Battle of Castillon 1453 - End of English France DOCUMENTARY 

Love your videos

Please upload videos on mughal conquest of India

For starters I want to say that it’s refreshing to hear about French victories in the anglosphere for once, so thanks. And that I really don’t want to insult you or anything, just to help you improve your otherwise good content. I was very disappointed by this series. It contained a great numbers of inaccuracies : r/badhistory on Reddit has an excellent post pointing out at errors you made about Crécy for example, but your other videos are not exempt either, containing fallacies such as the “French provocation” sent to Henry V, an invention of Shakespeare (because you see a country in full blown civil war has other things to do than to randomly insult a foreign king for strictly no reason), or the French having 20 thousand men at Azincourt, which is just complete bullshit (sorry, I know it’s sad but they were no more than 14000 if we’re to believe historians like Anne Curry and Clifford Rogers), or fictitious tropes such as archers keeping their bows drawn. However, what is most important I think is that it’s rather superficial and biased. You didn’t bother explaining the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, the structures of English and French armies throughout the war, letting people think that the French lost when they did, despite outnumbering their enemies on most occasions, because they’re just inferior to the English, which shows heavily in the comments. Many of them were, to put it mildly, reductive jokes, and some were just outright racist insults or insinuations. Granted though there will always be people to make insulting and abusive generalisations out of any example confirming their bias. You also made the classic error of painting all of France as a big blue blob, confirming the false trope about “4 million English against 16 million French”. The truth is that around half of the kingdom was made up of autonomous fiefs which regularly sided with England, such as Flanders, Burgundy, Gascony, Navarre… They were all like Brittany, that you did show as separate from France, just do the same with all the other. Only the royal domain, the King’s personal territories, were really at his disposal, something that you should have highlighted through your map, because it was an enormous advantage that England, a fully centralized kingdom, had over France, which was little more than a loose confederation of independent states. Oh, and btw, by 1430, due to plague, famines and English devastation, the kingdom only had around 8 to ten million inhabitants left. You dedicated a ridiculous ten minutes to the entire Caroline Phase, which saw France completely dominate the war, win several crushing victories, notably the bloodiest battle of the war, Roosebeke, and retake almost everything that had been lost in the previous years. And you didn’t cover a single French victory of the era. You even openly declared the period to be “strange and difficult”, which is both false and astoundingly patronizing. What exactly is strange and difficult? To acknowledge that the English had been losing battles and the war in general long before Joan of Arc? Compare this to the three videos of 20 minutes each that you made about Crécy, Poitiers and Azincourt. That’s a blatantly lopsided and biased account of the war, something that cannot be justified in any way when you claim to be teaching history. I found your series to be rather shallow. You covered only 7 engagements for the entire war, against 18 for the Thirty Years War series, which had 10 videos against just 7 for this one. There are so many more battles that you could have depicted: Sluys, Saint-Omer, Neville’s Cross, Cocherel, Pontvallain, Roosebeke, Baugé, Cravant, Verneuil, Patay… And yet you just focused on the three famous English victories, while adding La Rochelle, Orléans, Formigny and Castillon because you decently couldn’t ignore these. Overall, you didn’t go into much detail and delivered a limited account of an extremely rich and complex period that would have deserved more videos covering more battles. It’s not like you lack time, sources or topics. Just look up for the battles I’ve cited above and tell me they’re uninteresting. Your channel is called “Kings and Generals”, military history is supposed to be what you do. And the thing is that you totally did it. Your videos on Caesar’s civil war or the Thirty Years War were infinitely better and more thorough, your new series on the Italian Wars seem to be much superior in quality as well, and its creators even took the initiative of citing reliable sources, something that I hope is soon going to be the norm for all your videos. So I expected better than that. You could and should have done better. And now that I've finally posted the wall of text I had been preparing on Word for weeks, I can also say that it was a good video, and that of course not everything is bad with this series, far from it. There are just several shortcomings and I'm pointing them out. PS : please, could you do videos on the battle of Bannockburn and the Hussite wars ? So that people could see that english and german knights weren't in any way wiser or cleverer than french ones.

