"France surrendered" memers in absolute shambles and seething. Jokes aside, go and buy Field of Glory II: Medieval: store.steampowered.com/app/1368870/Field_of_Glory_II_Medieval/ - it is a great sequel to the Roman era title and is created for the strategy fans. Fun historical battles!
@Abdul Jalloh Yes, basically this war and the Hundred Years War are French civil wars as the monarchs of both France and England are from the same French royal house, although the English kings of the 15th century did eventually distance away from the French royal family and became their own English royal family.
Pretty much. The entire concept of Divine Right was based on the idea that you were King because God chose you; after all God determines who is born, so if I was born as the eldest son of the previous King, then that means God obviously chose me to be the next King. However they also believed that God decided the outcomes of battles. So if I'm fighting a war to become King, and I win, it's because God wanted me to be King and thus granted me victory in battle. So when a King loses a battle, it was commonly seen as a mark of God's disfavor, which caused their extremely devout subjects to question the legitimacy of their rule. Which, in turn, allows the opportunistic aristocrats to try and gain more authority for themselves at the expense of the crown.
@@lubu2960 It's a very similar concept, though my understanding of the Mandate of Heaven is a little limited. I don't know nearly as much about Chinese history as I should.
To understand importance of Phillip Augustus reign in French history is a simple fact : before him, all official documents talk of the " Regnum Francorum" = Kingdom of the Franks, from Phillip Augustus, they talk of "Regnum Francia" = Kingdom of France.
this simple fact says nothing. first of all, while the title "rex Franciae" did start with Philippe Augustus, the title "rex francorum" remained in use well after that. second, it doesn't really signals much. The concepts of "country" and "nation" weren't solidified until the 19th century so it's not like everybody suddenly realized that from then on "King of France" was a somehow "higher" or more important term than "King of Franks". 700 years later Napoleon himself used the title "Emperor of the French" instead of "Emperor of France" so it's not like "France" vs "franks/french" had some real advantage. It was just that; words.
Small fun facts : Some have theorized that Philip deliberately let part of his army exposed as a bait for the allies, knowing that attacking a sunday would lower their troops morale. Philip claimed that the army was thrice as numerous as is, due to the presence of three political entities. While it made for good unifying myth, we know nowadays this isn't true. The French captured many imperial symbols left behind by Otto. Philip sent them to Frederic II as a way to strengthen his claim against his rival. Mathieu de Montmorency captured twelve banners from the ennemy, wich figured since on the Montmorency sigil. Renaud de Dammartin was a childhood friend of Philip, that already betrayed him twice. He was sent to prison for the rest of his life. As for Ferrand of Flanders, he was sent to Paris in an iron cage, leading to the mocking saying "Ferrand est ferré" (wordplay on iron and trapped) The earl of Salisbury was Richard and John's halfbrother. He was also called Guillaume Longuépée (longsword). Philip Augustus, unlike his later portrait, had a classic medieval villain look, according the chronicler Rigord : pale thin face, Long blond hair, but bald on the scalp due to a disease contracted in Crusades, along with a white eye coming from the same illness. Damme was the first time the French fleet was destroyed by the English. They liked it so much, they decided to make it a tradition.
You managed in a single wall of thext what would take at least 3 pages for most people. So Phillip Augustus had that monk haircut? If he put a hood on, he would look like a wizzard.
You forgot one little detail. Which is that the numbers K&G give in the video are totally, totally off. The primary sources state that Otto retreated multiple times behind his infantry (with his retinue (aka his horsemen)) from where he sallied out multiple times. When the French charge he is still INSIDE the ring his footsoldiers set up. The French fail at the first attempt to break the multiple rows of pikemen as they no longer have lances. However then another bunch of riders show up so the French charge again (now with lances) and break the formation. Ah yeah and tiny little detail they charge with !3.000! new riders. So the numbers in the video are really off...
idk if you're serious or not because some of your facts are true and the others are not. For instance, "Philip Augustus, unlike his later portrait, had a classic medieval villain look, according the chronicler Rigord : pale thin face" the only known description of Philip's physique is as follows: ""a handsome, strapping fellow, bald but with a cheerful face of ruddy complexion". *Ruddy* which is the direct opposite of "pale".
@@peterspatling3151 You should update your sources. This ain't the 1800's anymore lol. Those are outdated. Preeminent historians of the 19th century such as Sir Charles Oman were the ones to put the numbers at around 20,000 to 25,000 men for the French at Bouvines VS 50,000 to 65,000 for the Allies). So yeah you probably had exposure to accounts of the battle based on outdated sources. The size of the armies and the allied numerical superiority were made out to be much bigger than they are considered to be now. Those numbers were revisited by Jan Frans Verbruggen in the 1960's or 70's as he deemed them highly exagerrated considering the financial records of the time and logistical constraints of maneuvering such big armies in Europe in the high middle ages. His numbers are the ones given in the video (6 to 7,000 French vs 9,000 Allies approximately) and are now considered the benchmark for the battle. DeVries, Rogers, Spencer Tucker and Nicole are all preeminent historians who also deem Verbruggen's numbers to be more likely. Either way I don't know which point you were trying to make, but the Allies had superior numbers. It is one of the things about the battle (whether in the middle ages or in 2021) there is a consensus about. Not much debate to have.
It was a goden age for french knighthood .One year before they crushed the King of aragon and a coaltion of southern french and spanish counts at the battle of Muret in 1213 under the command of simon de Montfort
This is the battle that basically established French dominance in continental Europe for centuries to come. How is this not talked about more? I imagine it's more taught in France but damn how tf have I never heard of this? Sounds like one of the most important battles in European History. Thanks for spreading knowledge as always guys!
In France we absolutly don't learn this battle. Nobody knows about this battle. I learnt it by searching on internet. It's indeed one of the most important battle in Europe and France particulary. The first step to the french nationalism.
@@Raisonnance. Of course we learn about it in France. Some people just don't remember it, because it's mostly evoked in elementary or at the beginning of Middle School. I remember learning about it in 5ème (7th grade).
Of course in France Bouvines is a famous battle like its date 1214. Read for exemple the sunday of bouvines by the famous historian Georges Duby. In the republican school, old battles are not yet learned but bouvines is an exception because the battle created for the first time a national feeling. The non professional french fighters from the north towns made the difference without the french professional knights "the ost" who was in the west with prince Louis (battle of "la roche aux moines").
Yes and no. During the battle knights of the both armies discussed and provocate in french. During a long time, historians said bouvines wasn't a real battle but a succession of duals between knights with few deaths.
Thank You for this video, it is very rare that French Victories in the Anglo-French war are so vividly covered. You continue to astonish us with the vivid range of topics. Top Work!
I read not so long ago a book called "The Sunday of Bouvines" written by the French historian Georges Duby and I recommend it so much to all the people who have enjoyed this video.
1511-1513, french V 1542-1546, indecisive 1543-1551, scottish and french V 1557-1559, french V 1627-1629, french V 1666-1667, dutch V and french advantage. 1689-1697, both english and french gains and losses. 1701-1713, british advantage 1744-1748, status quo ante bellum 1754-1763, british V 1778-1783, french V Those are the anglo french wars appearing in wikipedia for the time between the hundred year's war (1337-1453, french V) and the Napoleonic wars (1804-1815, british V). No, the warring periods between the two countries are not limited to three occasions.
This has got to be one of the lesser known but more influential battles of Medieval Europe. I never knew that it was this battle that caused King John of England to sigh the Magna Carta. Nor did I know that this helped to create France as we know it. I liked this video. Wouldn't mind seeing more on this series and more video's on the Imjin War. My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
It's quite well known in France (obviously). Possibly less so in Germany, Belgium or Low Countries. England was not a major party to the battle itself, more to the overall (disastrous) campaign. I personnaly think that it's not the results of this particular campaign that undermined the authority of John Lackland but moreover the string of disastrous choices and terrible defeats he accumulated, on the opposite of his father and brother : English people patience stopped here (except for the ever loyal Willieme le Mareschal/William Marschall).
@@elbentos7803---Yes I'm aware that the accumulation of King John's defeats led him to sign the Magna Carta but I'm sure this battle helped to contribute to that event.
