r/HistoryMemes • u/LFatPoH • 8h ago
SUBREDDIT META English authorities seeing their propaganda on Jeanne d'Arc work 600 years later on Americans
This is in reaction to the previous post where lots of people rushed to the comments claiming that Jeanne d'Arc didn't actually fight or lead armies or made tactical decisions.
This is pure English propaganda that seems to be passed onto Americans as well, for the same reason Anglo Saxon history always talks about Azincourt but never about Patay.
All contemporary sources, as well as historians who researched the subject, agree that Jeanne d'Arc's tactical decisions during the siege of Orléans, particularily her aggressive approach and her use of modern artillery, made the difference.
Furthermore she actually led the army from the frontline and was wounded by English arrows during the fight. The fact that she returned to the battlefield anyways gave a huge moral boost to the fighters.
I think people interested in history should question their own bias more. Letting the propaganda of her killers tarnish the memory of a brillant women is not very nice nor smart.
189
u/RagingWarCat 5h ago
English propaganda seems to be astonishing effective; napoleon wasn’t short
49
u/asasasasasassin 3h ago
And yet they can't convince anyone that their food is good
27
u/Cool-Prior-5512 2h ago
I hate this "British food is bad" claim that the internet is obsessed with. I'm not even British but British food is great.
But this claim continues to be pushed online by (mostly) clueless Americans and any American who disagrees with it gets ignored and eventually an American will pop up and say "I went to the UK one time and all their food was bad" and then the Americans online all gather around and cheer.
It's just so... weird.
7
u/Regon2005 Nobody here except my fellow trees 1h ago
Because of generation after generation of cartoons showing basic British meal post war, it looks depressing
6
u/astroslostmadethis Viva La France 2h ago
Playing Scrandle may have reinforced peoples beliefs. but yeah, it's pretty good.
12
u/Grzechoooo Then I arrived 2h ago
That's because English food isn't photogenic and we all know Instagram likes is the only metric by which food is judged.
2
u/asasasasasassin 1h ago
What are your favorite British foods? Blood pudding? Beans on toast? Curry stolen from India? Mashed potatoes with sausages that you humorously call "bangers"? Or maybe some fried fish (VERY unique!) with a side of FRENCH fries?
Shepards pie is pretty good I will admit, and they have good beer, but when you're that close to France and Italy and stuff this shit just isn't cutting it
1
u/Hot-Patient8052 1h ago
If that's the case, why the fuck is curry seen as their national dish and not beans and toast or some shit? It's because their recipes are inferior.
South/East Asia stay winning.
\ j-17
u/GumGumChemist 5h ago
He wasn't, but he was a shorty (I would've loved the opportunity to clap those cheeks).
7
98
u/NoblePaysan 6h ago
Meanwhile in France, it seems that being helped by Jeanne d'Arc and being succeeded by Louis XI may have reduced Charles VII to the guy who was crowned by Jeanne whereas a lot of the reforms for which his son is famous were started by his father.
34
u/Wantitneeditgetit 4h ago
reduced Charles VII to the guy who was crowned by Jeanne
I mean, that was kind of a big fucking deal at the time and a large part of the reason why the English went so hard at Jeanne to convict her of heresy so that they could discredit his rule.
Also Charles VII court fell the fuck apart once Yolande of Aragon retired from court. You know, the Queen of 4 Kingdoms, the woman who found Jeanne, brought her to court, supplied Charles with her generals and armies, also financed said armies, also who ran his court. Those same armies that she had led after the death of her husband to defend her claims to his lands, which I believe I recall her never really legally inheriting them but I mean possession being 9/10ths of the law and all that.
Wild how after the woman who took him away from his English sympathizing mother as a child and raised him specifically with the goal of using him to rally the French around as the legitimate heir and to create a French identity around seems to have been critical to his reign.
23
u/chalkymints Researching [REDACTED] square 5h ago
Hey now, he’s not just the guy that got crowned by Jeanne d’Arc, he’s also the guy that left Jeanne d’Arc out to dry after getting crowned by her.
16
u/NoblePaysan 4h ago
That's not true either, unless you're referring to his timidity in prosecuting the war before her capture. After she was captured, he tried to pay and/or threaten the english and the burgundians into freeing her. But obviously the english had other plans for her.
