Bannockburn was not won because of the longbows. The scottish barely used the weapon! Whereare you getting your history from??

It is stubborn pride when you continue to use the same tactics over and over again despite theor repeated failure. The French nobility were enamored with chivalry and wanted to have the romantic charges instead of attacking on foot as the English did. I'm actually French so there is no bashing there.

The situation was super complicated. The English were French vassals, and France wanted to check England's power. England at the same time was trying to control France. That's the basis of what I understand. Super confusing.

Whereare you getting your history from??

I must ask you the same question in return. Because your information is partial/incomplete.

The French nobility were enamored with chivalry and wanted to have the romantic charges instead of attacking on foot as the English did.

Well the exact same thing happened when the English tried to conquer Welsh kingdoms and the gaelic kingdom of Alba.
But that romantic thing (again a subjective judgement) has nothing to do with the feudal organisation that France had during that period.
Chilvary and Feudality were dominant in Europe, because they were effective not because of romantism. But after the 100 years war, that changed, and the Noble lords little by little gave up their power for the kingdom and feudality ended.

I'm actually French so there is no bashing there.

Ah vraiment? Le fait que tu sois français ne change en rien cela. Je suis moi-même très critique envers l'histoire de mon pays. Et l'auto-dénigrement est plutôt courant en France, bien plus que dans les pays anglo-saxons dû à notre histoire.

The situation was super complicated

Yes it was ^^ you could compare it to the Game of Thrones' universe: betrayals, struggle for power, family, love and hate... G.R.R Martin himself said he got inspired from the English War of the Roses and the Accursed Kings of France.

Edited 3/27/2015 15:43:50

Ah vraiment? Le fait que tu sois français ne change en rien cela. Je suis moi-même très critique envers l'histoire de mon pays. Et l'auto-dénigrement est plutôt courant en France, bien plus que dans les pays anglo-saxons dû à notre histoire.

Ah, really? The fact that you are French changes nothing here. I am very critical against my country's history. And the autacriticisms are very popular in France, and more kind to the Anglosaxons.

Speak French or English, but not both.

^ Juq I was only talking to him, do not see anything bad about that. Btw your google translation is really wrong.

Edited 3/27/2015 15:56:56

Except I wasn't speaking of feudalism at all. Merely of their military tactics where the French stubbornly charged the English defensive positions and were slaughtered by the longbows and superior defensive positioning of the English (fighting on foot is far better for defense). Didn't help that a third of the French army at both Poitierrs and Agincout left the field without fighting, negating their numerical supremacy.

In both cases the French were foolhardy and overconfident, attacking a strong defensive position when they didn't have to. The English were in far more difficult positions, lacking food and reinforcements and yet the French did them. Favor and attacked. The Scottish did the same thing at Neville's Cross.

And what is your source for the Scots having longbows at Bannockburn? They certainly didn't have them a few years later at Neville's Cross

Tsh. I translated myself; there were a few words I had trouble with.

But my point still stands: Speak English or French.

Also, does Google have a monopoly in everything on the West?

Re: Google
Pretty much. It's my go-to site for most everything, including translation. Like you, I roughly translated it myself and arrived at the same basic points. I use translate more for writing than reading. Also mail, search and maps

Opening your world a bit:

https://translate.yandex.ru

The translator engine I most use (when I use one).

About Bannockburn just checked I admit to have been wrong, I misunderstood that source. If you want a correct example then: Battle of Cymerau, where Anglo-Norman forces lost against the Welsh using Longbows.

Edited 3/27/2015 16:15:13

I think that England and France both had advantages and disadvantages. The French were fighting on their own land, while England had the advantage of having a relatively stable throne situation.

-Battle of Marathon
-Battle of Hastings
-Battle of Agincourt
-Spanish Armada
-Battle of Blenheim
-Battle of Waterloo
-Battle of Austerlitz

Battle of Cannae (216 bc)
Battle of Teutoburg forest (9)
Battle of Alesia (52 bc)
Battle of Zama (146 bc)

Operation Downfall. The planned, but never executed, plan to invade Japan during World War II. Thank heavens Japan surrendered before that.

Given all the talk of longbows, here is something that confuses me... why didn't anyone else utilize it? The French and Scots were repeatedly devastates by it for generations and yet they never tried to train their own longbowmen. They certainly had the tools to do so... It's not like the design was complicated or required raw materials only available in England/Wales. Sure, training a longbowman took decades but these wars went on for over a century. The French could have used some of the money wasted on Genoese crossbowmen and trained/raised their own longbowmen. Would have dramatically altered the Hundred Years War

Edited 3/27/2015 16:59:57

Well, I know at the time there was a law in England where men were required to practice with the longbow regularly so almost the entire male population had experience with them, whereas the crossbow was more expensive, slower and hardly available enough to train the entire male French population.

The French also used the longbow later during the 100 Years War, though it seems to not be mentioned much, most likely due to the fact that it's perceived to be an English weapon and the French were trying to distance themselves from it.

I think the longbow was not really utilized by the French because at the end of the 100 years war, it was already out-of-date.
Gunpowder started to reach Europe, and artillery slowly appeared (the first notable apparition in Western Europe was during the battle of Crécy with the bombard and the cannon).

Edited 3/27/2015 17:33:48

Not to mention the arquebus, which the French eagerly adopted, a great deal earlier than the English if I'm not mistaken.

Except the firearm didn't really replace it, at least not the weapon itself. Hundreds of years later Wellington was still requesting a corp of longbowmen to complement his muskets. Ignoring the significant invest cost of the longbow (whichwas the real reason for its demise) and it was the superior weapon... More accurate than the musket and faster than the rifle with (I believe) comparable ranges to the two firearms,

As for the crossbow, it was a fairly useless weapon with the only benefit being its minimal training time.

the first notable apparition in Western Europe was during the battle of Crécy with the bombard and the cannon

I wouldn't say that. In Mohi Battle, the Mongols used cannons from China to attack Hungary, around a century before the Hundred Years' War even started.