French won at Crecy

What if French side won at Crecy decisively? Instead of a series of disorganized cavalry charges (and idiotic deployment of the crossbowmen) the French are using their overwhelming numbers to surround the hill on which the English are staying (rather difficult to accomplish with the feudal militia but not absolutely impossible). And just waiting patiently (one more difficult but not 100% impossible thing with such an army) until English are running out of food or water or just recognize that it is over: their whole strength is in holding a high ground and acting defensively: the archers are not exactly an attacking tool.

The standoff ends up with the English attempt to break through but the bulk of an army could not make it. The options:
(a) Papa Ed and Ed Jr. managing to escape but most of an army is captured
(b) Only one of the escapes and other is captured with the bulk of an army
(c) Both of them are captured (one may be killed)
(d) Both are killed (highly unlikely)

Is this the end of the 100YW?

Is English military model completely compromised?


Crecy-map-ZZZ-1.jpg
 
The battle in its reason itself couldn't see such a tactic happening.
It happened because King Philip bowed to pressure from nobility to engage head on the English army and teach it a lesson while so far, his passive strategy to shadow the movements of Edward III worked well and put the English in a difficult situation. In that regard, it repeats at strategic scale what happened at Courtrai in 1302 when Artois bowed to pressure to launch the knights into the fight when he could have just pressed the infantry forward in what was looking a foregone French victory.
This mentality cost France the major disasters of the war, while the major successes under Charles V and Charles VII were all the fruit of a passive yet systematic and attritional strategy that did away with English tactical advantages before English inability to innovate (they basically use the same tactics in battle from Crécy to Azincourt and after) doomed their presence on the continent.
So, deciding to go into the battle over a confrontational urge but then chose conducting a maneuver instead of a frontal assault is incoherent with the prevailing mentality. Even though, the mentality that is tied to the proposed maneuver would have meant the battle would not have happened in the first place.
 
So, deciding to go into the battle over a confrontational urge but then chose conducting a maneuver instead of a frontal assault is incoherent with the prevailing mentality. Even though, the mentality that is tied to the proposed maneuver would have meant the battle would not have happened in the first place.
I'm not sure I buy that; even if the River Maye is impassible, the French could simply make a wider deployment with their superior numbers and overlap the English left.
 

Isaac Beach

Banned
Fun fact! My home town, Cressy, is so named after the Battle of Crecy, as the man who chartered the town had ancestors that fought in the battle :biggrin:.

(Can’t help otherwise, but I’m never going to get another opportunity to expend that information)
 
The battle in its reason itself couldn't see such a tactic happening.
It happened because King Philip bowed to pressure from nobility to engage head on the English army and teach it a lesson while so far, his passive strategy to shadow the movements of Edward III worked well and put the English in a difficult situation.

The question is not why the battle happened as it did happen in OTL, I'm well aware of the underlying circumstances, but what would happen if Phillip managed to keep situation under control. If you paid attention, you'd notice that word "battle" is not mentioned in the title or description and the whole scenario is based on avoiding the battle.
 

Art

Monthly Donor
The English line looks like Harold's Anglo-Saxon's at Hastings. . .
 
I'm not sure I buy that; even if the River Maye is impassible, the French could simply make a wider deployment with their superior numbers and overlap the English left.

The main OTL problem for Phillip was a plain fact that the bulk of his army was a feudal militia with no discipline and, no matter what Phillip's initial intentions were, they reacted as they often did: went to the rush attack. Was it inevitable? Not at all. While Courtrai is everybody's favorite example of how foolish the French knights could be, skillful commanders could manage to keep them under control (as at Rosebeke).

The question is not why the battle happened as it did happen in OTL, I'm well aware of the underlying circumstances, but what would happen if Phillip managed to keep situation under control. If you paid attention, you'd notice that word "battle" is not mentioned in the title or description and the whole scenario is based on avoiding the battle.

Anyway, statement that they had been using the same tactics all the way from Crecy to Agincourt is a cliche and a completely wrong one. Actually, the side that stick to the same tactics until it was completely defeated were English. The French kept experimenting in a search of the new tactical decisions until they finally found a winning solution. Unlike Crecy, at Poitiers the bulk of their force fought dismounted and the same goes for Agincourt (the reasons of their defeats had been different in both cases and English version of Agincourt was thoroughly debunked by Delbruck). After the Poitiers they stick to the small-scale war conducted mostly by the mercenary bands and squeezed the English out of most of their possessions.

Their problem was not as much "feudal mentality" but a weakness in the long-range weaponry that would allow to force the English out of their well selected defensive positions (and when they did not have time to take such a position, they had been defeated as at Patay). Firearms proved to be an answer.
 
The immediate changes would be frankly limited if Edward III lives or if Edward of Wales both survives. Even if the army is captured (or rather, the nobles ransomned), raiding campaigns and chevauchées would probably continue.
If Edward III is made prisoner or killed, along with his son, things would be really grim for England as Lionel of Antwerp was too young to really weight in the time being.

