Total Franco-Scots losses at Verneuil were about 8,000 men, an awesome total when added to those lost at Cravant, and a grievous blow to Scotland. Once again, an English army had triumphed in the field, and from this time on, only a few Scots came across the seas to fight the old enemy in France.~~
"In 19 of the battles fought a French force outnumbered an English force,thats a fact.At battles such as Crecy and Agincourt French forces outnumbered the English forces by as much as 5-1."
Yep cowardly longbows behind field fortification vs knights trapped in the mud.
" no you idiot, Montreal was one of your battles."
ROFL, Montreal was the last battle of american-indian war which was itself part of the Seven year's war. We didn't win montreal .
"
~~A strong force of men-at-arms and archers, acting on their own initiative, charged into the right flank of the Scots, crumpling them into a mass, and then Bedford's own contingent, having followed the fleeing French back to Verneuil, returned to strike them in the rear. What followed was a massacre. The Scots, fighting stubbornly and refusing to flee, were annihilated to the last man, only a handful of their 6,000 strong contingent being captured or allowed to flee.
Total Franco-Scots losses at Verneuil were about 8,000 men, an awesome total when added to those lost at Cravant, and a grievous blow to Scotland. Once again, an English army had triumphed in the field, and from this time on, only a few Scots came across the seas to fight the old enemy in France.~~
i bet that makes you proud to be French,dont it?"
We should be proud of ourselves because at Pattay we destroyed an entire english army for virtually no loss.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
>>ROFL, Montreal was the last battle of american-indian war which was itself part of the Seven year's war. We didn't win montreal .<<
Montreal, one of the battles you listed.
Not Patay again, jeez.
I just thought you might like Verneuil because it was where two great warrior nations met,the English and Scots.Both fought to the last unlike the fleeing French...
It's also in your "revised" list, well go ahead remove montreal if you want, it's an english victory anyway.
"Not Patay again, jeez."
I just thought you might like Verneuil because it was where two great warrior nations met,the English and Scots.Both fought to the last unlike the fleeing French... "
Yea we are a cunning race, we aren't brain dead warriors, well this applies to the english only not to the scots. Fleeing is normal in war dude, you shouldn't have fled at tourcoing since you are so brave(Outnumbering us 90000 to 60000(our 10000 reinforcement never contributed anything to the battle whereas your 16000 did). Actually at Bauge, a fleeing french-scots army turned back and crushed a braindead charge of the english cavalry. Fighting against a superior force, didn't he know that without the cowardly longbow you weren't nothing. As retarded as it can get.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
I'd say the Battle of Quebec between Wolfe and Montcalm was far more important than the fight in Montreal. In many ways the English victory in Quebec sealed the fate of Montreal by cutting it off from resupply and reinforcements.
>>Yea we are a cunning race, we aren't brain dead warriors, well this applies to the english only not to the scots.<<
In those days when a Commander saw routing enemy troops leaving other braver soldiers to carry on the fight he didnt think to himself "wow arent those soldiers cunning" he would have thought "cowards". Im sorry but there is absolutely nothing cunning about the way the French fled the field at Verneuil and left their Scottish allies at the mercy of the English.
By looking at the list we can see that throughout the centuries not only are the English great Sea warriors but have also shown that we(despite what you may think) can also hold more than our own on land.
Your claims that using the Longbow is somehow cowardly is ridiculous.The Bow & Arrow is one of mans oldest weapons(older than the Sword) and especially when using the Longbow it took great skill and strength to fire and hit a target.
Again concerning Agincourt you pick and chose the facts.The French did reach the English lines where fewer than 1000 English Men at Arms and Longbowmen using theirs Knifes and Axes fought off thousands of French Knights.This cannot be dismissed as cowardly.Also just to show how crap your theory is, at the Battle of Auray the French/Bretons advanced against the English arm behind Pavises and reached the English lines relativly unscathed by the Longbowmens arrows yet the French army was still heavily beaten.
