WI: English victory at the Battle of Castillion

The Battle of Castillion, was a complete disaster for the English in OTL. It saw the death of John Talbot "The English Achilles", one of England's most able commanders, and the fall of English Gascony. The latter resulted in King Henry VI's breakdown, which later necessitated the appointment of Richard of York as Lord Protector, which helped lay the groundwork for the Wars of the Roses. So what if the English won at Castillion?

Prior to news of the defeat, Henry VI was described as being full of energy, with many believing that he might actually lead an army against the French in person, so might that happen here? Could the English manage to keep hold of Gascony and negotiate a peace with the French? Or would the territory fall anyways?
 
Without going as far as to say that Castillon was a surefire french victory I do feel this is one of those WIs where the exact POD does need to be established as, unlike in Formigny for example, there isn't an obvious one. By all accounts the battle was something of a curbstomp in OTL, with the far superior french artillery blowing the english forces to pieces.

On a broader level, tough, I would say it won't change the faith of Gasconny in the mid and long run. The french had prepared for that particular war for a long time and could take a reverse and recover, they simply had way more ressources then England to spend in this instance.
 
Last edited:
Without going as far as to say that Castillon was a surefire french victory I do feel this is one of those WIs where the exact POD does need to be established as, unlike in Formigny for example, there isn't an obvious one. By all accounts the battle was something of a curbstomp in OTL, with the far superior french artillery blowing the english forces to pieces.
Oh right, I forgot about the POD. The exact POD is that John Talbot attacks with his entire army rather than just the force he had with him. AIUI the full force would have outnumbered the French.
On a broader level, tough, I would say it won't change the faith of Gasconny in the mid and long run. The french had prepared for that particular war for a long time and could take a reverse and recover, they simply had way more ressources then England to spend in this instance.
So the Castillion campaign was always doomed to fail?
 
Oh right, I forgot about the POD. The exact POD is that John Talbot attacks with his entire army rather than just the force he had with him. AIUI the full force would have outnumbered the French.

So the Castillion campaign was always doomed to fail?
The outnumbering part is debatable but IMO I think it wouldn't have changed the end results, even if it would have been more hard fought. The french were well dug in with a bunch of artillery. A strong, one army push would have been more challenging for his positions but even the more optimistic estimates wouldn't give him the numbers he would have needed to break the french forces. Moreover, if he had waited it wouldn't have left a lot of the time for the english to conduct their attack before the thousand breton knights until Pierre II showed up on their flank like in OTL, except ITTL it would have had even more devastating effects as they would charge into an army that would probably be in the middle of its attack on the french positions...

More broadly; yeah, I feel the Castillon campaign was doomed from the get go in the long run. The french not only had more ressources but their military apparel was simply better at this stage. For all of Talbot's personnal valor he was behind the times at this stage, fighting a late medieval war against what was already an early modern army.
 
The outnumbering part is debatable but IMO I think it wouldn't have changed the end results, even if it would have been more hard fought. The french were well dug in with a bunch of artillery. A strong, one army push would have been more challenging for his positions but even the more optimistic estimates wouldn't give him the numbers he would have needed to break the french forces. Moreover, if he had waited it wouldn't have left a lot of the time for the english to conduct their attack before the thousand breton knights until Pierre II showed up on their flank like in OTL, except ITTL it would have had even more devastating effects as they would charge into an army that would probably be in the middle of its attack on the french positions...
So there needs to be an earlier POD for it to be an English victory?
More broadly; yeah, I feel the Castillon campaign was doomed from the get go in the long run. The french not only had more ressources but their military apparel was simply better at this stage. For all of Talbot's personnal valor he was behind the times at this stage, fighting a late medieval war against what was already an early modern army.
So the best England can hope for is that they can pull off some diplomatic miracle and keep Gascony then?
 
So there needs to be an earlier POD for it to be an English victory?

So the best England can hope for is that they can pull off some diplomatic miracle and keep Gascony then?
Probably, hopefully earlier enough for England to have better leadership and French bad one in this instance.

TBH the fate of Gascony was probably sealed post-Formigny. England only really had the means to pull a serious effort for either Normandy or Gascony. Ideally they would have chosen one years earlier and heavily invested in its defenses, along with taking the steps to modernise its land forces earlier on, but that might very well not have been politically possible...
 
