Medieval History Of France

[ShadesWolf]

I would like to talk about the medieval history of France. As most of you are aware I am interested in the hundred years war period, so please can we keep this to a time scale of 1300 - 1500.

ALSO PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO AN ANTI FRENCH BASHING THREAD.

I find this a very interesting period.

LIST OF TOPICS

- FLANDERS
- BRITTANY
- FRENCH CIVIL WAR
- BURGUNDY

This gives us a start, any contribution would be most appreciated.

[Kagemusha]

I dont have many details about it,but i have always been fascinated on Burgundy.Those great dukes that were many times more powerfull then Kings of France.We have to remember that Burgundians thought of them as separated nation from French at those days.If anyone has accurate data concerning Burgundy i would love to hear it. :bow:

[Adrian II]

I would like to talk about the medieval history of France. As most of you are aware I am interested in the hundred years war period, so please can we keep this to a time scale of 1300 - 1500.As grateful as I am for the links you provided for my sticky and as much as I share your interest, Brother Shadeswolf, it is rather unusual to open a thread by asking others to discuss your favourite subject. And I remember researching and writing a long post about the battle of Bouvines for a junior member without getting so much as a thank you. That was not an encouraging experience.

Why don't you open the joust yourself? I'll join the fray, you have my word as a knight and a gentleman.
:bow:

[Proletariat]

ALSO PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO AN ANTI FRENCH BASHING THREAD.


Good. I hate people who are Anti French Bashing.

:hide: sorry.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not really well read into 'La Guerre de Cent Ans'. So I can't tell you anything beyond what you can read in a standard textbook.


We have to remember that Burgundians thought of them as separated nation from French at those days Yes, this is true. And it isn't. Or rather, it needs nuance. The power and wealth of the dukes of Burgundy far eclipsed that of the kings of France. And they considered themselves to be quite different from the rest of France. Not to mention that they held vast belongings outside of the French realm. There was indeed an embryonic Burgundian nation. But the thing is, the same also applies to France.

I mean, was there such a thing as a French nation yet at this time? I think that would be reading history backwards - which a lot of nationalistic historiography has done. There is nothing inevitable in Picardie, Brittany and the Provence becoming and feeling one nation. Each, no less than Burgundy, could have developed into a seperate nation. They all thought of themselves as a seperated nation from France. But if they all did so, it becomes impossible to speak of this loose collection of fiefdoms as a nation. If there's no whole, you can not feel seperated from it. Who knows, in five hundred years time historians might speak of present day France as thinking of herself as a separated country from the EU.

So what is the French nation? There is and was a quite stable area of Europe that speaks French (or any of those 'vulgar latin' tongues that are now lumped together as French). But even today that area is scattered over five different countries. Francophone doesn't equal French. Nor is it a matter of geography, i.e. the people 'across the Alps, below the Rhine'.

No, France is nothing more than those territories that were held or later conquered by the French king as he emerged gloriously from the hundred years war. In the early Middle Ages, the power of the French kings didn't extend far beyond the Ile de France. A Fench nation didn't enter the 100YW, but a French nation came out of it. A 'nation' was forged because of the war. Not rescued during the war, or undermined by Burgundy during the war.

It was still a rather loose collection of vastly different territories, whose main coherent factor was that they were ruled by a king in Paris. Kings who had to spend a great amount of energy in for centuries on centralizing their holdings - in law, religion and language. A nation in the modern sense of the word only came about during and after the Revolution and in the ninetienth century.

Oh well, 'nuff written. After all, I was only going to say that I didn't have much to say on the subject...

[Strike For The South]

ALSO PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO AN ANTI FRENCH BASHING THREAD.


And I had my stick ready and everything :embarassed:

[Meneldil]

I'm not going to write about the HYW, because apart from the Joan of Arc part, I don't really know this topic, but I'll answer to Louis.





No, France is nothing more than those territories that were held or later conquered by the French king as he emerged gloriously from the hundred years war. In the early Middle Ages, the power of the French kings didn't extend far beyond the Ile de France.


I beg to disagree. It was not before Charlemagne's death that the French king started to lose power to his vassals.

There are numerous reasons for that, such as the barbarians (vikings and magyars) invasions, or that the Missi Dominici were not that effective, but until the middle of the 9th century, Carolingians still ruled most part of modern France.