For others reading, dont think im being arrogant i am just responding to Eryxs claims that the English couldnt fight on land and i am just as they say, telling it how it is.
"Again concerning Agincourt you pick and chose the facts.The French did reach the English lines where fewer than 1000 English Men at Arms and Longbowmen using theirs Knifes and Axes fought off thousands of French Knights."
I think you have no idea how the longbows fought. Actually the longbows have with them a certain proportion of pikemen. The Pikemen usually protect the flanks and the cavalry can also be used to screen the longbows. Now the front isn't open to frontal assault, actually they are behind a field fortification sometimes as simples as long stakes but iron pikes can also be used. It's not as easy as you think to take longbows without trying to flank them. That's what happened during pattay, we know the longbows are extremely weak melee units but they are capable of charging a scattered and battle damage knight groups.
The introduction of canons (actually 2 inaccurate canons at formigny or patay) actually for the first time gave us the ability to disrupt the longbows formation without charging them. This actually changed the outcome of the war. Bows are basic and primitive weapons but the LongBow was a sophisticated weapon with a very long range and a fast rate of fire. The crossbow actually has a longer range but it's slow rate of fire doesn't make it very practical against a mobile group of longbows shielded by the cavalry. cowardice in war doesn't exsist actually everyone will do what it take to have the edge over the enemy.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Mar 24, 2004 9:31 AM
>>I think you have no idea how the longbows fought. Actually the longbows have with them a certain proportion of pikemen. The Pikemen usually protect the flanks and the cavalry can also be used to screen the longbows. Now the front isn't open to frontal assault, actually they are behind a field fortification sometimes as simples as long stakes but iron pikes can also be used. <<
Actually at Agincourt the woods on either side of the English army protected the Longbowmen's flanks.Henry V's army didnt have the luxury of dispersing its(very few) Spearmen amongst the Longbows.As the odds were greatly against his army,Henry needed everyman without a Bow to fight with his Men at Arms he simply couldnt afford to put them elsewhere.During the battle both the French Knights and Men at Arms reached the English lines.So where the stakes the English used to good effect against the Cavalry they were not so effective stopping infantry.
>>The introduction of canons (actually 2 inaccurate canons at formigny or patay) actually for the first time gave us the ability to disrupt the longbows formation without charging them. This actually changed the outcome of the war. Bows are basic and primitive weapons but the LongBow was a sophisticated weapon with a very long range and a fast rate of fire. The crossbow actually has a longer range but it's slow rate of fire doesn't make it very practical against a mobile group of longbows shielded by the cavalry. cowardice in war doesn't exsist actually everyone will do what it take to have the edge over the enemy.<<
Im sure somewhere in there you were trying to say that the Longbowmen were not the cowards you had originally said they were.No doubt you changed your mind after reading up on the French usage of Gunpowder weapons?
"Im sure somewhere in there you were trying to say that the Longbowmen were not the cowards you had originally said they were.No doubt you changed your mind after reading up on the French usage of Gunpowder weapons?"
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
- Britain (most of the above lists are for England rather than Britain) and France have fought a disturbingly large amount of wars / battles against each other (I'm certain for the Britain at least, historically France is easily most frequent enemy, excluding the England / Scotland ones, that don't count from a combined British point of view).
- Depending on which ones you count as battles (i.e. proportion of allies / number of troops involved) its roughly equal in number of victories.
- Waterloo was only won because of the Prussians (that was the plan, Wellington wouldn't have fought it if the Prussians wern't going to be fighting as well).
- Almost every single British and French person hopes that there never will be another war between us.
lol britain was not a major land power in napoleons days to be fair. But wellington was an excellent commander, and his tactics did very well against french columns that smashed many armies. Britain used its financial muscle to finance other countries in their fight of course.
France used conscription to build a massive army, it was a land power.
Napoleon was interested in conquering europe. had powerfull neighbours this sited his purposes.