Consequences for France, regardless of what happen to Plantagenets, would be much more remarkable altough not world-shattering : Philippe VI would have seen his prestige firmly enforced, even if his legitimacy was never challenged, and his rule more easy. He wasn't that skilled in military matters, tough and Edward III (or *Edward IV is the first dies) will likely prevent him to takeover the entierety of Guyenne or to crush Plantagenet's allies in France (especially Flanders). On the other hand, I don't see either England and her allies to really launch another campaign too soon, and to temporize as much as possible.
Arguably, if Edwards of Wales doesn't survive the battle, Guyenne is probably mostly lost to Valois, taken piece by piece.

Charles the Bad of Navarra would probably see his ambitions being crushed down much more early IITL, and that's about most of the inner political and diplomatical changes I could see except a broad better Valois hegemony on the kingdom inherited by the capable Jean II (in spite of posterity's judgement, he launched most of the great military fiscal reforms of HYW in France). Everything depends on England capacity to strike again in the immediate future of the PoD.
 
The main OTL problem for Phillip was a plain fact that the bulk of his army was a feudal militia with no discipline
Allow me to niptick a bit : militia should be a term reserved for urban and semi-rural infantry of medieval armies. The problem of the french army was, at the contrary, its particularily important diversity (most of the troops were footmen) which alone wouldn't have been a problem, without unability to enforce a single unified tactical decision, and unability of Philippe to really dominate the war council.
That the leading part of the army was made of feudal recruitment wasn't really the problem (Jean II really gave it priority in campaign, and in spite of Poitiers' catastrophic defeat, it was essentially a sound idea politically and militarily), but Phillipe's poor skills on this matter IMO.
 
Good news for John, but bad for Bohemia-Charles was far more capable ruler than his dad.
John was already in his fifties by the time of his OTL death, so i'd still expect his son Charles to have a similar reign to OTL, only with a few less years of holding the crown.
Either way, is there a way to have the French and alllies win the battle while still having John die? I can see Charles managing to implement deeper reforms (such as the Maiestas Carolina of 1355) in the empire if he has better PR...
 
Last edited:
Allow me to niptick a bit : militia should be a term reserved for urban and semi-rural infantry of medieval armies.

Yes, formally you are right but I met the term "feudal militia" used in the meaning of "arierban", assembly of king's vassals, with an implication that the discipline in such an army was quite low and so were its tactical capacities.



The problem of the french army was, at the contrary, its particularily important diversity (most of the troops were footmen) which alone wouldn't have been a problem, without unability to enforce a single unified tactical decision, and unability of Philippe to really dominate the war council.

IIRC, at Crecy bulk of the troops (or at least those who saw the action) were knights with their bands. Unfortunately, most of the numbers related to the French army at Crecy are fantastic to a degree that does not worthy of a serious (or any) discussion. It is not even quite clear if its numbers had been greater than those of English army. " Whether Phillip IV was able to assemble an army of the same size or even stronger during the six weeks following Edward's raiding in Normandy on 12 July is not known. Those troops that previously had been fighting in Cascony and were marching up as fast as possible had not yet arrived. ... Phillip's decision to accept battle would still be quite understandable, since he was certainly superior in the number of knights." (Delbruck) His initial decision was to postpone the attack until the next day but the things got out of hands due to the enthusiasm of his troops. "If there had first been an orderly deployment and the entire mass had then charged simultaneously against the English, the English arrows would hardly be able to stop an assault. But the French moved up in the individual actions, just as they arrived on the battlefield with one charge following another ..." Probably a better general than Philip could manage to keep things under control but the task would not be trivial.


That the leading part of the army was made of feudal recruitment wasn't really the problem (Jean II really gave it priority in campaign, and in spite of Poitiers' catastrophic defeat, it was essentially a sound idea politically and militarily), but Phillipe's poor skills on this matter IMO.


The sound idea would be to have the mercenary bands. Their social composition would not matter but, almost by the definition, the heavy armored cavalry assumed the "knights" no matter how recruited. While not being what we now mean by the "regular army", these bands had at least some discipline and the trusted/competent leaders capable of controlling them.

John's problem at Poitier was a combination of his low qualifications as a general, low discipline (rush cavalry charge just due to a personal quarrel between Connetable and Marshal) and bad implementation of a seemingly sound tactical idea: charging English position by the big infantry columns (which would be something similar to the ill-understood Scottish tactics that won at Bannockburn but without the long spears, with the improvised "infantry" being overburdened with the heavy armor and with no previous training and with the enemy in a better position and better led). Of course, the dismounted French knights (at Poitier) did not make a good infantry: they completely lacked needed experience of acting as an infantry formation (training IS needed) and their infantry lances cut short were inadequate weapons. And, of course, they had no idea how to repel a cavalry charge so that they easily panicked (IIRC, one of the columns fled even without being seriously attacked). But, let's be realistic, John was a brave knight, not a capable commander.
 
John was already in his fifties by the time of his OTL death, so i'd still expect his son Charles to have a similar reign to OTL, only with a few less years of holding the crown.
Either way, is there a way to have the French and alllies win the battle while still having John die? I can see Charles managing to implement deeper reforms (such as the Maiestas Carolina of 1355) in the empire if he has better PR...

Of course, there was a chance: the English were going nowhere so a leader capable to prevent "initiative" of his subordinates could do much better than Phillip. John of Bohemia still could be killed in an attack.
 
Top