The Hundred Years War: The most decisive struggle ever?...And general talk on the war

[Derfasciti]

I've been thinking of the Hundred Years War recently and it seems to me that it truly was the most important (European)war that ever happened in terms of determining national characters and future diplomatic arrangements. This was the war that got English Nobles to start actually speaking English and hardened both England and France into bitter enemies. Without this war, the Seven Years war may never have happened, or at least not in that particular way.

France and England were natural enemies with English possessions in southeastern France but it was this particular conflict and it's shear length that instilled a certain primitive nationalism into both countries and a real hatred for eachother. It also gave England a general sense that warfare was very profitable(And from it's chevauchee looting and wanton ransoming, it certainly was) and perhaps helped determine their future colonial ambitons much further into their history. In the same way, the massive devastation and humiliation embittered France for a long, long time to come.

I'm opening this up as a general discussion on this subject. What are your thougts on my above beliefs? What are your thoughts on the war in general? Who/what do you think was particularly interesting or significant in this war? How could the war have ended differently, and what would have been it's consequences?


In general- What say you?

[Marshal Murat]

I think it really defined which side was which. Since both sides were really intermixed, it separated them, which has it's good and bad points.

For the English-
Really forced the nobles to level with the Anglo-Saxon troops in their army, and begin to be them, and not an upper-caste Francophone nation.
Established English dominance of the Seas. I mean, where would they be without winning at Sluys?
For the French
The nobles began to be viewed as murderous and self-serving (Revolution anyone?)
Bad for France overall.

The conflict really defines Middle Ages, and helped boost England to the realm of Britain, when the trained troops defeated the Welsh and other natives of Britain (except for the Scots:scotland:)

Eh, my 2 cents.

[Justiciar]

I really don't think it was that important in terms of international politics. It was just a succession crisis, the likes of which had been seen across Europe on any number of occasions. It did create a unified France though. And the loss of French territories did result in the adoption of the (already bastardised) English language by a previously Francophone aristocracy. You're a bit off on that last bit, Murat. Edward I's conquest of Wales and assertion of dominance over Scotland happened before the Hundred Years War. I suppose you could argue that Edward III lost his Warginity (har har!) fighting the Scots, though.

[Incongruous]

It did help to craete a unified France, the most powerful and millitarily successful nation in European History. Thus a rather decisive conflict.

[Geoffrey S]

The most decisive European struggle ever? By your reasoning that could be pretty much any major conflict, ranging from the Persian Wars to the Second World War, with many more in between.

[KARTLOS]

It did help to craete a unified France, the most powerful and millitarily successful nation in European History. Thus a rather decisive conflict.

Im sorry but please could you justify and expand upon your claim that France was the most powerful and militarily successful nation in european history.

[Innocentius]

I've been thinking of the Hundred Years War recently and it seems to me that it truly was the most important (European)war that ever happened in terms of determining national characters and future diplomatic arrangements.

Here I must disagree. There are many other European wars that had greater impact on international politics, the Thirty Years' War for one. The Hundred Years' War only determined the faith of France, England and Burgundy (which was eradicated about 20 years later) while the Thirty Years' War cemented the division of the HRE, saw the decline of Denmark, the rise of Sweden and Russia, the decline of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Spain and the rise of France.

To me, The Hundred Years' War is much more important from a military/technological point of view. The war proved that the more professional, non-feudal, and technologically advanced English armies could beat the French, despite being outnumbered and the French brave and chivalrous way of fighting. The Hundred Years' War saw the rise and shine (and decline) of the longbow, the advent of the arbalest and more importantly: gunpowder. Gunpowder was of course never the deciding factor during the Hundred Years' War, but its efficiensy was proved.

[derfinsterling]

Im sorry but please could you justify and expand upon your claim that France was the most powerful and militarily successful nation in european history.

Yes, please!