It's simply incredible that England nearly conquered France

How do you get these type of soldiers and how do you make them I want to know how

noice

1453, ohh what a tragic time in Eastern Europe.

@@maestromars8487 476 and 1453, most tragic years in history

What jappened in 1453? Sounds like no significant event happened in that period of time. Edit: Yep, no significant event whatsoever. Edit 2: Gee, sounds like truly nothing happened in that year.

@@hannibalburgers477 Ottomans and Constantinople

So true bud, I see that I'm not the only one who still plays AOE II

@@misaelvillalba8671 That game is perfect for those who have Insomnia I heard.

Love that campaign

The map in AoE II also looks very similar to the one in this video. The Joan of Arc campaign was the first I played in AoE II and made quite an impression on me in 1999. I still very much like it today.

@@rahman9749 At least on the WESTERN perspective. China and elsewhere have a different story and definition of eras.

The battle of Castillon is not an important battle. It was just the continuation and final confirmation of a process uninterrupted for 25 years, the expulsion of the English from France. It was no more than the very final blow to English aspirations in France

@@paratatruc And it never would have happened if idiots weren't on the English throne. England after would end up in civil war which would weaken the Kingdom significantly

@@JJaqn05 I disagree. With a quarter of the french population, on the long run the englishmen couldn't held the french territory as long as it was not ruled by completely incompetent rulers, like Charles VI or Jean the good.

@@paratatruc The population of England did not matter. What mattered was the French people. A lot of them sided with the English.

That is a Blasphemy but okay....

So what? This notion of blashphemy doesn't deserve a capital letter, it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned.@@malek3719

@@phg3646 it deserves punishment of Death

@@phg3646 right

@@NapoleonAquila thank you, napoleon

During the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs the Spanish used crossbows a lot.

Check out battle of Swiecin 1462, during 13 year war (Poles vs Teutonic Knights), where hussite style organised Poles provoked charge of Teutonic cavalry and broke it with hidden crossbowmen

You have to learn history before you write!. The corps of the Welsh archers (and not English) was definitively destroyed by the French cavalry on June 18, 1429 at the battle of Patay ... English: 2,500 dead, wounded and prisoners. ... French :3 dead - 100 injured. So to the bitter and decisive english defeats of Formigny (1450) and Castillon (1453), it had been a long time since professional archers existed in the English army. Sorry for breaking your Christmas tree!

@@JRos-qc6kw calm down Scrooge.

@@yeahman.9262 ???? I'm calm. The problem is that the English only know about history what gives them pleasure and superbly ignore what bothers them ... So from time to time, you have to do a little booster shot ...

Yep, nothing else happened that year

@@KingsandGeneralsDidn't Constantinople fall?

@@williamerwin7094 oh no, joke police has arrived

@@williamerwin7094 r/swoshhh

@@KingsandGenerals Many historians consider *May 29, 1453* to be the date on which the Middle Ages ended. It was on this date that Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, fell to the Ottoman Empire, after being under siege for almost two months. With the fall of the capital, the Byzantine Empire ended as well.

The blood on La Hire's sword is almost dry!

@@barthoekstra6760 La Hire wishes to kill something.

Sweet Joan. I shall avenge thee!!! **finally an AOE reference!

@@UltramanII Aye, silly AI micro skills, best to crush the English longbowmen with French Paladins like at Patay, then use Bureau's cannons on the buildings instead.

You love death and destruction? Horrible.

I love it all too, except the whole english victory part

I'm just glad it's over and French and English can stop boring us with their endless sibling bickering

@@tomcombelles6419 ? Victories*? As of Agincourt or Crécy?

@JUAN Mwan Except when they didn't

yeah thats true, when watching the video I had the feeling that the english army acted just the same as the french did during Crecy/Poitier and Azincourt.

