Saturday, October 25, 2008

Fuck the French

What a load of flaccid wibble:

Exactly 593 years after King Henry V's legendary victory, a revisionist conference will be held at the scene of the triumph.

Academics will suggest that the extent of the feat of arms was massively exaggerated, with claims that the English were hugely outnumbered a lie.

More controversially still, they will say that the foreign invaders used numerous underhand tactics against an honourable enemy.

These included burning prisoners to death and setting 40 bloodthirsty royal bodyguards on to a single Gallic nobleman who had surrendered.

'There's been a distortion of the facts and this conference will attempt to set the record straight,' said Christophe Gilliot, a distinguished French historian who is director of the Medieval History Museum in Agincourt, where the conference will take place.

Utter fucking cock, of course, as the more historically minded among us point out:

The issue was tactically settled on the day by the Longbowmen, largely - and by careful and intelligent choice of ground and cover, as well as the weather! The French were faced with ground and confinement of their front which would have been difficult in the best conditions, without having to endure the archers on top. Their fate was simply terribly unfortunate. Furthermore, if they had not tried to mount a flanking attack on the English baggage-train, or looked as if they were going to, then a number of prisoners would not have been killed out-of-hand (some were.)

There had been plenty of years since Crecy or even earlier, for them to learn the art of archery with the longbow, and to encourage their peasantry to use it and own it: the same trees were even available to them. Other nations’ failure to adopt the logical and cheapest antidote to this medieval equivalent of a thermonuclear device can thus only be put down to destructive xenophobia and the wrong kind of conservatism. Or perhaps they feared its distribution in their populations?

No. This is what’s happening now: English liberal (which is to say, conservative) civilisation looks weak right now - weaker than at any time I can remember, having been under constant and probably co-ordinated attack since the 19th century. This latest jab, by French “revisionist” historians (with nobody else invited) is but one more way to bully and twist the tail of an already wounded beast, which unlike real beasts of the Wild happens unconditionally to be in the moral right.

The problem of how to preserve a polity, together with its historical and philosophic canon on which it is based, that can, or could nurture liberalism and libertarianism in the end, ought to be a keytone.

How do we make the world safe for liberty?

This does not, moreover, even begin to address the problem we have of how we initiate (or, worse, have to re-initiate) liberty, in conditions where it has been expunged. Like modern Britain?

These small events and attacks may individually be but pinpricks. But, whether or no, we MUST treat them as co-ordinated, for they ultimately are, in a Gramscian sense. While yet having grand conferences (ours is going on right now) to decide the broad strategy for the defence and extensions of liberty, we MUST defeat these attacks IN DETAIL.

If we do not, then because the fascist lefties currently control the terms of discourse, ground lost becomes ground we don’t any more occupy in public in front of the undecided - and THAT is what matters.



All I can say to Mr Gilliot is: "Casse-toi alors, pauvre con."

You cunt.

Update: Counting Cats feels equally strongly about cheese-eating revisionist monkeys.

26 comments:

DC said...

I know it's really old but typing 'French Military Victories' into Google and hitting the I'm feeling lucky button always makes me laugh.

Anonymous said...

I have already left a comment on this here-

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=930#comments.

Cant be doing with typing it again.

RAB

Mark Wadsworth said...

Let them re-write history as often as they like. If push comes to shove, the Frogs will just argue that Henry V was himself a Frog.

I'm still waiting for them to explain how 1870, 1914 and 1940 were in fact cunning tactical retreats.

Or that Wellington & Von Blücher just happened to get lucky that day in 1815, and, in any event, Napoleon wasn't actually a Frog, he was a Sicilian so that doesn't count.

And can we have our f***ing Tapestry back please?

Pogo said...

On top of that, last time I was in the area I noticed that they've changed the name of the place to "Azincour" and although there's a commemorative plaque for the battle, it's about 4 inches square and screwed to the back of the public bogs. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Let's revise the history of the french resistance against the nazi occupation!!!!
They are full of merde even their best regiment is foreign

Oswald Bastable said...

Feckin' cheese-eating surrender monkeys!

xelent said...

I have to say DK... Who gives a shit what the French think?...

The long boring rivalry between the UK and Le Francais is nearly as boring as taking a 3rd crap the morning after a large vindaloo...

Nationhood and rivalrys are all creation of the State... Therefore I say politely to your great intellect... What does it matter?...

Obnoxio The Clown said...

I have to say DK... Who gives a shit what the French think?...

I have to say xelent ... I am not DK ...

xelent said...

Sorry Obnoxio... Please excuse my late evening surfing...

View from the Solent said...

Fuck them. Saint Crispian's day should be a national holiday.
(although I will accept arguments for 21 October)

Anonymous said...

Reparations will be requested next. And levied.

Ordovicius said...

The issue was tactically settled on the day by the Longbowmen

Yes, Welsh longbowmen.

hsld said...

