The Last Campaign of Duke Alessandro Farnese

The Last Campaign of Duke Alessandro Farnese
Henry IV during the siege of Paris

On July 24, 1591, the governor of the Spanish Netherlands, Alessandro Farnese (that is, Alexander of Parma in the old Russian spelling) received a letter from his uncle, King Philip II, with an order to prepare a new campaign in France against the French Huguenot heretics, led by the king of Navarre, sadly misunderstanding (for Philip, of course) who became the king of France, Henry IV (in Russian-language literature - Henry IV).

The previous campaign of the duke in the summer and autumn of 1590 saved the French allies of Spain - members of the Catholic League from defeat, and the city of Paris from the siege, but expensively, and in every sense, cost him himself.

The duke himself was categorically against the new campaign - he had enough worries with the Dutch heretics. The son of the murdered stathouder of the Netherlands, Willem van Oranje (better known as William the Silent), Maurice turned out to be a talented commander and from 1590 managed to capture several fortresses, starting with impregnable Breda.

Moreover, literally on the day of receiving the letter, Maurice van Oranje managed to inflict a rather sensitive defeat on Farnese at Fort Knodsenburg.

Portrait of a young Moritz van Oranje

And now, instead of teaching the insolent youth a lesson, the duke was forced to leave Flanders again. He even tried to protest against such an unreasonable order, but King Philip II found very weighty arguments - for example, he reduced the funding for the duke's army.

So, by November 1591, Alessandro Farnese had more or less recovered his health and gathered an army for a new invasion of France, where the affairs of the Allied-Legists again went awry. However, he placed certain conditions on their head, the Duke de Mayenne. He wanted to take the city of La Fère and place a Spanish garrison there.

The fortress was to be the first link in a chain of fortified points located 10 leagues apart. Mayenne did not like such an obvious occupation of French territory. For several weeks he hesitated, but in January 1592 he was forced to submit to the demands of the Spaniards. In compensation, Philip II promised him 400 écus a year to continue the war.

In mid-January 1592, Farnese, with an army of 23, and Mayenne together set out on a campaign against Normandy to lift the siege of Rouen. According to, Farnese's own army numbered 13 infantry and 500 cavalry, so 4-000 is probably the total number, including the French Leagues.

Meanwhile, the siege of Rouen went on neither shaky nor roll. The city was brilliantly defended by a garrison under the command of André de Brancas, also known as Admiral Villars. He successfully used the time given to him by the delay of the king to strengthen the city walls, strengthen the garrison, which at the beginning of the siege numbered at least 6 people, and even moved some of the cannons from Le Havre.

The siege was led by a mixed army, consisting, in addition to the French troops of Henry IV, also from the Dutch and the British under the command of Robert Devereux. According to, there were 6 British in the army, the same number of Swiss infantry and 000 French. The total number of besiegers, according to the site, reached 4 people - the largest army that Béarnets could collect so far.

All these troops were under the general command of the king. However, Marshal Biron was mainly in charge of them - the king did not like to engage in sieges and revived only during assaults or cavalry raids. Meanwhile, the marshal was accused of deliberately prolonging the siege and incorrectly choosing the direction of the main attack - the impregnable Fort Sainte-Catherine.

Thus, the king again stepped on the same rake as during last year's siege of Paris - his trust in the marshal clearly went beyond reason. And, as it turned out, with the same consequences. True, this is already our afterthought - and then it seemed unlikely that the Spanish army would leave Flanders again - after all, last year's campaign towards Paris seriously worsened their positions in the Low Countries.

Now it seems more logical that from Picardy, Bearnz should first go to Rouen in order to complete the conquest (or liberation, it seemed to anyone) of Normandy and only then storm the cities around Paris - Mantes, Noyon, Chartres and others, but then he could think, that will do both.

Nevertheless, although large-scale siege works were carried out and appeals were brought up, and cannons continuously fired at the walls, in which gaps were barely able to be repaired, the city held on. Meanwhile, Farnese's army entered Picardy, and for the king the situation of the previous year at the walls of Paris could now be repeated with Rouen.

The dilemma arose again - to stay put and wait, or to withdraw from the camp and attack. The king was eager to cross weapon with the enemy. He was impatient to face off against the duke. In order not to lift the siege, he left most of the army at Rouen, led by Biron, while he himself headed north with 6 cavalry.