Useless. Threw his life away for nothing

This is really interesting. I have always wondered what the legacy is like of English rule in Gascony. Has it had an effect on culture of the language by any chance considering the English were there for 300 years?

@@TheIraqiforce Don't misinterpreted the english "occupation". It was the occitan people (more latinized than the northern population of the french kingdom), even though the officiel Duke of Aquitaine was the King of England, people were not culturally assimilated ou acculturated. Just that the ruler was a foreigner. Yes, some english noble came to govern (but again, were they completely english like today. Most english nobility came from the norman conquest and have a large portion of their origin in french nobility). I live in the Médoc region, north of Bordeaux and... frankly the only legacy of the english ruling time is the developping of wine trade. When the french take full control of Gascony and Aquitaine (or Guyenne, names were unstable) the people did not change, culture neither, just the governors and who decided the law. The french kingdom was a mosaic of culture, close but different in languages and customs. Between the bretons and the burgundians and aquitanians, languages were not the same, culture neither. Another legacy of this "occupation" is that the region is full of castles at the borders of the duchy of guyenne because it was a contested border. To conclude, you cannot say "the english were there for 300 years". Because it is simply wrong. First, the french dynasty from Anjou (Plantagenêt) did inherith the English Throne and then with Alienor d'Aquitaine, they obtain the big Duchy of Aquitaine. So, it was more the opposite. The french were in England and not the english in Gascony. And in times of feudality, especially in western Europe, people did not change culture like that. As you can see, those occupation ou inheritance were not invasion who could lead to a change of culture like the germanic migrations at the end of the Western Roman Empire (Franks, Goths, etc...) I would say that all of this has more influence on english culture than on Gascony

@@florianlecarrour5992 This is really fascinating. Thank you for taking the time to write this I appreciate it! I thought there would be more cultural influence since there was English settlers in guscony from what I read. I hope to visit Bordeaux one day and the Gascony region. I used to live in Wales and that country has a high density of castles per area than any country in the world because it was also a contested area much like the guscony. It seems like the English rulers have a habit of building castles in foreign lands giving them the illusion of having a firm foothold in the area.

@@TheIraqiforce The county of Périgord (nowadays Dordogne département) is one of these border areas between pro-Plantagenet and pro-Valois territoires full of old castles. Very beautiful, worth visiting. It's there that Michael Crichton set his time travel novel "Timeline" (set during 100 years war). There are also a LOT of major paleolithic sites there (Lascaux).

@@TheIraqiforce Honestly, you won't notice much impact on culture in any foreign controlled territory before the era of nationalism (which arguably started with the 100 years war, but definitely blossomed during the napoleonic era) The only exception might be religion, catholics controlling sunni territory definitely changed culture there (the reconquista)

@@scarymonster5541 The average European yes. But the monarchs and the statesmen were concerned. The Pope was also scared. He prefered a weak Orthodox Byrantine state that can be controlled and ultimately put under the Church of Rome, but Muslims? That was bad news. Let alone those loan-lending Lombard snails, who were terrified at the thought that the Ottomans will never repay any debt, ever.

@@scarymonster5541 Meh, it was merely a setback. That crusade prank that went wrong was the real downfall.

@@Hilltycoon lol ultra based

The fall of Constantinople was only symbolic, nothing more. The Byzantine "Empire" was at this point only limited to the city and the Ottomans already controlled the Balkans and were well established in Europe.

Do you still long for your English overlords to return?

@@zyzzsdisciples6707 not really, love the english pubs in bordeaux though

It lead the French hegemony of the 1st half of the XVIe

@Абдульзефир nope after the HYW, French was on the way to become the ultimate super power. However, the French wars of religion litterally anhilated the country from within and led to Spain and Habsburg domination in Europe

@Абдульзефир and they would eventually get their revenge after the 30 years war with all the XVII being the « grand siècle » in wich France achieve total hegemony over Europe (Holland war, nine years war, Spanish succession war ...)

