The Anglosphere is the only thing that keeps the world from descending into barbarism

[Greyblades]

So the English had a proto-English Identity when the French didn't is your. What in history sustains this claim? The first document in French is the treaty of Verdun (845) so we had a vague idea that the language exist, so at least, the Franks didn't speak any more a Germanic language.

Yeah I'm not touching this point, I dont really care much whose nationality came first, PVC and Gilrandir can argue this.

In the Battle of Bouvines, in 1214 Phillip II August is the King of France and the Knights serving in the French Ost recognised themselves as French.
In the battle of Bremule (1119), Henri VI the Fat is describe by the chroniclers as the King of France, and is recognised as such by Henri I, Duc of Normandy and King of England.

These examples are of the french nobility, not the pesantry. Which is the point, all Henry had to do is win a succession war and kill or evict any French nobility that wouldn't kneel and the pesants will fall in line.

Whereas Henri V would have been able to defeat the French is another story and we will never know. I doubt it as he employed tactic which became obsolete, the same methods use by his successors. The final French victory didn't came from the English lack of courage or will, it came from the French King creating a first national army (it is said that the 1st Infantry Regiment is the heir of the Bandes de Picardie, France created at that time, taking model on the English but including artillery, a weapon the English knew about it as they were the first to employed, but too confident in the long-bow tactic, put aside.

I say that if Henry was around to press his claim after Chales the Mad died england would have been strong and uninhibited by infighting and thus France would have been won before the longbow was countered.

[Gilrandir]

I say that if Henry was around to press his claim after Chales the Mad died France would have been won before the longbow was countered.

Sumption argues that France could have been won over after Poitiers had the Black Prince not embarked on a wild goose chase to Iberian kingdoms. It sucked in his money leaving him impecunious, depleted his manpower and eventually got him into bed with gout.

Damn, you make me wish to get Volume IV (which is bound to be published in August) asap. Unfortunately, it is not to happen that soon.

[Montmorency]

Well, you know, if you lobby Kiev to come to terms with Moscow, the sooner you'll be able to obtain an electronic copy through one of those sites.

[Brenus]

"I say that if Henry was around to press his claim after Chales the Mad died england would have been strong and uninhibited by infighting and thus France would have been won before the longbow was countered." The problem with this theory is the Long Bow was always victorious. It was not. Henry embarked for France and Azincourt in order to re-conquer. RE-conquer means it was lost before.
Bertrand Dugueslin did it.
Then at Patay, the Long Bow didn't do it. So Henry would probably put his faith in a tactic which saw him victorious and lost, as his generals did after his death... Most probably...
Battle of Verneuil is 5 years after Azincourt, and Orléans Campaign 4 years after.

[Greyblades]

Verneuil was in 1424, 9 years after agincourt, the English won overwhelmingly and thier bowmen were only caught out due to poor terrain making the deployment of stakes take too long.

The longbow wasnt the only part of the English arsenal Henry also had a very professional core of men at arms and knights of a higher grade than the average french knight. In Agincourt Henry put his faith in his knights holding out against three larger waves of french dismounted knights, the archers were there to harass the french into attacking on Henry's terms, disrupt cavalry charges and to keep the french horde from enveloping the knights, who did most of the fighting

[Brenus]

"Verneuil was in 1424, 9 years after agincourt, the English won overwhelmingly and thier bowmen were only caught out due to poor terrain making the deployment of stakes take too long" Correct. The Long bow tactic worked only on chosen field. Azincourt is a good example of it: good terrain for the English, which cancelled the French advantage of heavy cavalry, helped by the rain and the fact that the heavy infantry cannot deployed. The bottle neck configuration was a killing zone. It still would have a trouble if the French Knights wouldn't break ranks and charge the English, hacking their own infantry in the process.

But it doesn't change the fact that this tactic didn't work later. It was obsolete, and Henry would have repeated the same tactic, as his generals did after him, and probably would have the same result as shown later at Formigny and Castillon but as well much earlier at Patay.

[Greyblades]

But it doesn't change the fact that this tactic didn't work later. It was obsolete, and Henry would have repeated the same tactic, as his generals did after him, and probably would have the same result as shown later at Formigny and Castillon but as well much earlier at Patay.

Obsolete? I dont think so, merely like all formations it is at the mercy of the terrain and overuse. In good conditions it was devastating, in unfavourable ones it could be disasterous, yet as verneuil shown it could still be durable enough to prevail in bad conditions. Henry had the judgment to seek the good.

As shown by Verneuil the french hadnt fully figured out how to defeat it by 1424, and I doubt they could figure it out before Henry defeated them.

I dont think it truly became obsolite until proper field artillery became available, its previous failures being a result of its users dropping in quality, what with the incompetencies of John Beaufort and the like during Henry VI's regencies