@UC3DlfMfCHhOrveXsi32Yr7g Holy Empire was added by Frederick Barbarossa, basically a screw you, i'm holy too to the pope. Up until then it was known as the roman empire or simply the empire
@Metallus Zorax Calais was ruled by the English until 16th century no? does the Uk not have its customs in Calais to this day and administer its (UK) border and access to channel tunnel from there... I'm sure France and Uk even hashed it out and settled the issue and agreed on my aforementioned statement.
@@LordGeorgeRodney also not really, as mentioned in this video the English were subordinates of the French king, every time the English got lands in France, they were beaten back and humiliated, so no, France was never a colony of England, sorry.
@@FirstNameLastName-tg3rc Why not? I'd play any game as long as they're fun for me. Graphics and realism takes the backseat. IMO anw. To each their own. People play minecraft btw. It's quite fun. You should try it.
That's actually a really interesting subject. I think it was Henry I who was the first one to style himself "King of England" as opposed to "King of the English" though I could be wrong about that. It was a common shift throughout this period, as people started to see Kings and their rule as associated less with the actual PEOPLE they ruled, and more about the land area. This trend as feudalism continues to grow more consolidated and centralized, and eventually provided the foundation for the transition into the era of Absolute Monarchy in the late 1600s and 1700s, which was a VERY distinct contrast to the kinds of powers monarchs had in this period.
As a somewhat interesting factoid illustrating the opposite evolution, it was considered a bit of an innovation and an oddity when in 1830 the new Belgian king was officially called King of the Belgians instead of the then more usual King of Belgium.
@@SRosenberg203 you‘re absolutely right there! Early kings were also more often the ruler to several people/tribes/ethnic groups of different heritage, or nationality as we would say today
I am always sceptical when an english channel talk about french history, but I have to say that you make a fantastic job with your videos ! Keep em coming ! Cheers !
The amount of bias on the english side is ridiculous. Just see how many videos/films/books on the battle of Patay have been made compared to Agincourt or Crécy. Pure nationalism.
@@mickyfinn613 Exept that when talking about the hundred years war. The english only talk about the three battles they won while they seem to forget they lost the war and the other battles are never talked about.
@@johnharris3335 I am forgetting about nothing but you on the other hand are just displaying your total ignorance on the subject... I advise you to open a book because the only knowledge about this conflict seems to be "save private ryan" or some other holywood BS... 100 000 french soldiers died in 1940 and the germans suffered more daily casualties than they did in Russia. When the american entered the War, it was already won, by the Russians. The only one I am willing to give credit for is Churchill because he kept the fight going (while the vaste majority of english wated him to make the peace with the germans). And BTW the american did not came to "liberate us" they wanted to make France their colony, if it were for De Gaulle who stood up against them they would ahve make france their pupet state in europe. Much like germany was (and still is).
French french against English french till the end of the 100 years war, first book in old english for example was printed in the end of 16th century or the fact that the first language of the Richard the Lionheart and all the nobility waa French.
@@HgHg-yp6ft , Hwaet? English was a well established literary language well before the Conquest - The English were writing their laws and poetry in English when everyone else except the Irish were still using Latin for anything that got written down. Also, English of the 16th century would be Early Modern English (and not all that early - the late 16th century is the era of Shakespeare.) I think you've mistaken the 15th century for the 16th, and confused the publication of PRINTED books (i.e., using a printing press, a new technology for everyone at the time) with the writing of books in general.
@@HgHg-yp6ft I could also point out that at the same time the English nobility was speaking French much of the French peasantry was speaking Provencal....;)
@@123elnat Nope, that’s stupid and wrong, french peasantry were talking many different languages, provençal didn’t exist back then, and there were plenty of different languages, divided between two groups, langues d’oc and langues d’oïls, concerning french in England, it was talked much more than you are willing to accept, reason why so many english words are either directly taken from or originates from the french language. I’m still wondering why so many people try to oppose historical facts, maybe you can help me there
The Battle of Bouvines is little known, but its consequences in the history of central and western Europe and are at the battle level as the Teutoburg Forest (9 CE), Fontenoy (841 CE) or Waterloo (1815 CE). For England, it meant a decrease in royal power and an increase in the rights of the individual with the creation of the Magna Carta (rights for free men), the basis for all British common law and therefore all of the legal basis in the countries with British influence. For France it meant an increase in royal power and the consolidation of the Capetian Dynasty for the next 100 years, added to the triumphs of Philip Augustus, stabilized and expanded the country's borders, centralizing power in the king, laid the foundations for the development of Absolutism. For the Holy Roman Empire, it meant misfortune for Otto IV (who was stripped of his crown and later assassinated) and the assent of Frederick II. His reign began the decline of imperial power in favor of the Dukes and Barons. In 1232 he named them "lords of their lands" which was a significant change since it would be the seed for the formation of states within the empire and its decentralization.
Waterloo is actually not that significant for world history because regardless of the outcome napoleon would have lost against the Austrians and Russians after that. What was more significant was napoleons russian campaign if it had gone well then the whole continent would be a lot more french
Wow, that's a really good point. I knew all these points individually, but I hadn't ever really thought about them in such an interwoven context before, compared to other major global turning-point battles.
@@RexOlafusVidulusMagnus Germany is considered to be positioned in Central Europe from an geography perspective. Thats why its also part of the CET. Central European timezone. Thinking of Germany as Western Europe is newer trend born from the cold war, when all of Europe was either west or east and is more political, than geographical.
The good things came out of this battle is: 1 The centralization of France. 2 The Holy Roman Empire gets the ruler it deserved. 3 England established the early form of the common law. 4 The rise of the folktales about Robin Hood in England.
@@keedt In Medieval times? A lot. Mostly stability and security to the realm. Something most people profit from, because hardly anyone wins when your country turns into a battle royal everytime the local dukes feel like it and it also makes you less vulnerable against outside threats.
@@keedt France took its first step toward being a modern nation way long before the others thanks to centralization. Look at the HRE, it remained traped in the feudal system that litteraly caused its structural weakness for centuries.
Not as old as time... There was no anglo-french conflict until the last ice age ended... And it only lasted for 800 years... And sometimes, they were even allies (against - possibly - everybody)...
Hello! I am the researcher of the video and I am excited to have worked on the Battle of Bouvines, one of the most important battles of Western Europe. Hope you enjoy the video! Ps. French surrender memes are stale and old.
As I was saying above I am always sceptical when I see an english channel talking about french history but I have to admit you did a fantastic job here ! Hopefully you will collaborate with K&G on more videos ! Cheers.
@@RIPDixie1865 [Laughs]. Wait... What? So realistic warfare had animated movement arrows? And animated graphics? The numbers are also off in terms of the visuals. I also could be wrong but I swear that knights didn't wave their swords in their air instead of actually fighting.
Just a small historical quibble: John didn't sign Magna Carta, but rather stamped it with his royal seal. Personal signatures weren't considered legally binding in 13th Century Europe. But still an awesome video! I teach Medieval history and my class has recently covered Magna Carta and Frederick II, so I'll show this to my students!
France taking England and Germany at once, the surrender meme just took a huge nerf lol (jokes aside it's the battle that forged both England and France in their path as distinct nations with distinct system)
@@maximilienplancq5368 You're right that the "Holy Roman Empire was no less centralized than the french kingdom at that time." Except, one important difference; the french kingdom was hereditary, whereas the Holy Roman Empire was elective. This might seem like a small difference, but in actuality was monumental. The hereditary nature of the Kingdom of France meant that the monarchy could attain an almost semi divine status that allowed to command pious reverence, overawe the power of nobility (especially if a strong personality happened to be seated on the throne) and eventually exert real power (as opposed to being theoretical) over the entire dominion. The emperors never achieved that level of power (except under a few dynasties; the Hohenstaufen being the most famous) within Germany. Even the Habsburgs derived their power from their holdings outside the empire itself. In essence, the emperor was basically primus inter pares with the rest of the feudal lords. His power was always theoretical and not an established fact. Thus, he was more of a figure head than an actual ruler. This weakness in any centralizing authority continued through the ages, and was why it took up until 1870 for Germany to actually become a unified state.
So in a sense if the Norman conquest had failed or never happened then England and France would never have been as close or have centuries of warefare with each other. If things remained in Anglo-Saxon control then England and France may have had a neutral or fair realtionship with one another.
This is one of the few field battles fought in the High Middle Ages in Europe, and one of the largest. Warfare during this time was mostly characterized by sieges due to the dominance of the castle and how nobles tended to want to avoid pitched battles.
