@zomg222 : Question of numbers. Under Napoleon, France had a so numerous population that she could face all Europe coalised during twenty years. In WWI, Germany was two times more peopled, and the french victory was obtained by sacrifying a little more soldiers than Germany ( Wilhelm II : " Our principal enemy is Great-Britain, and his principal weapon is the french army " ) In 1940 the german population, still double of the french meaned that nazis could put the best soldiers in their army, when France put the all-comers... during what , as usual, englishes let the others, especially the french, face the shock by helping them with a little expeditionnary corps, who quickly fled away to reembark when the panzers advanced, letting the last french divisions sacrify themselves to slow the nazi advance and to help the englishes escape, the tail between the legs ...
@zomg222 Write a book , and make it publish ... but it is you, who lies. By a several floors building of lies and partial more or less twisted half truths, which makes an oriented global lie . I understand now your goals, and what kind of people you are .There are really too much of them in our country; but our own people is awakening now ...( " You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. " Abraham Lincoln )
@@felix25ize no, prussians crushed francr and so did hitler. Many other German invasions defeated france with absolute effect. Germany won more victories over france.
Controlled by the French-Belgian? With a majority of Flemish in the government? I do not see how democracy, which you consider to be a bad thing, is meant to serve the French-speakers ? The members of the elite were mostly French-speaking, including Flemishs. Most of the people in the south of the country have also seen their regional language oppressed by French-speaking elites. (see the nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Fran%C3%A7aise) who has infiltrated education in Belgium to suppress regional languages. Apologies for what they did to "your" people ? Why ? Nothing happened in Brussels, you seem to hear that the "bad" French-speakers have "replaced" the Flemish by force, which is not true. Most Belgian French-speakers do not see themselves as sort of "ambassadors of France in Belgium" and the majority of them hate France they see as being arrogant.
@Peter Mussen Your people? Give me a break, you didn't even knew them, you didn't fight for nothing, you kept your culture and you live in a era of "peace", stop this bullshit.
So, kids, what have we learned today? -Never attend a medieval wedding in the middle of a war. Never. -Big Blue Blob started in 1214. -Your fantastic battleplan can be ruined by one noob that goes too far ahead. -John has no idea of what he's doing. -*LONG LIVE THE HOHENSTAUFEN* -No matter how many layers of civil war you're in, if you want to invade France, wveryone will agree. Even french dukes.
What people don't realize the English elites were actually French. This defeat isolated them from France forcing them to adopt the English language. Had they won here, they'd probably move their seat of power to Paris or Orleans (the Angevins ancestral territory) , even maybe Bordeaux (since John was also the Duke of Aquitanian, whom he inherited from his Aquitanian mother).
@@Dayvit78 Actually, Richard was just the norm not the exception. Before that event english kings were all french nobles (though there was no national identity in the middle-age, I'm just talking about culture and origins) that took possession of the crown of England. The Angevin kings held their court in Angers, not in England, they mostly didn't speak English, they didn't live there, didn't come from there, didn't do their education there. It's just that despite being "technically" a vassal of the French king while being in France (but not when he was in England, since he was king over there), the vassal noble became as strong as the french king (through personal union of the territories under that noble). Thus awkward situation, thus war.
I think you forgot some details here: - At Bouvines Phillip positionned his troops between a swamp and a forest to counter Otto's superior numbers - He also positionned some troops at a bridge behind his main line to prevent his troops from retreating - The flemmish were the last allied to retreat, forming a formidable schiltron which resisted for several hours - Phillip fell from his horse and was nearly killed by the allied forces, he was saved at the last second by his bodyguards - The battle also had its hero: Matthew II of Montmorency, who captured twelve enemy banners - John was stuck besieging a french stronghold in the west which his troops were incapable of taking. He reatreated after loosing an important part of his vanguard against the vanguard of Crown Prince Louis' army - Crown Prince Louis apparently inherited his father's military talents. In the following years he defeated John several times, earning the nickname "The Lion" and even briefly invaded southern England where he held the title of King of England for a short time But all in all, excellent video as always.
"- The battle also had its hero: Matthew II of Montmorency, who captured twelve enemy banners " "Team Deathmatch? I thought this was CTF!" "*BONK*" "Ow!"
@@ramzankadyrov3381 Robin Hood and Ivanhoe were propaganda from the start to make a national heroes for England. When in reality all its leaders were still basically french themselves.
the last one standing of the allied leaders was Renaud of Dammartin who wasn't flemish, he was count of Boulogne. And people in his shiltron were the Brabant mercenaries, not the Flemish.
You only hint at it in the narration, but a big part of Bouvines was the French army initially feinting a retreat, and Otto's army following them in the preceding days. Philip chose Bouvines because the terrain (forest on one side, swamp on the other) protected his flanks and negated Otto's numerical superiority. Also it was a Sunday (and fighting on a Sunday was forbidden by the Church), Otto didn't care since he was already excommunicated, but it was bad for morale of his troops.
_Otto didn't care since he was already excommunicated, but it was bad for morale of his troops_ The Franks (French?) were mostly catholics, so wouldn´t this impact their morale aswell?
Yeah, the interdict was about ATTACKING, obviously, you still had the right to defend yourself. I'm not sure how much of a real impact if had, but I'd venture that any sign that the battle was turning in Philip's favor would have been interpreted as God being displeased...
These problems and how the french manage the fact that they will fight on Sunday are good explain in the book "The Legend of Bouvines" by the french historian Duby
The narrator is a voice actor paid by the creator of Baz Battles after complaint about him being hard to understand. Watch some of the earlier videos before the voice actor was introduced.
The Battle of Bouvines is indeed regarded today as a great victory in the History of France and a defining moment that built the French national identity But It must be also noted that the French defeated the English in the south at the Battle of Roche-au-Moine, 25 days before Bouvines
skiteufr I mean, it's strange why this is regarded as a great victory. There was no superior tactics, just a snowball effect that crippled the English. It was the defeat of the English, not the victory of the French.
INSERT USERNAME it was the victory of the French in a close and hard fought battle. It is remembered because if the anglo-german-flemish coalition had won, it would have been the end of France. The country would have been split or reduced as a dependency of the victorious powers. On the contrary it became the most kingdom of Europe for the 13th century. It is also the starting point of the centralisation of power, which caracterises France, still today
It was a tactic used at the time to capture the commander. When the knights approached, the first line of infantry would open the ranks to let them in and close the gap immediately so than the second and third lines would unhorse the knights and capture them. The first line would do its best to contain the enemy infantry in the meantime so that they can't assist their knights. But the English commander was stupid at first to not think the French would use this tactic On the opposite the French were lucky to be served by very able commanders. Mathieu II de Montmorency was exceptional at this battle on the right flank
@@MrHoeBow To blame the defeat to unexpected event or unfit commander is a constant of English history. English were defeated because they fought worse than French, and their escape caused the defeat of their allies.
@Youssef Houaoui ??? les croisades ont été créer pour repousser l'invasion des musulmans du monde chrétien et afin de libérer les peuples occidentaux réduits à l'esclavage. Ce qu'on a réussi a faire en Espagne. Dommage que la république française nous aient ruiné en colonisant les peuples berbères, il fallait quand même les éduquer et leur apprendre le français. Hitler n'était pas musulman mais il voyait l'islam comme une religion qui est proche de ce qu'il voulait faire et le fanatisme islamique lui rappelait le fanatisme nazi.
@@simonbernard4216 That's not how dynasty always works. Philippe Auguste is fortunate that it worked that way for his descendants but usually it works the other way around. For example none of the subsequent English Kings/Queens are direct descendants of Richard the first of England aka Lionheart even if they're from the same house of Plantagenet. If King Philippe Auguste's direct male line died off then the crown would go to his nearest male cousin which means every subsequent French king is not direct descendants of Philippe Auguste even tho they would still be under the same royal house of Capet or any other cadet branch that is still effectively the same thing as the house of Capet and share the same ancestor Hugh Capet (who started the Capetian dynasty).
@@simonbernard4216 Even for the fortunate Philippe Auguste his most senior line of descendants died off (most well known king of this line would be Philippe the 4th who killed the Templars), that's why it went to the cadet branch lines like Valois or Bourbon which are not direct descendants of King Philippe the 4th, but direct descendants of Philippe Aguste. Dynasties are not smooth continuum like some people believe. Valois died off but Bourbon still survives. If all the Bourbons died off then the French kings would've been from other cadet branches from the house of Capet that go further back than Philippe Auguste himself which would mean that every subsequent French king after that transition are not direct descendants of Philippe Auguste but still from the Capetian dynasty.
bigriend Americans weren't even in the war nor fighting in the battle of France. They helped liberate France, but they weren't there for the German invasion
This is some of the best work I've seen in expository media. I would say these videos are like a David Chandler book come to life. Great job, BazBattles!
Plz Do a video on the follwing: Battle of Vienna(1529,1683),Siege of Constantinople(1453),Battle of Stalingrad(1942),Battle of Bosworth Field(1485),Battle of White Mounrain(1620),Battle of Lutzen(1632)and Brietenfeld(163 1),Battle of Rocroi(1643),Battle of Malpaquet(1709),Battle of Manzikert(1071),Battle of Ayn Jalut(1260),Battle of Hattin(1187),Battle of Carrhae(218BC) and Zama(201BC)
To be fair, everyone thinks they're arch enemies with France, but truth is France is archnemesis with everyone. The number of coalitions against France throughout history is astounding.
P K You have been a third rate country comparing to France until 1871. Charlemagne created the Holy Roman Empire, which by the way was neither holy nor roman nor an empire, this is why I destroyed it.