France and Germany (and northern Italy, althought there was no Italian Kingdom or Empire) had the same problem : a lot of dukedoms/counties sometimes more powerful than the official ruler (both regions had to face the same issues under the carolingians' rule). But the French king achieved to 'conquer' France during and after the HYW (but also way earlier : the albigean (sp) crusade was a political move to weaken the powerful County of Toulouse, who was then totally independant, even if nominally part of the French Kingdom), while Germany and Italy became single countries only in the 19th century..

But I still think there was a concept of a French nation, linked with the Western Frankish kingdom of the Caroligians (just as there's nowadays - for some of us - the idea of a people of Europe).

About Burgundy, I read not too long ago that one of the last Duke of Burgundy was trying to form a new kingdom of Lotharingia, and to became independant from both the French Kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire. This would have been kinda similar to what happened with Normandy and England.

Brittany was by far the most independant part of post HYW France. I think it was annexed officially around 1490, but remained quite independant until the late 16th, and Britons saw themselves as Britons and not as French even in the late 19th c.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=ShadesWolf

ALSO PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO AN ANTI FRENCH BASHING THREAD.

The French ? bunch of losers ~D ~D ~D ups , sorry...ahh...yes...the French...ahh...lost it in WW 2 , in 1871 , in Alg...ups...no... :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :wall: :wall: :wall:

[King Henry V]

ALSO PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO AN ANTI FRENCH BASHING THREAD.

ShadesWolf not advocating French bashing? What is the world coming to? ~:cheers:

[Brutus]

As the history of Burgundy and its dukes is more or less textbook knowledge when you study the medieval history of the Netherlands, here are some dates
(Due to the confusing and elaborate nature of civil wars, negotiations, treaties, successions and revolts in the Netherlands during this period, I left most of these out.):

1361: the last Capetian duke of Burgundy, Philip of Rouvres, dies: Burgundy is reclaimed by the French king John II the Good.
1363: Philip the Bold, 4th son of John II (and, like his father, a veteran of the battle of Poitiers), is made lieutenant-general of Burgundy in march, he (secretly) becomes duke in september.
1364: John II dies, he is succeeded by Charles V. Philip the Bold closely cooperates with his brother. During this period Philip is made lieutenant-general of several territories bordering Burgundy.
1369: Philip marries Margareth of Male, daugther of Louis of Male, count of Flanders.
1380: Charles V dies, he is succeeded by the 11 year-old Charles VI. A regency is formed, led by Louis of Anjou. Members of the regency-council are the dukes of Burgundy, Berry and Bourbon. All try to get as much cash and support from Paris for their own personal gain.
1382: Margareth, countess of Franche-comte (county of Burgundy in the Empire) and mother of Louis of Male, dies. Philip takes over control of this region. Philip also crushes a Flemish rebellion with a French army at Westrozebeke.
1384: Louis of Anjou dies at Bari during his attempt to conquer sicily. Louis of Male, count of Flanders dies as well, he is succeeded by his daughter Margareth and her husband Philip. Philip thus becomes both count of Flanders and leader of the regency-council in the same year.
1386: Philips creates a financial chamber and a council chamber both in Dijon (for his southern possesions) and in Lille (for his northern possesions)
1388: Charles VI is proclaimed old enough to rule himself. The regency-council is disbanded.
1390: Philip the Bold succeeds in getting the old childless duchess of Brabant, Jeanne, to acknowledge Margareth of Male (her niece) and Philip as her successors, they recieve Limbourg.
1392: Charles VI is showing the first signs of insanity. A new regency-council is formed, led by Philip. In the following years Philips succesfully looks after both France's and Flanders' needs with regard to England.
1394-1396: Philip organises a crusade against the Turks, which is led by his son John. The crusade ends in disaster at Nicopolis, after which is held captive until 1398.
1404: Philip the Bold dies near Brussels. He is succeeded in most of his possesions by his oldest son, John the Fearless. The old duchess Jeanne of Brabant appoints as her successor Philip's second son, Anthony (who already succeeds his father in Limbourg), and Philip's third son Philip succeeds in Nevers. Louis of Orleans becomes the new leader of the Regency-council and the queen, Isabel of Bavaria, becomes his mistress.
1407: Louis of Orleans is murdered (most likely on orders of John the Fearless). John now becomes the leader of the regency-council. After this civil strife emerges between Louis' followers, who get to be called Armagnacs, and John's followers, the Bourguignons. Although John is a good ruler, he is not popular everywhere.
1415: Henry V of England invades France and defeats the French army at Agincourt. For unknown reasons, John's contingent is too late for the battle. Both his brothers, Anthony and Philip, die in battle, just as many leaders of the Armagnacs. After this, France is effectively divided into three parts: The south under the Dauphin (the later Charles VII) and the Armagnacs, the north and east under the Burgundians, and Normandy and an increasing region under Charles VI, who has acknowledged Henry V as his successor.
1419: John is murdered by his Armagnac rivals. He is succeeded by his son Philip the Good. Philip allies himself with the English.
1422: Both Charles VI and Henry V die. They are officially succeeded by the minor Henry VI, but the Dauphin keeps ruling the south.
1427: Philip the Good becomes ruler in Hainaut.
1428-1433: Philip the Good becomes ruler in Holland/Zealand.
1428-1429: Jeanne d'Arc rallies the Dauphin and the Armagnacs against the English, Charles VII is crowned at Reims. Jeanne d'Arc is captured at Compiegne by the Burgundians, sold to the English and burned as a heretic at Rouen. Still, French successes against the English continue.
1430: Philip the Good becomes ruler in Brabant.
1435: Philip reconciles with Charles VII and France at the Peace of Arras. In the following decades Philip gets more and more succesfull in the Netherlands: for example, several of his bastards become bishop in the Netherlands.
1467: Philip the Good dies, he is succeeded by his son Charles the Bold, who isn't very much into French politics, but tries to connect his territories in the Netherlands with those in Burgundy. Like his father, he negotiates with emperor Frederic III about kingly status for his possesions, but nothing comes of it. His rash centralisation politics aren't much loved in the Netherlands
1477: Charles the Bold dies at the battle of Nancy against the Swiss. He is succeeded by his daughter Mary of Burgundy and her husband Maximilian of Habsburg. The duchy of Burgundy is reclaimed by the French king Louis XI.
1482: Mary falls of her horse and dies. Maximilian becomes regent for his minor son Philip the Fair.
1488-1489: Maximilian is held captive in Bruges during one of the many Flemish revolts.
1494: Philip the Fair is proclaimed adult and rules the Netherlands and the Franche-comte (and later Castille in Spain as well).
1506: Philip the Fair dies suddenly, Maximilian becomes regent again for his grandson Charles V (the later emperor) until 1515.