Henry sent the bulk of the cavalry to Neufchatel (Neufchatel) 50 km northeast of Rouen, but left with him 400 gendarmes and 500 mounted arquebusiers. The cavalry had to constantly be close to the enemy, circle around him and disturb him with small attacks.

On February 3, the Baron de Givry, sending some of the best horsemen to the king, informed that the entire Spanish army had entered the plain in battle order and was moving to his right (from the baron de Givry), apparently to force the king to retreat and lift the siege of Rouen.

Together with these 900 cavalrymen, the king moved towards the town of Omal. Climbing the slope, they approached the town, but so far there was no sign of the presence of the enemy. Suddenly, the king and his detachment saw the entire enemy army in front of them so close that they could clearly hear the drums of the infantry and the signals of the trumpets and horns of the cavalry.

Until now, the slope had blocked the view of the valley at Omal, and the army of the Duke of Farnese appeared in front of the royal detachment quite unexpectedly, which once again showed that the king did not bother to organize reconnaissance.

The future Duke of Sully left a colorful description of this army:

“It was an army of approximately 17-000 infantry and 18-000 cavalry, marching in clear formation, ready for battle and able to turn into battle formation in a matter of minutes. Gendarmes, many battalions, artillery in teams on the flanks.

The whole army was surrounded like walls by rows of supply wagons moving with the army. Such an organization of the marching movement made all attempts to approach and try to attack some individual detachments completely impossible. Separately from the bulk of the troops, covering the flanks, detachments of light cavalry, "carbines", galloped.

In such a situation, the most reasonable thing would be to withdraw, but Béarnets was still eager to fight Farnese. On 5 February he tried to set up an ambush for the enemy cavalry, which, given the balance of power, was not very successful. In Spanish sources, this is the so-called. the battle of Omal is considered the victory of the Duke of Farnese, the French write only about the reckless courage of Henry IV.

Countess Genlis in her Stories Henry the Great even wrote that the king deliberately tried to create the impression of his complete recklessness in order to lull the suspicions of Duke Farnese. It seems that the king did not even have to strain himself too much.

More importantly, in this skirmish, Henry was wounded, as the same Sully delicately put it, in the region of the kidneys. For all the seeming comical nature of this injury, it could have ended badly for the king if the bullet had not first passed through the pommel of the saddle. But even such a wound was enough to send the king to bed for a while.

The Battle of Omal influenced the plans of the Duke of Farnese. He decided first of all to move to Neufchatel, where the king and part of his troops were. At the approach of the Spanish Ligist army, in order not to fall into a siege, the troops left the city on February 16 under the shots of the Spanish batteries, already set up for the siege, barely managing to get ahead of the enemy approaching in battle order. The French retreated to Dieppe.

The same Countess Genlis writes of a battle in which the vanguard of Farnese under the command of the Duke of Guise Jr. was defeated, and the ligists had to abandon their wagon train, and the Duke himself barely escaped. In her presentation, this happened even before the battle of Omal. Some kind of clash really took place, and the noble ligist Count Chaligny from the Lorraine house was captured and, to his disgrace, by the royal jester Chico (yes, thus, from the books of A. Dumas). But according to Wikipedia, it happened on February 17th.

Meanwhile, on February 26, Villars made a general sortie, which was crowned with complete success (and again - due to the mistakes of Marshal Biron) - the garrison managed to capture several cannons, the marshal himself was wounded, and the royal troops suffered heavy losses. It would seem that now Farnese could enter Rouen without interference. But Mayenne did not want the Spaniards to actually take over the city.

Villard also seemed to be concerned about the same and sent a message to the Duke of Farnese announcing that Rouen could now take care of himself. Under pressure from both of his French allies, the duke retreated to Picardy, where he laid siege to the town of Rue (near the coast north of the mouth of the Somme).

So Henri's hopes for disagreements between the Catholic allies were not so unfounded. Another thing is that in his own camp the situation was no better - the king could hardly manage to extinguish conflicts between Catholics and Protestants and between the French and foreigners - the British, Germans and Dutch.

Villard soon regretted his actions. Henry returned to take direct control of the siege, and Rouen soon came under more pressure than before. Villard was forced to send a message to the duke asking for help and announcing that Rouen would have to surrender on 20 April if no one came. Farnese reacted quickly, lifting the siege of Rue, and reached the vicinity of Rouen in just six days.