All things considered, it's really not a war between two countries but between two French families. England has been ruled by foreigners since the Romans took over, up until now, as a German family sits on the throne. Not the same can be said for Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Is it really a German family just because they have ancestors from there? if so almost all English are foreigners too since they came from centuries of mixing invading populations, celts, jutes, angles, saxons, norse, french and so on and on, after one or two born and raised generations a people become native in my view, also the Scots, Welsh and Irish had more or less the same experiences, they are a melting pot of different invaders/migrations that culminated in their current cultures, even their most ancient myths talk about when their people came from other lands to settle those and mix with the natives (be it through migrations, trade or warfare), it's a constant that never ends in human history.
@@vonbalt4891 It's more recent than that. You may know that for example Victoria (who was the daughter of a German princess and spoke German as her first language), married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a german noble family). A few generation down the line, George Frederick Ernest Albert (known as George V) changed his name from House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor for PR reasons (WWI was ongoing, against Germany). And so, as we arrive to the current monarch, Elizabeth II, that we know belongs to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (but with new name), she married Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark (born in Greece, and only after marriage was he naturalized as British). All this to say, that even modern royal families are far from representative of nations, and the British one especially has a long series of foreign families ruling over it. This is important to note, because it was a French royal family (the Angevins) that fought the 100 Years War, and many after that. PS this is useful to put in context the events and motivations of the people of the time.
@@fedethefico The same goes for every single monarch in Europe since they did what’s called “betrothal” or “arranged marriages” with other kingdoms to form alliances. The Holy Roman/German/Austrian Habsburgs and the French Bourbons governed Spain and the Italian kingdoms for example.
@@LuisBrito-ly1ko absolutely true. The very concept of national identity as we understand it today came only around the 1800's. For this reason, and the fact that especially in Britain the monarchs were mostly foreigners (more than in many other parts of Europe), it makes little sense to discuss these wars as between nations, and should focus on the actual "dynastic" conflict. In this case, between French families (one dominating most of France, the other, still French, dominating part of France and Britain).
Fact that needs checking, Phillip the second Augustus was the first king of France, his predecessors were king of the Franks
3 года назад+2
AWWWW YIIISSS! That's what I squeaked when I saw the video x) That's gonna sooo great, a big "MERCI" for covering that particular battle :D Hope they'll be more videos about our Augustus and the many great things he did for the french kingdom
Ah, yes ~ my favourite period o French history (years 1108-1285) and one of my favourite French kings alongside St. Louis IX and Charlemagne. 💙⚜️💙 Montjoie Saint Denis! Vive la France! 💙⚜️💙
Hey there Kings and Generals, Iv always liked your video's, its what got me interested in medieval history, not just the ancient world. I was wondering, do you have any plans of doing an episode about The Holy Roman Empire? It'd be an interesting video.
In the same spirit of French/English friendship, could you do a video about the battle of Castillon ? I never saw any animated review of this battle :O While it was of the first use of field artillery !
@@KingsandGenerals Thanks ! Beacause when it comes to the hundred years war all you hear about is Agincourt and Crecy. People forget that France won this war and yet none knows any of the battles won by the French.
@@Casus-Belli There is Poitiers (1356) too. The outcome was dreadful for the french. The king and one prince as hostages (not the dauphin tough), 1 duke and 2 counts dead and more 1900 captured. The ransom for the royals was astonomical and I hope K&G could tell it's history someday.
If you have a friend who still believes that France sucks at war, show them this video, the second half of the Hundred Years War, and the early Napoleonic Wars.
And Louis XIV's wars, and The Frankish wars including how they stopped the muslims, and ww1, and the Crimean war, and the second war of Italian independance, and the French revolutionnary wars, and the war of American Independance, and...
@@elmascapo6588 well no. 80% of rifles and powder used by the american rebels were French and financed by France. It was the French navy that secured dominance on the american coast, cutting lines of reinforcement for the British. It was the French soldiers who fought in the US colonies. And France attacked Britain on all continents, taking 13 British possessions in India and Carribean and Mediterranean while only losing one island to them. Without French involvement, the rebels would have been beaten in the first 2 years
As a french i admire what the King phillip built during his 43 years of reign BUT when you look Closer to History and sources you discover that he was also unreliable and disloyal to his allies and Friends. He broke oaths and betrayed. However most of bad things he did, he did it for the good of France and its people.
In primary school in France, I never learned about this French victory. My children, nor my grandchildren either. In our country, we like to highlight our military defeats. Fortunately, there is an English-language site to remind us of France's military glory, that makes up for the lame jokes, so common in English speaking countries, about the French defeat against the Nazis in 1940, the French armies sharing the same fate as the Poles, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians... In the anglosphere however these countries are never made fun of about that catastrophy. Why pick on France? I naively believed that it was wrong to make fun of the disasters incurred by others. But apparently it does some people good. Heroes, no doubt? It's true that you don't kick a dead dog. That just proves that France is still alive. Thank you for this beautiful, very informative and well-made video. In 2015, France celebrated France's defeat at Waterloo against the Seventh European Coalition!!! Would you believe that? But in 2005, President Chirac did not consider it useful to commemorate the French victory at Austerlitz against the Third Coalition. Masochism? In other European countries, I have the impression that they prefer to forget their defeats and celebrate their victories. May be with one exception: in England the trauma of Hastings still seems alive, almost a thousand years later!!! It’s always surprising for a French person. After all these Normans stayed in England and eventually mixed with the natives, didn't they? And the offspring of these mixed marriages have become as English as the others "pure viking-nordic-germanic DNA- blonde-blue-eyed anglo-saxons-", if it means anything scientifically. All these Anglo-Norman names found in England today are a blatant testimony of the Norman presence and persistence: Barrett, Baskerville, Beaman, Beaumont, Bennett, Bowles, Boyle, Campion, Cheney, Churchill, Coffin, Courtney, D'Arcy, Dubosc, Duclos, FitzGerald, Gilbert, Grosvenor, Harcourt, Hubert, Lambert, Lewis, Montgomery, Neville, Pomeroy, Seymour, Spencer, Taylor, Vernon, Walter...just to name a few. So why do so many people in England reject this part of their national heritage? It is as if the French wouldn't own up to their Celtic, Roman and Germanic forebearers ...mixed inextricably over the centuries to make up the French people. This common ancestry with neighbouring nations does not prevent them from knowing the difference between a Frenchman, an Italian or a German. Much in common but different. No one is responsible for their ancestors, but everyone is responsible for their actions.😉
You never learned about this battle ? You forgot it perhaps ? I learned it and my children too. It is a well known battle. I think that you change reality like right wing politicians who wants to convince people that today we need more nationalism because France is ashamed of its history. Bullshit !
@@lysimaquetokmok6755 i am not saying total war is better, just it is more entertaining to see better graphics and more realistic battles than this (realistic in terms of allowing you more manpower and some manuveability on field), at the end of the day point of video games is fun, then why have game that look so dull
@@johnmcgovern5372 The count of Toulouse enjoyed quite a bit of autonomy in regards to the King of France, and was only fully integrated in the realm after the "Croisade des Albigeois". Bourgogne, on the other hand, was since 1006 land of the crown, directly controlled by the king's house. It is under Philip the Bold (Philip II of Bourgogne), about a century and a half after Bouvinnes, that the place became somewhat powerful enough to become more or less important enough again and somewhat an independant state.
@@k.v.7681 But Toulouse was still a vassal of France, which is my point. It makes no sense to me that they're showing some but not all of the Duchies/states of the time.
Also this battle took part in what some historians name the "first Hundred Years War" from 1159 to 1259, between the Plantagenêt dynasty and the Capet dynasty
@@TheLocalLt That would be Frederick I you are talking about... Frederick II is the grandson of Frederick I, scholar king of Sicily, last great emperor of Medieval HRE, conqueror of Jerusalem (well sort of)
Love the videos, and I’m glad you’re still getting advertisers as obviously you need to stay in business, but frankly the battle cutscenes from a mobile game were a poor choice. I hope you revert to your old style of total war cutscenes, or even just squares on a map, for future videos. Again, love your work, looking forward to the next one.
The overly obvious video game cutscenes were a pretty distracting. But I get it -- you gotta get that sponsor money any way you can! Still a great video.
Phillip II is a snake, but the type of snake you like for his incredible intelligence, pragmatism and manipulation. He looks like to be making fun of the most powerful men at his time.