[Brenus]

What a huge question!!!
First, it was not the English Possession in France the reason of the conflict, but the fact that the Duke of Normandy, vassal of the French King had a kingdom of England, which made him more powerful than his suzerain…
France and England were not natural enemies, and the Channel was more a trade road than a barrier during the Middle Ages… Import and export, population movements (in term of the period) were quite impressive.
It was so true than the King of England who started the war was the Grand-son f one of the greatest King of France Phillip Le Bel, by his daughter La Louve de France, Isabelle…

“In the same way, the massive devastation and humiliation embittered France for a long, long time to come.” :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: That is a pure English point of view. Believe me for that, the French are less obsess by the English than the English by the French, and at the end, well the French won. Some English defeats are as cruel and humiliating than Agincourt or Crécy… Patay (18 June 1429), Formigny (15 April 1450) and Castillon (17 July 1453) are good examples…

It is in the 100 years war that most of the heroes needed to build a national conscience were taken from, from Joan of Arc, Dugueslin, Jeanne Hachette, and others. Not only the French are not humiliated by the 100 years war, but they are proud of their resistance against an enemy who had a technological advantage, and even help by traitors, France succeeded to not only win, but to expel the enemies out of the territory… That is the lecture of the French of the 100 Years War. I remember as a kid watching a series (Thierry la Fronde) where the hero was (not killing, it was for kids) but ridiculed the English at each episode… Let say it was a old equivalent of Sharp…:beam:

“The nobles began to be viewed as murderous and self-serving (Revolution anyone?)
Bad for France overall.” In which way? The French Nobility didn’t suffer as such during the war. Again, Dugesclin was a hero (Connétable de France) for generations of young French.

I think that the lost of all Continental possession for England made the things clears… No need of an Army, just a fleet, even if it was not obvious at the time…

It probably helped to unit France. However, long time after, by the use of this event as example in schools, army, in the creation of the national identity…

“Gunpowder was of course never the deciding factor during the Hundred Years' War, but its efficiency was proved.” Err, it is actually how the Long Bow declined… To be efficient, the archers had be grouped, and the flow the cavalry under arrows. However this tactic made them sitting ducks for the artillery. But if the spread, the cavalry cut them into pieces. And that is what happened, and that why, at the end, the English lost the technological war… And the war…

“Im sorry but please could you justify and expand upon your claim that France was the most powerful and militarily successful nation in European history.” Read books: Size of France at the beginning of the Capetiens, let’s say, then size of France at the end of 19th Century. Even if most of the territorial expansion was done by Louis the XIV, how much coalitions and countries it took to defeat France during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and how long?:sweatdrop:
I do know that is not your image of France, however that is history…:laugh4:

[The Wizard]

To me, The Hundred Years' War is much more important from a military/technological point of view. The war proved that the more professional, non-feudal, and technologically advanced English armies could beat the French, despite being outnumbered and the French brave and chivalrous way of fighting. The Hundred Years' War saw the rise and shine (and decline) of the longbow, the advent of the arbalest and more importantly: gunpowder. Gunpowder was of course never the deciding factor during the Hundred Years' War, but its efficiensy was proved.

Strongly seconded. The reasons the author of this thread states as making the Hundred Years' War so important are all the results of much, much later efforts, conflicts, and endeavors.

The most important results were:

1. Technological, as mentioned above;
2. Taking France directly onto the path of becoming an absolute monarchy;
3. Making out of France a suddenly dominant power in its environs, which was able to quickly reach out and involve itself in conflicts surrounding it in a way that it never could've before the War; the Hundred Years' War effectively catapulted France into a position in which it was finally able to exploit its considerable potential.

In no way did the outcome of the Hundred Years' War have any effect on British naval dominance, French revolutionary fervor, or either nations' colonial ambitions. It's even doubtable it made the two countries antagonists of each other; that is most probably a by-product of the Napoleonic Wars.

[Justiciar]

“Gunpowder was of course never the deciding factor during the Hundred Years' War, but its efficiency was proved.” Err, it is actually how the Long Bow declined… To be efficient, the archers had be grouped, and the flow the cavalry under arrows. However this tactic made them sitting ducks for the artillery. But if the spread, the cavalry cut them into pieces. And that is what happened, and that why, at the end, the English lost the technological war… And the war…
I'd acctually say that advancements in armour proved the end of the Longbow's brief reign. As seen in a number of battles following Henry V's death. They just lost their edge.

