French accuse English of war crimes

[BrilloPad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Agincourt.html

Maybe they should invoke the Geneva convention?

After 593 years who can tell exactly what happened?

[Diver]

It's an insult the the good people of France.

Bluddy sheep burners that they are

[swamp]

French have a point.

Back in those days only the nobles went to war, along with their servants. If you were defeated on the battlefield you were taken prisoner and ransommed. You may have heard of your captor, he may even be a distant cousin.

In the Battle of Agincour we had the nobles and lots of yeomen archers, who were a new middle class. When all the french nobles were lying on the ground injured and stunned after the battle, our yeomen were ordered in and clubbed them to death to a man.

Us English taught the French that war isn't a jolly game for the toffs.

[moorfield]

Er, hang on, remember 1066?

Cheeky f*****s.

[HairyArsedBloke]

Happy Agincourt Day one and all.

This should be a public holiday.

[OwlHoot]

.. When all the french nobles were lying on the ground injured and stunned after the battle, our yeomen were ordered in and clubbed them to death to a man..

That was during the battle - A couple of thousand French had been taken prisoner, but then a troop of French knights was spotted through some trees and King Henry feared that tackling them might allow the prisoners to overcome their captors and rejoin the fray.

The English were greatly outnumbered, whatever these revisionist Frogs claim. So massacring those prisoners was necessary, even if harsh. (During the Normandy landings in 1944 the order was "no prisoners" for the first 48 hours, for pretty much the same reason.)

[TimberWolf]

I think the reason given at the time was that the English feared further French attack, so killed the prisoners before they could be freed and re-armed. Still a pretty poor show since the (presumably unwritten) rules benefited both sides. If the French knew they'd have been killed as prisoners they would have fought furiously to the last, killing more English. So it pays both sides to take prisoners, though I imagine this only applied to noblemen at the time.

[Diver]

That was during the battle - A couple of thousand French had been taken prisoner, but then a troop of French knights was spotted through some trees and King Henry feared that tackling them might allow the prisoners to overcome their captors and rejoin the fray.

The English were greatly outnumbered, whatever these revisionist Frogs claim. So massacring those prisoners was necessary, even if harsh. (During the Normandy landings in 1944 the order was "no prisoners" for the first 48 hours, for pretty much the same reason.)

Besides they were French.

You know it makes sense

[EternalOptimist]

The French version is actually backed up by History. The same historians have proved that the French under Napoleon did not lose the battle of Waterloo, they merely came second, and the French fleet was sunk by bad weather at Trafalger two days before Nelson showed up to kill all the survivors and claim a victory.

[Bob Dalek]

Like modern Britain, modern France seems to be a bollockless namby-pamby, bed-wetting infant. Is it really THAT long ago that they showed the world that they had a bit more about them viz. the French Resistance?