Britain had other priorities.
1) Ensure no invasion: Ie ensure the royal navy ended up supreme.
2) Maintain a balance of power in europe. This can be seen in british foreign policy, aiding the opponents of france, supporting the ottoman empire when threatened by russia, siding WITH france in crimea etc.
3) Establish empire, to allow exploitation of the lands for trade in valuable products.
None of these goals required a major land force. They required a major navy . Its not a matter of being "land pussies" or "cowardly sea fighters" as individuals here have childishly called it. It was a matter of priorities.
Overall it paid off. The dutch where forced to treaty after copenhagen, and the french and spanish were destroyed at trafalgar. There then followed 80 or 90 years of british naval supremacy and financial super power status.
Germany of course began to compete, we signed the disastrous ententee cordial which made germany enter a frantic arms race (feeling threatened) and the disastrous ww1 ruined us to a large extent.
So, britains biggest mistake was the ententee cordial and not siding with germany in WW1
Apologies for my english, which is not my natal tongue.
Even if we accept the enumeration propossed by Chong Li (who claims 18 victories for England, 15 for France), it must be noted that Chong Li forgots three french victories over the english in the War of the Austrian Succession: Fontenoy, Lauffeldt, Roucoux (or Raucoux). All of them in Flanders or Netherlands. Of course you may doubt my word; then see the web britishbattles.com.
This put the things on a stalemate: 18 victories for France, 18 victories for England... even from Chong Li point of view.
OK, there was also a british victory on that War: Dettingen... so we have 19 to 18... but then it comes in the battle of hastenbeck, or hartenberck, at the beggining of the Seven Years War, where the french defeated the Duke of Cumberland (son of George II) who afterwards signed a capitulation that was rejected by the british government.
So again an stalemate: 19 for England, 19 for France.
I have not seen the battles of Neerwinden, Steenkerke, Brihuega, Almanza in Chong Li enumeration.
The first two belong to the last War of the XVII century, and in both the french Marshall Luxembourg defeated the English King, William of Orange. (See bio of Luxembourg in the Britannica Ciclopaedia if you doubt).
The last two belong to the War of Spanish Succession, and were also french victories over the english, fought on the iberian peninsula...
Therefore, four more french victories over the english. If I do not err, this means that the 19 - 19 stalemate becomes a 23 - 19, on France's side.
Sigh, keep on looking im sure you'll find many more grand French victories...
"My" list was actually compiled by a Frenchman(Eryx) on this forum, i added some more(obvious) English victories i.e Blenheim.So if you take that Eryxs original list was Pro French then i merely evened things out by being Pro English.Thus the list is even.
I have not seen the battles of Neerwinden, Steenkerke, Brihuega, Almanza in Chong Li enumeration.
The first two belong to the last War of the XVII century, and in both the french Marshall Luxembourg defeated the English King, William of Orange. (See bio of Luxembourg in the Britannica Ciclopaedia if you doubt).
The last two belong to the War of Spanish Succession, and were also french victories over the english, fought on the iberian peninsula...
Therefore, four more french victories over the english. If I do not err, this means that the 19 - 19 stalemate becomes a 23 - 19, on France's side."
Don't worry the final score is 40 -33 in favour of france. It has been already covered, it's now accepted than France is militarily superior to britain (England) when it come to land wars. We didn't do too bad also in naval warfare specially in the 17th century with victories like Bantry and Beachy head.
----------------------------------------------
The dual nature of Robespierre: One day preaching about the virtues of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. Another day, the virtue of terror.
Turenne mastered the art of mobile warfare and surprising the enemy.
You have forgot the naval battles of the War of American Independence... just to be fair, there must be included. I more or less remember that in said war there were a couple of naval battles, won by France over England.
Current Topic - Major land battles between England and France
, consider it a British victory) it was British troops that forced the routing of Napoleans as of yet undefeated elite guards and it was under overall British command. 