[Marshal Murat]

I think the Battle of Sluys began the confirmation of British naval power. If the war catapulted (and it did) France into a position of power, they would have tried to exploit all advantages. However, with the English able to bring their fleet to the forefront. While not confirmed until the battles with the Spanish Armada, it no doubt started the English rise to naval dominance.

[MilesGregarius]

I think the Battle of Sluys began the confirmation of British naval power. If the war catapulted (and it did) France into a position of power, they would have tried to exploit all advantages. However, with the English able to bring their fleet to the forefront. While not confirmed until the battles with the Spanish Armada, it no doubt started the English rise to naval dominance.

Sluys merely assured that the Hundred Years' Wars would be fought entirely in France. The English lost control of the Channel to a Franco-Castillian fleet in 1372 at LaRochelle. Thereafter, England remained just another naval power, winning some, losing some.

The Armada's failure saved England, but it didn't end Spanish predominance. That wasn't decisively done until the Dutch defeated the Spanish fifty years later at the Battle of the Downs in 1639, which took place in English waters with the English navy unable to intervene. The Dutch remained the premier European naval power for much of the following century, humiliating the English in the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars. In fact, English naval supremacy only really started after the Glorious Revolution when Dutchman William of Orange ascended to the thrown and placed the Dutch fleet under English command - the ultimate case of "if you can't lick 'em...".

It wasn't until time of Nelson that Britannia truly came to rule the waves, though she only really lost once, at the Battle of the Chesapeake, following William's ascension.

[The Wizard]

I think the Battle of Sluys began the confirmation of British naval power. If the war catapulted (and it did) France into a position of power, they would have tried to exploit all advantages. However, with the English able to bring their fleet to the forefront. While not confirmed until the battles with the Spanish Armada, it no doubt started the English rise to naval dominance.

You realize that "English naval dominance" didn't exist until the decline of the Dutch Republican navy? The British (or any other, for that matter) navy was nothing compared to that of the Dutch during the Republic's Golden Century.

So, no. Medieval naval warfare was small-scale and unimportant to the larger strategic picture of things, and any victory in it certainly had no long-term effects for anybody's naval power.

EDIT: As MilesGregarius says.

[AntiochusIII]

Eh, for some reason I'm getting the impression that some people took the English of the Hundred Years War to be the same English as the victors of the Napoleonic Wars and the Empire of Victoria.

That's obviously not the case. Sluys might be taken by modern English/British military tradition as some sort of a start of the naval tradition, but the battle itself really had no such importance in reality. :balloon2:

Elizabeth was much more responsible in shaping England into what she could become during the Victorian Era than, say, Henry V.

By the way, France did reach out and in a distractingly effective way for its neighbors very shortly after they managed to win the Hundred Years War. They crushed the Burgundians -- which only rose to prominence under Philip the Good's successful leadership that transformed a French hereditary duchy into, for a short time, the dominant power in the Lowlands. They intervened in Italy, and Louis XII came as close as anyone else in almost winning the Italian Wars. They then faced both the Germans and Spain in a series of struggles carried out between Francis I (who really wasn't that successful, though he certainly was competent enough to hold his own. Of sorts) and Charles of Habsburg. Only the Wars of Religion interrupted that trend.

All that time, the English were sitting there doing nothing much. Well, not really. They did have their War of Roses, their fighting with Scots and Irish, their crazy Henry VIII and all that. But they certainly weren't the first-rate all-round European power France was at least until they lucked out with Elizabeth at the earliest (naval power, may be). Some would in fact say only after King Billy took the throne and brought with him the military and economic might of the Dutch that they truly became a great power.

But yes, the war did transfer both nations out of the Middle Ages and influenced the direction both nations take afterwards. In fact, it wasn't really that stretched of a claim that both nations were forged in the fighting. Before that the "nations" were just a bunch of titles and lands for the kings and nobles to drool and war over.

the massive devastation and humiliation embittered France for a long, long time to come.No, not really. You might be right about the humiliation and identity crisis thing if it were the Napoleonic Wars. But the Hundred Years War?

I've been thinking of the Hundred Years War recently and it seems to me that it truly was the most important (European)war that ever happened in terms of determining national characters and future diplomatic arrangements.Disagree. You are forgetting such international conflicts as the Thirty Years War and the Napoleonic Wars; heck, even World War I if you want to go that far. Those wars defined many more nations than two.