"I'm happy we aren't arch enemies anymore." Shut up traitor Hey napoleon, the empire was holy because the pope crowned the kaiser, it was roman because they held rome and it was an empire because it was a vast territory ruled by a kaiser
Voltair's quote was idiotic. The Empire remained a powerhouse and a coherent state structure until Napoleon created trouble in the European framework. The empire was Latin Europe's preeminent empire outright until at least around the end of the 100 years war, and would continuously play on equal ground with France, England and Spain throughout it's existence. The reason people have so much trouble in framing it's history, is because it doesn't fit into the normal national narrative which can make it very difficult to tell. However, the Holy Roman Empire certainly deserves a place among the great empires of history, and is Germany's finest legacy. PS: and Charlamagne is just as much a part of the German inheritance as the French
So happy you did this one, this is likely the most important european battle that most people have not heard of. This is the start of a clear divide between England and France, with England towards a weak monarchy and powerful nobility, which turns into the modern democratic parliament with ceremonial monarchy, and France's turn towards absolutism. I love the little things you throw in as well, such as Philippe changing from king of the Franks to King of France; from Rex Francium to Roi de France. Philippe II is among the most important rulers in the history of Europe. Also, whether Louis could defeat Jon in the west is questionable. Louis had a fearsome military reputation and was know as "the Lion". Jon was a largely incompetent military leader. What is clear is that Jon was in a horrible position after the battle, and had to flee to keep his crown. Otto was not so lucky, and was disposed shortly after the battle.
Aaron Paul Actually when the first barons war broke out, King John managed to besiege and capture Rochester castle which was the best fort the rebel barons had and a good castle by any standard, so John showed he could put up a fight when he wanted, he wasn't incompetent militarily he was just seriously unlucky. Also, i think the most important European battle that nobody has heard of is Blenheim.
Oh, Henry. You had no claim to France, just as a heads up. Your claim was even weaker than Edward III, who also had no real claim. Just a heads up on that. Jon managed a few victories in the barons war, but overall was defeated. I think he lost every war he fought. At some point, thats not bad luck, thats just incompetence. Blenheim was an important one for many reasons. I would say thats a fair one to include on the list, along with battles like Nancy, Rocroi, and Pavia. But Bouvines is number one IMHO. I outlined the reasons above,
Aaron Paul Any King that has the will and strength to pull off the miracle of Agincourt definitely deserves to be king. I think all the kings of England knew their claims on the French throne were weak, they just pursuit it as a matter of glory seeking on the battlefield and looting the French country. Ironically it was a Frenchman at the time of Edward III that came to English court as a political exile and told Edward III the easy pickings there is in France and it would be easy to usurp the king that finally convinced Edward III to have a go at it and to make it even more insulting, he stole the French coat of arms. If you read English history books, they all make it very clear that Edward III really didn't have any interest in the French throne...at Rheims he simply called off the battle that would have saw the Plantagenets put on the throne of France in a single generation and all he wanted was to be the supreme lord of all French lands he'd conquered since Sluys. Although technically, his mother was Isabelle of France and in English law it's perfectly acceptable to accept the crown through female or male. (Although I hate Isabella of France because she was an enemy of the nation) But you're right about Henry V claim the throne via blood was noting, however Kings that conquered can be crowned too...the English know about that all too much. And if Henry V hadn't of died prematurely of dysentery, I reckon he would have easily conquered the rest of France. He was an extreme tough man, he took a deflected longbow arrow through the face in Wales and survived. As for Bouvines, I don't think it's anymore important that the first barons war....England managed to defy King John I, Pope Innocent III and Prince Louis to get the Magna Carta and English independence independence...and the Magna Carta is considered to be "ground zero" for modern Western European democracy.
Oh dear Henry, I am familiar with Robert d'Artois, though he fled to seek help in regaining control of Artois which he felt was taken by the duchess of Burgundy. How much he thought of victory is questionable, especially since he held Charles and Philippe of Valois in such high regard prior to being exiled. Edward used the claim to try and rebuild the Angevin lands lost to France during the first hundred years war, he never really thought his claim was a strong one. And it wasnt. If we argue that the Capetian rights come from the election of Hugh Capet, and that its the recognition by the Peers of France that make a king legitimate, then Edward III had no claim since not a single Peer recognized his claim. He also accepted Philippe VI and only made his claim something like a decade into his reign. If we argue that woman can inherit, then Louis X had a daughter that should inherit the throne, her claim is far stronger than Edwards. Since we accepted at the time that women could not, it passed to Louis X's brothers. When they died without heirs, that is when the Valois were crowned. Isabella argued that the line could pass through her to a male child. But if that is the case, why not pass to the grandson of Louis X: Charles II of Navarre? Since his claim is to Louis X rather than Philippe IV, he has a stronger claim right there. If we accept all of Edward's arguments, he STILL doesnt have a strong claim to the crown. I understand your argument, that its might that makes right. Edward's and by extension Henry V's was by conquest more than blood. But that is very dangerous. When you throw out legitimacy, and you normalize regicide and deposing kings, you get the War of the Roses. A monarchy works because of the respect for the right of the sovereign to govern, and that this right comes from something beyond having the most soldiers. Rome fell in part because they could never get into this idea of a monarch's authority being sacrosanct. The english managed to defy Jon because the disaster at Bouvines. There is a reason that the barons war broke out after Bouvines and not during the reigns of Henry II or Richard. Had Jon been successful in defending his french territory, the war would not have broken out. Bouvines is vital because it is the origin of absolutism in France and democracy in England.
Aaron Paul Aaron Paul Well, I suppose if you want to make the argument about Bouvines being responsible for the the first Barons war and then the Magna Carta, then I guess it's also correct to say that Britain bankrupted France during the Seven Years war and the American revolution..thus giving you the first republic and because we beat Napoleon...give you the second republic too. You can keep on reducing the cause and effect back and back and back until you get to a first cause and by the time you get there, it's negligible. I think Bouvines was defiantly a contributing factor but the nobles of England were disgruntled long before this battle ever took place and were wanting reparations for 'crimes and injustices' going right back to Henry II especially regarding church rights and the royal forrest. We do not have access to an alternative universe to see how things might have turned out but there's nothing to say something else wouldn't have happened in England that led to the same outcome. And let's not forget it's not just King John that the barons had to beat off, they had to go up again Pope Innocent III and then remove Prince Louis and his soldiers from England too...so it took will power and determination to gain their rights and I think that's more of an important factor than the disaster of Bouvines that might or might not have happened in a different way some other time anyway. By the same logic should I be thanking the Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV for losing his campaign too? So I respectfully disagree with you, I think the significance of the first barons war and the Magna Carta deserve to be held up in their own right, just like the revolution in France does. England got shuck to the core after Hastings and the the Magna Carta spookily reflects the Anglo-Saxon Witangenot. As for the succession of French monarchs, I can't talk about the matter, I'm not schooled enough on the history of the French monarchs, so I have no right to talk about who should and shouldn't be king of your country, the British monarchy between Henry I and Henry VII is my specialist area. The 100 years war for England is more about 'little England' giving the big boys on Europe a good beating, Sluys, Crecy, Agincourt have been launched into folklore here, you can switch on the TV and usually find a channel somewhere that's talking about how the Yeoman of England went up against chivalrous elite of France and beat them all, you can come to England and see lordly manors and churches that were face-lifted with French coin looted on the Chevauchees scattered all over the country. As an interesting story, when Isabella and Edward II had their first born, Isabella wanted to call the boy "Louis" after French kings but the English nobility were outraged and demanded the boy be called Edward, a traditional name for English kings. Isabella of France was a nightmare in England and she was surely France's spanner in the works, when she annexed power with her lover Mortimer, she signed the Edinburg-Northampton treaty with Scotland that took a massive shit on the wars the had become De facto English tradition since Edward I...it was known as the national shame and it was obviously Isabella supporting France's allies against the English. It all became too much, Edward III and his men kicked down her bedroom door and too her away to be under arrest for the remaining years of her life and the he executed Mortimer and give England a war that could redeem national pride...and so the rest his history, he gifted up Sluys and Crecy and we've been mischievously bragging about it ever since. The wars of the roses also wasn't a succession war, it was a war over the best direction to take in France. Henry VI's corner wanted to pursuit peace but Richard Duke of York wanted to follow in the legacy of Henry's father and push a more aggressive campaign...initially it wasn't about a breakdown of succession, it was a war over foreign policy. The Lancastrians wanted peace and the Yorkists wanted war.
"He ordered repair of damaged Imperial Eagle and sent it back to Emperor Otto" Actually, he sent it to the young Frederick of Hohenstaufen, another pretender to the imperial throne ; Frederick II would later be known as "Stupor Mundi", and a man who took back Jerusalem diplomatically. So the victory of Bouvines didn't have consequences for England only ; It also changed the balance of dynastic power in the Empire, at least until Frederick's death.
I picture medieval total war 2 battles as your explaining the battles. Thankyou for making these. It’s like the history channel for historic and fantasy battles
I'm a Prussian who can trace his descent to Charlemagne*, and I'm proud of both my French and German heritage! *I'm descended through one of his concubines, so I can't claim the throne. :(
If it would create any more pain and suffering in that part of Europe, I'll pass. Germany's doing better than ever since WW2, and I'd rather see Germany make friends with its neighbors than be a dick again. Plus, neo-Nazis have usurped Prussian symbols and figures in their warped historiography and propaganda. As long as that continues, Prussia will always be associated with Naziism and atrocity. I'd much rather have Prussia's legacy acknowleged in a more balanced way, with both good and bad aspects taken into account, than see Prussia brought back.
