Peter M. says
=20
>To argue from one or two battles that the French had no regard
>for tactics is like using Cannae to argue that the Romans were
>useless with respect to tactics. At Agincourt and Crecy, the
>French did abysmally. In other battles, such as Hastings, they
>did quite well. =20
I feel bound to point out, other than there being a considerable span of = time between Crecy/Agincourt and the battle of Hastings, that the = Normans (Norse men) were not strictly speaking French. Under the veneer = of French civilisation they were still very much Vikings at heart.:-)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 = http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 = HTML//EN"><HTML>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 5.00.0518.7"' name=3DGENERATOR> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Peter M. says</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>>To argue from one or two battles =
that the=20
French had no regard<BR>>for tactics is like using Cannae to argue =
that the=20
Romans were<BR>>useless with respect to tactics. At Agincourt =
and=20
Crecy, the<BR>>French did abysmally. In other battles, such as=20
Hastings, they<BR>>did quite well. <BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I feel bound to point out, other =
than there=20
being a considerable span of time between Crecy/Agincourt and the battle =
of=20
Hastings, that the Normans (Norse men) were not strictly speaking =
French. Under=20
the veneer of French civilisation they were still very much Vikings at=20
heart.:-)</FONT></DIV>
</BODY></HTML>
Powered by hypermail