The Burgundian possesions in 1435:
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/nieuwegeschiedenis/images/full/bourgnederl1435.jpg

[ShadesWolf]

Only 1300-1500? That's a shame. I was going to tell the tale of the vikings who got all the riches of paris without lifting a finger

The reason for this is not only is it part of my favourite period but it offers so much depth.

It starts of with the Flemish rebellion (battle of courtrai 1302) - Was this the begining of the death of the knight
The period then moves onto the struggle for who will be the master of France (England, Burgundy, Orleans etc... Civil war, brittany sucession, burgundy changing sides etc.....)

Later in the period includes
Burgundy v Swiss wars
Burgundy/ France v italian wars.

ETC,etc,etc.....

This is such an interesting period, so vaste yet only covered by 200 years.

[Adrian II]

This is such an interesting period, so vaste yet only covered by 200 years.I have been hooked on that period ever since I went to a summer archaeology camp near Cognac where I dug up a tile floor, dated about 1350 a.D., that consisted of a mix of fleur-de-lis tiles and lion tiles, most of them burnt or broken, but beautifully arranged. The history of that area is so rich, there's layer upon layer of memories and artefacts and traces of war and marriage, settlements and cultivation practices going back to pre-Roman times. It is in the vineyards and cornfields, in the songs that the old people sing, in the tunes that the youngsters dance to, and in the glasses of pineau that the farmers offer you (if the bastards don't shoot you by accident).

[ShadesWolf]

It is also so wide a subject.

Brittany - partly independant
Flanders - rebellious, loyal then part of burgundy.
Gascony - part of england for a large part of the period
Burgundy - loyal, rebellious, open warfare, loyal etc....

and that is not to mention France itself or the border regions with spain, Italy, Swiss or HRE.

[Adrian II]

It is also so wide a subject.Totally agreed. But what is your view of the topic that others addressed above: the importance of the Hundred Years War for the development of an overarching and distinct French nationality?

