Posted on 10/26/2009 7:20:45 AM PDT by BronzePencil
“Gordon of A$$hole”?
Too bad Sherman and Mr. Peabody aren't still making those history lessons. Hilarious.
My pleasure. I’m not sure whether I have a favorite historical period; 19th century America (that is, before flight, autos, telephones, electricity) has some appeal from time to time. :’)
If only there was such a search engine for your French side, eh?
Forty-three? Wow. I thought I had ancestors in the list, didn’t find anyone, and rechecked the surviving family records — turns out they fought in the much less well known 99 Year War. The Hundred Years’ War went on a year longer, and got all the attention.
For whatever the reason I have always been fascinated by medieval history, especially England and France during the Hundred Years War. I am also intrigued by the way certain events (in particular the Black Death) lead to the emergence of the middle class and the basis for mercantilism.
Ha-thanks-the NY Times article is what prompted me to track down the database
In reality, the Battle of Agincourt probably resulted in a lot of the political upheaval in England which lead to the War of the Roses. However, from a military point of view, it marked a major turning point the history of warfare and this is true REGARDLESS of how outnumbered the English were.
Lucky you. I’ve always thought the more much less well known the better.
Heh! We can’t have everything. Yet.
“In reality, the Battle of Agincourt probably resulted in a lot of the political upheaval in England which lead to the War of the Roses. However, from a military point of view, it marked a major turning point the history of warfare and this is true REGARDLESS of how outnumbered the English were.”
The War of the Roses (actually a series of seperate conflicts) began long before Agincourt, when Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, deposed his incompetent cousin Richard II in 1399, his son was Henry V, and he probably sought glory in France to better secure his position at home from the Rival House of York. Henry V’s son Henry VI was an infant when he came to the throne, and proved to be weak and ineffectual, kept on the throne by his powerful regents and the inflence of his Queen, Margaret of Anjou. Until he was captured and eventually executed after the death of his only son and heir at the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471....
You're absolutely right, I think I phrased it wrong. What I meant was that Henry V and the other Lancasters, in seeking glory in France, allowed the Yorks to regain power bases in England.
Henry V's father, John of Gaunt was arguably the de facto king of England during most of Richard II's reign. When John of Gaunt died in 1399 Richard II tried to claim his property, this made Bolingbroke hate him even more (Richard II had exiled Bolingbroke a few years before and John of Gaunt went along with it to maintain stability in England). Bolingbroke used this as his reason to seize control, though he probably had always planned to do this as soon as his father died.
I think he actually secured his position at Agincourt. By appearing as an invincible warrior king, the Yorkists didn’t dare challenge him for the throne. They had to bide their time until he died and his young son Henry VI came to the throne, who was so weak and ineffectual they could seriously contemplate open warfare against the Lancastrian faction again.....
I agree.
I got 29 hits in the muster roll and 48 in the Normandy garrison.
I notice that some of these are likely repeats. Same name and info but later year.
Ping.
Thanks. 3 hits on one variant spelling and one on another. No known connection to any of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.