Great video, I love European military history. But please, go back to using Total War for the battle scenes. I get that this new game is sponsoring you but the graphics look like a mobile game from 10 years ago. It's embarrassing and takes away from the dramatic effect of the video!
Don't compromise the quality of your channel for adverts! We all love the channel and I don't want to judge, but it isn't worth losing your quality for these graphics.
Fun fact and some insight on the later bit of the Battle. 200 years later at this same location, another battle will take place, where the troops of Herny the VIIIth and Maximilian I will defeat the french forces. 15:15 According to Arne Koets's lecture about mounted Warfare the reason why those French Knights initially failed to break the pikemen seems to be due to a lack of lances along them. The Knights already used most of them and had to charge the ifantry sword in hand, when realising they could not break through, they retreated behind their infantry for a while, until their squires brought new lances to them, and only after that, were they able to charge the pikemen properly and break them.
In 1372 there was a very little known battle in La Rochelle by the Castilian Armada helping the french Vs. England thta was very important in this long war between FR and Eng. that I would like to see in this channel.
I hope they do a video on the Caroline War. That way, they could talk about Du Guesclin, Cocherel, Najera, Montiel and La Rochelle, all topics that are little known today.
I hope field of glory get's some love from this. Really great developer who listens to the users and give you plenty of extra content for free. These games are a real hidden gem.
Once again an amazing video 🙏keep the great work up, also, have you maybe thought of making some videos about Kislev and the exploits of the ice queen ? Or the seage of Prauge? I think it would be great with the new game being announced.
Dope. While Chingis and the Mongols burbled to the east this happened in the West. My historical weaving is becoming stronger with each video. Long live Kings and Generals!
Sadly Flanders has been the biggest battle theater of western europe for centuries because of France and Germany. However, this land is absolutely beautiful and its cities somptuous, you will see there the influence of both the Germanic and French culture. :)
First map, 1135 to 1154: assuming that the map is firstly shown in 1135, at that time Lisbon wasn't yet conquered - it was in 1147. When the map shows again - after the accounts of Henry II coronation, Portugal is correctly displayed as independent, since its _de_ _jure_ recognition was in 1143. 2 Years prior to Bouvines, took place one of the greatest clashes in the whole of the Reconquista here at the Iberian Peninsula: the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa. Mesmerizing documentary as usual; but the sponsored game's images are just appaling... Please don't use them again, for they are absolutely not worthy of your channel.
"France surrendered" memers in absolute shambles and seething. Jokes aside, go and buy Field of Glory II: Medieval: store.steampowered.com/app/1368870/Field_of_Glory_II_Medieval/ - it is a great sequel to the Roman era title and is created for the strategy fans. Fun historical battles!
@Abdul Jalloh Yes, basically this war and the Hundred Years War are French civil wars as the monarchs of both France and England are from the same French royal house, although the English kings of the 15th century did eventually distance away from the French royal family and became their own English royal family.
i like how field of glory 2 is swap meet Medieval 2
(but no meme its pretty rad)
Field of Glory is a joke and total war atilla with the 1212AD mode makes great footage i hope you won't stop using it
"France surrenders"?
Création anglo-saxonne crachée par des faux historiens aussi stupides que jaloux.
The game isn't even available for purchase yet. What marketing strategy is this?
Medieval King: *loses a battle*
Feudal Nobles: "I smell weakness. I smell blood."
Pretty much. The entire concept of Divine Right was based on the idea that you were King because God chose you; after all God determines who is born, so if I was born as the eldest son of the previous King, then that means God obviously chose me to be the next King. However they also believed that God decided the outcomes of battles. So if I'm fighting a war to become King, and I win, it's because God wanted me to be King and thus granted me victory in battle.
So when a King loses a battle, it was commonly seen as a mark of God's disfavor, which caused their extremely devout subjects to question the legitimacy of their rule. Which, in turn, allows the opportunistic aristocrats to try and gain more authority for themselves at the expense of the crown.
@@SRosenberg203 makes me remember the mandate of heaven in chinese history
@@lubu2960 It's a very similar concept, though my understanding of the Mandate of Heaven is a little limited. I don't know nearly as much about Chinese history as I should.
I mean, even in modern times losing a war is big no no
Ck3 be like
I like the Total war cut scenes better than the new ones. Anyone else feel the same? Awesome video either way.
Hopefully it’s just because of the advert
Agree
Yeah I’d agree, hopefully the shaky cam doesn’t last either...
Yea it looked kinda bad
Yesh
To understand importance of Phillip Augustus reign in French history is a simple fact : before him, all official documents talk of the " Regnum Francorum" = Kingdom of the Franks, from Phillip Augustus, they talk of "Regnum Francia" = Kingdom of France.
this simple fact says nothing.
first of all, while the title "rex Franciae" did start with Philippe Augustus, the title "rex francorum" remained in use well after that.
second, it doesn't really signals much. The concepts of "country" and "nation" weren't solidified until the 19th century so it's not like everybody suddenly realized that from then on "King of France" was a somehow "higher" or more important term than "King of Franks".
700 years later Napoleon himself used the title "Emperor of the French" instead of "Emperor of France" so it's not like "France" vs "franks/french" had some real advantage. It was just that; words.
So he's sorta the Heraclius of France.
Small fun facts :
Some have theorized that Philip deliberately let part of his army exposed as a bait for the allies, knowing that attacking a sunday would lower their troops morale.
Philip claimed that the army was thrice as numerous as is, due to the presence of three political entities. While it made for good unifying myth, we know nowadays this isn't true.
The French captured many imperial symbols left behind by Otto. Philip sent them to Frederic II as a way to strengthen his claim against his rival.
Mathieu de Montmorency captured twelve banners from the ennemy, wich figured since on the Montmorency sigil.
Renaud de Dammartin was a childhood friend of Philip, that already betrayed him twice. He was sent to prison for the rest of his life. As for Ferrand of Flanders, he was sent to Paris in an iron cage, leading to the mocking saying "Ferrand est ferré" (wordplay on iron and trapped)
The earl of Salisbury was Richard and John's halfbrother. He was also called Guillaume Longuépée (longsword).
Philip Augustus, unlike his later portrait, had a classic medieval villain look, according the chronicler Rigord : pale thin face, Long blond hair, but bald on the scalp due to a disease contracted in Crusades, along with a white eye coming from the same illness.
Damme was the first time the French fleet was destroyed by the English. They liked it so much, they decided to make it a tradition.
Philip Augustus weasel truly a badass.
You managed in a single wall of thext what would take at least 3 pages for most people.
So Phillip Augustus had that monk haircut?
If he put a hood on, he would look like a wizzard.
You forgot one little detail. Which is that the numbers K&G give in the video are totally, totally off. The primary sources state that Otto retreated multiple times behind his infantry (with his retinue (aka his horsemen)) from where he sallied out multiple times. When the French charge he is still INSIDE the ring his footsoldiers set up. The French fail at the first attempt to break the multiple rows of pikemen as they no longer have lances. However then another bunch of riders show up so the French charge again (now with lances) and break the formation. Ah yeah and tiny little detail they charge with !3.000! new riders. So the numbers in the video are really off...
idk if you're serious or not because some of your facts are true and the others are not.
For instance, "Philip Augustus, unlike his later portrait, had a classic medieval villain look, according the chronicler Rigord : pale thin face"
the only known description of Philip's physique is as follows: ""a handsome, strapping fellow, bald but with a cheerful face of ruddy complexion". *Ruddy* which is the direct opposite of "pale".
@@peterspatling3151 You should update your sources. This ain't the 1800's anymore lol. Those are outdated. Preeminent historians of the 19th century such as Sir Charles Oman were the ones to put the numbers at around 20,000 to 25,000 men for the French at Bouvines VS 50,000 to 65,000 for the Allies). So yeah you probably had exposure to accounts of the battle based on outdated sources. The size of the armies and the allied numerical superiority were made out to be much bigger than they are considered to be now.
Those numbers were revisited by Jan Frans Verbruggen in the 1960's or 70's as he deemed them highly exagerrated considering the financial records of the time and logistical constraints of maneuvering such big armies in Europe in the high middle ages. His numbers are the ones given in the video (6 to 7,000 French vs 9,000 Allies approximately) and are now considered the benchmark for the battle. DeVries, Rogers, Spencer Tucker and Nicole are all preeminent historians who also deem Verbruggen's numbers to be more likely. Either way I don't know which point you were trying to make, but the Allies had superior numbers. It is one of the things about the battle (whether in the middle ages or in 2021) there is a consensus about. Not much debate to have.