Everyone native in Western Europe is related to Charlemagne, he had like 17 children and there are around 48-50 generations between him and us, basically every western european who lived at during this time and whose lineage made it to this day is our collective ancestor.
don't try to give the project to french cinema, they would ruin it in a matter of second... historical french movie severly lack of punch... it would be intersting only from a study point of view, not an entertainement one...
John Wotek sadly, you're right... Yet we have pretty good actors that can speak English quite well even through their accent. I think Guillaume Canet could make for a very convincing Phillippe Auguste (we spell it with an "e" in French). I would love to see that, they could also pick Tom Tykwer for directing, he's made some pretty good period movies before.
Time and time again, it is amazing to see France even recover in such a bad state. From a declining state to being a major power; From defeating all their rivals plenty of times during the Napoleonic times; The two world wars; 30 years war; French revolution's; and such more! :o Still, it begs the question whether England would dominate Europe if it was not for the rivalry between them and France. ANd and the same time, if the French navy ever slipped into England. ;P
Mystic Stirling Well you know at that time the nobility of england were actually french ...since you know William the conqueror was french and invaded the whole england . But to answer , no France wouldn't have been able to invade england because it would need a better navy than england and since france is a continental power it as to many ennemies at doorstep to invest this much in navy . On the other and england always need a coalition of half of europe to do something in France so... I think neither really had a chance to begin with .
@@sausagejockyGaming More complicated, than this... UK was saved by the Channel... a 20 miles anti-tank ditch.. A influent faction of French governement ,pesimist about victory whiht as their Champion Marshal Petain , declared armistice... In 1940 ,a retreat in colonies was atemptable a complete ceasefire was decided , giving Italian and Germans an upper hand in mediteranean sea ... The main enemies of french army where their general , more interested in politics like Gamelin , or sympatizers of totalitarist regimes like Marshal Pétain... a personal friend of Franco. Cucked yes the false hero of WW I - In March 1918, in front of Clemenceau, Pétain announced that the situation was dramatic, that the Germans had won the war and would beat France.- organized the colaboration whith an army of oportunist rats...
The Britishs had a great davantage once they were United : they were a peacefull island. It helped them to master their naval capabilities whereas France had to fight against other nations like Spain or the German states. The Glorious revolution as well as the New ideas of the anglican religion made the English ruler of the World during the XIXth century. France had some weaknesses : religions Wars, neighbours, a different idea of the World dominance which was less efficient the one of the British.
I was about to subscribe, but then you've been omitting so many historical characters & important events happening in France, that explained lots of preparations & military planning & prowess, that i changed my mind.
Actually there did was an engagement between Louis' forces and John's, at La Roche-aux Moines, which was a castle John's army had besieged. The castle was held by the Senechal of Anjou, which had just been appointed by Phillippe, and thus did not surrender. Louis arrived on the rear of John's army, forcing them to flee and abandon all his siege's equipment, preventing him from causing any further threat. Beside this point, big hail to this synthetic and very interesting video !
"T'AS PAS DES COUILLES!" Holy shit, i've never laughed so hard while watching these videos... I love those little captions xD btw, that is french for "YOU HAVE NO BALLS"
Man gotta love all these battles, they are simply absolutely educational and far more interesting than simply reading about them alone. Please Do Keep up the good work!
I don't think this is correct. The historical studies of the reign of Emperor Frederick Ii suggest that he sent the gold eagle to the young Emperor who had invaded Germany in 1212 and was watching the outcome of the battle safely from the Rhineland. I don't believe Otto IV ever abdicated but died after Frederick had invaded Saxony.
well done guys! but i hoped you'd mention something about Cathar crusade ongoing down the South at the same time. also, am sorry but your 1201 map isn't correct, County of Toulouse, Foix, Carcassonne were vassals of Kingdom of Aragon at that time
@@gengis737 exterminated? There were less than a a thousand casualties on the english side at patay. Look at Sluys, with 20,000 frenchmen being killed. All of those victories of france were minor in terms of casualties
@@lollius88 Out of 5,000 men, Falstaff and Talbot lost 2,500 killed, wounded and prisoners, the remaining footmen being hunted down by French peasantry and militias - even English version of Wikipedia concurs. Never again will a sizeable English archer force operate during Hundred Years war, and anyway French cavalry had learnt to defeat English infantry by swift flanking assault - which did not suit the British tale of invincible longbowmen, not the French republican tale of decline of noble cavalry (which actually occurred at the hand of 16th c. shooters and pikers - a conversion lately achieved in Britain). Belittling defeats as minor or accidental is a constant in British military history, due to an heavy Victorian influence, trying to declare British infantry as "invincible" after victory in Napoleonic wars, even if the decisive battles were fought by the Prussian, Russian and Austrian armies; the exception, Waterloo, being a day saved by the Prussian arrival.
@@gengis737 Ok a few thousand total casualties, but my point stands. The most celebrated french victory doesnt even compare to the number of losses at sluys, crecy and agincourt. Also the Prussians didn't "save" the British army at waterloo. It was part of wellington's strategy. He agreed with blucher to reinforce him and hit napoleon in the flank, otherwise he wouldnt have even made his stand at waterloo. Learn history
@@lollius88 Half the army wiped off, the other one disintegrated, no bowmen in view for 24 years. But your point stand. English history (no uppercase). Victories are compared by their effect, not the number of losses. There were much less casualties at Zama than at Cannae. Patay and Castillon expelled England from France. Sluys is mostly ignored because most of the killed were nearly defenceless seamen. It did not stop the French raids on English coast. Crecy and Agincourt, major victories but inconclusive in their results, were celebrated from late 16th c. on, to lick the wounds of the Two Roses war triggered by the defeat in HYW, then the access to English throne of one Tudors in exile in France, supported by the French Scottish force that the French female regent, Anne de Beaujeu, provided. True, Waterloo victory was the result of an agreement between Wellington and Blücher (Wellington had no authority on Blücher), but when you need another army to avoid defeat, the other army saves yours. Or if you want another wording, decisive victories over Napoleon were achieved by UK allies in 1812 to 1814 campaigns, and even against the much smaller army of 1815, victory was out of reach of British army but for the Prussians.
this is so well done.i know some of this history but i am drunk out of my mind watching squares fight each other while listening to a voice making love to every cell in my body, and still feel like i am learning stuff. you and yout team are why i have faith in humanity
After reading some little fights in the comments, i'll just say this, im french, and my germans brother, dont insult us, because we are you, we both come from germanic tribes, and even if history have seen numerous battles between us, we are still today the strongest allies. (as for lots of country) europe union might be a bit shitty right now but still together we are unstoppable.
Actually, since Cradle of Civilization, France destroy every single time Aragon and Burgundy, and then take core french territory. IA in EU IV is quite strange, aren't them ?
1) This and the battle of the Yarmouk are extremely underrated battles imho 2) Philip II and the Hundred Years War should be considered as important as the reconquista, in politically uniting the French and establishing a true modern, burgeoning nation-state.
At 10:24 you mention the capture of Renaud of Bolonia. I think you actually meant Boulogne a town just south of Calais in northen France not Italy? Still great vid! keep them up
I dont think it will be hard to do those kind of battles...plus it will be a shame not to do Napoleon campaigns. BazzBattles is the right choice for it
In all the history of rivalry between France and England, England couldn't fight alone against France and always needed to make an alliance with the HRE to win. They won some battles but most of the time they were defeated.
@Dod o Population size wasn't that much of a factor until mass conscription was invented in the 19th century. And you'll notice that even after having reached a high population, Britain still needed strong allies to compete against the era's hegemon (Crimean War, WW1, WW2...)
@Dod o The HYW is a terrible exemple because popoulation was roughly even on both sides. Sure England had a small population, but they were always allied with large and powerful French duchies (Brittany, Flanders, Bungundy...) that balanced things out. What is currently France was indeed much more populated than England, but the area controlled by the French king wasnt that much more populated than the area controlled or allied with the English king.
@Dod o You're blinded by nationalistic bias. The French vassals of the French king who sided with the English one are the absolute sole reason why England was initially successful. As soon as Burgundy switched sides, England got BTFO.
@@LeHappiste 'Population size wasn't that much of a factor until mass conscription was invented in the 19th century' It did make a big difference, in the 1320s the French could raise 27,000 knights and raise armies of up to 50,000. The English literally couldn't get more than 5000 knights at the same time and never raised more than 10-25,000 men in the whole middle ages with few exceptions.
Yes new video, Yaaay! BazBattles and Historia Civilis are the best channels for historical battles on youtube, although this channel has better animations. I think both could learn alot from eachother.
I played Attila many times,but not the Mod U are talking about.But at that time I was playing M2TW-and I said it it much more to theme,since I did not know of that mode.+waaaaay too little time these days for any game tbh-work work(as a WoW peon would say) :). Always happy to talk to History buffs like me. Best Regards.
If You like History,I found several more channels that as also verry good (just as this one is): KingsandGenerals and Invicta. Try them out,may be You even know them.
