Warren Ellis: Crécy

[jlroberson.insanejournal.com]

Not exactly Simon Schama...

From one of my favorite GNs of the past few years, Warren Ellis and Raulo Caceres' Crécy from Avatar/Apparat.

I have posted my favorite pages, but to remain under the limit they're not consecutive mostly. Afraid you'll just have to read the whole thing after this, and it's still in print so do that.



A few words about arrowheads. And the Welsh.



And because the French would not allow commoners in the army and got unprepared mercenaries instead, and because the English had an army of trained commoner longbowmen, this happened. After the battle, we tie off loose ends, and learn the origin of a certain English gesture.


The reason for the gesture was that when archers were caught, those fingers were cut off. It was proof you could still fire an arrow.
All story and artwork (c)2007 Warren Ellis and Raulo Caceres

Comments

[greenmask.insanejournal.com]

I thought that gesture meaning 'har har i can still shoot' was debunked?

But whatever it means.. it is still so very satisfying when in use.

I've been thinking of getting my sister this book for her birthday, so thanks for the scans! I can ponder in more detail.

[jlroberson.insanejournal.com]

I got it at the same time as THE BLACK DOSSIER. I have repeatedly gone back to both ever since. It's one of Ellis' very best works.

[sherkahn.insanejournal.com]

This was impressive. And informative.

There is a great myth / story told by Robert Wuhl in "Assume the Position 201" on HBO, a documentary about history told to a college class. the section was Truths and Myths.

I am horribly paraphrasing,so forgive me: Turns out that when the English archers taunted the French across the battle field, that gave them the middle finger, indicating that even though their provisions were low, they were stlll free to rain down holy hell on top of them. Still able to "pluck" the strings, and "pluck" you. And of course the French misinterpreted what they heard and it turned into the words we know today.

....

....


And then Wuhl went and popped everyone's bubble by stating he had made that all up, as an example of how great spin doctors can change history and make things sound plausible and believable but still disinformation. And then Wuhl compared it to the stories of the news of today. It was great.

[lonewolf23k.insanejournal.com]

Well, the French DID hold out against the Muslim invaders coming from Spain at the battle of Poitiers, stopping the advance of Islam through Europe long enough for the Spaniards to start taking back their land.

[seawolf10.insanejournal.com]

Erm. You're thinking of the Battle of Tours, in 732 AD. The French under Charles Martel (grandfather of Charlemagne) killed the Muslim commander, Abd ar-Rahman, on the battlefield (along with a sizeable proportion of the Muslim army), and that made the Muslims retreat back into Spain, figuring the losses they'd take in conquering France would leave them stretched too thin.

The Battle of Poitiers was just more French and English squabbling over territory, a few years after the Battle of Crecy.

[dejadrew.insanejournal.com]

History is made by stupid people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdTlDP2AC90)
clever people wouldn't even try.
So if you want a place in the history books,
then do something dumb before you die!

[dr_hermes.insanejournal.com]

There was that Napoleon guy, he did all right for a while.

[jlroberson.insanejournal.com]

(edit to fix a really stupid mistake)
What I find bizarre is that this taught the French nothing for later at Agincourt, because the English defeated them exactly the same way, with less men, that time too. If this story seems familiar, it's because it is. Every time someone tells me I should have more respect for the French, I think of stuff like this. As far as I can tell, except the Normans, the French could only hold power by brutalizing those weaker than themselves and seemed to often fold fairly easily.

And some with them too. I recall being particularly struck at the end by the story of John, King of Bohemia, or "John the Blind" as he was known. From Froissart, check this out:

...for all that he was nigh blind, when he understood the order of the battle, he said to them about him: 'Where is the lord Charles my son?' His men said: 'Sir, we cannot tell; we think he be fighting.' Then he said: 'Sirs, ye are my men, my companions and friends in this journey: I require you bring me so far forward, that I may strike one stroke with my sword.' They said they would do his commandment, and to the intent that they should not lose him in the press, they tied all their reins of their bridles each to other and set the king before to accomplish his desire, and so they went on their enemies. The lord Charles of Bohemia his son, who wrote himself king of Almaine and bare the arms, he came in good order to the battle; but when he saw that the matter went awry on their party, he departed, I cannot tell you which way. The king his father was so far forward that he strake a stroke with his sword, yea and more than four, and fought valiantly and so did his company; and they adventured themselves so forward, that they were there all slain, and the next day they were found in the place about the king, and all their horses tied each to other.

It's also said the Black Prince, who was one of the victors, adopted his crest as his own. Whether in honor or insult, I'm not sure.

I love history, because it proves that people are gloriously stupid, more often than not. I have no idea how the human race survives.

[runespoor7.insanejournal.com]

One would suppose there's only so many ways to fight medieval battles, especially if you're going to restrict your leading posts to the nobility.

As far as I can tell, except the Normans, the French could only hold power by brutalizing those weaker than themselves

How do you define that? If winning a war supposedly makes a country stronger than their opponents, then yes, I imagine most wars/battles are won against weaker opponents, but otherwise I'm not sure how to understand your point.