Whenever A King Dies
His Son: “Oh No...
ANYWAY”
It was a race to the capital for sons of Ottoman sultan.
@@auradzrts691 “Mario kart music starts playing”
Dacia Sandero is more important
Crusader Kings has entered the chat.
@@auradzrts691 Or the border, if you knew you were too far away to contend for the capital.
It was a goden age for french knighthood .One year before they crushed the King of aragon and a coaltion of southern french and spanish counts at the battle of Muret in 1213 under the command of simon de Montfort
Father of the notorious earl fo Leicester’s. Who founded Parliament and fell at Battle of Evesham to Edward I of England
This is the battle that basically established French dominance in continental Europe for centuries to come. How is this not talked about more? I imagine it's more taught in France but damn how tf have I never heard of this? Sounds like one of the most important battles in European History. Thanks for spreading knowledge as always guys!
In France we absolutly don't learn this battle.
Nobody knows about this battle.
I learnt it by searching on internet.
It's indeed one of the most important battle in Europe and France particulary. The first step to the french nationalism.
@@Raisonnance. Of course we learn about it in France. Some people just don't remember it, because it's mostly evoked in elementary or at the beginning of Middle School. I remember learning about it in 5ème (7th grade).
Of course in France Bouvines is a famous battle like its date 1214. Read for exemple the sunday of bouvines by the famous historian Georges Duby. In the republican school, old battles are not yet learned but bouvines is an exception because the battle created for the first time a national feeling. The non professional french fighters from the north towns made the difference without the french professional knights "the ost" who was in the west with prince Louis (battle of "la roche aux moines").
Yes and no. During the battle knights of the both armies discussed and provocate in french. During a long time, historians said bouvines wasn't a real battle but a succession of duals between knights with few deaths.
Bring back the Total War cutaways, I hope that this is just a one time thing for the ad.
yeah I hope also, TW cutscenes are overwhelmingly better... Also isnt map of europe a bit strange? a bit stretched or something? :)
@@lubosfinka7019 It's viewed from a low angle. Idk why but it explains the shape.
I strongly agree.
yeah.... it was kind of...not really sexy for the eyes ^^"
Thank You for this video, it is very rare that French Victories in the Anglo-French war are so vividly covered. You continue to astonish us with the vivid range of topics. Top Work!
I read not so long ago a book called "The Sunday of Bouvines" written by the French historian Georges Duby and I recommend it so much to all the people who have enjoyed this video.
The Battle of Bouvines from his successor Dominique Barthelemy is great too
"Anglo-French war" is a very generalized name that could apply to a lot of wars lol.
The Second Punic War.
The 248th Anglo-French War😅
And now the term Anglo-French would be considered an allied effort. Like the Suez Crisis.
@@TheLocalLt The wars between England and France in the 18th century
Plus it's totally erroneous. It is actually the Franco-English war.
1511-1513, french V
1542-1546, indecisive
1543-1551, scottish and french V
1557-1559, french V
1627-1629, french V
1666-1667, dutch V and french advantage.
1689-1697, both english and french gains and losses.
1701-1713, british advantage
1744-1748, status quo ante bellum
1754-1763, british V
1778-1783, french V
Those are the anglo french wars appearing in wikipedia for the time between the hundred year's war (1337-1453, french V) and the Napoleonic wars (1804-1815, british V). No, the warring periods between the two countries are not limited to three occasions.
This has got to be one of the lesser known but more influential battles of Medieval Europe. I never knew that it was this battle that caused King John of England to sigh the Magna Carta. Nor did I know that this helped to create France as we know it. I liked this video. Wouldn't mind seeing more on this series and more video's on the Imjin War. My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
It's quite well known in France (obviously).
Possibly less so in Germany, Belgium or Low Countries.
England was not a major party to the battle itself, more to the overall (disastrous) campaign.
I personnaly think that it's not the results of this particular campaign that undermined the authority of John Lackland but moreover the string of disastrous choices and terrible defeats he accumulated, on the opposite of his father and brother : English people patience stopped here (except for the ever loyal Willieme le Mareschal/William Marschall).
@@elbentos7803---Yes I'm aware that the accumulation of King John's defeats led him to sign the Magna Carta but I'm sure this battle helped to contribute to that event.
@@elbentos7803--Thanks for replying.
@@RestitutorEuropa---Maybe this channel will made a video on that battle too. Thanks for replying.
John of England ? Jean sans terre (Plantagenet) " Dieu et mon droit"
6:20 “It is now we acknowledge the existence of the Holy Roman Empire.”
That’s an accidental sick burn right there...
Until then, they we're neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
@UC3DlfMfCHhOrveXsi32Yr7g Holy Empire was added by Frederick Barbarossa, basically a screw you, i'm holy too to the pope. Up until then it was known as the roman empire or simply the empire
@@RestitutorEuropa Look above
"England is a French colony which has gone wrong" Clémenceau.
Gone rogue
@Dennis The Golden God Reynolds that has got to be the worst joke I have ever heard in my entire life 😂
Except he never said that. Reality is France was a colony of England with the likes of Gascony & Calais.
@Metallus Zorax Calais was ruled by the English until 16th century no? does the Uk not have its customs in Calais to this day and administer its (UK) border and access to channel tunnel from there... I'm sure France and Uk even hashed it out and settled the issue and agreed on my aforementioned statement.
@@LordGeorgeRodney also not really, as mentioned in this video the English were subordinates of the French king, every time the English got lands in France, they were beaten back and humiliated, so no, France was never a colony of England, sorry.
I chose France in medieval 2 total war today and already defeated 3 HRE armies and took one castle.
Okay? XD
@@thezeitos469 no it’s not okay
stainless steel 6.4 with bgr4 on vh/vh is where the challenge lies
@@harveyrouen4655 Why not? :o
Defeat timurids and Them we Talk...
One of the most important battles in Western European history. And the battle that started Feance’s rise to a great power.
Exactly
@@damianthebeholder6775 into the holy roman empire?
@@shawnv123 yes. Both the hohenstaufen and habsburgs had dreams of reuniting the realms of Charlemagne under the banner of the empire .
Please go back to using Total War engine for battle scenes. This new game looks cartoonish. 😅
Agree, I prefer the total war ones,they are much more realistic than the new ones
I strongly agree.
@@christopheragustjahjono2008 'realistic'
Just because it look cooler doesn't mean that it is more realistic
probably IP concerns
Anglo French war or duel of rivals part 1 of 3000
Means
Part 263 of 3000
@@winjiro ok
@@winjiro
True : part one is named "William and Harold have some dispute"
Lmso
New cutscenes were horrendous but I imagine it's a temporary thing.
I strongly agree.
@@RIPDixie1865 There were literally movement arrows. And unrealistic troop arrangements. And animations of units that did not look realistic.
@@samburke9563 Yes, they are. If something looks terrible, would you want to play it?
@@FirstNameLastName-tg3rc Why not? I'd play any game as long as they're fun for me. Graphics and realism takes the backseat. IMO anw. To each their own.
People play minecraft btw. It's quite fun. You should try it.
Hail Philippe II "Augustus", Hail!
The first to bear the title " *King of France* ". Before him, only the " *King of the Franks* " was used.
That's actually a really interesting subject. I think it was Henry I who was the first one to style himself "King of England" as opposed to "King of the English" though I could be wrong about that.
It was a common shift throughout this period, as people started to see Kings and their rule as associated less with the actual PEOPLE they ruled, and more about the land area. This trend as feudalism continues to grow more consolidated and centralized, and eventually provided the foundation for the transition into the era of Absolute Monarchy in the late 1600s and 1700s, which was a VERY distinct contrast to the kinds of powers monarchs had in this period.
As a somewhat interesting factoid illustrating the opposite evolution, it was considered a bit of an innovation and an oddity when in 1830 the new Belgian king was officially called King of the Belgians instead of the then more usual King of Belgium.
@@keedt Same with Louis-Philippe, installed by the July Revolution the same year in France, who was styled King of the French.
@@pmbartoli919 and do not forget Napoléon, Emperor of the French in 1804. By the way, the HRE emperors always were Emperor of the Romans.