1213 year in video. GOT reference to the beggining of Greyjoy rebellion, when king Balon's brothers Euron and Victarion led surprise attack on Lannisport, destroying Lannister's fleet.
that is pure british revisionism of history. what about simon? was he, the son of a frenchman who grew up in france anti-french too? face it england at this time was owned by frenchmen. there was no "english patriotism" only feudal jealousy and self-interest from the nobles, who seized a chance from john's weakness to improve their lot. LATER they would INVITE Louis VIII to invade england and offered him the crown if he took john out. great english patriotism. wouldn't you say?
boss180888 boss180888 Obviously you are too historically illiterate to understand their period properly. "Simon De Montfort is one of the greatest Englishman" -Napoleon Bonaparte: So if L'empeurer can understand it, then it shouldn't be too hard for you. Simon De Montfort turned his back on France and made a new life for himself in England, this was a time of great suspicion and fear of foreigners in England, so Simon had to completely integrate himself into the fabric of the English community via marriage and property, Simon even sponsored the christening of Henry III's first sons who's namesake was St Edward the confessor. So he basically converted to an Englishman and he's seen as a hero figure here in England because he's one of the founding fathers of British parliament. "The English are the only people in the world in which they have a system where they can allow the king to be all powerful when he does good but tie his hands when he does bad" - Voltaire (Voltaire was a great Anglophile by the way, he adored English society and wrote England a love letter that made English culture very popular in France) Also Richard FitzNeal in the Dialogs of the Exchequer 1171 said "After the English and Normans have been living side by side for so long and intermarrying, it's become scarcely possible to tell who is of English or Norman decent anymore", which is basically saying the English and Normans have been shagging and drinking together for so long they are the same people. And that's a considerable 40 years before the battle of Bouvines took place, so no, you can dream on you little foreign loser but England was not owned by Frenchmen. In the articles of the barons the ENGLISH barons demanded that "alien births be removed from positions of office in England", which proves in 1215 place of birth was important to English. Some years before this, when King John was just a Prince and Richard I was on the throne, one of his supporters called Hugh Bishop of Coventry (an important position and very respectable) wrote a letter of complaint to Richard I about the Lord Treasurer William Longchamps not being able to speak a word of their language and should be removed. William Longchamps made jokes about "going to make English" every time he went to the toilet (how could William joke about his turds being English if England was ruled by the French? Learn English history you fucking outsider) and felt so unsafe that he brought Flemish bodyguards into England and it upset the English so much they forced him to go on the run, when William got to Dover and tried to hire a boat to scuttle off back to Normandy, he was caught and thrown into prison, later the English barons made jokes of their own but this time they joked about him being caught because he couldn't speak English to order a boat. So even the English language was important long before the first barons war happened. And now, let's mop up some myths about the Magna Carta. The English barons were faced up against the sovereign king and the ferocious Pope Innocent III (perhaps the most famous medieval pope), so the English were desperate for support. Prince Louis was invited to take the crown because they wanted the Magna Carta (in theory a Chinaman can be on the throne of England and it wouldn't matter because the barons pushed policies and upheld rights that benefited England, in exchange for tax grants) but soon as Louis came to England he started bringing over his French favourites for court and it upset the English beyond recovery, even when the rebels lost skirmishes, Prince Louis would only pay the ransom for his French soldiers and leave the English to their fate, so it was never going to work. Soon as little Henry got crowned...the rebels defected to the royalist camp and kicked Prince Louis and his French soldiers back across the channel. So it was a great patriotic movement that restored honour to the English. Also, the first few versions of the Magna Carta were deigned to protect the rights of the barons because they wanted to keep hold of the freedoms and democracy they had just created from failure. What you historically illiterate foreigners don't know is that in the 1225 version of the Magna Carta, it was revised and changed to apply "to all the people of our realm", no matter what your social rank, it was wrote in English, French and Latin (all three languages of England) for the first time and was displayed all over the country in towns and villages for peasants and landholders alike to see....that's glorious and is a fantastic tribute to English society, no other medieval country was as socially advanced and forwards thinking as England was, France wasn't even close.
Infact, invading France through Belgium was a german tradition for centuries....
+ Jilog: And Germany beeing immediately or finally vanquished also .
Yeah thats true but when france invades Germany they use the southern way.
@zomg222 : Question of numbers. Under Napoleon, France had a so numerous population that she could face all Europe coalised during twenty years. In WWI, Germany was two times more peopled, and the french victory was obtained by sacrifying a little more soldiers than Germany ( Wilhelm II : " Our principal enemy is Great-Britain, and his principal weapon is the french army " ) In 1940 the german population, still double of the french meaned that nazis could put the best soldiers in their army, when France put the all-comers... during what , as usual, englishes let the others, especially the french, face the shock by helping them with a little expeditionnary corps, who quickly fled away to reembark when the panzers advanced, letting the last french divisions sacrify themselves to slow the nazi advance and to help the englishes escape, the tail between the legs ...
@zomg222 Write a book , and make it publish ... but it is you, who lies. By a several floors building of lies and partial more or less twisted half truths, which makes an oriented global lie . I understand now your goals, and what kind of people you are .There are really too much of them in our country; but our own people is awakening now ...( " You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all of the time. " Abraham Lincoln )
@@felix25ize no, prussians crushed francr and so did hitler. Many other German invasions defeated france with absolute effect. Germany won more victories over france.
I swear Flanders has spent its entire existence rebelling against whoever controls it to some extent.
Flanders at this time consisted of part of the current Flanders and Wallonia.
Controlled by the French-Belgian? With a majority of Flemish in the government? I do not see how democracy, which you consider to be a bad thing, is meant to serve the French-speakers ? The members of the elite were mostly French-speaking, including Flemishs. Most of the people in the south of the country have also seen their regional language oppressed by French-speaking elites. (see the nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Fran%C3%A7aise) who has infiltrated education in Belgium to suppress regional languages. Apologies for what they did to "your" people ? Why ? Nothing happened in Brussels, you seem to hear that the "bad" French-speakers have "replaced" the Flemish by force, which is not true. Most Belgian French-speakers do not see themselves as sort of "ambassadors of France in Belgium" and the majority of them hate France they see as being arrogant.
@Peter Mussen Your people? Give me a break, you didn't even knew them, you didn't fight for nothing, you kept your culture and you live in a era of "peace", stop this bullshit.
@Peter Mussen I bet you're not even from Flanders, like the majority of the so-called Flemish-nationalists.
it's funny to think that the Franks who create the futur Kingdoms of France was at the beginning in Flandre
Fun fact : Richard Lion Heart lived 3/4 of the time on "french" soil and was called Richard Coeur de Lion
And he only spoke French
He was a Frenchman. Like his parents and grandparents.
Yes, but he was born into England. Then he landed to France and never came back : weather is too bad he would have said...🧣🌧🧳🌤🏖😎
@@nunoalmeida2646 funny how the English hierarchy was french until the 16th century and only spoke french... It's ironic really
@@LanceTep Was it not after John that English became the predominant language and was where the monarchy resided? So not exactly the 1500's
The big blue blob begins its ascension.
As you are a men of culture
Provocateur Fitting user name
Sad he didn't click the "Dismantle HRE" button while he had the chance.
Yeah, would've made blobbing a lot easier without that disgusting AE.
Just like in EU4 blue blob has op generals.
So, kids, what have we learned today?
-Never attend a medieval wedding in the middle of a war. Never.
-Big Blue Blob started in 1214.
-Your fantastic battleplan can be ruined by one noob that goes too far ahead.
-John has no idea of what he's doing.
-*LONG LIVE THE HOHENSTAUFEN*
-No matter how many layers of civil war you're in, if you want to invade France, wveryone will agree. Even french dukes.
you won the comment section mate! :D
The last one kill me XD
Natan Silva We will never invade the french fries x) they're too strong
Well you can always try, the simple smell of our cheese will push you right back ! XD
Zacharie Guillerey XD so true x) still the goddamn french cheese is very good (reblochon, le bleu, ...) and good for health too
What people don't realize the English elites were actually French. This defeat isolated them from France forcing them to adopt the English language. Had they won here, they'd probably move their seat of power to Paris or Orleans (the Angevins ancestral territory) , even maybe Bordeaux (since John was also the Duke of Aquitanian, whom he inherited from his Aquitanian mother).
Yes, I've heard Richard the Lionheart didn't even speak English, and so his brother would be Jean, not John.
@@Dayvit78 Actually, Richard was just the norm not the exception. Before that event english kings were all french nobles (though there was no national identity in the middle-age, I'm just talking about culture and origins) that took possession of the crown of England. The Angevin kings held their court in Angers, not in England, they mostly didn't speak English, they didn't live there, didn't come from there, didn't do their education there. It's just that despite being "technically" a vassal of the French king while being in France (but not when he was in England, since he was king over there), the vassal noble became as strong as the french king (through personal union of the territories under that noble). Thus awkward situation, thus war.
@David Gwin Also the moto of the united kingdom, as written on their coat of arms still today: "Dieu et mon droit" (God is my right in old french).
Dayvit78 Norman actually not French
Agree mostly, though what I read was it was the Hundred Years' War, that truly split apart English nobility and French nobility.
Fast fact-
A french captured 12 enemy flag,he's orriginal sigil was an eagle,king phillipe granted him the honor to have 12 eagles on his banner
A french knight
Mathieu II of Montmorency
Battle of La Brossinière
This slice of paradise This sacred throne of Kings 12 enemy flag
12 nobles on his own
MAD Fiction04 Capturing 12 enemy flags is not hard if they've been hit by a crossbow bolt and his standard bearer has chucked his flag and legged it.