Last edited:
Probably, hopefully earlier enough for England to have better leadership and French bad one in this instance.

TBH the fate of Gascony was probably sealed post-Formigny. England only really had the need to pull a serious effort for either Normandy or Gascony. Ideally they would have chosen one years earlier and heavily invested in its defenses but that might very well not have been politically possible...
Hmm, so maybe the POD could be that the English win Formigny and then spend the next few years fortifying Gascony?
 
Hmm, so maybe the POD could be that the English win Formigny and then spend the next few years fortifying Gascony?
Too late IMO, to make it holdable with what they had they would have needed far longer. France could and probably would recover from Formigny (it could have been an english victory but it would have a hard time being a decisive one), regroup and probably end up taking both territories.

More broadly, I feel that we are getting the main issue with english warfare for a while after this point, and that was already in effect: the whole Crecy-Poitiers-Agincourt mythos made them loose track of the fact that they had, you know, being loosing for a good while and were track to soon loose the war!

As a result they did not sufficiently payed heed to the changing winds of european warfare and ended up with a kind of victory sickness for battles whose effects had already been mostly erased that prevented them from learning from their recent defeats.

If you want to help England keep Normandy and/or Gasconny at all you need to get rid of this to at least some degree and that's no easy feat...
 
Last edited:
>Win battle in Normandy, presumably stopping or delaying the French advance into Normandy.
>Invest in defending Gascony.

Sounds legit
Maybe Henry VI could come to an agreement with Parliament in the 1440s to defend Normandy then? IIRC there was a dispute between them over whether they should reform the tax system and/or the King Household or repair and upgrade the fortifications in Normandy.
Too late IMO, to make it holdable with what they had they would have needed far longer. France could and probably would recover from Formigny (it could have been an english victory but it would have a hard time being a decisive one), regroup and probably end up taking both territories.

More broadly, I feel that we are getting the main issue with english warfare for a while after this point, and that was already in effect: the whole Crecy-Poitiers-Agincourt mythos made them loose track of the fact that they had, you know, being loosing for a good while and on track to soon loose the war!

As a result they did not sufficiently payed heed to the changing winds of european warfare and ended up with a kind of victory sickness for battles whose effects had already been mostly erased that prevented them from learning from their recent defeats.

If you want to help England keep Normandy and/or Gasconny at all you need to get rid of this to at least some degree and that's no easy feat...
So the best possible POD is to get them to modernise their military so that they are on par with the French?
 
So the best possible POD is to get them to modernise their military so that they are on par with the French?
Yep, it wouldn't change that France has just more ressources but it is definitely a preriquisite before anything. The how is a massive issue tough. Like, even in Shakespeare's days the English were still waxing lyrical about Agincourt and in Henry VI, Part I you see that Joan of Arc's victories and what came later were presented as the result of not fighting fair by the french and overwhelming numbers, essentially kinda denying that they were defeated in the first place. Hell, even today's english speaking culture had a tendency to kinda forget the french ended up winning :rolleyes:

Basically, England post-Henry V had a rather massive case of victory sickness. Hell, I would go as far as to say that it was only with the New Model Army that it military apparel on land truly managed to catch back after falling back during this era! Altough from Elizabeth I onward it more then compensated for this by strenght at sea...
 
Yep, it wouldn't change that France has just more ressources but it is definitely a preriquisite before anything. The how is a massive issue tough. Like, even in Shakespeare's days the English were still waxing lyrical about Agincourt and in Henry VI, Part I you see that Joan of Arc's victories and what came later were presented as the result of not fighting fair by the french and overwhelming numbers, essentially kinda denying that they were defeated in the first place. Hell, even today's english speaking culture had a tendency to kinda forget the french ended up winning :rolleyes:

Basically, England post-Henry V had a rather massive case of victory sickness. Hell, I would go as far as to say that it was only with the New Model Army that it military apparel on land truly managed to catch back after falling back during this era! Altough from Elizabeth I onward it more then compensated for this by strenght at sea...
I see, so maybe some general notices that the English army needs to catch up with the rest of Europe, and instigates reforms to it during the 1420s and 30s?
 
I see, so maybe some general notices that the English army needs to catch up with the rest of Europe, and instigates reforms to it during the 1420s and 30s?
From where would these come from tough? That's kinda my point in this instance: in OTL they suffered a string of heavy looses and nobody pushed for it while the cultural prevalences of the three great longbow victories in public imagination remained intact.
 