[Derfasciti]

Disagree. You are forgetting such international conflicts as the Thirty Years War and the Napoleonic Wars; heck, even World War I if you want to go that far. Those wars defined many more nations than two.

Yes, but my point was that (not definitely mind you, but probably, in my mind) the reason this war was so important was that it defined the (generally speaking) enmity which both countries felt for eachother for centuries to come. This in turn helped define future conflicts. I know that my earlier statement may have confused some on what I really meant.

[Motep]

huh...good read...:2thumbsup:

[The Wizard]

Yes, but my point was that (not definitely mind you, but probably, in my mind) the reason this war was so important was that it defined the (generally speaking) enmity which both countries felt for eachother for centuries to come. This in turn helped define future conflicts. I know that my earlier statement may have confused some on what I really meant.

Not really. National sentiment as we know it didn't really pop up until the shiny, brand-new ideology of nationalism popped up in the eighteenth century. The struggles against France by Britain in the Seven Years' War, and especially the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were far more important for the (now dying, I surmise) English-French mutual enmity.

[Marshal Murat]

Learn something new every day huh?

[AntiochusIII]

Yes, but my point was that (not definitely mind you, but probably, in my mind) the reason this war was so important was that it defined the (generally speaking) enmity which both countries felt for eachother for centuries to come. This in turn helped define future conflicts. I know that my earlier statement may have confused some on what I really meant.Considering the enmity really was forged into being only through the Napoleonic Wars (and Baba Ga'on was right, the colonial competitions between the two giants, the Seven Years War sort of included, were much more important in making them hate each other's guts), and that it didn't prevent both to ally with each other in both World Wars, the legendary cross-channel rivalry might not actually have that much to do with both nation's paths in history; apart from, of course, their ever persistent colonial competitions. On the other hand, the Thirty Years War ended the long term Habsburg attempts to unite the Empire for good -- very fundamental for Germany's history -- destroyed a superpower's position -- Spain, losing to the French and the Dutch, and losing Portugal -- and allowed others to fill the void.

The Napoleonic Wars were even more important in other ways. One couldn't count how many existing institutions and boundaries were pulled down by hordes of Frenchmen under the Republic and the Empire, how many new sentiments given life; and even the Congress of Vienna, supposed to be a reactionary return to status quo, affirmed a lot of those changes.

[KARTLOS]

Wh

“Im sorry but please could you justify and expand upon your claim that France was the most powerful and militarily successful nation in European history.” Read books: Size of France at the beginning of the Capetiens, let’s say, then size of France at the end of 19th Century. Even if most of the territorial expansion was done by Louis the XIV, how much coalitions and countries it took to defeat France during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, and how long?:sweatdrop:
I do know that is not your image of France, however that is history…:laugh4:


im sorry but you are living in a fantasy land. frances history is one of consistent under-achievement and failure. there werea few short spluters of glory admittedly, but the nation always reverted to type.
the napolenic period is a good example, there were a few years of success (aided by the fact that the french were the first to use mass conscription and thus outnumvered their opponents) followed by utter catstrophe.
After Napoleon, minor colonial expansion allowed the french to build up their self belief and start entertaining ideas that they were world power - a belief which was shown to be dissastrously false in the franco-prussian war.

the pattern repeates itself throught history.

[The Wizard]

I take it you actually believe in the one-dimensial, horrendously oversimplified and frankly just plain wrong chain e-mail fads circling around the internets after the entire U.S.-French (and German, if you'd take the effort to try and remember) diplomatic row over Iraq?

Instead of taking your points and proving them false piece by piece, I'll just hit you with a sweet anecdote: Germany hasn't won a single war it's fought. France, on the other hand...

[Sarmatian]

I agree with Baba Ga'on here. Although I don't know if I would call France the most powerful nation in european history, it certainly is among the selected few. Namely with Germany, England and Russia (not in that particular order).

France had a history of cowardice???

[Derfasciti]

im sorry but you are living in a fantasy land. frances history is one of consistent under-achievement and failure. there werea few short spluters of glory admittedly, but the nation always reverted to type.
the napolenic period is a good example, there were a few years of success (aided by the fact that the french were the first to use mass conscription and thus outnumvered their opponents) followed by utter catstrophe.
After Napoleon, minor colonial expansion allowed the french to build up their self belief and start entertaining ideas that they were world power - a belief which was shown to be dissastrously false in the franco-prussian war.