[ShadesWolf]

the importance of the Hundred Years War for the development of an overarching and distinct French nationality?


Totally disagree,

The ending of the HYW created a power vacuum in France. Lands belonging to England became the property of the French Crown, ie Gascony.

Brittany and Burgundy remained under their own dukes, who only owed a vague loyalty to the French crown. The increased royal domain made more money and men available to the king, these resources helped him assert his dominance.

At the peak of English/ Burgundian possessions, vast areas of central and southern France still stayed loyal to the french crown. Dont forget this was not only an English invasion, but also a civil war. These areas made the choice not to select Burgundy but the opposite side.

I find it very difficult to understand how France managed to hold onto Gascony if it did not use force on the people and nobles. Gascony had been part of England going back to the 12c century.

The following is an extract from 'The hundred years war - R Neillands' P285/6


With the spring the great Dunois came south with another powerful army. He sat down before Bordeaux in april 1451 and began to negotiate its summender…..agreed that Bordeaux could surrender unless aid arrived from England by 14 June. By that date, no relief force had arrived and Dunois duly entered Bordeaux on June 30…..Now it must seem that the war was really over, and the French king’s terms to his new Gascon subjects were not unreasonable. The Gascons must swear an oath of loyalty to Charles VII, but the king in return would respect their rights and privileges, while any English citizens could depart without ranson, and had 6 months grace to sell up and be gone. All grants of lands and castles made by the Plantagenets were confirmed, and apart from a change in king and royal officials all might continue as before.

The Gascons, and in particular the wealthy burghers of Bordeaux had been subjects of the Plantagenets for nearly 300 years and certainly the common folk felt a loyalty to their former English rulers. Charles VII was less than successful in his attempt to conciliate his new subjects, for the Gascons had never cared for the men who lived north of the Loire……… Within months, rebellion was simmering across the duchy and when inOctober 1452, and English force of 5,000 landed, Bordeaux promptly opened her gates. Every town in the region rose up and evicted the French garrisons from their castles. Everywhere in Aquitaine the gascons celebrated the return of the English. The King of France was rightly mortified.

………The French army was again before Bordeaux on 23 July 1453 and after a 3 month siege the city finally surrendered on 19 October. This time, King Charles was not so lenient. He demanded a fine of 100,000 gold crowns and banished those Gascon Lords who had welcomed the return of the English.


This to me is the outcome of the HYW and how France created a nationality.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

On aside note it is 26th of august tomorrow, where 659 years ago between Wadicourt and Crecy, King Edward III exhausted army destroyed the French host, who had at least a three to one numerical advantage but had learned nothing from the battle of Morlaix or the devastating power of the great warbow in defensive formations ~D

[ShadesWolf]

Well noticed BkB tomorrow is Crecy day.

[Adrian II]

Totally disagree (..)Have you read the other posts? The authors probably agree with most of what you say. But the diverse nature and relative autonomy of the regions united under the French Crown after the HYW might go some way toward explaining the deep-rooted regionalism and provincialism that is typical of the later France profonde. Maybe the power vacuum you mention was operative. Full political unity was achieved only under Louis XIV, but in all consecutive crises the country immediately broke up into its constituent parts.

[Brenus]

I find it very difficult to understand how France managed to hold onto Gascony if it did not use force on the people and nobles. Gascony had been part of England going back to the 12c century”:
It is because you mixed two notions. Gascony wasn’t part of England; Gascony was part of the Duche de Normandie. The King of England was by inheritance. The Duc de Normandie, and as such, was the vassal of the King of France and had to pay feudal homage to his suzerain, the King of France. If you want to be technical and wrong, you could say that England was French because the Duc de Normandie (vassal of the French King) was King of England. ~:)
Again technically, the kings of England were stripped from their French possession by Phillipp II August after John Lackland was declared Felon for the abduction of Isabel d’Angouleme, fiancé of Hugh “le Brun”, son of the Comte de La Marche and John's refusal to appear in front of his suzerain. Philippe II and John Lackland agreed to a truce on 26 October 1206. The French king held Anjou, Brittany and Maine, as well as Normandie (essentially the basic 'Angevin' calims of the Platagenêt line), less Aquitaine. Philipp II had all that he could manage in consolidating his conquests in northwest France to be interested in pushing further south. Except for brief periods of English occupation during the later Hundred Years' War, Anjou and Normandie were lost to the the Platagenêt kings of England.