This came as an unpleasant surprise to the king, who believed it would take twenty days for the Duke of Farnese to reach Rouen from Picardy, and allowed many of his nobles to take a break, leaving the infantry to lead the siege. Henry IV was forced to abandon the siege. The noble detachments left the army one by one, foreign mercenaries were exhausted or sick. With the remnants of the army, Henry withdrew to Port-sen-Ouen. On April 21 (according to other sources, a day earlier) Farnese and Mayenne entered the city in triumph.

Thus, the goal was achieved, and the Spaniards could safely return to Flanders, where the state of affairs urgently required the presence of the duke and the army. But now it was Duke Farnese's turn to step on the rake a second time. In 1590, after the siege of Paris was lifted, he, on the advice of Mayenne, decided to capture the town of Corbeil, which led to a delay in the campaign and unnecessary losses.

And now, instead of returning to Flanders or, at least, immediately attacking the king, he again listened to the advice of Mayenne and decided to free all the ports on the Seine up to Le Havre, first of all, the small town of Codbeck (aka Codbeck-en- Co), located 43 km west of Rouen. It would seem that there should be no difficulties - Henri's army, weakened by disease and desertion, could not interfere with the siege.

On April 23, the duke's army began to lay siege to the city. The Spaniards placed artillery batteries so as to bombard both the city walls and the Dutch ships that entered the mouth of the Seine and tried to support the garrison of the city. On the same day, the Duke of Farnese was wounded by a musket ball in the arm. True, some historians write that this happened earlier - on April 20, back in Rouen.

However, inconsistencies both in dates and in the presentation of events should not be surprising: there is simply no one exact, objective and detailed source. The Duke at first tried to ignore the wound and continued to supervise the placement of the batteries. But the wound was stronger and put him to bed.

I must say that, unlike Bearnz, who was 8 years younger, the Duke of Farnese could not boast of iron health. He had previously been treated for dropsy for a long time. Now he had to transfer overall command to the much less competent Mayenne, and command of the Spanish contingent to his son Ranuccio. On 23 (4) or 26 (2) April the walls were breached and the Spaniards entered the city.

And they were trapped. During this time, reinforcements approached Henri's army - the troops of the Duke de Montpensier, who had captured Avranches shortly before. The king's army now numbered 25 men, including a large English contingent of 000, 7 Dutch, and a powerful French cavalry.

According to Wikipedia, the so-called. the battle of Codbeck began on April 24 - perhaps it was then that Bearnets approached the outskirts of the city, but did not prevent the capture of the city in order to slam the lid of the trap.

About the events of the next month, that is, until May 21, the information is not very specific. To begin with, a quote from the Russian-language Wikipedia - and this is clearly a machine translation:

The Duke of Parma tried to keep the Seine open for supplies and the crossing of his troops. Henry saw this as the duke's strategic weakness.
The Spanish forces were trapped in a narrow triangle between the sea and the river, which was effectively controlled by the Dutch ships. Henry gained control of the Seine, both above and below Codbeck, and occupied the Pont de Larche, the last bridge across the river between Rouen and Coudbeck.
With the approach of Henry's forces to the city, the Catholic army was ready for a siege, however, in the face of resistance to superior forces, cases of desertion began to become more frequent ...
On the third day, Henry managed to cut off and force the surrender of a division of Spanish light cavalry stationed nearby. A large amount of provisions, ammunition and valuables fell into the hands of the king's people, thus putting the soldiers of the Duke of Parma in a difficult situation.
The duke was now in a stalemate, forcing the river was the only means of salvation, and although the duke of Mayenne and the most experienced officers considered this maneuver impossible, the duke of Parma decided to try to escape.

Judging by the map from the Journal de Duclair site, the triangle was formed by a bend in the Seine, above which there was a bridge occupied by Henri, and below - the mouth of the Seine. It must be said that the French ligists deserted - for the Spaniards, Italians or Germans this was hardly possible. There were no divisions in the Spanish cavalry, perhaps they meant a squadron consisting of 3 companies of 100 people each.