@Абдульзефир also the Empire had build Cannons witch could esaly hold theyre own against the French. Ferdinand der Kannonenkaiser. I think that was the Name of the Emperor. He ordered the construction of the Best Cannons of the late medival era

Well in a way going further into the future yes, but also not exactly. For example, despite the common misconception, Spanish conquistadors did not initially defeat native south and central American peoples mainly because of firearms (although they did play a role) but by relying on steel armor and weapons mostly, along with certain cavalry charges.

Jean Bureau had the artillery command and siegecraft skills, his army was obviously had the Stalwart Defenders army tradition and was spamming the fortify stance. Smart move, playing to one's strengths.

perhaps a precursor of Vauban for middle age (in siege art)

He was probably underrated at this time (15th century) because the Bureau brother were of bourgeois (non-noble) extraction. Despite his success, Jean Bureau would received far less royal public propaganda than, for instance, Dunois, Richemont, Clermont or Gaston of Foix, all of these commanders hailing from high aristocratic background. Joan of Arc is, obviously, a glaring exception because of her extremely radical differences from the others : A non-noble, A peasant (small landowners), A woman, A teenager... She was such an outlier that she became a legend.

French baby England annexed France after the 100 year war the only reason that you exist is because England released you to help them in wwi

Woah that’s cool

Haha was also watching the series for my family history & ancestors.

This comment is the best thing Austrian school produced ever.

@@KingsandGenerals I'm surprised how many people get the reference

The battle of Patay is usually considered the French Agincourt (more than Castillon).

@amygordon2716 your comment is 0% historically accurate, how did you manage to do that

@Amy Gordon It was until the generation of Edward III and the Black Prince. Henry IV and Henry V were English.

@Amy Gordon Yes, the Black Prince was French. But Henry Bolingbroke was not the Duke of Aquitaine (at least not until much later), he was the Duke of Lancaster and his mother tongue was English (for the first time for a King of England since William the Conqueror, well, Guillaume le Conquérant actually lol), so was his son's, Henry V's. What you say is true for the Normans, the Angevins and the first generations of the 100 Years' War. But after Henry Bolingbroke, the English kings were really English, and for the first time in Henry V's reign, it wasn't a French noble using England as a tax and manpower pool going at another French noble, but the England vs France.

@Amy Gordon Btw a French Prince, Louis the Lion (later Louis VIII of France) did actually try to claim England's throne but miserably failed lol. Or for example, the Anarchy was exactly two French nobles fighting for the English crown. England was more centralised than France and often easier to exert authority. So when a king was firmly in control, he was firmly in control. If the Plantagenets had let the Capetians breathe a little bit, I assure you some of them would've tried to conquer England. They were just too busy defending themselves :)

Lolol

After 116 years of war, the Englishmen mixed with the locals of occupied northern france, therefore the real Chad is the English, despite being defeated

@@ShireTommy_1916_Somme-Mametz and at that point are they even virgin anymore?

@@Diesalot-sc9qz if it's not arrows, high in the sky, it's the legs of French women

@@sranvujnovic5409 Winner's weapons

More 100 years' wars battles on the way

Imagine if the English and French people had won and the French King was defeated, allowing the French people to experience freedom, prosperity, empire and enlightenment with the English, instead of the blood bath of post-1453 France.

@@snuscaboose1942 Sure, peaceful and enlightened England was such a cool place to live in. I discussed it with an Irishman and a catholic, they both agreed. How cool it must have been to live through the War of the Roses, or the civil war of the XVIth century.

Why wouldn’t they celebrate it though. Henry V had no right to win that battle, and he got further than any other individual king in the Hundred Years’ War. Yes I know England lost eventually but it took France over a hundred years to win and we brought the fighting to them, even though their country and population was much larger. It’s like saying why do France celebrate Austerlitz because the end result of the Napoleonic wars is a french defeat

@@fredbarker9201 In the end Henry V did nothing more than iginiting a fruitless war that England lost and which took at least dozens of thousands of lives. Even if its King had somehow won, what good would it have done to England ? this war was nothing more than ambitious nobles trying to expand their lands in France with english resources and blood (as well as resources and blood from Gascony, Flanders, etc, England was far from alone).