During 1211and 1212, John I Lackland forged a coalition with counts of Flanders and Boulogne, and with the deposed emperor Otto IV. The English king not only financing most of the coalition, but he also devised the grand strategy for the campaign of 1214 to defeat Philippe II. The plan called for John Lackland to launch an invasion into France from the southwest. This would be either a serious advance to reclaim lost Angevin lands, or a strategic diversion into the Loire valley with the initial goal of drawing the French royal army south. In the meantime, the German Emperor, Otto IV, with his Flemish and English contingents would invade France from the Flemish frontier, and drive toward Paris. By the end of 1213, John Lackland was prepared to take his revenge against Philippe II.
This dream ended in Bouvines (27 July 1214)
Bouvines was the most important battle from a political point of view for a century. Most historians cite the event as 'the battle that made France' and credit France's very existence to the victory of Philip II Auguste. It was a great pitched battle, the greatest of its age, in contrast to the many smaller and briefer engagements of the period. If the French monarch had lost, the Platagenêts might have won back their lost Norman and Angevin territories, and the counts of Flanders might have won freedom from the French king, and the German emperor might have retained Lotharingian territories. Not until the time of the emperor Charles V did France have so many enemies allied against it.
For England, Philippe II's victory of Bouvines more than confirmed the end of Platagenêt claims to Angevin France. It brought King John Lackland to his lowest ebb, and certainly promoted the English barons to revolt and to force upon the monarch the Magna Carta. Further, the English nobles went so far as to invite Philippe II's son, prince Louis, to take the crown of England. Louis landed with a French army in May 1216. He was supported by many English (including the earl of Salisbury), Welsh, and Scot nobles. However, King John Lackland died in October 1216 and Louis returned to France in 1217 in an effort to get support from his father -- Philippe II was not interested in the project. With John Lackland's death, the majority of the English nobles changed their minds and threw their support to John Lackland's son, Henry III (1216-72). When Louis returned to England, he and his few English allies lost a land battle at Lincoln (20 May 1216), and reinforcements from France were lost in a naval battle off Sandwich soon after. Louis was forced to accept a small payment for abandoning his claim and returned to France, where he was later to rule briefly as Louis VIII (1223-1226).

The second thing is NOT to apply modern concept to medieval times. Nations as such are modern. We can say 16-17th century, with the real appearance in 1789, with the French Revolution and the “Nation en Armes” concept, the Federation Celebration (when all deputes of all the regions claimed their belonging to the French Republic).
Another problem you may not see is that the English Kings were largely French (language, residence etc), reason why they had the loyalty of the vassals. The first king totally to be buried in England is John Lackland. And without his death and the Battle of Lincoln, for the second time, the English would have a French King. Well, they had a second French King, ~:) but for a short period of time… So, nations were less important than the feudal system…

The Britanny’s war of succession (1341-64) was more of Civil War than a real fight against a French domination. The Guyenne which developed strong economical links with England was more a problem. However, the English defeat, the region become fragmented, Bordeaux becoming independent for a small period of time. The re-conquest by the English was welcome (especially by the merchants). The final re-re-conquest in favour of the French put the region definitively in French hands.
According to the site I took all theses information, “the Burgundian - Orleanist/Armanac civil war was completely integrated into the HYW from the time of Charles VI (most certainly from the murder of Louis I of Orléans (1407) to the Treaty of Arras (1435). The Valois dukes of Burgundy really played to their own interests, and ultimately were not disposed to see England gain power in France”. So much for the idea of loyalty to England.

[ShadesWolf]

Sorry, I still disagree, I feel even before the end of the HYW central & southern France was a united country. The ending of the war added Gascony and Normandy to the areas under the royal domain.

This basically only left Burgundy and Brittany as independant nations/ factions.

After the swiss defeated Burgundy in 1477 the Burgundian inheritance was partitioned between the Habsburgs and Louis XI of France. In 1498 Louis XII divorced his first wife and married Charles VIII widow, thus taking the lands of the heiress of Brittany.

[ShadesWolf]

Thankyou for the comments Brenus, I was trying to keep this as simple as possible so not to go into too much stuff outside the time period.

I agree that Gascony was French fief. I am trying to keep away from HYW as much as possible and discuss medieval France in this period.