Surely St Crispian is a sky fairy, and London busses must be emblazoned with adverts saying he "probably" didn't exist ?

As for Henry the Five, wasn't he a totalitarian dictator prosecuting an illegal and immoral war ?

Just throwing some libertarian talking points back at you.
That and you lot suddenly finding your inner nationalist.

For the record, Henry V probably did break the accepted rules of medieval warfare, he certainly broke the code of Chivalry.
And that bit about cutting the archers fingers off was a piece of statist propaganda ( to use your language ) - captured archers, or anyone else with no ransom value, would be executed as a matter of routine.

Now you have suddenly decided that you are proud to be members of a race and nation that has spent the last 1000 years kicking ass and taking names I'll expect a lot less whining and bellyaching about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Word verification - ficist honestly :)

Obnoxio The Clown said...

St Crispian wasn't a sky fairy, your grip on religion really is pretty tenuous, isn't it? :o)

I'm not waving the flag for Britain as much as I'm irritated with ANYBODY who drags up ancient history like slavery, William Wallace or indeed Agincourt as a justification for bashing people today.

Bishop Brennan said...

Obnoxio - whilst I obviously agree with your post and it's underlying rationale, what else would you expect from a bunch of socialist fuckwits like the French establishment. For fuck's sake, they make their UK equivalents look faintly competent...

Anonymous said...

I'm all for revising history in light of new research and new ways of intepreting the evidence - that, after all, is the essence of scholarship and it has breathed new life into our understanding of the late antique and early mediaeval worlds and has done away with a lot of the simplistic old models about virile barbarian invaders and degenerate deracinated Romans.

This, however, is no such thing. This is a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history in a manner that better suits French fantasies about its past, its present and la gloire. At best, this is a silly and decidely unscholarly exercise designed to grab headlines; at worst, it's an attempt to stir up actualy antagonism between two countries that are supposed to be allies. This conference will contribute nothing to the sum of human knowledge - unless, of course, one uses it as evidence of the depths of spitefulness and moral dishonesty to which xenophobic Frenchmen will sink in pursuit of their age-old vendetta against l'Albion perfide.

The facts of Agincourt - and of the Hundred Years War in general - are established. France, a reactionary state ruled by a backwards-looking aristocratic class and a weak monarchy, was bested by a country that mobilised its free yeomanry and formulated mechanisms which allowed lightly-equipped and poorly-armoured missile troops to wipe the fucking floor with the flower of Continental chivarly. Suck it up, get over it and move on - and maybe stop lecturing us on the glory of ever greater integration in the European Union when you fucking federasts are still pissing blood in rage about a battle that was fought nearly six hundred years ago.

Anonymous said...

>Surely St Crispian is a sky fairy, and London busses must be emblazoned with adverts saying he "probably" didn't exist ?

St Crispin (not Crispian) was an historical figure. He actually existed and one day out of the year was set aside as the Feast Day of st Crispin - and this happened to be the day on which Agincourt was fought. Moron.

>As for Henry the Five,

Fifth. Not five.

>wasn't he a totalitarian dictator

He was a fifteenth-century monarch ruling over what was, for the time and by the standards of the region, a surprisingly liberal and easy-going society.

>prosecuting an illegal and immoral war ?

Henry's claims, like those of other English kings of the time, had legitimate claims on "French" territory and, arguably, on the French crown itself. War is not intrinsically immoral (and, if you're a mediaeval Catholic, it's not remotely immoral provided you abide by Augustine's regulations for defining the bellum iustum.

>Just throwing some libertarian talking points back at you.

Oh. Is that what you're doing? There was me thinking you were demonstrating just how colossally ignorant you are.

>That and you lot suddenly finding your inner nationalist.

If you point out that a Frenchman has said something that is factually incorrect about Britain, that is nationalistic. If you stage a whole conference for the express purpose of throwing shit at a neighbouring country, a NATO ally and an EU partner, that's furthering the cause of European friendship.

You got some powerful logic there, boy.

>For the record, Henry V probably did break the accepted rules of medieval warfare, he certainly broke the code of Chivalry.

And because you say it is so, it must be so. French - and, in fact, all European armies of the period - regularly put non-noble prisoners to death on the spot if there was a risk of their being freed. Agincourt was different only in that Henry's soldiers killed French knights.

>And that bit about cutting the archers fingers off was a piece of statist propaganda

Source? Provide one or fuck off.

>( to use your language )

You don't actually understand what "statist" means, do you?

>- captured archers, or anyone else with no ransom value, would be executed as a matter of routine.

But you just said that Henry, by killing prisoners, was breaking the laws of war. Now you say that all valueless prisoners were executed. You're contradicting yourself because you're a fool and an ignoramus.

>Now you have suddenly decided that you are proud to be members of a race and nation that has spent the last 1000 years kicking ass and taking names I'll expect a lot less whining and bellyaching about Iraq and Afghanistan.

What the fuck does this even mean, you absolute fucking dolt?

