What you’re basically saying is the outnumbered English basically got lucky the inept French decided to fight up a hill in the mud and just kept marching like lemmings to their death. Arguably one of the supreme powers of the day was not that inept.

You don’t get it, I’m aware the longbow themselves didn’t kill armored knights, but you don’t have to blow up a tank to render it a battlefield casualty. You wound a knight, get em stuck in the mud, make them advance on foot vs horseback so they’re exhausted, it effectively defeats them.

do some research dude. seriously theres a bunch of videos about this subject.

its a myth the english nobility used as propaganda.

much like carrots improving your eyesight.

Didn’t the French use horses? and didn’t the English target horses because a thrown knight was usually a useless knight? Add that to the quagmire that was the battlefield and i would say that the archers decimated the French nobility.

[removed]

the Battle of Agincourt, where the fable of longbowmen crushing armored french knights is massively overblown. in truth it was mud and a hill that won that battle. most of the knights killed were stabed to death with knives after having to slowly slog through mud and becoming exhausted.

theres plenty of youtube videos exposing this lie and showing that an arrow fired from a longbow would at the very very best, leave a small dent.

so sorry to have to tell you this. But you and your mythical english longbowmen are wrong.

[removed]

[removed]

>I believe some of the surviving generals testified that if Munich hadn't happened, Hitler wouldn't have backed down, and the plan to depose him would have gone forward. Of course, these men were also trying to live through Nuremberg, so their honesty and reliability is questionable.

And they had similar ideas when remilitarizing the Rhineland.

I don't think their reliability is questionable. The military was a major arm of pre-Nazi German politics. And they were tentative of losing another war so soon after World War 1.

The issue was that France kept backing down. Even when Germany invaded Poland and France declared war, France didn't actually do anything. German generals were fearful of the French pushing through the western border while they were in Poland, and basically got lucky that didn't happen.

Then when they blitzed through Netherlands, Belgium, and France, the military leaders calmed down a lot since basically it all worked out.

But at any point pre-1940 if things went south and it looked like WW1 all over again, the military very likely would have couped Hitler.

I suspect German blitz tactics that overwhelmed France and Poland would have similarly prevailed against the Czech. Czechoslovakia is a lot smaller than Poland and it's landlocked so there's no reinforcements coming in. Sure it's mountainous, but it's small - heck it made short work of Yugoslavia which was all mountains and much bigger.

You don't really have Britain and France on the other side - not without a naval invasion or violating Dutch sovereignty. Otherwise you've just got the Maginot crossing. And frankly, given how non-aggressive France was when Germany invaded Poland, I doubt they would have been more aggressive with the Czechs. Though a more aggressive push by the French would have been a lot more interesting. German military leaders feared a French invasion when the forces were split in Poland.

We heard about potential military coups when he marched into the Rhineland and when he threatened Czechoslovakia. Both were due to fears of France. It's possible that basically any time before the Fall of Paris if the war started the go poorly, that would've been it. But victories kept Hitler in power and the military appeased.

>Was it a realistic scenario at one point for Poland to join the Axis powers or was Hitler’s plan always to invade Poland and subjugate it due to Poland being controlled by the Slavic people who Germany saw as beneath them?

Short answer, possibly, with some major reservations.

Germany wanted Danzig back. Historically, Prussia/Germany controlled the northern Polish coast up through the Baltic states. It lost the Danzig corridor in WW1 and had this German exclave that it wanted to connect again.

Could Poland have been a full Axis member despite being Slavic? Probably. Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania all got to join in and none of them were Aryan.

In an alternative history, could Poland have joined the anti-commiterm pact with Germany? Sure. But that was 1936. By 1939 when Hitler wanted to expand - this is post the Anschluss of Austria and the Sudetenland - he wanted Danzig. So, perhaps Poland could have given up the Danzig corridor and appeased Hitler and avoided the need for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between the USSR and Germany to divvy up Poland.

But what that would end up looking like for Poland is being stuck between two very hostile neighbors. If Poland was aligning with Germany, then like other European Axis minors, there's a lot of deference being given to Germany. More than likely, they still end up being the front line of the German-Soviet conflict.

Long term it's harder to guess at, but you'd likely see Poland become a puppet of Nazi Germany, similar to Viche France.

Yeah, unfair advantages make for bad stories or bad games.

Real life warfare is all about stacking up as many and as unfair advantages as you possibly can. This applies troughout history up to this day. Makes it hard to sometimes remember that its something that storytelling and game design deliberately get wrong.

>Modern testing indicates that armour was typically extremely effective at protecting against blows from all sorts of weapons and an armoured warrior had a tremendous advantage against any unarmoured or lightly armoured opponents.

This is cool to hear. I always wondered when watching movies - what the hell is the point of their armor if literally not once in my movie watching history have I ever seen armor actually stop or deflect a blow from anything?

Makes sense that it's not actually realistic.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Like I just said, I don't think pre emptive threats are the way to go either

While I appreciate your comment I think it would be more productively directed at the woman upthread who is talking about actually PHYSICALLY threatening her obstetrician before she gives birth.

I'm an old Australian man living in Australia so Im not part of this situation. I was just trying to point out to her that malpractice is generally illegal since it keeps happening to redditors.

Come to think of it not sure what country she's from either.

Thanks everyone for info it has cleared everything up

As I’ve said before, the English Long bowmen butchered the gentry, it was part of the reason the English won at Agincourt

Say that to the English long bowman! They would beg to differ

Is the Egyptian pictured wearing a very stylish mustache?

Few. Credible accounts of major battles (i.e. the ones including finances, tallying losses etc) typically put the number of 'real' knights per side in the 500-1500 range.