111
u/Finchi4 7h ago
This Van Goth Painting hangs in my kitchen
-45
u/Southern-Service2872 6h ago
Yes, and so this post isn't even a meme, just a painting by a famous artist. Report it
27
u/DDemetriG 4h ago
Who's believing Jeanne d'Arc didn't fight Battles?
Because Growing up here in the Midwest, she was basically a Saint-General sent by God to solo the English, think a Holy Alexandr the Great.
... Then again, my Town has a French Name, so... Bias?
6
u/philman66 2h ago
Fond du Lac?
1
u/DDemetriG 51m ago
Nope, a small City in Indiana named for being the one place NOT Swamp... "High Ground", in French
67
u/xesaie 7h ago
But more importantly.
Presuming the English were wrong about her heresy, was she delusional or actually talking to god?
61
u/SeaReference7990 7h ago
Tbh claimimg you spoke to god was heresy so the charges weren't exactly trumped up.
70
u/Hortator02 Rider of Rohan 6h ago
The Church had already investigated her and determined she wasn't a heretic before the English captured her iirc. Joan of Arc didn't (as far as we know) believe, much less teach anything against Catholic doctrine at the time, and if she did hold any such beliefs it's likely she'd have recanted if she knew they weren't orthodox.
9
u/topicality 5h ago
Remember it's pretty ahistorical to speak of a singular church. This was a time where there was two competing Popes and it wouldn't be resolved until several decades later
2
u/Hortator02 Rider of Rohan 4h ago edited 4h ago
To an extent yes, and there's an additional addendum that apparently it was a group of theologians who had been gathered by the French crown which investigated her, but nonetheless there were very few to no doctrinal differences between the factions of the Western schism. If you weren't a heretic by the standards of one faction, you shouldn't be by the standards of another, even though they might have thrown that accusation around to competing Popes and political leaders. And I think any examination of her character and of the investigations would show that the French investigation was much more fair, theologically sound and reasonable than the Anglo-Burgundian trial. The English might not have been obligated to abide by the earlier findings and hold off on their own examination, but the only reason they came to a different conclusion is because theirs was completely unfair.
15
u/xesaie 6h ago
It was political on both sides. The religious hierarchy were largely the tools of the local government.
13
u/Hortator02 Rider of Rohan 6h ago edited 6h ago
For the English certainly, but I wouldn't say the French aligned clergy had that level of political pressure. If they did, they could have done a lot more to affirm what she was claiming, but they didn't go beyond just verifying that she wasn't a heretic, they didn't claim that her visions were valid. I would say their conclusions are consistent with everything else we know about her. She was far from the first orthodox Catholic or the first Saint to be believed to have received visions or messages from God or Saints, and wouldn't be the last, even people who are politically irrelevant have claimed such personal revelations and and gone on to be canonized, like Saint Faustina.
4
u/xesaie 5h ago
The French Throne's influence over the medieval catholic church is pretty famous.
5
u/NoblePaysan 4h ago
Under Philip the Fair and his closest descendants, certainly. But this deep into the war ?
2
u/Hortator02 Rider of Rohan 5h ago
Indeed, but the conclusions of this particular council were extremely moderate and consistent with what we know of Joan's character, unlike the English who had to set her up for failure and grasp at straws (like her use of men's clothing to avoid sexual assault). As much as the French investigation had political relevance and the king might have desired a certain outcome, it was still far more theologically moderate and reasonable than the English investigation, and there's no reason to believe even in perfect, completely politically neutral circumstances they'd have decided any differently.
23
u/CptWorley 6h ago
Not always. Various mystics claimed to receive visions from the divine and were celebrated for it.
7
u/NoblePaysan 6h ago
It wasn't quite that simple otherwise Cauchon wouldn't have needed to make the trial private. Whatever wording she used, it wasn't a clear enough sign of heresy.
2
20
291
u/Dominarion 7h ago
They must be as happy that their work on Gandhi is still working.
No Gandhi didn't forbid his wife to use Western medecine. In fact, the Gandhi family managed to get penicillin but were told by English doctors it was too late.
No Gandhi wasn't a pedophile. He didn't fuck any kids, especially not his niece, who vehemently denied this all her life. He went a weird way to prove this, as in hindu guru fashion he slept naked with young girls to prove he wasn't. Totally weird, inappropriate, but still not pedophilia.
37
u/Loud-Scarcity6213 6h ago
Ghandi's work to secure Indian independence through nonviolent means was and is admirable to the highest measure.
That does not negate his racism, his strange behaviour with underage girls, or his other flaws, but nor is it negated by them. People can be good and bad simultaneously.