Another source writes about the lack of food -

There was no hay for his horses, no bread for his people. A loaf of bread was sold for two shillings. A jug of water cost a crown. As for meat or wine, one could hardly dream of them. His (i.e. Alessandro Farnese) people were furious about their position. They signed up to fight, not to starve, and murmured that it was better for an army to fall with weapons in their hands than to fall to pieces every hour when the enemy watches and enjoys their agony.

When the army of King Farnese appeared, he placed his main forces in a camp on the Coshua plateau near the village of Vieux Louveto at the exit from Codbeck. But, since the camp was too small for the entire army, part of the forces had to be placed in the village of Luveto (another 2 km further from the city) and 3 people in the forest near the camp.

According to the most detailed (and least objective) source, that is, the History of Henry the Great, the king, having gathered an army of 8 people in 20 days, occupied all the roads between Codbeck and Rouen. Unfortunately, Countess Genlis did not bother to mention specific dates.

First, he again defeated the vanguard of the Farnese army, that is, the League of Duke Charles de Guise Jr., and captured their convoy. Other sources also speak about the capture of the convoy, so this fact can be considered reliable. Upon learning of this, Farnese urgently began to gather an army near the dug-in camp. Then Bearnets with 8 people attacked the enemy troops in the forest and took it 000 hours later.

The Spaniards (conditionally, because it is not clear who was there) retreated to the camp, losing 800 people. And after that, Henry again attacked the Duke of Guise in Louveto. Farnese came to the rescue, and as a result, the fight dragged on for a whole day. The duke lost 700 or 800 men (again, according to the author) and retreated to the camp in the evening. This battle took place the day before the retreat of the Allied army.

About how Duke Farnese managed to get out of the trap, all sources tell about the same. First - again a quote from Wikipedia:

The Duke of Parma ordered to begin preparations for forcing the river. On the opposite bank, he built a redoubt and placed in it artillery and eight hundred Flemish soldiers of Count Bossu. Then he collected all the boats and rafts he had that had been captured at Rouen, and, under the cover of forts, transferred all the Flemish infantry and the Spanish, French and Italian cavalry on the night of May 22 to the opposite bank of the Seine. The fire of the coastal redoubt did not allow the Dutch ships to approach. By morning, the duke was able to evacuate his entire army to the other side of the Seine. Only a small part of the army was left at Codbek to engage in skirmishes and divert the king's forces. The young Ranuccio I Farnese commanded this rearguard and was also able to successfully leave Codbæk a little later.

It can be added that Farnese built 2 forts with artillery - the second on its coast. How he managed to quietly transport almost 1 people with cannons across a river about 000 meters wide is, of course, an interesting question. Even the Countess Genlis, who praises Bearnz, admits that the spies served him very badly. In fact, Henri had no intelligence. On the other hand, it is possible that the battles with the royal army served precisely to divert the attention of the king.

Be that as it may, the Allied army crossed to the left bank of the Seine and moved south at an accelerated march. It was possible to transport even artillery and the remaining convoy. Only the wounded and sick remained in the abandoned camp.

After 4 days, the Spaniards were already a few kilometers from Paris, from where they turned to Château-Thierry on the Marne, where the duke gave them rest. The king's cavalry succeeded in capturing 500 stragglers and, possibly, part of the baggage train. The Duke of Farnese for the second time, after 1590, left part of the troops to reinforce the Spanish garrison in Paris and in June returned to Flanders via Artois and Hainaut. The Duke of Mayenne shut himself up in Rouen.

Thus, the Duke of Farnese managed, albeit with very serious losses, to get out of the trap. The Duke's enemies, and not only Protestants, accused him of running away. Interestingly, King Philip II of Spain took the same view, while Pope Clement VIII congratulated the duke on saving the Catholic army.

Of course, the opinion of King Philip was much more important - he removed Farnese from the post of governor of the Spanish Netherlands (the duke did not have time to find out about this).

Most sources write that Henry IV won a strategic victory, since he regained Codbeck. But the codeback itself was of no particular importance. Rather, Bearnets helped not so much himself as his Dutch allies - after all, even after returning to Flanders, the Farnese army could not prevent the capture of two more fortresses - Steenvik and Keeverden. The troops needed time to restore combat readiness, and the duke himself had to go back to Spa to improve his health.

However, he did not manage to improve his health - an old illness, an untreated wound and a difficult morale, primarily due to the undeserved nitpicking of the king and failures in which he was not guilty, led to the fact that on December 2, 1592, Duke Alessandro Farnese died.

