Quote Originally Posted by K COSSACK
I mean, militia armies are very foolish to have. In the 100 years war, the English army were more profesional methinks, while the French still had their old militia with knights. France was defeated several times because of this.
Okay, what?

If the French were as weak as you indicated, and the English as incomparably competent, how is it a Hundred Years' War? It would've been ten years at best and Edward III would be the King from Paris to Toulon.

No, it had many tides and turns and much more than that. We here only hear about the great English victories Sluys, Poitou, and Agincourt. We never hear about the resistance given by Charles V and du Guesclin and the like and the bloody nose they gave the English in their times.

In fact the English yeomanry that made up the "definitive" part of the army could be seen as an expression of an effective militia, whereas France had the advantage of the number of Knights on their side.

The so-called weakness of French infantry, if it existed before, had been essentially countered by Charles VII's Ordinances which reformed the French men-at-arms and laid the foundation of what would later become the most powerful army in Europe.

The Hundred Years' War was not a demonstration of militia losing to whatever the English had, it was a demonstration of knights, heavy armored shock cavalry, losing if not used properly. The limitations of the heavy cavalry -- known since ancient times -- had been ignored by the arrogant French aristocrats. And they paid the price for it.

Moreover there are counter examples aplenty in Medieval Europe and Early Renaissances that demonstrated what good infantry could do in the battlefield -- including militia. The Low Countries for very long resisted the incursions of many an aristocrat and they enjoyed correspondingly much greater freedom than their contemporaries in the serfdom of the French and German countryside. Frederick Barbarossa, one of the most powerful European rulers of his time, had great troubles subduing the Italian city-states of Northern Italy: in fact the Lombard League, an alliance of said cities, which used mainly militia augmented by mercenaries and Papal reinforcements, eventually defeated him in a climactic battle.

Simply put, it really comes down to where your priority is. In Medieval Europe in general the Cavalry dominated because of various factors, and many of them not exactly military; the warrior aristocracy was after all the governing class of most of Europe and disdained the infantry almost by default. In places where there are more cities and/or the aristocracy were not as strong effective militia was often a given as was needed for self-defense.