I think you forgot some details here:
- At Bouvines Phillip positionned his troops between a swamp and a forest to counter Otto's superior numbers
- He also positionned some troops at a bridge behind his main line to prevent his troops from retreating
- The flemmish were the last allied to retreat, forming a formidable schiltron which resisted for several hours
- Phillip fell from his horse and was nearly killed by the allied forces, he was saved at the last second by his bodyguards
- The battle also had its hero: Matthew II of Montmorency, who captured twelve enemy banners
- John was stuck besieging a french stronghold in the west which his troops were incapable of taking. He reatreated after loosing an important part of his vanguard against the vanguard of Crown Prince Louis' army
- Crown Prince Louis apparently inherited his father's military talents. In the following years he defeated John several times, earning the nickname "The Lion" and even briefly invaded southern England where he held the title of King of England for a short time
But all in all, excellent video as always.
the flemmish had been the first to be defeated
its Renaud of Damartin who formed a shiltron in order to make a last resistance
Glorious days for france.
"- The battle also had its hero: Matthew II of Montmorency, who captured twelve enemy banners "
"Team Deathmatch? I thought this was CTF!" "*BONK*" "Ow!"
@@ramzankadyrov3381 Robin Hood and Ivanhoe were propaganda from the start to make a national heroes for England. When in reality all its leaders were still basically french themselves.
the last one standing of the allied leaders was Renaud of Dammartin who wasn't flemish, he was count of Boulogne. And people in his shiltron were the Brabant mercenaries, not the Flemish.
You only hint at it in the narration, but a big part of Bouvines was the French army initially feinting a retreat, and Otto's army following them in the preceding days. Philip chose Bouvines because the terrain (forest on one side, swamp on the other) protected his flanks and negated Otto's numerical superiority. Also it was a Sunday (and fighting on a Sunday was forbidden by the Church), Otto didn't care since he was already excommunicated, but it was bad for morale of his troops.
_Otto didn't care since he was already excommunicated, but it was bad for morale of his troops_
The Franks (French?) were mostly catholics, so wouldn´t this impact their morale aswell?
they were the one being attacked so i don't think it had any impact on their morale
Yeah, the interdict was about ATTACKING, obviously, you still had the right to defend yourself. I'm not sure how much of a real impact if had, but I'd venture that any sign that the battle was turning in Philip's favor would have been interpreted as God being displeased...
Ah, right. Seems obvious now that I think of it. Forget I even asked :]
These problems and how the french manage the fact that they will fight on Sunday are good explain in the book "The Legend of Bouvines" by the french historian Duby
" t'as pas de couilles " Philippe, roi de France à ses ennemis 1214 (c'est un génie celui qui a fait ca)
"Oui mais c'est pas toi qui décide"
Philippe Auguste à un seigneurs mécontents 😂
Avec la grosse tête chauve de Fanta XDDD
Couillon il aurait du dire.
Encore une fois les anglais demandent aux germanophones d’attaquer les français par l’est, comme avec napoléon
He's stole all the money from the Knights Templar. Destroying a noble organization instead of repaying the money he owed. He was a terrible king
@@gcanada3005 it was not Philippe II Auguste who did this
Your voice was meant for narration
He's a voice actor
not his voice, he hires a narrator.
The narrator is a voice actor paid by the creator of Baz Battles after complaint about him being hard to understand. Watch some of the earlier videos before the voice actor was introduced.
My voice is silky smooth too. Check out the first five vids :) Pure disaster.
BazBattles i always thought your accent added to the content. I could understand you with no problem at all. And i am not a native english speaker
The Battle of Bouvines is indeed regarded today as a great victory in the History of France and a defining moment that built the French national identity
But It must be also noted that the French defeated the English in the south at the Battle of Roche-au-Moine, 25 days before Bouvines
skiteufr I mean, it's strange why this is regarded as a great victory. There was no superior tactics, just a snowball effect that crippled the English. It was the defeat of the English, not the victory of the French.
INSERT USERNAME it was the victory of the French in a close and hard fought battle.
It is remembered because if the anglo-german-flemish coalition had won, it would have been the end of France. The country would have been split or reduced as a dependency of the victorious powers. On the contrary it became the most kingdom of Europe for the 13th century.
It is also the starting point of the centralisation of power, which caracterises France, still today
It was a great victory, because of the incompetence of their enemies. How the hell do you manage to charge in too far and get captured?
It was a tactic used at the time to capture the commander. When the knights approached, the first line of infantry would open the ranks to let them in and close the gap immediately so than the second and third lines would unhorse the knights and capture them. The first line would do its best to contain the enemy infantry in the meantime so that they can't assist their knights.
But the English commander was stupid at first to not think the French would use this tactic
On the opposite the French were lucky to be served by very able commanders. Mathieu II de Montmorency was exceptional at this battle on the right flank
@@MrHoeBow To blame the defeat to unexpected event or unfit commander is a constant of English history. English were defeated because they fought worse than French, and their escape caused the defeat of their allies.
Fact: King Philippe is the Grand Father of the Saint-Louis one of the most amazing French kings !
@Youssef Houaoui Vu ton nom, ton commentaire ne m'étonne pas.
@Youssef Houaoui ??? les croisades ont été créer pour repousser l'invasion des musulmans du monde chrétien et afin de libérer les peuples occidentaux réduits à l'esclavage. Ce qu'on a réussi a faire en Espagne. Dommage que la république française nous aient ruiné en colonisant les peuples berbères, il fallait quand même les éduquer et leur apprendre le français. Hitler n'était pas musulman mais il voyait l'islam comme une religion qui est proche de ce qu'il voulait faire et le fanatisme islamique lui rappelait le fanatisme nazi.
He's also the ancestor of all the following kings, that's how a dynasty works duh
@@simonbernard4216 That's not how dynasty always works. Philippe Auguste is fortunate that it worked that way for his descendants but usually it works the other way around. For example none of the subsequent English Kings/Queens are direct descendants of Richard the first of England aka Lionheart even if they're from the same house of Plantagenet. If King Philippe Auguste's direct male line died off then the crown would go to his nearest male cousin which means every subsequent French king is not direct descendants of Philippe Auguste even tho they would still be under the same royal house of Capet or any other cadet branch that is still effectively the same thing as the house of Capet and share the same ancestor Hugh Capet (who started the Capetian dynasty).
@@simonbernard4216 Even for the fortunate Philippe Auguste his most senior line of descendants died off (most well known king of this line would be Philippe the 4th who killed the Templars), that's why it went to the cadet branch lines like Valois or Bourbon which are not direct descendants of King Philippe the 4th, but direct descendants of Philippe Aguste. Dynasties are not smooth continuum like some people believe. Valois died off but Bourbon still survives. If all the Bourbons died off then the French kings would've been from other cadet branches from the house of Capet that go further back than Philippe Auguste himself which would mean that every subsequent French king after that transition are not direct descendants of Philippe Auguste but still from the Capetian dynasty.
Germany: Haha, you surrendered in WW2
France: At least we won a 2-front war on the first try.
yeah compare medival times with modern times :D
This taunt about French surrender in WW2 is more a american/english thing actually.
True, I've noticed Germans don't often boast of their past military achievements*;
bigriend Americans weren't even in the war nor fighting in the battle of France. They helped liberate France, but they weren't there for the German invasion
Well, duh. Thx Captain Obvious but I already know basic history x)
Philip sounds like one hell of a guy.
Xavier H he is the Father of France yes he is.
Xavier H sounds like he's quite a man. *wink*
He's French, what else do you expect? ;)
090giver090 he was married twice
Did the crusade and by his death he had the most powerful kingdol of Europe
Indeed he is french
the french style
Discovered this channel last week - as a fan of all things medieval, i'm absolutely loving your work. Keep it up!
Welp, time to play Crusader Kings II
Lusitani Mendes mtw2 is better
Your Enemy also a totally different game but sure
That's really comparing apples to oranges. Total War is really about battles while CK2 focuses on medieval politics.
I was playing ck2 when i saw the video.
I wished there was a game with ck2 stile but also mtw2 battles
This is some of the best work I've seen in expository media. I would say these videos are like a David Chandler book come to life. Great job, BazBattles!
Plz Do a video on the follwing:
Battle of Vienna(1529,1683),Siege of Constantinople(1453),Battle of Stalingrad(1942),Battle of Bosworth Field(1485),Battle of White Mounrain(1620),Battle of Lutzen(1632)and Brietenfeld(163
1),Battle of Rocroi(1643),Battle of Malpaquet(1709),Battle of Manzikert(1071),Battle of Ayn Jalut(1260),Battle of Hattin(1187),Battle of Carrhae(218BC) and Zama(201BC)
The Resurrection yes!
The Resurrection i think historia civilis already covers carrhae and zama
I agree with all these and would add Battle of Walaja (633) and Battle of Yarmouk (636)
Mayonnaise but not in this channel right
Mayonnaise can you suggest some
I cannot watch enough of your videos
Ahh, back when Frenchmen running away and surrendering wasn't a meme. Love from Germany, I'm happy we aren't arch enemies anymore.
To be fair, everyone thinks they're arch enemies with France, but truth is France is archnemesis with everyone. The number of coalitions against France throughout history is astounding.
P K You have been a third rate country comparing to France until 1871. Charlemagne created the Holy Roman Empire, which by the way was neither holy nor roman nor an empire, this is why I destroyed it.
That quote is from Voltaire and it doesn't necessarily apply during the middle ages.
"I'm happy we aren't arch enemies anymore."
Shut up traitor
Hey napoleon, the empire was holy because the pope crowned the kaiser, it was roman because they held rome and it was an empire because it was a vast territory ruled by a kaiser
Voltair's quote was idiotic. The Empire remained a powerhouse and a coherent state structure until Napoleon created trouble in the European framework. The empire was Latin Europe's preeminent empire outright until at least around the end of the 100 years war, and would continuously play on equal ground with France, England and Spain throughout it's existence.