Ironically, during preparations for the third campaign in France. Actually, this was the most important achievement of Bearnz in this campaign. It happened, in general, by accident, but it was of great importance.

Not without reason in the Netherlands the news of the Duke's death was greeted with popular rejoicing with fireworks and dancing in the streets. Never again did Maurice of Orange or Henry IV have such a dangerous opponent.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

31 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    20 December 2022 05: 44
    It happened, in general, by accident, but it was of great importance.
    Randomness, the result of regularity.
    1. +3
      20 December 2022 14: 23
      There was no hay for his horses, no bread for his people. A loaf of bread was sold for two shillings. A jug of water cost a crown. As for meat or wine, one could hardly dream of them. His (i.e. Alessandro Farnese) people were furious about their position. They signed up to fight, not to starve, and murmured that it was better for an army to fall with weapons in their hands than to fall to pieces every hour when the enemy watches and enjoys their agony.

      Apparently Farnese did not know this truth:
      In general, as they say, a horse is a friend to a horse rider, a comrade brother, and an emergency supply of proteins for a rainy day and a delicacy!
      1. +2
        20 December 2022 14: 38
        Apparently Farnese did not know this truth.
        Not a jig.. smile
  2. +5
    20 December 2022 12: 02
    Normal article.
    True, I'm afraid that not everyone understands what we are talking about in general, in order to fully appreciate the essence and consequences of the events described in the article, a certain set of basic knowledge is required, which, I believe, may not be for everyone.
    Well, I wanted to say a few words about quotes from Wiki. So I would not refer to it directly and quote it. There is also a list of sources, links to them - why not use them? At the same time, and a gesture from the mistakes that Vika herself has in abundance.
    And so, in general, it turned out okay.
    Yes, and by name: Henri and Heinrich, Charlie and Carla ... There are traditions of writing them, you can either follow them or not, but it seems to me that this should be done consistently.
    1. +4
      20 December 2022 14: 24
      Normal article.

      Disagree. A fragment torn out of historical context (the Eighty Years' War in general and the Huguenot Wars in particular). And even citing Wikipedia ...
      1. +4
        20 December 2022 15: 01
        It seemed to me, or did we note the same shortcomings? smile
        For me, it's okay. In the subject of the study, the author, sort of, figured it out, managed to present the information clearly, what else is needed?
        1. +2
          20 December 2022 15: 15
          It seemed to me, or did we note the same shortcomings?

          Would you like to coordinate efforts?
          communicate information clearly

          Yes, by today's standards it is a serious success, I agree.
          1. +2
            20 December 2022 17: 19
            Quote from Passeur
            Would you like to coordinate efforts?

            We hardly succeed. smile
            A clinical optimist, trying to encourage people to self-development, and sleeping what happens, and a gloomy realist with the grace and elegance of a heavy tank - I don’t think that such an alliance can have prospects. smile hi
            1. +1
              20 December 2022 19: 59
              "You cannot harness a horse and a quivering doe into one carriage." (with)
        2. +3
          20 December 2022 15: 25
          Hi Michael smile
          We noted the same shortcomings?

          I also noted the shortcomings ... of food and fodder in the Farnese army, but otherwise, in my opinion, everything is fine.
          But here, after all, the thing is this: no matter what you write, there will always be a reason for criticism, where would it be without it, dear. wink
          1. +4
            20 December 2022 17: 25
            It turns out that Farnese was outplayed by Heinrich and the maximum that his talent was enough for in this company was to “rebound” with dignity.
            And we always criticize. smile Without criticism, authors become smaller, dim and self-destruct. smile
            1. +3
              20 December 2022 18: 35
              Rather, it's 1:1. If Farnese had simply left after the lifting of the siege from Rouen, then in general there would have been his clear victory. Or vice versa, if Henri had taken care of intelligence at least a little and would not have let the Spaniards escape. The whole history of France could have gone differently.
              By the way, before that Farnese also skillfully escaped from Knodsenburg, Bearnets could have meant this.
            2. +3
              20 December 2022 18: 40
              For me, the figure of Navarre has always been the most attractive, probably because in my youth I read both books by Heinrich Mann about him. smile
              And how did he do it all! wink
      2. +3
        20 December 2022 16: 31
        Initially, 3 articles were planned, but the attempt to attach the first article here failed due to the author's proofreading illiteracy. So I posted it here: Славный король против сумрачного испанского гения Между походами
        Well, the Huguenot wars in France, in my opinion, are in no way part of the eighty-year war in the Low Countries, although they constantly intersected, yes. Like the Anglo-Spanish War.
        1. +4
          20 December 2022 17: 28
          I do not want to criticize and climb into sources and catch you on inconsistencies. Yeah, I don't know about this era.
          But there is a claim.
          People write articles on topics that interest them. I’ve read it and still don’t understand why this episode was interesting to you and, accordingly, didn’t like it.
          Ryzhov wrote about Farnese. If we ignore his approach, which can be called gonzo-history, then there will be his lightness of the pen, and this article lacks this. What was offered instead? Maybe you will tell.
          If there was an introduction with a question, the article would only win. Even if this is part of a cycle, you won’t spoil the article with an introduction.
          Farnese got lost in the article. Where he was, where he commanded, how many of his adjutants were killed, etc. ? You "Bearnets" has become the main character.