@@SRosenberg203 you‘re absolutely right there! Early kings were also more often the ruler to several people/tribes/ethnic groups of different heritage, or nationality as we would say today
I am always sceptical when an english channel talk about french history, but I have to say that you make a fantastic job with your videos ! Keep em coming ! Cheers !
The amount of bias on the english side is ridiculous. Just see how many videos/films/books on the battle of Patay have been made compared to Agincourt or Crécy. Pure nationalism.
@@fedethefico why because some of us have a history to be proud of...
@@mickyfinn613 everyone does...
@@mickyfinn613 Exept that when talking about the hundred years war. The english only talk about the three battles they won while they seem to forget they lost the war and the other battles are never talked about.
@@johnharris3335 I am forgetting about nothing but you on the other hand are just displaying your total ignorance on the subject... I advise you to open a book because the only knowledge about this conflict seems to be "save private ryan" or some other holywood BS... 100 000 french soldiers died in 1940 and the germans suffered more daily casualties than they did in Russia. When the american entered the War, it was already won, by the Russians. The only one I am willing to give credit for is Churchill because he kept the fight going (while the vaste majority of english wated him to make the peace with the germans). And BTW the american did not came to "liberate us" they wanted to make France their colony, if it were for De Gaulle who stood up against them they would ahve make france their pupet state in europe. Much like germany was (and still is).
French: *taking over France*
England: hey that's illegal!
France: Fighting on 2 front and manage to win
HRE: hey that's illegal
French french against English french till the end of the 100 years war, first book in old english for example was printed in the end of 16th century or the fact that the first language of the Richard the Lionheart and all the nobility waa French.
@@HgHg-yp6ft ,
Hwaet? English was a well established literary language well before the Conquest - The English were writing their laws and poetry in English when everyone else except the Irish were still using Latin for anything that got written down. Also, English of the 16th century would be Early Modern English (and not all that early - the late 16th century is the era of Shakespeare.)
I think you've mistaken the 15th century for the 16th, and confused the publication of PRINTED books (i.e., using a printing press, a new technology for everyone at the time) with the writing of books in general.
@@HgHg-yp6ft
I could also point out that at the same time the English nobility was speaking French much of the French peasantry was speaking Provencal....;)
@@123elnat Nope, that’s stupid and wrong, french peasantry were talking many different languages, provençal didn’t exist back then, and there were plenty of different languages, divided between two groups, langues d’oc and langues d’oïls,
concerning french in England, it was talked much more than you are willing to accept, reason why so many english words are either directly taken from or originates from the french language.
I’m still wondering why so many people try to oppose historical facts, maybe you can help me there
The Battle of Bouvines is little known, but its consequences in the history of central and western Europe and are at the battle level as the Teutoburg Forest (9 CE), Fontenoy (841 CE) or Waterloo (1815 CE).
For England, it meant a decrease in royal power and an increase in the rights of the individual with the creation of the Magna Carta (rights for free men), the basis for all British common law and therefore all of the legal basis in the countries with British influence.
For France it meant an increase in royal power and the consolidation of the Capetian Dynasty for the next 100 years, added to the triumphs of Philip Augustus, stabilized and expanded the country's borders, centralizing power in the king, laid the foundations for the development of Absolutism.
For the Holy Roman Empire, it meant misfortune for Otto IV (who was stripped of his crown and later assassinated) and the assent of Frederick II. His reign began the decline of imperial power in favor of the Dukes and Barons. In 1232 he named them "lords of their lands" which was a significant change since it would be the seed for the formation of states within the empire and its decentralization.
No. Just no. Also Western* Europe. In central Europe it's known only thanks to youtube or by scholars
Waterloo is actually not that significant for world history because regardless of the outcome napoleon would have lost against the Austrians and Russians after that. What was more significant was napoleons russian campaign if it had gone well then the whole continent would be a lot more french
Wow, that's a really good point. I knew all these points individually, but I hadn't ever really thought about them in such an interwoven context before, compared to other major global turning-point battles.
@@TheMrcassina lol yet only somewhat funny
@@RexOlafusVidulusMagnus Germany is considered to be positioned in Central Europe from an geography perspective. Thats why its also part of the CET. Central European timezone.
Thinking of Germany as Western Europe is newer trend born from the cold war, when all of Europe was either west or east and is more political, than geographical.
The good things came out of this battle is:
1 The centralization of France.
2 The Holy Roman Empire gets the ruler it deserved.
3 England established the early form of the common law.
4 The rise of the folktales about Robin Hood in England.
What's good about centralization?
@@keedt No more Dukes with power greater than the King, and able to form alliances that go against the interests of their leige.
@@keedt In Medieval times? A lot.
Mostly stability and security to the realm. Something most people profit from, because hardly anyone wins when your country turns into a battle royal everytime the local dukes feel like it and it also makes you less vulnerable against outside threats.
And of course the Magna Carta would lend itself to the US Constitution
@@keedt France took its first step toward being a modern nation way long before the others thanks to centralization. Look at the HRE, it remained traped in the feudal system that litteraly caused its structural weakness for centuries.
Man, those Fields of Glory scenes are pretty terrible.
Yea. It's a PC game...
@@palasta That is not the reason for them being terrible.
I strongly agree.
The Pike and Shot version of the game is great tho
Ah yes. France vs England. A conflict as old as time itself.
@Metallus Zorax we have to wait till 1904 when British and French became Allies!
@@sinkrock1 they were allies in the Crimean war way before that
Not as old as time...
There was no anglo-french conflict until the last ice age ended...
And it only lasted for 800 years...
And sometimes, they were even allies (against - possibly - everybody)...
@@suryasishtalukdar210 Yes, they were helping the Ottomans against the Russian Empire but after that, they had minor conflicts in East Africa at 1898
@Mohammad Samadpouriejavid What are you talking about? Are you speaking about the present?
Montesquieu once said:
"In the infancy of societies, the chiefs of state shape its institutions; later the institutions shape the chiefs of state"
Prophetizing about the 5th French Republic ?
And in the deathbed of societies, the chiefs of institutions shape the institutions that shape the chiefs of state.
Hello! I am the researcher of the video and I am excited to have worked on the Battle of Bouvines, one of the most important battles of Western Europe. Hope you enjoy the video!
Ps. French surrender memes are stale and old.
Hi! I like your works. ;)
@@MalayArcher Hello there! I also really like your work :)
Hello sir, You have done an excellent work, Thank You!
As I was saying above I am always sceptical when I see an english channel talking about french history but I have to admit you did a fantastic job here ! Hopefully you will collaborate with K&G on more videos ! Cheers.
Mind if i ask if you can give us a sneak peek/teaser at something else you got in the works?
Yeah I don't like the cartoon Clash of Clans characters sorry.
I strongly agree.
The Pike and Shot version is really good tho
@@RIPDixie1865 There were literally movement arrows. And unrealistic troop arrangements. And animations of units that did not look realistic.
@@RIPDixie1865 [Laughs]. Wait... What? So realistic warfare had animated movement arrows? And animated graphics? The numbers are also off in terms of the visuals. I also could be wrong but I swear that knights didn't wave their swords in their air instead of actually fighting.
Just a small historical quibble: John didn't sign Magna Carta, but rather stamped it with his royal seal. Personal signatures weren't considered legally binding in 13th Century Europe.
But still an awesome video! I teach Medieval history and my class has recently covered Magna Carta and Frederick II, so I'll show this to my students!
France taking England and Germany at once, the surrender meme just took a huge nerf lol
(jokes aside it's the battle that forged both England and France in their path as distinct nations with distinct system)
@Metallus Zorax Holy Roman Empire was no less centralized than the french kingdom at that time. So basically it was Germany
The Napoleonic wars alone should have silenced that meme, but plebs will be plebs.
@Metallus Zorax The HRE is indeed the 1st reich nonetheless AND at that time France wasn't centralized yet (as the video explains by the way).
France surrendered in their most recent war.
@@maximilienplancq5368 You're right that the "Holy Roman Empire was no less centralized than the french kingdom at that time." Except, one important difference; the french kingdom was hereditary, whereas the Holy Roman Empire was elective. This might seem like a small difference, but in actuality was monumental. The hereditary nature of the Kingdom of France meant that the monarchy could attain an almost semi divine status that allowed to command pious reverence, overawe the power of nobility (especially if a strong personality happened to be seated on the throne) and eventually exert real power (as opposed to being theoretical) over the entire dominion.