The reason people have so much trouble in framing it's history, is because it doesn't fit into the normal national narrative which can make it very difficult to tell. However, the Holy Roman Empire certainly deserves a place among the great empires of history, and is Germany's finest legacy.
PS: and Charlamagne is just as much a part of the German inheritance as the French
So happy you did this one, this is likely the most important european battle that most people have not heard of.
This is the start of a clear divide between England and France, with England towards a weak monarchy and powerful nobility, which turns into the modern democratic parliament with ceremonial monarchy, and France's turn towards absolutism.
I love the little things you throw in as well, such as Philippe changing from king of the Franks to King of France; from Rex Francium to Roi de France. Philippe II is among the most important rulers in the history of Europe.
Also, whether Louis could defeat Jon in the west is questionable. Louis had a fearsome military reputation and was know as "the Lion". Jon was a largely incompetent military leader. What is clear is that Jon was in a horrible position after the battle, and had to flee to keep his crown. Otto was not so lucky, and was disposed shortly after the battle.
Aaron Paul Actually when the first barons war broke out, King John managed to besiege and capture Rochester castle which was the best fort the rebel barons had and a good castle by any standard, so John showed he could put up a fight when he wanted, he wasn't incompetent militarily he was just seriously unlucky.
Also, i think the most important European battle that nobody has heard of is Blenheim.
Oh, Henry. You had no claim to France, just as a heads up. Your claim was even weaker than Edward III, who also had no real claim. Just a heads up on that.
Jon managed a few victories in the barons war, but overall was defeated. I think he lost every war he fought. At some point, thats not bad luck, thats just incompetence.
Blenheim was an important one for many reasons. I would say thats a fair one to include on the list, along with battles like Nancy, Rocroi, and Pavia. But Bouvines is number one IMHO. I outlined the reasons above,
Aaron Paul Any King that has the will and strength to pull off the miracle of Agincourt definitely deserves to be king. I think all the kings of England knew their claims on the French throne were weak, they just pursuit it as a matter of glory seeking on the battlefield and looting the French country. Ironically it was a Frenchman at the time of Edward III that came to English court as a political exile and told Edward III the easy pickings there is in France and it would be easy to usurp the king that finally convinced Edward III to have a go at it and to make it even more insulting, he stole the French coat of arms. If you read English history books, they all make it very clear that Edward III really didn't have any interest in the French throne...at Rheims he simply called off the battle that would have saw the Plantagenets put on the throne of France in a single generation and all he wanted was to be the supreme lord of all French lands he'd conquered since Sluys. Although technically, his mother was Isabelle of France and in English law it's perfectly acceptable to accept the crown through female or male. (Although I hate Isabella of France because she was an enemy of the nation)
But you're right about Henry V claim the throne via blood was noting, however Kings that conquered can be crowned too...the English know about that all too much. And if Henry V hadn't of died prematurely of dysentery, I reckon he would have easily conquered the rest of France. He was an extreme tough man, he took a deflected longbow arrow through the face in Wales and survived.
As for Bouvines, I don't think it's anymore important that the first barons war....England managed to defy King John I, Pope Innocent III and Prince Louis to get the Magna Carta and English independence independence...and the Magna Carta is considered to be "ground zero" for modern Western European democracy.
Oh dear Henry,
I am familiar with Robert d'Artois, though he fled to seek help in regaining control of Artois which he felt was taken by the duchess of Burgundy. How much he thought of victory is questionable, especially since he held Charles and Philippe of Valois in such high regard prior to being exiled. Edward used the claim to try and rebuild the Angevin lands lost to France during the first hundred years war, he never really thought his claim was a strong one. And it wasnt.
If we argue that the Capetian rights come from the election of Hugh Capet, and that its the recognition by the Peers of France that make a king legitimate, then Edward III had no claim since not a single Peer recognized his claim. He also accepted Philippe VI and only made his claim something like a decade into his reign.
If we argue that woman can inherit, then Louis X had a daughter that should inherit the throne, her claim is far stronger than Edwards. Since we accepted at the time that women could not, it passed to Louis X's brothers. When they died without heirs, that is when the Valois were crowned. Isabella argued that the line could pass through her to a male child. But if that is the case, why not pass to the grandson of Louis X: Charles II of Navarre? Since his claim is to Louis X rather than Philippe IV, he has a stronger claim right there. If we accept all of Edward's arguments, he STILL doesnt have a strong claim to the crown.
I understand your argument, that its might that makes right. Edward's and by extension Henry V's was by conquest more than blood. But that is very dangerous. When you throw out legitimacy, and you normalize regicide and deposing kings, you get the War of the Roses. A monarchy works because of the respect for the right of the sovereign to govern, and that this right comes from something beyond having the most soldiers. Rome fell in part because they could never get into this idea of a monarch's authority being sacrosanct.
The english managed to defy Jon because the disaster at Bouvines. There is a reason that the barons war broke out after Bouvines and not during the reigns of Henry II or Richard. Had Jon been successful in defending his french territory, the war would not have broken out. Bouvines is vital because it is the origin of absolutism in France and democracy in England.
Aaron Paul Aaron Paul Well, I suppose if you want to make the argument about Bouvines being responsible for the the first Barons war and then the Magna Carta, then I guess it's also correct to say that Britain bankrupted France during the Seven Years war and the American revolution..thus giving you the first republic and because we beat Napoleon...give you the second republic too. You can keep on reducing the cause and effect back and back and back until you get to a first cause and by the time you get there, it's negligible. I think Bouvines was defiantly a contributing factor but the nobles of England were disgruntled long before this battle ever took place and were wanting reparations for 'crimes and injustices' going right back to Henry II especially regarding church rights and the royal forrest.
We do not have access to an alternative universe to see how things might have turned out but there's nothing to say something else wouldn't have happened in England that led to the same outcome. And let's not forget it's not just King John that the barons had to beat off, they had to go up again Pope Innocent III and then remove Prince Louis and his soldiers from England too...so it took will power and determination to gain their rights and I think that's more of an important factor than the disaster of Bouvines that might or might not have happened in a different way some other time anyway. By the same logic should I be thanking the Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV for losing his campaign too?
So I respectfully disagree with you, I think the significance of the first barons war and the Magna Carta deserve to be held up in their own right, just like the revolution in France does. England got shuck to the core after Hastings and the the Magna Carta spookily reflects the Anglo-Saxon Witangenot.
As for the succession of French monarchs, I can't talk about the matter, I'm not schooled enough on the history of the French monarchs, so I have no right to talk about who should and shouldn't be king of your country, the British monarchy between Henry I and Henry VII is my specialist area. The 100 years war for England is more about 'little England' giving the big boys on Europe a good beating, Sluys, Crecy, Agincourt have been launched into folklore here, you can switch on the TV and usually find a channel somewhere that's talking about how the Yeoman of England went up against chivalrous elite of France and beat them all, you can come to England and see lordly manors and churches that were face-lifted with French coin looted on the Chevauchees scattered all over the country. As an interesting story, when Isabella and Edward II had their first born, Isabella wanted to call the boy "Louis" after French kings but the English nobility were outraged and demanded the boy be called Edward, a traditional name for English kings. Isabella of France was a nightmare in England and she was surely France's spanner in the works, when she annexed power with her lover Mortimer, she signed the Edinburg-Northampton treaty with Scotland that took a massive shit on the wars the had become De facto English tradition since Edward I...it was known as the national shame and it was obviously Isabella supporting France's allies against the English. It all became too much, Edward III and his men kicked down her bedroom door and too her away to be under arrest for the remaining years of her life and the he executed Mortimer and give England a war that could redeem national pride...and so the rest his history, he gifted up Sluys and Crecy and we've been mischievously bragging about it ever since.
The wars of the roses also wasn't a succession war, it was a war over the best direction to take in France. Henry VI's corner wanted to pursuit peace but Richard Duke of York wanted to follow in the legacy of Henry's father and push a more aggressive campaign...initially it wasn't about a breakdown of succession, it was a war over foreign policy. The Lancastrians wanted peace and the Yorkists wanted war.
"He ordered repair of damaged Imperial Eagle and sent it back to Emperor Otto"
Actually, he sent it to the young Frederick of Hohenstaufen, another pretender to the imperial throne ; Frederick II would later be known as "Stupor Mundi", and a man who took back Jerusalem diplomatically. So the victory of Bouvines didn't have consequences for England only ; It also changed the balance of dynastic power in the Empire, at least until Frederick's death.
I picture medieval total war 2 battles as your explaining the battles. Thankyou for making these. It’s like the history channel for historic and fantasy battles
Can you do a battle with Napoleon in the near future?
I suppose he will, and I hope he will
Austerlitz
Guillaume Sauvé Austerlitz at least yes, he could also do one of his battles of his first campaign in Italy.
Yeah, being frank, Napoleon deserves his mini-series from this channel, like they did with Alexander.
this guy does a good one and mentions napoleans' invasion of moscow compared with hitlers
soundcloud.com/wonkywombat696969/ghosts-of-the-ostfront-i
Man, you and the narrator make an excellent team. Keep at it!!
Damn watching Baz Battle makes me want to play Ck2. Maybe Baz Battle could make a Ck2 gameplay that would be interesting.
And also fill the 20 day gap you not posting any video.
Its your voice and animations/detail that really makes em worth watching :)! good job! keep it up!
I'm a Prussian who can trace his descent to Charlemagne*, and I'm proud of both my French and German heritage!
*I'm descended through one of his concubines, so I can't claim the throne. :(
Restore Greater Prussia!
If it would create any more pain and suffering in that part of Europe, I'll pass. Germany's doing better than ever since WW2, and I'd rather see Germany make friends with its neighbors than be a dick again.