I accept that the war lasted a major period ie 1337-1453, but I would prefer that this stays as a sideline and we dont get drawn into discussing it. During this period a number of other interesting conflicts took place which is where this thread should really be aiming at.


The second thing is NOT to apply modern concept to medieval times. Nations as such are modern. We can say 16-17th century, with the real appearance in 1789, with the French Revolution and the “Nation en Armes” concept, the Federation Celebration (when all deputes of all the regions claimed their belonging to the French Republic).


agreed, but I would like to say that the highest lord, who owned the fief was the King.

[Brenus]

“King Edward III exhausted army”. The French Chivalry was exhausted, not the English Army…
Some highlights of the battle of Crécy - referenced from the works of Jean Froissant, The Longbow by Robert Hardy and The Medieval Archer by Jim Bradbury:
French forces numbered approximately 36,000.
English forces numbered approximately 12,000 of which 7,000 were archers.
The battle line was approximately 2,000 yards wide
The English army, occupying the top of a gentle ridge near the town, consisted of three groups of men-at-arms and spearmen, with archers placed on their sides. The archers formed ranks resembling an outward V.
Each English archer carried 2 sheaves of arrows (48) into battle. Re-supply was accomplished by going back thru the lines or having more brought forward.
The bow draw weights were normally from 80 to 120 lbs.
Arrows, depending on type and weight, could be shot 250 to 300 yards.
The English archers could shoot an average of 10 arrows per minute.
The total number of arrows shot during the battle is estimated at a half million.
There were 14 to 16 charges made against the English lines from the start of the battle at 4:00 PM until the completion at midnight.
Casualties were estimated from 5,000 (low) to 10,000 or more (high) for the French Knights and Genoese crossbowmen. English casualties were several hundred.

May I remind you these dates:
18 June 1429: Battle of Patay: French casualties: 5, English 2000. Ok, the French outnumbered the English (8,000 against 3,000). But 5 French killed….
15 April 1450: Formigny : Casualties: French 200, English: 3,774.
17 July 1453: Castillon : Casualties: French 100, English: 4,000

That is why the English lost the war. ~:)

[ShadesWolf]

I wouldnt say that in to many pubs down in London, especially with a French accent ~;)

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Brennus , I could give you many examples of battles in which English armies suffered small death rates compared to a much higher French death count. For example, at Sluys in 1340, the tightly packed French galleys which had lost manoeuvrability in a harbour were decimated by English archery with the English ship line advancing in three's. Two ships with Archers and one with Men-At-Arms. The arrows fell like a "rain of winter" as one londoner described it.

Of the 213 French ships present 190 were captured with 16-18,000 French being killed with English losses being very small in comparison.

A land battle such as Thomas Dagworth's defeat of French-Breton force under Charles of Blois. Dagworth was making a tour of the English garrisons in the Breton penisula when he was confronted by a huge force ( at least 10-1 odds against) with him only having some eighty men at arms and a hundred archers. Attacked on all three sides on top of a hill summit, the English fought off all assaults with a few archers dying and not one man at arms falling with Charles retiring with hundreds killed.

At Formingy and Castllion the Englsih were both outnumbered and lacked artillery which was agreat advantage to the French. At Formingy the English army was attacked from two sides and due to an infilade by two french culverins lost the defensive position they relied on.

At Castllion the Englsih army attacked trench works and field fortifications, laced with small arms and artillery. What did you think would happen ~D

The reason why those battles were so catastrophic for England was we could barely raise any more troops for expeditions into France. Many of the nobility had there own intrigues at home to contend with and many didn't see the seriousness of the situation until Normandy was on nealr yin French hands and three French armies readying to assault Gascony.

[Adrian II]

I wouldnt say that in to many pubs down in London, especially with a French accent ~;)Patay, Formigny -- they'll probably think those are French cheeses. History was never a popular subject in Britain... ~;)

[Adrian II]

What did you think would happen ~DYou guys lost the war, that's what. ~;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Let's vote AdrianII for president! :beam:

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The way i see it is like this. At the time in 1435, France with a combined population of 15 million, a bigger and better equipped army with an excellent artillery train and with a settlement with Burgundy after the peace of Arras against a English force which had barely enough troop for garrison duty in Normandy( there was probably less than 4,000 British troops in the province), poor leaders, with the Normans taxed to high heaven and in near rebellion and the total population of England and wales being around 2 and half million it was only a matter of time before it all fell apart.