[wizardru.insanejournal.com]

Entirely true....you know, except for the fact that it isn't.

1. The French ULTIMATELY WON THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR. That's why England is an island nation. Notice that Crecy and Agincourt are fought...in FRANCE. Because the Plantangenets believed themselves kings of England AND France.

2. Despite Shakespeare's poetic license, Agincourt was NOT a complete rout. It was a risky battle for both sides. Had the French attacked when Henry moved his archers forward and before they dug in a second time, we might not be talking about it today. In both cases, the battle was not so much won by the English as lost by the French nobles who refused to follow orders of their experienced soldiers or their king..because they were over-confident. Crecy was a battle that changed how wars were fought...Agincourt was a testament to stupidity that has more cache due to its prominence in a famous play.

The Black Prince took the king's helmet of ostrich feathers as his crest (as the prince of Wales) as an honor to his bravery, as it's said that the near-blind King John inflicted several of the few casualties the English experienced that day. (It's also worth noting that he wasn't called 'the black prince' during his lifetime).

History more often proves that a good story is more popular than the truth, that I'll grant you.

[arilou_skiff.insanejournal.com]

Most of European history until 1871 is pretty mcuh "OK, how do we keep the french from fucking us over?" (then it becomes "OK, what about those germans?")

Seriously. That's THE issue of european politics. And the thing is, most of the time it's basically France Vs. Everyone Else, and then they fight to a draw, or a minor victory for one side and the other, and do it again ten years later.

[volksjager.insanejournal.com]

Anyone looking for info on the above should check out "The face of battle" (section on Agincourt)by John Keagen. :)

[seawolf10.insanejournal.com]

Actually, it's spelled 'Keegan' but yeah, what she said.

Excellent book.

[dr_hermes.insanejournal.com]

(http://pics.livejournal.com/dr_hermes/pic/0020015b/)

[balbaroy.insanejournal.com]

I enjoyed this, but it feels like I'm reading some 1950's comic named something life GREAT BATTLES OF HISTORY dubbed over by Ryan North (http://www.qwantz.com/index.php).

[jlroberson.insanejournal.com]

Well, consider that you're reading history literally being told by the victor.

[cmdr_zoom.insanejournal.com]

And in this case, the victor happens to be Warren Ellis' stock character.

[red_cyclone.insanejournal.com]

Ok, so I know what I'm getting on my next trip to a comic shop.
Not only was this awesome, the art! The art is so beautiful, it works perfectly, but the best thing is the faces, like the fact that the children in the family actually look like a mix between what is preseumably their parents, amazing.

[jlroberson.insanejournal.com]

And the best thing? It's pretty cheap.

No, I totally recommend this book.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dante_sparda_/ (from insanejournal.com)]

omg, I need a copy of this NOW. Screw that, I need two copies. This deserves to be lent out in order to hook unsuspecting vic- er, readers immediately.

[kitty_tc_69.insanejournal.com]

Regarding the opening panel, while it may be true that swords were smeared with excrement (I don't know if that's the case or not), the intent to cause infection cannot possibly have anything to do with it. In those days there was no conception of what infection was, or that cleanliness or not had anything to do with it. Illnesses were ascribed to all sorts of mystic nonsense, including demons and the disfavor of God, and were often treated by bleeding.

It wouldn't be for a few more centuries until microorganisms would be discovered, and their role in infection and the effect of cleanliness on infection become understood. Even when these things were discovered, it took time for them to become accepted and prior beliefs to fall by the wayside.

[jlroberson.insanejournal.com]

I think though that they probably realized that shit and filth can cause sickness when it's in your blood, regardless of what the reason was that they thought it did that. A soldier on the battlefield would understand wounds get infected and that had nothing to do with demons but with a piece of metal entering the body. So it wouldn't be a big step to think, "Filthy sword will make them sick." Just as the barbarian hordes might not have realized what the plague was or its root cause, but they did know being around the corpses could get you sick. Because they knew enough to throw them over the city walls to kill the people inside.

There's all kinds of things we do that work despite our not understanding the real reasons. Tech often precedes science in that respect. Now, that Ellis is phrasing it in a modern way, I'll grant that, but that's kind of the whole tone. This isn't really a character so much as a narrator, not different from Larry Gonick except in personalizing it.

[kitty_tc_69.insanejournal.com]

That would be believable except for the fact that when actual scientists discovered germs and started recommending measures like clean hospital rooms and that doctors wash their hands prior to surgery, there was significant resistance from the medical sector who dismissed it as nonsense.

If DOCTORS disbelieved germ theory when it was first proposed several centuries after the events we're discussing here, what makes you think much more primitive people would have just figured it out?

[da_reap]

Matter of fact, the Greeks figured out cleanliness back in the BCs, thank you very much.

Try looking up the root-word of 'hygiene' sometime.