From where would these come from tough? That's kinda my point in this instance: in OTL they suffered a string of heavy looses and nobody pushed for it while the cultural prevalences of the three great longbow victories in public imagination remained intact.
True, that would be the tricky part then.
 
Oh right, I forgot about the POD. The exact POD is that John Talbot attacks with his entire army rather than just the force he had with him. AIUI the full force would have outnumbered the French.

But the French are still in a fortified position with the numerous firearms while the English are still using their losing tactics instead of the winning one (arrange a convenient position for the archers, wait for the French attack and then counterattack): in the attacking mode they did not have a clear tactical edge. Talbot could be one of the ablest English commanders but at Castillon his behavior looks somewhat on the imbecilic side: can it be that he simply despised the French all the way to losing contact with a reality?
So the Castillion campaign was always doomed to fail?
The English side did not have money: implementation of the idea that the war has to be paid for by the occupied French provinces did not generate enough funds and did not endear the English to the local population.
 
From where would these come from tough? That's kinda my point in this instance: in OTL they suffered a string of heavy looses and nobody pushed for it while the cultural prevalences of the three great longbow victories in public imagination remained intact.
Even “worse”. Contrary to the evidence of their own victories, after the war the French had been trying to emulate tactics of the losing side by creating their own franc archers (which soon enough proved to be inefficient in their intended role and ended up being reformed into the typical contemporary infantry with the pole arms and firearms). In his description of the Battle of Monthlery Phillip de Commines blames indecisive outcome on a fact that many knights of the League of the Public Weal refused to fight “English style” (on foot as a support of the archers). The firearms in that battle are noticeable by their (seemingly) complete absence (Louis seemingly abandoned his infantry and artillery and came mostly with cavalry but no mention of the firearms on other side).
 
But the French are still in a fortified position with the numerous firearms while the English are still using their losing tactics instead of the winning one (arrange a convenient position for the archers, wait for the French attack and then counterattack): in the attacking mode they did not have a clear tactical edge. Talbot could be one of the ablest English commanders but at Castillon his behavior looks somewhat on the imbecilic side: can it be that he simply despised the French all the way to losing contact with a reality?

Or maybe the guy who lost his entire army chasing a deer at Patay and who was rules lawyering his way past parole after getting captured a second time wasn't quite as good as advertised.
 
Without going as far as to say that Castillon was a surefire french victory I do feel this is one of those WIs where the exact POD does need to be established as, unlike in Formigny for example, there isn't an obvious one. By all accounts the battle was something of a curbstomp in OTL, with the far superior french artillery blowing the english forces to pieces.
Maybe a convenient outbreak of dysentery or something forces the French army to withdraw, or weakens it enough for the English to defeat. Granted I expect the French to be back again within a couple of years, so any respite would be short.
 
Or maybe the guy who lost his entire army chasing a deer at Patay

Which was the first convincing illustration of the potential weaknesses of so far victorious English tactics showing that without an adequate support of the dismounted knights and/or some field defenses they can’t stand up to the cavalry charge (AFAIK, on a big scale this was the first time after the Bannockburn). Surely, the forest in which these archers were supposed to be hiding was not tense enough to prevent a successful cavalry charge, which means that even without the deer accident (low discipline or simply imbeciles?) it was probably not a good hiding place. One can’t avoid having doubts about leadership’s tactical skills. And absence of the cover (sharpened stakes) on the flanks make these doubts even stronger
and who was rules lawyering his way past parole after getting captured a second time

It seems that he promised “not to bear arms” against the French and, following the letter of his promise, led the charge unarmed and unarmored. Even by the contemporary standards this was a little bit on the imbecilic side: he did not have to led the charge personally and the second part was plain stupid.
wasn't quite as good as advertised.
This is a distinct possibility: he was experienced and energetic but this does not always a synonym to a “good general”. 😜
 
Last edited:
The English side did not have money: implementation of the idea that the war has to be paid for by the occupied French provinces did not generate enough funds and did not endear the English to the local population.
Having Lancastrian France pay for itself did work fairly well and was not unpopular in Normandy until crop failure devastated the local economy. It is hard to motivate people to pay taxes for good government and defense of the realm when they have no food to eat or money to pay.
 
Top