The emperors never achieved that level of power (except under a few dynasties; the Hohenstaufen being the most famous) within Germany. Even the Habsburgs derived their power from their holdings outside the empire itself. In essence, the emperor was basically primus inter pares with the rest of the feudal lords. His power was always theoretical and not an established fact. Thus, he was more of a figure head than an actual ruler. This weakness in any centralizing authority continued through the ages, and was why it took up until 1870 for Germany to actually become a unified state.
So in a sense if the Norman conquest had failed or never happened then England and France would never have been as close or have centuries of warefare with each other. If things remained in Anglo-Saxon control then England and France may have had a neutral or fair realtionship with one another.
This is one of the few field battles fought in the High Middle Ages in Europe, and one of the largest. Warfare during this time was mostly characterized by sieges due to the dominance of the castle and how nobles tended to want to avoid pitched battles.
Total War in a nutshell.
There was many field battles in Europe during the high Middle Ages so I’m not quite sure what you’re on about.
The best time for the French history lover.
Yes as french these times are less known by foreign people but.. WOW
Yes! I asked for this for years! Merci bien.
I find the lack of total war illustration... disturbing.
please go back to using total war for the cinematic
@@RIPDixie1865 Imagine thinking this game looks better than total war 'bro'
All things considered, it's really not a war between two countries but between two French families. England has been ruled by foreigners since the Romans took over, up until now, as a German family sits on the throne. Not the same can be said for Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Is it really a German family just because they have ancestors from there? if so almost all English are foreigners too since they came from centuries of mixing invading populations, celts, jutes, angles, saxons, norse, french and so on and on, after one or two born and raised generations a people become native in my view, also the Scots, Welsh and Irish had more or less the same experiences, they are a melting pot of different invaders/migrations that culminated in their current cultures, even their most ancient myths talk about when their people came from other lands to settle those and mix with the natives (be it through migrations, trade or warfare), it's a constant that never ends in human history.
@@vonbalt4891 It's more recent than that. You may know that for example Victoria (who was the daughter of a German princess and spoke German as her first language), married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a german noble family). A few generation down the line, George Frederick Ernest Albert (known as George V) changed his name from House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor for PR reasons (WWI was ongoing, against Germany). And so, as we arrive to the current monarch, Elizabeth II, that we know belongs to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (but with new name), she married Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark (born in Greece, and only after marriage was he naturalized as British).
All this to say, that even modern royal families are far from representative of nations, and the British one especially has a long series of foreign families ruling over it. This is important to note, because it was a French royal family (the Angevins) that fought the 100 Years War, and many after that.
PS this is useful to put in context the events and motivations of the people of the time.
@@fedethefico
The same goes for every single monarch in Europe since they did what’s called “betrothal” or “arranged marriages” with other kingdoms to form alliances.
The Holy Roman/German/Austrian Habsburgs and the French Bourbons governed Spain and the Italian kingdoms for example.
@@LuisBrito-ly1ko absolutely true. The very concept of national identity as we understand it today came only around the 1800's. For this reason, and the fact that especially in Britain the monarchs were mostly foreigners (more than in many other parts of Europe), it makes little sense to discuss these wars as between nations, and should focus on the actual "dynastic" conflict. In this case, between French families (one dominating most of France, the other, still French, dominating part of France and Britain).
- The Anglo-French War !
- Yeah ? Which one ? they are so many ..
Fact that needs checking, Phillip the second Augustus was the first king of France, his predecessors were king of the Franks
AWWWW YIIISSS! That's what I squeaked when I saw the video x)
That's gonna sooo great, a big "MERCI" for covering that particular battle :D
Hope they'll be more videos about our Augustus and the many great things he did for the french kingdom
History of Medieval Europe is the one I love the most ❤❤Thanks for this comeback
Please consider a documentary about Gracchi Brothers and Sulla Vs Marius conflicts. 🥰
This needs more coverage indeed.
Explains so much about the late Republic.
Ah, yes ~ my favourite period o French history (years 1108-1285) and one of my favourite French kings alongside St. Louis IX and Charlemagne.
💙⚜️💙 Montjoie Saint Denis! Vive la France! 💙⚜️💙
Yep, totally worthed to ditch the 1212 ad total war battle scenes for these mobile ones
Gotta show love to the sponsor haha, but ngl I did chuckle when it would cut to the mobile game battle, and then they kept the intense shaky cam lmao.
Oh gods it was painful watching the cheap animation where the units are not making contact.
@@orionstark yeah, the sponsor was an idiot requesting to put that in the video instead of letting them do the sponsored segment and carry on
@@juanignacioflores3820 honestly made me wanna play the game less.
@@Akabari100 Usually sponsors stop after their ad time reserved in the video.
If you start mixing both you get issues like this.
Hey there Kings and Generals, Iv always liked your video's, its what got me interested in medieval history, not just the ancient world. I was wondering, do you have any plans of doing an episode about The Holy Roman Empire? It'd be an interesting video.
In the same spirit of French/English friendship, could you do a video about the battle of Castillon ? I never saw any animated review of this battle :O While it was of the first use of field artillery !
Yep, it is planned
@@KingsandGenerals Thanks ! Beacause when it comes to the hundred years war all you hear about is Agincourt and Crecy. People forget that France won this war and yet none knows any of the battles won by the French.
@@KingsandGenerals Thanks, i love you
I mean... we only have the AOE2 versión.
@@Casus-Belli There is Poitiers (1356) too. The outcome was dreadful for the french. The king and one prince as hostages (not the dauphin tough), 1 duke and 2 counts dead and more 1900 captured. The ransom for the royals was astonomical and I hope K&G could tell it's history someday.
I just discovered this channel and I liked it very much. I wonder if Gazi Osman Pasha and Siege of Plevna Documentary will come ?
Good Luck
France, England, and Germany are forever intertwined in European history.
Quite enjoyable to hear the name of your city being cited in a K&G documentary. It's like history is everywhere
He protec
He attac
but most importantly
he get his lands back
If you have a friend who still believes that France sucks at war, show them this video, the second half of the Hundred Years War, and the early Napoleonic Wars.
And Louis XIV's wars, and The Frankish wars including how they stopped the muslims, and ww1, and the Crimean war, and the second war of Italian independance, and the French revolutionnary wars, and the war of American Independance, and...
@@elmascapo6588 you mean by a Corsican born in France right ? Cuz the last time Italians have won something they were called Romans
@@elmascapo6588 So the best Italian general is french, how embarrasing.
@@elmascapo6588 well no. 80% of rifles and powder used by the american rebels were French and financed by France. It was the French navy that secured dominance on the american coast, cutting lines of reinforcement for the British. It was the French soldiers who fought in the US colonies. And France attacked Britain on all continents, taking 13 British possessions in India and Carribean and Mediterranean while only losing one island to them. Without French involvement, the rebels would have been beaten in the first 2 years
@@elmascapo6588 they most certainely played their part. However not as critical on the worldwide aspect as well as the financial part
Characteristically clear explanation of complex events - well done again!
Please use total war for the battle simulation next time it looks way better
It's incredible that I never heard of this battle. You guys are amazing.
Philip was a noble and just ruler since it is said he repaired and sent back the broken imperial eagles after the battle
As a french i admire what the King phillip built during his 43 years of reign BUT when you look Closer to History and sources you discover that he was also unreliable and disloyal to his allies and Friends. He broke oaths and betrayed. However most of bad things he did, he did it for the good of France and its people.
Directly thumps up without watching it befor because i know it will be entertaining , was not disappointed .
Phillip Augustus + Kings and Generals? Glorious.
Btw still hope that we will see the full empire vs papacy conflict on this channel one day.
I love reading everyone’s comments in here! They are really educational and interesting 😆
Thanks for the video, Kings and Generals!
English nobility after this battle:
"Please, no Johns!"
England in the 17th century:
"No more Charles!"