7
u/laix_ 4h ago
That's another issue with ghandi.
Neoliberals in the west like to point and say "look, non-violence works, therefore all violence to achieve progress is bad", but ghandi's non-violence only worked because of the politically violent groups and the threat of such. India was given its rights as a middle ground to prevent further violence.
5
u/plotinusRespecter 4h ago
He's was also going up against the 20th century British, who at this point, despite hundreds of years of colonial history oppression and bloodshed, also had a long-standing tradition of significant political opposition to colonialism in India (going back to Edmund Burke) and an outward commitment to democracy and the rule of law.
The Nazis or the Soviets would have just shot Gandhi in the head and called it a day.
2
u/Profezzor-Darke Let's do some history 1h ago
They did shoot up the protests too. The difference is that they would have sent a series of assassins and shot Ghandi that way.
222
u/BasedAustralhungary 7h ago
I will say the same that I say about Michael Jackson: pedophile or not, there was something in their heads that should have told them that sleeping naked with kids isn't an expected behavior for a grown ass man and that even without penetration It exist on a grayish area on the matter of sexual harassment. No child should be exposed to an adult genitalia of any kind, except very specific situation in relation to a mother or a father.
9
u/boromeer3 4h ago
He held a baby over a balcony railing and nearly dropped them, we have it on camera.
28
u/FortheChava 7h ago
No family bath time then which was common in the good old days
71
u/BasedAustralhungary 7h ago
Please learn to read before you write.
No child should be exposed to an adult genitalia of any kind, except very specific situation in relation to a mother or a father.
48
u/FortheChava 7h ago
Communal and public bathhouses were widespread, popular features of urban life across medieval Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Contrary to popular myths claiming medieval people never bathed, public bathing was an essential part of hygiene, socializing, and medical care
9
u/BasedAustralhungary 7h ago
Please learn to read before spitting random facts that were never questioned and that were even specifically pointed as an exception on my comment. You are trying to cherrypick something while showing you didn't read more than my first two sentences, which isn't specially clever as you will be often finding yourself in situations like this where you end yelling at clouds.
38
u/stupid_pun 6h ago
I think they are just pointing out that children being around nude adults in non-sexual contexts, even publicly, has been commonplace for our species for thousands of years and isn't inherently traumatic or harmful, even outside 'family bathtime' contexts.
Which is valid.That said, the Ghandi situation with his niece is weird AF, and creates the opposite impression of what he intended.
It'd be like someone saying -"I think cheese is terrible, can't stand it, don't even like the thought of it. In fact, I hate cheese so much, that I'm going to spontaneously volunteer myself to be covered in it, but I won't eat any.
THAT will prove I hate cheese."MJ situation was..... something else entirely. I can't even wrap my ahead around most of that shit.
7
u/FortheChava 7h ago
Roman communal baths—known as balneae (smaller public or private facilities) or thermae (monumental imperial complexes) read up on history if you are a mod
1
u/AverageGrunt133 51m ago
In MJ's case, they slept in the same room, yes, but the room was 2,000 sqft and had two floors like a studio. His bed was across the way, up the stairs. 🤷♂️ Considering where the claims came from, I am skeptical he was a pedo. But who knows?
-5
u/derDunkelElf John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! 5h ago
It's not weird, unless you are making it weird.
While in this it very much was that, there is nothing inherently traumatic about children being exposed to adult genitalia. It's only harmful, if it has to do with the normalization of sexual acts or contents at an inapropriate age.
-19
u/Dominarion 7h ago
Wooooo there buddy. 16 yo girls in 1900s India weren't considered kids by nobody. Until the late 1900, it was globally accepted that at 16 yo, they were young women rather than kids. As for genitalia, you realize that public nakedness was really frequent back then? It's not like it was a shock or anything.
Meanwhile, Michael Jackson had sex with pre-pubescent children. Penetration, oral sex, the whole thing.
For the record, I totally agree that age difference and power imbalance are dangerous for sexually active people, especially those under 20s.
Finally, whatever happened to "believe the victims, uh?". If they say nothing happened, nothing happened.
10
u/BasedAustralhungary 7h ago
What a convoluted rant I don't even know where to start.
-8
u/Dominarion 7h ago
That's quite straight forward. Are posts more than 50 words a challenge to you?