[Meneldil]

Let's vote AdrianII for president! :beam:


Yeah, I second that ~:cheers:

BKB, I don't think Brennus meant that the English sucked and that the French kicked ass, but he likely wanted to show that the French won a load of battles, just as the English, as most people seem to think that we spent our time getting our butts kicked.

[Adrian II]

Yeah, I second that ~:cheers:In return for Jacques' head on a plate and a Hundred Years Ration of Courvoisier and Fourme D'Ambert, I will consider it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In return for Jacques' head on a plate and a Hundred Years Ration of Courvoisier and Fourme D'Ambert, I will consider it.Oh come on, Adrian. We offer you the presidency and all you can reply with is a stupid, unreasonable request? :furious3:

How on earth could we possibly supply you with a Hundred Years Ration of Courvoisier and Fourme D'Ambert?

[Brenus]

“I wouldn’t say that in to many pubs down in London, especially with a French accent”: Why? Are the English still resent the defeat? After all this time… ~:)

“I would like to say that the highest lord”: Yes, the problem for the HYW is who is who. What should be the ladder: Duke of Normandy as vassal, or King of England as equal? Plus, for more complications, the King of England, correct me if I am wrong, had a direct link with the French King Philippe II August (ancestor married daughter of Philippe), and had more territory in France (due to heritage) than his suzerain… That was a difficult position… Now, imagine if the English King would be also French King (or the French King also the English Kind… Napoleon and Nelson together… ~D

“I could give you many examples of battles in which English armies suffered small death rates compared to a much higher French death count”: Of course, you can. I don’t deny it. What I react against is this oh, the English won all the battles, but lost the war because unknown reasons, and only French had humiliating defeats. Well, no… The English lost the war because they suffered humiliating defeats.
Plus, the French were defeated because long bows, weapons they didn’t possess. The British were defeated because cannons, weapons they possessed. ~D

“The way I see it is like this. At the time in 1435, France with a combined population of 15 million, a bigger and better equipped army with an excellent artillery train”: Can’t be, the English always destroyed all the (all mighty) French Armies, (which by the way always run), and conquered almost all France etc. So, how the French succeeded to defeat the English? By numbers? Never stop the English to defeat them did it? Plus most of the territory was in English Hands, so, how the French could be more numerous… What a mystery! ~:confused:
The answer is with the end of the Civil War in France between Armagnac and Bourguignons, the English had no choice than leave. The last attempt from Talbot was waste of time, especially when he didn’t adapt to the modern war and artillery. It took 100 years for the French to find the answer to the long bow (in term of weaponry, because in term of strategy and tactic, Du Guesclin re-conquered a large part of France in using guerrilla and in avoiding ranged battle where the long bow should destroy any forms of attack). The English won beautiful battles but were not able to cash on them. After Crecy, the King left for England. Agincourt just gained time. At the end, all the French territory come back to the French King, and the King of Englend was,’t any more Duc de Normandie, d’Aquitaine and de Bretaigne… ~D

[ShadesWolf]

“I wouldn’t say that in to many pubs down in London, especially with a French accent”: Why? Are the English still resent the defeat? After all this time… ~:)

No didnt you know, we dislike foreigners , especially French ~:)

[Adrian II]

We offer you the presidency and all you can reply with is a stupid, unreasonable request? :furious3: I'm using the 'method' to become a Frenchman... ~;)

[Azi Tohak]

~:confused:

I thought this thread was about Medieval French History... not Adrian becoming president...

Anyway, yes I do think this period is very interesting. How well documented is it? Lots of first hand (or second hand) accounts available? I know the closer you get to now, the better sources get, but still, this is a while ago.

Azi

[ShadesWolf]

~:confused:

I thought this thread was about Medieval French History... not Adrian becoming president...




Totally agreed... Can we get back to subject please.

[cutepuppy]

If you want to dig yourself in medieval french history, I can recommend the book "A distant mirror" by Barbara Tuchman. It gives a very in-depth coverage of french society in the period 1350-1400.

[Brutus]

Anyway, yes I do think this period is very interesting. How well documented is it? Lots of first hand (or second hand) accounts available? I know the closer you get to now, the better sources get, but still, this is a while ago.