In primary school in France, I never learned about this French victory. My children, nor my grandchildren either. In our country, we like to highlight our military defeats. Fortunately, there is an English-language site to remind us of France's military glory, that makes up for the lame jokes, so common in English speaking countries, about the French defeat against the Nazis in 1940, the French armies sharing the same fate as the Poles, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians... In the anglosphere however these countries are never made fun of about that catastrophy. Why pick on France? I naively believed that it was wrong to make fun of the disasters incurred by others. But apparently it does some people good. Heroes, no doubt? It's true that you don't kick a dead dog. That just proves that France is still alive. Thank you for this beautiful, very informative and well-made video. In 2015, France celebrated France's defeat at Waterloo against the Seventh European Coalition!!! Would you believe that? But in 2005, President Chirac did not consider it useful to commemorate the French victory at Austerlitz against the Third Coalition. Masochism? In other European countries, I have the impression that they prefer to forget their defeats and celebrate their victories. May be with one exception: in England the trauma of Hastings still seems alive, almost a thousand years later!!! It’s always surprising for a French person. After all these Normans stayed in England and eventually mixed with the natives, didn't they? And the offspring of these mixed marriages have become as English as the others "pure viking-nordic-germanic DNA- blonde-blue-eyed anglo-saxons-", if it means anything scientifically. All these Anglo-Norman names found in England today are a blatant testimony of the Norman presence and persistence: Barrett, Baskerville, Beaman, Beaumont, Bennett, Bowles, Boyle, Campion, Cheney, Churchill, Coffin, Courtney, D'Arcy, Dubosc, Duclos, FitzGerald, Gilbert, Grosvenor, Harcourt, Hubert, Lambert, Lewis, Montgomery, Neville, Pomeroy, Seymour, Spencer, Taylor, Vernon, Walter...just to name a few. So why do so many people in England reject this part of their national heritage? It is as if the French wouldn't own up to their Celtic, Roman and Germanic forebearers ...mixed inextricably over the centuries to make up the French people. This common ancestry with neighbouring nations does not prevent them from knowing the difference between a Frenchman, an Italian or a German. Much in common but different. No one is responsible for their ancestors, but everyone is responsible for their actions.😉
You never learned about this battle ? You forgot it perhaps ? I learned it and my children too. It is a well known battle. I think that you change reality like right wing politicians who wants to convince people that today we need more nationalism because France is ashamed of its history. Bullshit !
Battles in field of glory II look embarrassing, feels like some 2003 game
it's a total war battle simulator, only with worse graphics and a grid map!
Gameplay >>> graphism
@@lysimaquetokmok6755 i am not saying total war is better, just it is more entertaining to see better graphics and more realistic battles than this (realistic in terms of allowing you more manpower and some manuveability on field), at the end of the day point of video games is fun, then why have game that look so dull
I love these videos and usually they're extremely accurate but why does every map in this video not show the Duchy of Burgundy???
Because Burgundy at this point was a fief of the Kingdom of France. Later maps show Burgundy because it’s duke was no longer loyal to the French king.
@@justinleecw You're right but it's showing other Duchy's that were fiefs too.
Because fuck them. Greetings from Switzerland ;)
@@johnmcgovern5372 The count of Toulouse enjoyed quite a bit of autonomy in regards to the King of France, and was only fully integrated in the realm after the "Croisade des Albigeois". Bourgogne, on the other hand, was since 1006 land of the crown, directly controlled by the king's house. It is under Philip the Bold (Philip II of Bourgogne), about a century and a half after Bouvinnes, that the place became somewhat powerful enough to become more or less important enough again and somewhat an independant state.
@@k.v.7681 But Toulouse was still a vassal of France, which is my point. It makes no sense to me that they're showing some but not all of the Duchies/states of the time.
Did you take the sponshorship ?
Yes
What did it cost ?
"This video's battle animations" Everything
I like the total war animation and the squares better. lol
Also this battle took part in what some historians name the "first Hundred Years War" from 1159 to 1259, between the Plantagenêt dynasty and the Capet dynasty
Please do a documentary on Emperor Frederick II and his 6th Crusade, it would be a very interesting topic to talk about.
I love football.
@@TheLocalLt That would be Frederick I you are talking about... Frederick II is the grandson of Frederick I, scholar king of Sicily, last great emperor of Medieval HRE, conqueror of Jerusalem (well sort of)
Montjoie Saint Denis!
Love the videos, and I’m glad you’re still getting advertisers as obviously you need to stay in business, but frankly the battle cutscenes from a mobile game were a poor choice. I hope you revert to your old style of total war cutscenes, or even just squares on a map, for future videos. Again, love your work, looking forward to the next one.
The overly obvious video game cutscenes were a pretty distracting. But I get it -- you gotta get that sponsor money any way you can! Still a great video.
And the Big Blue Blob is formed. The map of Europe will continue to have dots and lines and splashes of blue only for someone to rub it off angrily.
A very interesting video ...who describe very well the situation of that périod in France !! Great work lads Keep going on !!
Phillip II is a snake, but the type of snake you like for his incredible intelligence, pragmatism and manipulation. He looks like to be making fun of the most powerful men at his time.
Thanks for the video, well done!
Field of glory looks great, but I prefer the total war game footage because it looks more realistic and down to earth.
I love this channel!
Great video, I love European military history. But please, go back to using Total War for the battle scenes. I get that this new game is sponsoring you but the graphics look like a mobile game from 10 years ago. It's embarrassing and takes away from the dramatic effect of the video!
Medieval King: Loses 1 fucking battle because of a minor tactical error
His vassals: HMMMMMM!!! Wouldn't that make you....
*WEAK?????!!!!!!!!!!!*
*They have been fighting since Doggerland existed.*
Don't compromise the quality of your channel for adverts! We all love the channel and I don't want to judge, but it isn't worth losing your quality for these graphics.
Fun fact and some insight on the later bit of the Battle.
200 years later at this same location, another battle will take place, where the troops of Herny the VIIIth and Maximilian I will defeat the french forces.
15:15 According to Arne Koets's lecture about mounted Warfare the reason why those French Knights initially failed to break the pikemen seems to be due to a lack of lances along them. The Knights already used most of them and had to charge the ifantry sword in hand, when realising they could not break through, they retreated behind their infantry for a while, until their squires brought new lances to them, and only after that, were they able to charge the pikemen properly and break them.
Excellent well researched and detailed video :) Thank you for your work and spreading accurate information :)
In 1372 there was a very little known battle in La Rochelle by the Castilian Armada helping the french Vs. England thta was very important in this long war between FR and Eng. that I would like to see in this channel.
I approve ! An important naval victory in the 100 years war... Won by the Castillans.
I hope they do a video on the Caroline War. That way, they could talk about Du Guesclin, Cocherel, Najera, Montiel and La Rochelle, all topics that are little known today.
I hope field of glory get's some love from this. Really great developer who listens to the users and give you plenty of extra content for free. These games are a real hidden gem.
Can you made video about Battle of Malacca 1511.Portugese vs Malaccan
ya know i never get tired of watching the same battles on baz battles and here
Well this video is much better than the bazbattles one
@@Heisenberg882 baz battles has a certain simple charm that I like
Thank you kings and generals.
Love the new animation!
Please use again total war's animations.
Once again an amazing video 🙏keep the great work up, also, have you maybe thought of making some videos about Kislev and the exploits of the ice queen ? Or the seage of Prauge? I think it would be great with the new game being announced.
I ain’t getting used the new battle scene, I still think the total war modal is better
Great narration. Please make more videos on european battles
FOG 2 Medieval comes out in like 40 minutes. I didn't even realize.
I chuckled when it would cut to the battle in the mobile game, and you all kept the intense shaky cam. The fighting did look intense!
At last, I make a cameo in a Kings and Generals video.
Dope. While Chingis and the Mongols burbled to the east this happened in the West. My historical weaving is becoming stronger with each video. Long live Kings and Generals!
I see that attacking northern France through Belgium seems to be age old strategy for Germanic armies
Sadly Flanders has been the biggest battle theater of western europe for centuries because of France and Germany. However, this land is absolutely beautiful and its cities somptuous, you will see there the influence of both the Germanic and French culture. :)
Sometimes I think Flanders is like Poland of the west, sandwiched between two superpowers,who think it is just free real estate
Thanks for video. King Philip 2 Capet Augustus - the greatest king in Medieval European History.
First map, 1135 to 1154: assuming that the map is firstly shown in 1135, at that time Lisbon wasn't yet conquered - it was in 1147. When the map shows again - after the accounts of Henry II coronation, Portugal is correctly displayed as independent, since its _de_ _jure_ recognition was in 1143.
2 Years prior to Bouvines, took place one of the greatest clashes in the whole of the Reconquista here at the Iberian Peninsula: the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa.
Mesmerizing documentary as usual; but the sponsored game's images are just appaling... Please don't use them again, for they are absolutely not worthy of your channel.
great video K&G's