11
u/BasedAustralhungary 7h ago
When those 50 words are basically the delusions of lunacy from someone too passionated about something to nuance it... yes. I'm someone that loves to read, that has nothing to do with quantity but with quality.
Also, trust me.
Finally, whatever happened to "believe the victims, uh?". If they say nothing happened, nothing happened.
This is a very weird thing to say when defending a grown up man sleeping with underage girls, specially when you are in a conversation with someone that have been victim of rape himself. Of course you can't know about it, but you should be more cautious with your words specially when you are that explosive defending the honor of someone with such a shady behaviour.
95
u/thissexypoptart 7h ago
Sleeping naked next to underage children to prove you are above sexual temptation is noncey even if you never actually fuck the children you’re sleeping naked with.
Are there seriously people willing to just dismiss that as weird but not pedophilic? It would be one thing if he didn’t make it sexual, the explicitly declared purpose was about sexual temptation
Like what are you even talking about lmao
2
u/Command0Dude 5h ago
I suppose the logic would be a pedophile couldn't resist laying hands on the kids or at a minimum would have a 'reaction' that would prove it.
4
u/thissexypoptart 3h ago
Yeah that logic would be nonsense. If a grown adult tells you they want to sleep next to children to test their sexual temptation, you are looking at a nonce.
0
u/random_BA 5h ago
Maybe he was trying to show that he didn't get a boner with them?? Kinda weird but it's weirder if he let people know this if he didn't know it was weird
5
u/Wantitneeditgetit 4h ago
IDK how to tell you this but men get boners when they sleep unless they have ED.
4
u/ParmoChips 4h ago
He wasn't. If anything, the opposite. In his personal writings, Gandhi documented the nature of these tests, stating: "I have lain with some naked, never with the intention of having any lustful satisfaction. My touch has been for our mutual uplift". At the same time, he reportedly acknowledged on one occasion the physical difficulty of the experiment, noting: "Despite my best efforts, the organ remained aroused. It was an altogether strange and shameful experience".
2
u/thissexypoptart 3h ago
Lmao “despite my best efforts” yeah sure
3
u/MinuteConfidence2059 2h ago
seriously, "despite my best efforts". bud, it would have taken 0 effort not to sleep with naked children.
-18
u/Dominarion 7h ago
Every faith system got its very weird repulsive shit for outsiders. Like we Christians cannibalise the son of our God to get pardoned for sin.
Is ritual cannibalism better or worse than lying besides young girls?
Depends on the culture I guess.
38
u/JustAnotherCurio 7h ago
Not to stand up for Christianity, but eating little biscuits is not the same as sleeping with underage followers.
The Catholic church indulges in both but the latter is definitely far worse than a bland biscuit.
-6
u/Dominarion 7h ago
Ok, if I commit a murder, then eat the little biscuits and believe this is the flesh of Christ, I'll go to Heaven.
That's the Gospels right there.
Mind the beam in thine own eye.
24
u/JustAnotherCurio 7h ago
Mate, are you seriously equating eating a biscuit to be as bad as pedophilia right now?
-4
u/Dominarion 7h ago
No I'm equating ritual cannibalism to proving in a weird way one is not a pedo. You're the one who brought the fallacious biscuits.
19
u/JustAnotherCurio 7h ago
Ritual cannibalism through nomming a biscuit is the same as some guy sleeping naked with underage minors in your eyes then. Bit twisted honestly.
13
3
u/Epion660 6h ago
It isn't "tear the flesh from his bones!" Its bread that represents his body he sacrificed for our sins, and wine to represent his shed blood as he suffered our own penance. It's representing taking that sacrifice into ourselves.
If we wanted to pretend it was literal cannibalism we'd be eating a meat of some kind.
20
u/thissexypoptart 7h ago
“He slept naked with children but never actually raped them, in an effort to prove he wouldn’t rape children” isn’t a convincing argument to anyone with a brain.
Other systems have fucked up beliefs but we should at least acknowledge Gandhi is a pedophile before switching topics to other religious systems. Can we do that? If not, what’s the difficulty?
1
u/BastardofMelbourne 20m ago
This is going to sound odd to a modern person, but in a historical context, just sleeping next to a child while naked is not evidence of pedophilia.
Historically (by which I mean up until the 20th century) it was relatively common for poorer families to share beds with their children due to simple practicality concerns (warmth, space). It has also been common for people to sometimes sleep nude, and it's not unheard of for those two practices to overlap. There are also considerations of cultural norms stemming from such practices that now seem incredibly odd to modern Western eyes. In Gandhi's specific case, he considered this practice evidence of his chastity rather than the opposite.