@@fredbarker9201 *flashback of Louis VIII's invasion of England* (Yes, I know, it wasn't during the 100 Y. War)

After 116 years you finally made it. Congratulations!

@@monkeyman321 and after how many years of french lord domination over england ? ^^

@@7macfly2 ça ne sert à rien de dire ça, c’est du révisionnisme historique : le concept de français ou même d’anglais du XXI eme siècle n’est pas du tout adapté pour décrit une noblesse de l’époque

@@alexandrebenoin40 révisionnisme est un terme largement exagéré. Même si effectivement les concepts de français et d'anglais sont très flou à l'époque, ces racines existes déjà. Après, j'exagère un peu pour troller nos amis anglais :)

@@7macfly2 non c’est vrai qu’avec la dose de French bashing tu peux, mais bon j’aime la précision 😂

Hmm Really???

Press X to doubt.

same here, its amazing really that a country with a massive population advantage could only win through using gunpowder weapons

I think of Battle of Castillon and 1453 first but because I'm french probably lol

As opposed to that "minor setback" in the Byzantine Empire

*God

Planned

@@KingsandGenerals Omg Thank you so much.

Make Istanbul Constantinople Again

@@thesnoopmeistersnoops5167 😶At the time it didn't work quite like that !😃 Many of the English spoke French and the king of England was a Plantagenet so of French family. Gascony was a Plantagenet domaine.🙂

I bet he would've served his people better by heriting his father's office. A sad affair, that.

@@jarkkovahamaa7272 Reminds me of Sam Tarly's brother choosing to get roasted alongside his father in Game Of Thrones (tv version). Noble? Yes. Heroic? Yes. Useful to anyone? No.

It was not even "colonies" in France. It was fiefs in France ruled by French nobles and dynasties. The "English" never ruled anything there. It just happened that these French lords were also kings of England.

Quel plaisir ce serait !

French and Indian war and their wars in India they where by themselves.

@@ninjaa6952 Not really. They were only minor theatres of major wars where most of the fighting was in Europe...

some damn anime shit

Early example of a good propaganda so to increase the troops morale.

Especially when you consider she was probably either suffering from schizophrenia or suffered from BPD ? Worked out well for France!?

@@FromaTwistedMind One question still remains unsolved to me (maybe I'm thick): how did she figure out who the French king really was during their first meeting, despite having never seen him before?

@@FromaTwistedMind BPD is borderline personality disorder. She was most likely Bipolar I. Like Kanye West.

My thoughts exactly

Yeah, that weirded the hell out of me.

@@victornunes900 It sounds more epic. Like "this time we're not laughing, something serious is happening".

*Well yes, but actually no*

The 100 years war is a series of successive campaigns, not a continuous war.

@@TheAtmosfear7 Yeah, in reality it was more like several wars imho. Even if we narrow it down, for me there was at least 2 main distinct phases.

@@xenotypos Which 2 periods are you thinking of ?

@Абдульзефир why not? (Между нами, ты говоришь по русски?)

Its true on many. Since England lost all on the continent and possibilities of coming back seems impossible definitly turned it toward the ocean. France finally became unified and a central state where the king had hard won his right to rule. Both nations could turned toward the rest of the world and led toward colonialism which was made necessary because the roads to india where cut because of ottoman Rise.

Well, the English meaning for "respecting an oath" has always been to break it. They are perfidious. No wonder why we have been hating them for the last millenia.

Sounds like Crécy or agincourt

@@leowilly29 It is even more idiotic. Azincourt was mainly due to wet ground, of which consequences are less predictable than assaulting a clearly fortified position. But every nation has known brilliances and failures.