Plus, neo-Nazis have usurped Prussian symbols and figures in their warped historiography and propaganda. As long as that continues, Prussia will always be associated with Naziism and atrocity. I'd much rather have Prussia's legacy acknowleged in a more balanced way, with both good and bad aspects taken into account, than see Prussia brought back.
I hate to break it to you,but the majority of Europeans are also descendants of Charlemagne.
Even Spaniards? Hard to believe.
Everyone native in Western Europe is related to Charlemagne, he had like 17 children and there are around 48-50 generations between him and us, basically every western european who lived at during this time and whose lineage made it to this day is our collective ancestor.
I hope you still enjoy making these episodes as much as I enjoy watching them. Thumbs up.
I've never been so early, and I am blessed to be early on a BazBattles video
Good job lol.
LordPinochetUTTP Tío Pinocho que hace aquí? :v
Enfin une video sur une victoire française sur cette chaîne !
8 english and german nobles disliked this video
Rather: 8 english and german peasants disliked this video
this is the first time ive ever seen a vietnamese guy make an (at least subconciously) pro-french comment on youtube
@Enaz Tdimhcs, You still have to wait for such a moment. My nick is 'vietnamese', but I am not
lol
94 english and german nobles
I always get a burst of joy every time I see a new upload!
Battle of Cows
PS can you do battle of vaslui? (15th century)
Maurizio Pavel i suport this
Same
When you know what was really this battle you really want see this
I got shared your stuff through a friend this morning, and I have since binge-watched everything you have.
MOAR PLEASE!
I got more if you have trouble waiting ;p or you can watch historia civilis if you havn't already.
Everything under BazBattles I have seen but I'll take a peek.
They need to make a movie of King Philip... but not by Hollywood. They would cast British actors for King Philip... lol
don't try to give the project to french cinema, they would ruin it in a matter of second... historical french movie severly lack of punch... it would be intersting only from a study point of view, not an entertainement one...
It would be amazing to make such a film with Henry II and his sons, Philip and so on.
John Wotek sadly, you're right... Yet we have pretty good actors that can speak English quite well even through their accent. I think Guillaume Canet could make for a very convincing Phillippe Auguste (we spell it with an "e" in French). I would love to see that, they could also pick Tom Tykwer for directing, he's made some pretty good period movies before.
"The lion in winter" and you're right Philp Augustus is played by Timothy Dalton XD
Nah, they'd probably hire Matt Damon or, *shudder* TomCruise or Mel Gibson :(
More more, I love this channel and revisit to re-watch. Great job everyone that contributes and produces
Time and time again, it is amazing to see France even recover in such a bad state. From a declining state to being a major power; From defeating all their rivals plenty of times during the Napoleonic times; The two world wars; 30 years war; French revolution's; and such more! :o
Still, it begs the question whether England would dominate Europe if it was not for the rivalry between them and France. ANd and the same time, if the French navy ever slipped into England. ;P
Mystic Stirling
Well you know at that time the nobility of england were actually french ...since you know William the conqueror was french and invaded the whole england .
But to answer , no France wouldn't have been able to invade england because it would need a better navy than england and since france is a continental power it as to many ennemies at doorstep to invest this much in navy .
On the other and england always need a coalition of half of europe to do something in France so...
I think neither really had a chance to begin with .
the 2 world wars? france got cucked in second world war.
@@sausagejockyGaming More complicated, than this... UK was saved by the Channel... a 20 miles anti-tank ditch..
A influent faction of French governement ,pesimist about victory whiht as their Champion Marshal Petain , declared armistice...
In 1940 ,a retreat in colonies was atemptable a complete ceasefire was decided , giving Italian and Germans an upper hand in mediteranean sea ...
The main enemies of french army where their general , more interested in politics like Gamelin , or sympatizers of totalitarist regimes like Marshal Pétain... a personal friend of Franco.
Cucked yes the false hero of WW I - In March 1918, in front of Clemenceau, Pétain announced that the situation was dramatic, that the Germans had won the war and would beat France.- organized the colaboration whith an army of oportunist rats...
@@sausagejockyGaming At least we fought and lost against a powerful foe, not like the British who lost against non violent Gandhi.
The Britishs had a great davantage once they were United : they were a peacefull island. It helped them to master their naval capabilities whereas France had to fight against other nations like Spain or the German states. The Glorious revolution as well as the New ideas of the anglican religion made the English ruler of the World during the XIXth century. France had some weaknesses : religions Wars, neighbours, a different idea of the World dominance which was less efficient the one of the British.
I was about to subscribe, but then you've been omitting so many historical characters & important events happening in France, that explained lots of preparations & military planning & prowess, that i changed my mind.
Actually there did was an engagement between Louis' forces and John's, at La Roche-aux Moines, which was a castle John's army had besieged. The castle was held by the Senechal of Anjou, which had just been appointed by Phillippe, and thus did not surrender. Louis arrived on the rear of John's army, forcing them to flee and abandon all his siege's equipment, preventing him from causing any further threat. Beside this point, big hail to this synthetic and very interesting video !
These are my favorite videos on youtube!! I love them so much
3:52 red wedding in real life
yeah it's what I thought
Same
Mick Hodor
He was killed on his way, not on the wedding itself
Mick Fuck the kings guard
This has become my favourite channel.
"T'AS PAS DES COUILLES!"
Holy shit, i've never laughed so hard while watching these videos... I love those little captions xD
btw, that is french for "YOU HAVE NO BALLS"
Mauricio Diaz Think he was trying to say "t'as pas LES couilles" which is a french idiom for "you have the guts/the balls".
Still neat anyways.
Man gotta love all these battles, they are simply absolutely educational and far more interesting than simply reading about them alone.
Please Do Keep up the good work!
That feeling when you see BazBattles has just uploaded...
It's so great how even with no background knowledge one can dive into these episodes, THANK YOU!
I suspect that the Imperial Eagle was accompanied with a note that essentially said, "You dropped this."
hehe
I don't think this is correct.
The historical studies of the reign of Emperor Frederick Ii suggest that he sent the gold eagle to the young Emperor who had invaded Germany in 1212 and was watching the outcome of the battle safely from the Rhineland.
I don't believe Otto IV ever abdicated but died after Frederick had invaded Saxony.
perfektně zpracované,rád se na vaše bitvy
well done guys! but i hoped you'd mention something about Cathar crusade ongoing down the South at the same time. also, am sorry but your 1201 map isn't correct, County of Toulouse, Foix, Carcassonne were vassals of Kingdom of Aragon at that time
Everytime I see a new vid I upvote because I already know its about to be good.
Please do the battle of Patay
Free proud English commoners long bowmen exterminated by French knights ? It would deprive England of its grounding myth.
@@gengis737 exterminated? There were less than a a thousand casualties on the english side at patay.
Look at Sluys, with 20,000 frenchmen being killed.
All of those victories of france were minor in terms of casualties
@@lollius88 Out of 5,000 men, Falstaff and Talbot lost 2,500 killed, wounded and prisoners, the remaining footmen being hunted down by French peasantry and militias - even English version of Wikipedia concurs. Never again will a sizeable English archer force operate during Hundred Years war, and anyway French cavalry had learnt to defeat English infantry by swift flanking assault - which did not suit the British tale of invincible longbowmen, not the French republican tale of decline of noble cavalry (which actually occurred at the hand of 16th c. shooters and pikers - a conversion lately achieved in Britain).
Belittling defeats as minor or accidental is a constant in British military history, due to an heavy Victorian influence, trying to declare British infantry as "invincible" after victory in Napoleonic wars, even if the decisive battles were fought by the Prussian, Russian and Austrian armies; the exception, Waterloo, being a day saved by the Prussian arrival.
@@gengis737 Ok a few thousand total casualties, but my point stands.
The most celebrated french victory doesnt even compare to the number of losses at sluys, crecy and agincourt.
Also the Prussians didn't "save" the British army at waterloo.
It was part of wellington's strategy.
He agreed with blucher to reinforce him and hit napoleon in the flank, otherwise he wouldnt have even made his stand at waterloo.
Learn history
@@lollius88 Half the army wiped off, the other one disintegrated, no bowmen in view for 24 years. But your point stand. English history (no uppercase).
Victories are compared by their effect, not the number of losses. There were much less casualties at Zama than at Cannae. Patay and Castillon expelled England from France.
Sluys is mostly ignored because most of the killed were nearly defenceless seamen. It did not stop the French raids on English coast.
Crecy and Agincourt, major victories but inconclusive in their results, were celebrated from late 16th c. on, to lick the wounds of the Two Roses war triggered by the defeat in HYW, then the access to English throne of one Tudors in exile in France, supported by the French Scottish force that the French female regent, Anne de Beaujeu, provided.
True, Waterloo victory was the result of an agreement between Wellington and Blücher (Wellington had no authority on Blücher), but when you need another army to avoid defeat, the other army saves yours. Or if you want another wording, decisive victories over Napoleon were achieved by UK allies in 1812 to 1814 campaigns, and even against the much smaller army of 1815, victory was out of reach of British army but for the Prussians.
Man this just came in clutch for a history assessment thanks man
this is so well done.i know some of this history but i am drunk out of my mind watching squares fight each other while listening to a voice making love to every cell in my body, and still feel like i am learning stuff. you and yout team are why i have faith in humanity
great, as always. Thanks Baz Battle !
Yes! More rectangle slaughter!
YAAAS!!!! NEW EPISODE!!!!!! THE WEEKEND IS STARTING OFF LIT AF!