While a modern person might consider this strong evidence of sexual abuse, a person of Gandhi's culture and generation would just consider it old-fashioned and weird, and Gandhi was generally an old-fashioned and weird person. Absent any other evidence indicating pedophiliac tendencies, it would be premature to consider Gandhi a pedophile for this practice alone.
I'm not saying he for sure wasn't a pedophile; God knows there's plenty of religious figures throughout history who diddled kids. But that one story that keeps getting brought up (that he would sleep naked alongside his female relatives in the same bed) is not necessarily sufficient evidence for that conclusion on its own.
-3
u/Dominarion 7h ago
He still doesn't meet the definition of a pedophile. That's the fucking point.
2
84
u/syke-adelix 7h ago
“I’m totally not weird with kids! I’ll sleep naked in a pile of them just to prove it 😈” -Gandhi
Well that totally convinced me, thanks
-14
u/Dominarion 7h ago
What happened to believe the victims?
23
u/thissexypoptart 7h ago edited 7h ago
The victim doesn’t deny he slept naked next to her. He did that shit.
That’s enough to conclude he’s a pedo. He didn’t have to actually rape his niece to meet the criteria.
Thank god he didn’t, still a nonce. “He slept naked with children but never actually raped them, in an effort to prove he wouldn’t rape children” isn’t a convincing argument to anyone with a brain.
7
36
u/BarqCannae 7h ago
Sounds noncey to me.
31
u/thissexypoptart 7h ago edited 7h ago
Yeah I’m sorry, I label any uncle who sleeps naked with his underage nieces as a nonce even if they technically never had sex. How is that even controversial?
Use religion and asceticism all you want, or whatever excuse you like, it’s noncey for a grown man to sleep naked next to underage children to “prove” he is above temptation or whatever. What the actual fuck man
Like I, as a father, would slap the shit out of and immediately notify the authorities if my brother was adamant about testing his sexual fortitude by sleeping naked next to my underage children. What the actual fuck are we talking about with “Gandhi wasn’t a pedophile just inappropriate“??
Does this argument actually convince people? Sickening.
4
u/My_Names_Jefff Filthy weeb 7h ago
What about him being the guy to make friends with you, but only to nuke you the moment they become available to him.
16
u/TerminallyEmployed 7h ago
Even if you want to say these two aren’t true, neither of these are English propaganda.
6
u/Dominarion 7h ago
They were propagated by agents of the Foreign Service to Western journalists. If that's not propaganda...
3
u/catashake 4h ago
They were also very likely true.
However you interpret sleeping naked with children is up to you.
Most normal people aren't going to like that.
5
u/Effective-Brain-3386 5h ago
You mean Mahatma "I sleep naked next to Girls" Gandhi?
-4
u/Dominarion 5h ago
Did I fucking stutter?
Look, for a million years, 16 years old girls were considered as sexually mature. Suddenly, in the late 1990s and in the 2000s, we change course and decide they are still children. I agree with this, totally, when I read studies about the impact of sexual power dynamics, it clearly demonstrates that teenager women, even if their body has fully matured, they are still very vulnerable psychologically speaking.
Now, pedophilia is not the same thing. It's having a sexual attraction for prepubescent children. That wasn't the case at all here.
2
6
u/Effective-Brain-3386 4h ago
Kinda weird how adement you are at defending a guy who admitted to sleeping naked next to young girls.
You got something to admit big guy?
1
1
u/FCKABRNLSUTN2 6h ago
Noooo! I get such a rush out of telling people Gandhi was actually bad! My moral superiority!
31
u/theginger99 6h ago
Real history nerds know that there is only one good reason to hate Joan of Arc.
She wore pants.
Not cool Joan. Not cool.
7
6
u/Wantitneeditgetit 4h ago
Not only that, she did it again after promising to God not to do it.
4
u/theginger99 4h ago
Lying and wearing pants!
Well I’ve certainly heard enough. To the stake she goes!
3
u/Alex103140 Sun Yat-Sen do it again 3h ago
Historians agree that this is the origin of "liar liar pants on fire".
2
u/Ok-Library-1253 5h ago
I kinda think that was the point.
A dress would be a bit drafty during a siege.
7
u/JohnnyRelentless 3h ago
I'm American and I've never learned this idea that she wasn't effective in battle. I never heard of it before.