          If I thought the article was a hack, I wouldn't write that comment at all. So I hope it gets better.
          1. +2
            20 December 2022 18: 31
            To some extent, I agree. First, I wanted to write about the confrontation between two talented commanders, diametrically opposed in many ways. But then this opposition went away and the title did not quite match the content - there really are more Bearnz here, although I do not think that Farnese is completely lost.
    2. +3
      20 December 2022 16: 38
      I just thought that if a person went to the historical sub-forum, then there must be some kind of knowledge base.
      And I had a list of sources, but disappeared somewhere along the way. Here it is
      1. /Battle_of_Codbeck
      2. Jeanine Lebailiff "LOUVETOT ma commune en pays de Caux", published by the Regional Natural Park of Brotonne in 1982. 
      3. Siege of Rouen, 11 November 1591 to April 1592
      4. Website of the Journal de Duclair (union des deux rives) Farnese
      5. Map of France during the Wars of Religion, late 16th century 
       John Lothrop Motley HISTORY OF THE UNITED NETHERLANDS From the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Year's Truce—1609 Volume III
      Sir Nathaniel William Wraxall (1st bart.)
      The history of France, from the accession of Henry the third, to the death of Louis the fourteenth. Preceded by A view of the civil, military, and political state of Europe, between the middle and the close of the sixteenth century. From the accession of Henry the third ... to the death of Henry the fourth, Volume 5
      Bablon, of course.
      As for the names, I tried to bring them to the same denominator, but if this is a direct quote, then recourse
      1. +3
        20 December 2022 17: 29
        Thanks for the clarifications. smile
        I would like to ask if you have any other creative plans? And then we have very little of the Middle Ages ... feel
        1. +5
          20 December 2022 17: 33
          We have very little of the Middle Ages.

          Somewhere Shpakovsky was offended and sad ....
          1. +4
            20 December 2022 18: 01
            There is enough material culture of the Middle Ages, thanks to the mentioned author. And the Middle Ages itself is not enough. Here the author of the current article would undertake to analyze, for example, the Hussite wars in the same style, or the campaigns of Stefan Dushan ... You can, for example, analyze the history of the crusader states in between the crusades or the Norman conquest of Italy ... Or answer the question why The Czech Republic became part of the Holy Roman Empire, but Poland did not ... smile
            1. +4
              20 December 2022 18: 08
              You can, for example, analyze the history of the crusader states in the intervals between the crusades or the Norman conquest of Italy ... Or answer the question why the Czech Republic entered the Holy Roman Empire, but Poland did not ...

