I think you do make a good point. The Armagnacs really were decimated and their prospects dimmed. But the country still had enough of a competent elite that they were able to resist English conquest. That it took another 30 years speaks to the relative stalemate that was achieved, and also shows the French elite were able to field a competent set of leaders.
I'm trying to say the pool of available talent matters. If the US cabinet is wiped out, there'll be plenty of similarly competent elites to replace them. After all, it happens every few years with new presidencies and power transfer between parties.
Yes, winning the war means the French kept their own kings in power. Clearly all of this is a huge waste of resources and probably wasn't very good for the average peasant.
Moreover, I can only imagine how much grief the Armagnacs went through. It would make for a good opera. (I'm not trying to minimize the grief of the others, but just imagine if a ton of people from one family died - the grief must be different, devastating.) The one analogue I can think of is Mehmet III's summary execution of 19 of his (half)brothers when he ascended the throne.
I'm trying to say the pool of available talent matters. If the US cabinet is wiped out, there'll be plenty of similarly competent elites to replace them. After all, it happens every few years with new presidencies and power transfer between parties.
Yes, winning the war means the French kept their own kings in power. Clearly all of this is a huge waste of resources and probably wasn't very good for the average peasant.