39
u/OverallSpecific5792 6h ago
The Anglo-saxons didn’t participate in agincourt, that fight happened well after the Norman conquest and subsequent migration/integration of the Anglo-saxons
8
u/marutotigre 6h ago
The normans integrated themselves into the local population. While the english crown wasn't held by Anglo Saxons, the population would still fit that term, as much as that term can actually be fitted.
33
u/theginger99 6h ago
OP is not claiming that the Anglo-Saxons fought at Agincourt.
They’re using the term “Anglo-Saxon” to refer to historians of English cultural descent. A better word to use would be Anglo centric or anglophone, or even simply Anglo, but Anglo-Saxon technically works in this context.
They’re saying that Anglo-Saxon (by which they mean anglophone) histories tend to talk about English victories like Crecy and Agincourt, but gloss over English defeats like Patay or Castillion.
19
u/PinEducational4494 6h ago
"The anglo-saxon world" is indeed a common way in French to refer to countries sharing a common language (English) and related cultural influence.
10
u/theginger99 5h ago
It’s perfectly appropriate in English too, just slightly old fashioned and unusual.
Americans in particular will find the term strange, as they often don’t really consider themselves as being part of a shared cultural heritage with the English.
-6
20
u/LFatPoH 6h ago
Well I don't think the Normans replaced the population entirely. The nobility sure but the whole population?
Anyways, it's just that Anglo-Saxon is how we describe the common cultural and societal traits of countries like UK, US, Australia... in French. Might not translate well to English.
20
u/theginger99 6h ago
Anglo-Saxon is a slightly dated term for that concept in English. It’s works fine, but it’s a little obsolete. In English Anglo-Saxon typically refers to the culture of England pre Norman conquest in 1066.
In English a more common term for the concept you’re describing would be anglophone, or simply Anglo.
3
u/Anathemautomaton 4h ago
Well I don't think the Normans replaced the population entirely.
Well if we're going that path... the Anglo-Saxons didn't replace the native population either. Genetically, the UK is still largely Celtic/pre-Celtic.
2
-1
u/JeanDusapin 6h ago
Anglo saxons are english people. Native people of british isles would be welsh, irish or breton people from western france. Normand were a ruling class, the english people don't descend from normand people, they descend from anglo saxons. In the same way people in france will refer to themselves as descendant of gauls. Not descensant of franks who were just the ruling class
6
u/PinEducational4494 6h ago
Not descendant of Franks who were just the ruling class
This statement is so short-sighted.
The populations mixed, Franks were parts of massive "barbaric invasions", their populations being pushed to the West.
It's not like a few hundred Franks were suddenly ruling a territory made of Gallo-romans only.
1
u/JeanDusapin 5h ago
Only small part of gallo-roman territory was colonized by frankish people and had a demographic migration (in the north of france, belgium,etc) for the vast majority of the now french people, the only thing that changed was a change of elite, the same way it was for the normands in england
1
u/PinEducational4494 4h ago
Their kingdoms reflected their demographic migration in the North of today's France and Belgium:
The rest of the Gauls was not under their rule before they pushed after 481 towards Syagrius and other barbarian kingdoms (Souabes, Wisigoths, etc).
3
10
u/Gingerbwas 6h ago
This post seems guilty of the same sort of thing its accusing people of, every time i have ever countered Joan Of Arc when learning history in England it has been portraying her as a soldier, and that the charges of heresy were a convenient way of getting rid of her. You seem to want Britain to be teaching propaganda that you can rail against, rather then what it really is, which is a bit shit, and quite happy to teach us about all the awful things we have done, as well as skipping huge chunks to focus on a few random periods, leaving most people with a poor understanding of our history. Its no more biased then most other countries, and views things through our eyes, just like everyone else.
8
2
u/Burgershot621 5h ago
I’m American and I always assumed she did as you say. I dunno maybe it’s just me
1
u/Alex103140 Sun Yat-Sen do it again 3h ago
Yknow technically speaking this post does break rule 11.1
1
u/ThisTallBoi 2h ago
See this is why you be Catholic
The English slander is revealed as Anglican and Heretical
1
u/BecomeAsGod 1h ago
surprised thats propoganda . . . . in nz we covered her getting injured and leading.
1
u/BaronVonMunchhausen 34m ago
Most history is unfortunately English propaganda. And then whoever is behind the English.