              Well, there will be Wikipedia-like material from it, partially drawn.
              There is Alexei Kozlenko from Varspot, although he specializes in antiquity. You can learn how "smoothly" he chooses the topics of articles - not too wide, not too narrow. No serials. What you need.
              1. +2
                20 December 2022 18: 20
                If you noticed , the warspot was covered and , I 'm afraid , for a long time . But thanks for getting to the point.
                1. +3
                  20 December 2022 18: 34
                  I would not like the authors to write a digest - an abstract from some "powerful" monograph. Yes, and many, many articles
                  The article needs a collision. Whatever. Triumph of Christianity or confrontation between Pyrrhus and Demetrius.
                  In the popular genre, this may be a bright episode. Like the death of Julian at Ryzhov, although the article itself turned out to be a complete passer-by, even despite the presence of the most interesting evidence from contemporaries.
                  In a conditionally "academic" sauce, this can be a full-fledged work with a problem statement, selection and work with sources, author's conclusions. Like cavalry against cavalry, German mercenaries in the troops of the League and its opponents, how effective is the artillery of the n-th war, etc.
                  It would be interesting. me at least)
        2. +2
          20 December 2022 18: 18
          Yes, on the contrary, I wanted to go upstairs - in particular, the cold and not very cold war between France and Spain until 1635. Yes, and the first years of the Franco-Swedish period (otherwise, many people think that before Rocroix the French were only beaten. As an obvious Francophile, this is very insulting to me).
          But, not yet decided.
          1. +2
            20 December 2022 19: 11
            XVII century... recourse
            I don't like this time. It is during this period that a person becomes that cynical, two-faced and cruel beast that we see in his face now ...
            But it's up to you, there is no decree for the author here.
            1. Fat
              20 December 2022 20: 09
              Greetings, Michael.
              Quote: Trilobite Master
              XVII century...

              The era of "developed mercantilism" is not very good for me either ... I agree here. All the same, the "new time" after the Middle Ages "appeared to the world", no matter how we feel about it. The rise of art and general culture would be almost impossible without printing, the reformation and the great geographical discoveries ...
              And yes, the human race has always been a cynical, two-faced and cruel cattle ... Our species differs in this even from hyenas and wolves for the worse, not to mention other primates ...
              1. +1
                21 December 2022 08: 41
                Greetings, Andrey Borisovich.
                Quote: Thick
                the human race has always been a cynical, two-faced and cruel beast

                Cynical and cruel - always. But humanity became duplicitous with the advent and spread of the ideas of humanism. smile All these ideas are shared, because it is fashionable, but they are not even formally followed, with the exception of some ascetics, on whom contemporaries both then and now look with bewilderment, twirling a finger at the temple.
                Yes, and cruelty with cynicism in society has increased manifold.
                If earlier it was simple: if you bring benefit - they protect you, if you don’t bring - they don’t protect you, if you bring harm - at an expense, without hesitation and humanistic snot, then with the onset of the Renaissance, there were a lot of people, there was no need to save them. As a result - cruelty and cynicism, and since not sharing such progressive ideas as the ideas of humanism was not comme il faut, then duplicity.
                We admire the beauty of the human body, we talk about the right to life for everyone, and in the meantime we are rotting thousands of people in the mines and mines, doing overwork, not to mention what happened during the hostilities ...
                The era of feudalism, compared with all subsequent eras, is simply a model of true humanism. smile
          2. Fat
            20 December 2022 19: 15
            hi Igor. Write about anything that seems interesting to you. The debut at VO somehow took place. If you do not go into the heresy of perfectionism - quite successfully. For me, for example, "Henri and Heinrich did not work" and other "francophile" delights - knocks down a little, complicates the perception of the integrity of the narrative. And of course direct references to Wiki in the article. It is possible in a comment, but not in an article.
            IMHO Wiki is a semi-parody of "Extelopedia Westrand" from S. Lem and treats it exactly as recommended by our Roskomnadzor - very critical smile
            With respect.
          3. 0
            22 December 2022 23: 23
            The French in most cases were defeated by the Spaniards, as well as by the Germans and the British. In fact, they only managed to regularly beat the Italians.
  3. +1
    20 December 2022 23: 51
    "Once upon a time there was Henry the 4th, he was a glorious king, he loved wine to hell .." - the hussars sang in the "Hussar Ballad".
    They didn’t give a damn that he was a Huguenot, and in general he was the king of France, with which these hussars just fought.
    He impressed them with his love for wine and women...
    But the chorus in the song is generally mysterious: "Annalena Burbock, Annalena Burbock, Annalena Burbock, Burbock, side-by-side-by-side, by side, by side, side, side!"
    What did the hussars mean?
    Have you had Annulena Burbock? Why not Liz Truss, or Ursula von der Leyne?
    1. 0
      21 December 2022 09: 45
      What did the hussars mean?
      Have you had Annulena Burbock? Why not Liz Truss, or Ursula von der Leyne?
      Can you imagine how much you need to drink to have this very Ursula? You can’t even pour so much into a hussar.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"