After reading some little fights in the comments, i'll just say this, im french, and my germans brother, dont insult us, because we are you, we both come from germanic tribes, and even if history have seen numerous battles between us, we are still today the strongest allies. (as for lots of country) europe union might be a bit shitty right now but still together we are unstoppable.
Most of the people insulting the French on the internet are either jealous or dealing with an inferiority complex.
@@unemusiqueunjourit's mostly inbred from England, that's why the UK is the laughing stock of the world
Entertaining and informative as always, thank you!
1799th view... Coincidence? I think not...
Haha
Vive l'empereur !
Wish more of these were uploaded more regularly! Really enjoy them all
the blue Blob Rises !!!
anyone who played EU4 will know what i mean.
eh, ok
Actually, since Cradle of Civilization, France destroy every single time Aragon and Burgundy, and then take core french territory.
IA in EU IV is quite strange, aren't them ?
Doing a project in school and I chose this battle. The best source I have!
William Longespée, an English earl... with a most French-sounding name.
It literaly means "long sword", in old French.
Isn't that the son of rolls ? The first norman duke ? ( and there for viking with french heirs )
The english ruling cast was still french at that point in history. So it's not really a surprise.
@@stormbringer2840
Hmmm... I would not know.
You always pick very interesting topics!
1) This and the battle of the Yarmouk are extremely underrated battles imho
2) Philip II and the Hundred Years War should be considered as important as the reconquista, in politically uniting the French and establishing a true modern, burgeoning nation-state.
Awesome video. This has become one of my favorite channels!
It's my favorite channel as well!
Im so entertained with moving squares
Found this channel two days ago. Today finished watching all previous movies and was sad there is nothing more :)
At 10:24 you mention the capture of Renaud of Bolonia. I think you actually meant Boulogne a town just south of Calais in northen France not Italy?
Still great vid! keep them up
Varag Varag I think he was trying to say Boulogne but that's how it comes off with an english apparently ^^.
God, I love this channel! :)
Why dont you start a series with Napoleon??
The Equalizer His series are focused in battles that didn't included gunfires
I dont think it will be hard to do those kind of battles...plus it will be a shame not to do Napoleon campaigns. BazzBattles is the right choice for it
Love Baz's battles.
In all the history of rivalry between France and England, England couldn't fight alone against France and always needed to make an alliance with the HRE to win. They won some battles but most of the time they were defeated.
Cette affirmation marche pour la période entre la fin de la guerre de cent ans et la guerre de sept ans.
@Dod o Population size wasn't that much of a factor until mass conscription was invented in the 19th century.
And you'll notice that even after having reached a high population, Britain still needed strong allies to compete against the era's hegemon (Crimean War, WW1, WW2...)
@Dod o The HYW is a terrible exemple because popoulation was roughly even on both sides. Sure England had a small population, but they were always allied with large and powerful French duchies (Brittany, Flanders, Bungundy...) that balanced things out. What is currently France was indeed much more populated than England, but the area controlled by the French king wasnt that much more populated than the area controlled or allied with the English king.
@Dod o You're blinded by nationalistic bias. The French vassals of the French king who sided with the English one are the absolute sole reason why England was initially successful. As soon as Burgundy switched sides, England got BTFO.
@@LeHappiste 'Population size wasn't that much of a factor until mass conscription was invented in the 19th century'
It did make a big difference, in the 1320s the French could raise 27,000 knights and raise armies of up to 50,000. The English literally couldn't get more than 5000 knights at the same time and never raised more than 10-25,000 men in the whole middle ages with few exceptions.
Yes new video, Yaaay!
BazBattles and Historia Civilis are the best channels for historical battles on youtube, although this channel has better animations. I think both could learn alot from eachother.
4:47
"Damm you euron"
I know somebody who just watched the new game of thrones episodes
Love this channel so much!
Go France! From Australia
This channel is amazing.
Finally
David Xie I personally hope no one likes next with such a good number
Excellent general overview, well done!
"T'as pas de couilles."
_Philip II
Great videos man, really great source of history and epicness
Playing total war attila while watching this
Literally lmao
Playing Medieval II:Total War while watching....Much more to theme! :)
I played Attila many times,but not the Mod U are talking about.But at that time I was playing M2TW-and I said it it much more to theme,since I did not know of that mode.+waaaaay too little time these days for any game tbh-work work(as a WoW peon would say) :).
Always happy to talk to History buffs like me.
Best Regards.
yeah! same here
If You like History,I found several more channels that as also verry good (just as this one is):
KingsandGenerals and Invicta.
Try them out,may be You even know them.
You've made a really good document. Please do more.
Nice
i would like to pet your profile photo
Efe He looks like he needs some good pets.
Nizza
amazingly well done
Damn you, Euron! - french soldier 1214 AD
Right in the feels
Baratheon dude
But... who is this Euron, please? I don't get the reference.
1213 year in video. GOT reference to the beggining of Greyjoy rebellion, when king Balon's brothers Euron and Victarion led surprise attack on Lannisport, destroying Lannister's fleet.
@@muxeca9700 Baz Battle did a video on Robert's Rebellion as well as the Greyjoy rebellion.
Very nice edition! That video is great!
The big blue blob on it's way to be OP..
Awesome battle, really nice video, always support you!
So we have Phillip to thank for the Magna Carta
and his son louis VIII
that is pure british revisionism of history. what about simon? was he, the son of a frenchman who grew up in france anti-french too? face it england at this time was owned by frenchmen. there was no "english patriotism" only feudal jealousy and self-interest from the nobles, who seized a chance from john's weakness to improve their lot. LATER they would INVITE Louis VIII to invade england and offered him the crown if he took john out.
great english patriotism. wouldn't you say?
they werent french as you think of it today
neither were the actual english folk like the english you know today.
boss180888 boss180888 Obviously you are too historically illiterate to understand their period properly.
"Simon De Montfort is one of the greatest Englishman" -Napoleon Bonaparte: So if L'empeurer can understand it, then it shouldn't be too hard for you.
Simon De Montfort turned his back on France and made a new life for himself in England, this was a time of great suspicion and fear of foreigners in England, so Simon had to completely integrate himself into the fabric of the English community via marriage and property, Simon even sponsored the christening of Henry III's first sons who's namesake was St Edward the confessor. So he basically converted to an Englishman and he's seen as a hero figure here in England because he's one of the founding fathers of British parliament.
"The English are the only people in the world in which they have a system where they can allow the king to be all powerful when he does good but tie his hands when he does bad" - Voltaire (Voltaire was a great Anglophile by the way, he adored English society and wrote England a love letter that made English culture very popular in France)
Also Richard FitzNeal in the Dialogs of the Exchequer 1171 said "After the English and Normans have been living side by side for so long and intermarrying, it's become scarcely possible to tell who is of English or Norman decent anymore", which is basically saying the English and Normans have been shagging and drinking together for so long they are the same people. And that's a considerable 40 years before the battle of Bouvines took place, so no, you can dream on you little foreign loser but England was not owned by Frenchmen. In the articles of the barons the ENGLISH barons demanded that "alien births be removed from positions of office in England", which proves in 1215 place of birth was important to English. Some years before this, when King John was just a Prince and Richard I was on the throne, one of his supporters called Hugh Bishop of Coventry (an important position and very respectable) wrote a letter of complaint to Richard I about the Lord Treasurer William Longchamps not being able to speak a word of their language and should be removed. William Longchamps made jokes about "going to make English" every time he went to the toilet (how could William joke about his turds being English if England was ruled by the French? Learn English history you fucking outsider) and felt so unsafe that he brought Flemish bodyguards into England and it upset the English so much they forced him to go on the run, when William got to Dover and tried to hire a boat to scuttle off back to Normandy, he was caught and thrown into prison, later the English barons made jokes of their own but this time they joked about him being caught because he couldn't speak English to order a boat. So even the English language was important long before the first barons war happened.
And now, let's mop up some myths about the Magna Carta. The English barons were faced up against the sovereign king and the ferocious Pope Innocent III (perhaps the most famous medieval pope), so the English were desperate for support. Prince Louis was invited to take the crown because they wanted the Magna Carta (in theory a Chinaman can be on the throne of England and it wouldn't matter because the barons pushed policies and upheld rights that benefited England, in exchange for tax grants) but soon as Louis came to England he started bringing over his French favourites for court and it upset the English beyond recovery, even when the rebels lost skirmishes, Prince Louis would only pay the ransom for his French soldiers and leave the English to their fate, so it was never going to work. Soon as little Henry got crowned...the rebels defected to the royalist camp and kicked Prince Louis and his French soldiers back across the channel. So it was a great patriotic movement that restored honour to the English.
Also, the first few versions of the Magna Carta were deigned to protect the rights of the barons because they wanted to keep hold of the freedoms and democracy they had just created from failure. What you historically illiterate foreigners don't know is that in the 1225 version of the Magna Carta, it was revised and changed to apply "to all the people of our realm", no matter what your social rank, it was wrote in English, French and Latin (all three languages of England) for the first time and was displayed all over the country in towns and villages for peasants and landholders alike to see....that's glorious and is a fantastic tribute to English society, no other medieval country was as socially advanced and forwards thinking as England was, France wasn't even close.
LOVE YOUR CHANNEL!
Philipp was a great king, who return a lot of French lands in to royal French domain.
Love your content sir. Wish you would post more frequently
please create one for caldiran battle: Shah Ismayil and Sultan Selim
Very understimate battle.
Nice video! Thanks!
My ancestor was on the French side in this battle i know.
Having subscribed for some time I must admit that this is your best video yet - keep up the good work!