1
u/CicadaImpossible9546 6h ago
The british are the greatest masters of propaganda in the history of mankind, because many people dont know how much of history is cimmented in british lies
0
u/DeltaBravo831 6h ago
I thought the whole thing about her was that she was the crazy chick following the voice of God by leading French dudes into battles.
Like, I thought that was the whole schtick of her bit in history.
2
u/Wantitneeditgetit 4h ago
I will say that the same person who found Jeanne and raised her in Charles VII' court is also the same person who hired and paid the generals who reported on Jeanne's strategic "genius".
-1
u/Gliese581h 6h ago
This sub is full of English propaganda and bias, probably stemming from the fact that it’s a (mostly) English-speaking site.
0
u/MalikTheHalfBee 3h ago
Is the meme actually u/LFatPoH making things up that Americans don’t actually believe.
-2
u/arcticwolf1452 5h ago
Okay yes, you are making a good and important point jeanne d'arc... but angalo-saxon history more or less ended in 1066, much to the detriment of the britan. What you are refrencing is the Norman's. I only bother to mention this because the amazing angalo-saxon culture and its history currently seems to be wrife with miss information and americans (and plenty others besides) missunderstanding what Angalo Saxon means and twisting it into various agendas, and I think its best not too feed into that, esspecially when rightly defending Jeanne d'arch
2
-2
u/IndividualCurious322 4h ago
Don't even get me started on her. Her entire story is a carefully crafted fabrication.
-31
u/Hendricus56 Hello There 7h ago
What makes more sense to claim imo is that she wasn't good tactical commander.
And considering she was a peasant teenage girl form a village, that's just a fact
50
u/LFatPoH 7h ago
Except that's not a fact at all. Military historians like Kelly DeVries argue the opposite.
At a time when French commanders were still extremely cautious after disasters like Agincourt, Joan pushed for aggressive offensive action. At Orléans, she advocated attacking English fortifications rather than continuing a passive defense, and her determination to press the attacks despite casualties was crucial to breaking the siege.
French accounts also describe her actively participating in military decisions, including the positioning of artillery. She wasn't just standing around waving a banner while everyone else did the thinking. If she was merely a figurehead and the experienced commanders were responsible for everything, why hadn't they achieved those results before she arrived?
Obviously she wasn't a formally trained general, and she relied on experienced captains. But dismissing her military abilities simply because she was a teenage peasant girl is just an assumption. I wonder if she were a man whether you'd dismiss her like that.
17
u/orange77penguin 7h ago
Not trying to argue, genuinely curious. Do historians think it was sound tactical reasoning on her part or did her religious zealotry lead her to push for an aggressive approach because she believed God would protect them?
15
1
u/theginger99 6h ago
While that’s an interesting question, it’s also an impossible questions to answer.
We simply can’t get inside a historical figures head to that degree. Even if we could, we end up in something of a chicken and egg situation.
The decisions were certainly good ones in the context of the conflict. She might have made the right decision for bad reasons (god told her too) or she might have used religious zealotry as a way to get people to buy her soundly considered plan. There is simply no way to know for sure if she was just nuts and got lucky, or if she really was that good.
-3
u/FlappyBored What, you egg? 5h ago
OP:
The English sources are all fake and propaganda.
Also OP: Here are French sources that I’m saying you should take as absolute fact.
-7
u/Hendricus56 Hello There 6h ago
Any teenage peasant from a village wouldn't have been a good commander.
And she also made some crucial mistakes too. Especially the ones that led to her capture and execution
1
u/AstaNUraume 2h ago
But yet she was a peasant teenager from a village who was a very good commander. Your status and upbringing doesn't determine how good your ability is, it only determines what resources you have to start with.
Okay cool, she made some crucial mistakes, but guess what? Every commander and general we consider the best in history had made some crucial mistakes; not even just them though, every single commander in history, even the ones who are lost to time, have made crucial mistakes. It's almost like humans aren't entirely perfect and make mistakes now and then.
What is this weird obsession to try to the diminish her achievements and legacy?
-3
-13
-3
u/Wonderful_Falcon_318 5h ago
Patay was a much smaller battle than Agincourt, never mind Crecy and Poitiers.
It is likely the French generals did all the good stuff to actually win the battles and Jeanne waltzed around taking the credit.
-5
576
u/No-Delay9415 8h ago
Thankfully Wishbone showed us her getting wounded in battle so it wasn’t lost on everyone