French Accuse English Of War Crimes.

reply to post by ANNED


England is under Scottish rule and has been for some time, just look at the Cabinet and the PM!!

As for your claim about the Monarchy, well...

HM Queen Elizabeth is a DIRECT descendant of King Harold.

Not only that, you'll love this bit, the current Head of the House of Stuart is...drumm roll please.... Franz, Duke of Bavaria, a member of the House of Wittelsbach.

Go swing, Scotsman....

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Marmelade

Nope never heard of it...is that important ?

In the greater scheme of things, no, not really. It was a battle 600 years ago, where both sides had lots of men killed. Nobody really wins in a war then or now.

Actually, english casualties were a mere handful. French casualties were so profound that many noble familes lost all their sons, crippling the aristocracy for decades.

We of course cheated, though .

The french cavalry couldn't get past the stake lines, so they dismounted and marched on foot.

In a straight up battle, the English should have been massacred, but the weather and some dubious tactics by the french led to their defeat.

The French had to march several thousand soldiers in full plate up a hill, were the english line was placed between two woods. This caused the french to compact together and experience something similar to a modern crowd stampeding.

The mashed up the ground and their flat footed plate mail armour stuck in the mud, causing the several thousand French knights to become immobile.

The English Men-at-Arms and archers then casually walked up to each one, easily doged their blows due to wearing less armour and not being stuck, and slit his throat or stabbed him in his gut. Most of the french were not killed by arrows, as is the common belief. The Longbow played it's part, but it wasn't the battle winner it is hyped to be.

reply to post by jakyll


Oh boo, bloody hoo... That's a lame defence.

What about the Somme? The British Armies Greatest ever loss in a single day. Some 65,000 men dead come tea time. Some 150,000 dead by the end of the battle, which lasted some weeks. That doesn't included the wounded, which brings the total up to some 600,000 dead or wounded.

reply to post by stumason

Oh boo, bloody hoo... That's a lame defence.

No it isn't.

By the end of the first year British and German troops were ready to lay down their arms and quit,but the commanding officers on both sides got wind of this and the 'rebellion' was quickly crushed.

The French went through with their 'rebellion.'
Imagine the lives saved if us and the Germans went through with ours.

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght

Originally posted by jakyll
As the French suffered a catastrophic defeat,is this just a case of sour grapes?

Yep. Flavoured by the taste of bile from their ever so legendary braveness during WWII.

What about WWII ?
We fought bravely against the germans, due to tactical mistakes and consevatism among the high ranked officers we lost. The german army was also better trained, more modern, and they surprised us by cutting through Belgium. Then, although the Vichy regime colaborated, thousands of french men and women -some of them in my family- resisted the occupation and saved many Jews.
And please keep in mind that during WWI, France lost 1 million men in one the most horrible war of all time which main frontline was on our territory. It's easy to blame us, but I'm asking, has your country ever known such a terrible war on its territory ? I don't think so. Maybe American people would be less trigger-happy if they had known the horror of war in their homes.
You can still call the French cowards but it's just obvious ignorance of history.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Demos]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Demos]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Demos]

reply to post by jakyll


I think your over generalisng the first Christmas that saw both sides meet in No Mans land. yes, there were minor mutinies and talks of laying down the weapons, but once Christmas was over, both sides quickly got stuck in again.

The Commanders semi-allowed it the first time round (the higher ups were not pleased and ordered an end), but come the second year too much water passed under the bridge for a repeat to happen.

It wasn't as if the entire German and British Armies were on the brink of mutiny at all, nor was it "crushed", as you put it. There were other small scale mutines by a couple of battalions here and there, some were put down with force, others were ignored. the Germans saw very little in the way of mutinies until the very end, in 1918, when they stared defeat in the face.

The French didn't mutiny until 1917, and it wasn't just because of casualties. It was mainly down to poor leadership and poor conditions. Even so, that mutiny was ended once a new Commander was put in place and instituted reforms. The arrival of the Yanks also boosted French morale.

[edit on 29/10/08 by stumason]