Azi
I believe this period to have produced quite a wide range of primary sources (is that what you call "first hand"?). Interesting thing is, this period also saw the transition from Latin to the vernacular in many documents, especially government pieces, and a great improvement in literacy. Although I'm not very well aqainted with French archives, I can say that most archives in the Benelux contain many sources varying from yearly town bills, trail accounts, toll registers and property transfer papers to chronicles, literature and so on. Of course, some archives were destroyed because they were flooded or burned, bombed during WWII or sold as second hand paper, but a lot is still intact and I can imagine that this wouldn't be very different in France.

[ShadesWolf]

I wasnt going to start a book list, but why not. If people are interested we can, and I will place it in the first thread of this post for reference.

Can we please keep away from books specifically on the Hundred years war and only have books about differnt aspects of Medieval French History. If people want to discuss the Hundred Years War I can always start another thread.

I have many books on the period but will start with my favourite two.

1. The Golden age of Burgundy - The Magnificent dukes and their courts - by Joseph calmette
- Paperback 384 pages (September 20, 2001)
- Publisher: Weidenfeld & Nicholson history
- Language: English
- ISBN: 1842124595

Book Description
A fascinating period of French history told through the lives of four dukes

Synopsis
Between 1364 and 1477 a dramatic struggle was fought out between the Duchy of Burgundy and the kings of France. This fascinating phase of history was embodied in the lives of the four dukes - Philip the Bold, John the Fearless, Philip the Good and Charles the Rash - who ruled Burgundy at this time and dared to challenge the power of France. Here, in sweeping pageantry, is the history of each duke, their policies, their varying successes, and the civilizing value of their glorious sponsorship.







2. The Valois - Kings of France 1328-1589
- by Robert J Knecht
- Hardcover 276 pages (September 28, 2004)
- Publisher: Hambledon & London Ltd
- Language: English
- ISBN: 1852854200

The French civil wars ... are brought to life in uncomplicated and vivid prose.

Book DescriptionThe house of Valois ruled France for 250 years, playing a crucial role in its establishment as a major European power. When Philip VI came to the throne, in 1328, France was a weak country, with much of its modern area under English rule. Victory in the Hundred Years' War, and the acquisition of Brittany and much of Burgundy, combined with a large population and taxable wealth, made the France of Francis I the only power in Europe capable of rivalling the empire of Charles V. Francis displayed his power by spectacular artistic patronage and aggressive foreign wars. Following the death of Henry II in a tournament, the problems of two royal minorities and the divisive forces of the Reformation led to the temporary eclipse of royal power. When the last Valois, Henry III, was stabbed to death by a Dominican Friar in 1589, the dynasty was already discredited but the monarchy survived intact.

[ShadesWolf]

I believe this period to have produced quite a wide range of primary sources (is that what you call "first hand"?). Interesting thing is, this period also saw the transition from Latin to the vernacular in many documents, especially government pieces, and a great improvement in literacy. Although I'm not very well aqainted with French archives, I can say that most archives in the Benelux contain many sources varying from yearly town bills, trail accounts, toll registers and property transfer papers to chronicles, literature and so on. Of course, some archives were destroyed because they were flooded or burned, bombed during WWII or sold as second hand paper, but a lot is still intact and I can imagine that this wouldn't be very different in France.

Back in the 60's a French historian attempted to research information held in archives in Gascony, the French authorities where not very helpful to say the least. He did a little work on the subject and tranlated some info but I think he died before he could complete his work.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

The English lost the war due to many factors apart from "humiliating defeats", the numbers were overwhelming by that point and the English armies of that period were far inferior to the armies who conquered large areas of France under Henry V.

It wasn't just Longbows that won battles for the English but dismounted men in prepared positions also added to the victories. The Longbow itself was never a battle winning weapon, only in conjunction with other tactics could it be used successfully.

The English could not cash up on their battles due lack of man power for areas of garrison duty. Normandy is a good example of this with the place being taxed to high heaven, and at the lowest just 2,500 men guarded the province and under woeful leadership of the Duke of Somerset it was certain the province would fall against the armies of France..

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Mont Saint-Michel was NEVER conquered. If anyone knows what that is...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Mont Saint-Michel was NEVER conquered. If anyone knows what that is...Do you mean to ask what Mont Saint-Michel (http://www.monum.fr/m_stmichel/fs_index.dml?lang=fr) is?

(Click the link on the bottom right of that page for an English version)