Please just go away and die painfully and stop shitting up this blog with your barely literate, largely incoherent and terrifically badly-informed shite.

hsld said...

Obnoxio - Bollocks, what is St Crispian if he isn't a sky fairy then ? a sky fairies assistant ? it's just semantics.

Of course you aren't waving the flag for Britain, God forbid ( sorry, Dawkins forbid )

How are these silly French wankers bashing anyone today ? the last I heard Henry V had been dead for 586 years.

Just admit it - your inner nationalist made you do it, and now you have to weasel your way out of it.

Calling the French surrender monkeys is the job of neanderthals like me. It doesn't sit well with the rest of your adolescent smash the state philosophy.

Word verification is becoming spooky - upery - Antoine De St ?

hsld said...

Anonymous 12:46

Jesus Christ was also a historical figure but he puts the shits up you lot, cramping your style with his constant moralising by daring to advertise on London busses. Meanwhile the religion which blows London transport the fuck up gets pretty much a free ride.

You think 15th century England was a liberal and easy going society ? fuck me, read a history book will you.

Henry the Five wasted nobles who should have been ransomed. Thats how he broke the accepted code of warfare. I don't give a fuck, it was the smart thing to do under the circumstances, but it was a 'war crime' by the standards of the age.

As for the fingers being chopped off, research it yourself, find out and then come back and say 'sorry, I was wrong'

Finally, why don't you MAKE me go away and die painfully ? You can't, can you ? so in the light of that I'll continue to keep sticking pins into your balloons. If you don't like it you can suck my dick.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"Meanwhile the religion which blows London transport the fuck up gets pretty much a free ride."

Really. So Allah is not seen as a god? Oh no, wait a second: Allah is seen as a god.

So, he would come under the statement "there is probably no god", wouldn't he? Yes, he would.

For fuck's sake, why don't you sod off back to your BNP meeting and leave the rest of us alone?

"Jesus Christ was also a historical figure but he puts the shits up you lot..."

Ah, a (bigoted) Christian. I shouldn't bother arguing with him anymore, chaps: he's a troll.

DK

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Just admit it - your inner nationalist made you do it, and now you have to weasel your way out of it.

If it makes you feel better to think that, then please do so. However, if I were going to be nationalist, it certainly would not be in favour of Britain.

Jones said...

A, a, in, Storm, teacup. FFS, they're a minority group of dunderheaded revisionist academics. Why are they even getting column inches with this tosh would be the better question. Maybe they should be arrested for charges of 'Denying' historical events and hauled off to the jug on an EU arrest warrant like that Australian chap the other month.

Last time I was at Agincourt (It's been called Azincourt locally for years)in August 2003, there was quite a tidy little museum at the battle site with artefacts and interactive exhibits about the events that feast of Crispian Crispianus. Run by (Gasp) native French people. If you get the chance, give it a visit. Nicely done, even handed, and very educational. Quite an accurate account of the battle from what Wife and I could observe.

hsld said...

You do love pigeonholing folks don't you ? makes it easier to provide a standard rebuttal I suppose.

I'm not a BNP supporter, because I despise socialism. I am a racist and though. If you don't like that you can suck my dick. I'm not sure any society should be ordered around my dislike of Paki's ( and poofs ) however, it's a personal thing.

I'm not a Christian, I'm an agnostic. Agnostic because I enjoy studying cosmology and while science is really good at measuring the temperature of the universe 3 seconds after the big bang, it doesn't have a better answer than " first there was nothing, and then it exploded "

And no, I won't be fucking off any time soon. Get used to it.

Devil's Kitchen said...

"You do love pigeonholing folks don't you ?"

Says the man who pigeonholed me according to my education...

"I'm not a BNP supporter, because I despise socialism."

Fair enough: they are fucking socialists.

"I am a racist and though. If you don't like that you can suck my dick. I'm not sure any society should be ordered around my dislike of Paki's ( and poofs ) however, it's a personal thing."

I'm sure that it shouldn't; I do, however, agree that you should be able to hold any views that you like (uh oh, that'll get me a lynching from some of The Righteous).

"I'm not a Christian, I'm an agnostic. Agnostic because I enjoy studying cosmology and while science is really good at measuring the temperature of the universe 3 seconds after the big bang, it doesn't have a better answer than " first there was nothing, and then it exploded ""

True enough. However, this is not a problem that can be solved by having an all powerful creator either, since if a universe cannot spring from nothing, then neither can an all-powerful creator.

"And no, I won't be fucking off any time soon. Get used to it."

Fair enough...

DK

Anonymous said...

People getting all upset because someone has criticised an imperialistic war.

Trying to claim a bloody and needless battle for 'liberty' is the sort of double speak statists love.

Can we get away from petty nationalistic squabbles and just acknowledge that both sides were fucking awful and nowhere near anything vaguely libertarian? Or is nationalism more important than freedom?

The Archers said...

Er, whatever you say, we won :)