Is the Battle of the Bouvines Overlooked?

Interesting discussion here. So I assume it is safe to say that such a politicaly important battle should at least be mentioned in a standard, European History Class? (No matter where you are).

I don´t know that for sure. I don´t think history should be as battlefocused as it is in terms of how it´s taught.

However this has huge alternatehistory potential:

Two monarchs displaced and the Capet dynasty gaining strong foothold.

No magna carta means a very different evolution of the english monarchy. Maybe an absolute monarchy at some point?

The french losing may possibly come to mean, no france... huge.

Flanders is one of the richest most important parts of Europe at the time. It is really huge.

My knowledge of HRE history is slim but the consequences there should be no less interesting.

Good ATL potential.
 
History is battle oriented since battles marked the course of history of Nations and determined to a great extent the destiny of people.
Bouvain,probably should be given a greater attention in school books,but
its real importance lies in the field of Military History and it is a shining beacon in the darkness of Middle Ages in Europe,where the achievements of arms are particularly mediocre,with the exception of Bouvin,Bertrand du Gueslin,and the feats of the mongol cavalry.
The first lesson from it is that the French forgot the lessons of such great victory;if they hadn't forgot, the battles of Crecy Poitiers and Azincourt would have had a different outcome.
What happened in Bouvain was this:the king of France was facing 50000 men(the centre consisting of 30000 Burgundian infantry) of the Imperial army,three times as many as the French;when both armies stood in their battle lines,theFrench line was the one third of the Imperial line,since the French knights were in'battles' of 700 knights,dense formations in a narrow front.When he saw that,father Gerin,who was a Royal herald and and at the same time chief of the king's Staff,ordered the various commanders:"extend your lines,so no enemy will ouflank you,face front".When the array was restructured,the French battle line had the same length with the Imperial one but three times less density.The Burgundians were first to advance,very slow and cumbersome formation.The French centre pinned down the Burgundians,the right of the French broke the Imperial left,St Paul and Melun multiplied their attacks agaist the flanks of the Burgundian centre and the Imperial lines disintergrated.
The medieval cronichlers overexaggerated numbers,but the above numbers are indicative of the situation.The french forgot what Guerin had done and we see them in the Hundred Years War in dense formations,easily cut down by the English longbowmen.
 
Last edited:
books
,but
its real importance lies in the field of Military History and it is a shining beacon in the darkness of Middle Ages in Europe
XIX century called, he want his historiography back.

I would only quote the work of Philippe Contamine "The War at the Middle-Ages" that explain why the strategy of this era was not only adapted and not "dark", but also finding and revitalising itself into intellectual search and "out-of-the-box".

The bad reputation of medieval strategy cames that the first people to have studied it were officers that didn't found in this period elements that they could use for their own era. They didn't searched the inner interest of medieval warfare, but rather exemple to copy/paste for their purpose.

The first lesson from it is that the French forgot the lessons of such great victory;if they hadn't forgot, the battles of Crecy Poitiers and Azincourt would have had a different outcome.

That's easy to say, if you don't see that the features of war changed. In Crecy and Poitiers (Azincourt being too particular) French used the exact same tactic than Bouvines, not because "st00pids", but because it worked and was adapted to the noble feature of their society.

If the english king used more efficient tactic, it was because of a lack of relience of english nobility and its relative numerical weakness.
That forced them to pay more attention to terrain and to strategic disposition of troops for defense, while the french strategy was more based on offensive and disposition of troops in attack thanks to a more important nobility and non-noble army.

All this crap about "they forgot", or anything, show a total uncomprehension of the subject, sorry to say that, but it's kind of annoying to see this that belong more to conceptions of 1900 than actual situation of knowledge.
 
Top