..


Hmph, actually France has had quite a long history of victory. It's pretty much a fad that everyone (except me) laughs at and I just correct them.

Baba Ga'on I was about to say that was false but...yeah you're right. Unless we include Prussia or other german states. :oops:

[Incongruous]

Karltos, you seem to be completley discounting the 17th and early 18th centuries in which France almost completley dominated. No nation in the history of post Roman Europe has been able to attmp to achieve Hegomony, and on so many occasions.

You might even include the nations namesake, the Franks. Imperial Germany on the other hand was a complete and utter failure. To say that the Germans have a great millitary history compared to the French is absurd.

Germany has most probabaly suffered more invasions than France has as well.

[AntiochusIII]

You might even include the nations namesake, the Franks. Imperial Germany on the other hand was a complete and utter failure. To say that the Germans have a great millitary history compared to the French is absurd.Just to chime in, while KARTLOS's position obviously is rather misguided -- France had a long and complex military history, one with at least as many victories as defeats -- I must note that he didn't really make a point about Germany being a counter-example to the French.

The France-bashing is rather unsupportable, though; especially considering evidence to the contrary...

[KARTLOS]

I take it you actually believe in the one-dimensial, horrendously oversimplified and frankly just plain wrong chain e-mail fads circling around the internets after the entire U.S.-French (and German, if you'd take the effort to try and remember) diplomatic row over Iraq?

Instead of taking your points and proving them false piece by piece, I'll just hit you with a sweet anecdote: Germany hasn't won a single war it's fought. France, on the other hand...

ive never read one im afraid. where people get the impression that i think germans are worthy of admiration i dont know......

[The Wizard]

It stems from the fact that I merely provided a counter-example to yours, of a nation that is often touted as the most successful military power of Europe, or even the West.

More importantly: I have yet to hear a comprehensive argument of yours for your claim that France has "a history of failures."

[Innocentius]

In a way KARTLOS has a point, France was very much up-and-down military wise. Especially when talking about the 100-years' war.

[PanzerJaeger]

Whats with the German bashing? Germans have a strong military history aswell, which included trouncing France on several occassions.

I dont understand why someone bashing the French makes some people instinctively bash the Germans, which is laughable at best. :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Meh, where did this thread go wrong?

France, or Germany, or their predecessor states, were and are important centres of European civilisation: cultural, demographical, economical, religiously, militarily, scientifically. To claim otherwise is simply daft.

I'm also not interested in their 'power graphs' - real life is not Sid Meier's Civilization, and the worth of nations is not judged by the amount of foreigners they have killed.

As to the original question. I can see where the opening post comes from, even if I don't agree with some of its conclusions. I wouldn't call the Hundred Years War THE most important war or historical event, but it had far-reaching consequences indeed.
I could post a huge essay, but I simply wouldn't even know where to begin. Also, a lot of the more important stuff has already been posted by others. :yes:

[Derfasciti]

My original statement was simply opinion and I knew going in that it would probably be argued and defeated. I am but an amateur historian at best... for now.:smiley2:

[Geoffrey S]

In a way KARTLOS has a point, France was very much up-and-down military wise. Especially when talking about the 100-years' war.
Well, who hasn't had their ups and downs?

[TosaInu]

:daisy:

[The Wizard]

Well luigi VI di Fatlington, I'd really like to hear some of your points. You see, I'd say that the Middle Ages were far more important for their social, cultural and technological achievements to the future than they were for their wars. Everything described by the original poster is, as far as I know, the product of events and, indeed, wars that are far closer to the present than this ancient conflict.


Whats with the German bashing? Germans have a strong military history aswell, which included trouncing France on several occassions.

I dont understand why someone bashing the French makes some people instinctively bash the Germans, which is laughable at best. :laugh4:

True -- but the land of Germany, that is the post-1871 statist entity that claims the name of 'Deutschland/Germany' as its own, has never won a single war. Simple fact, and funny considering the militarist stereotype surrounding it :wacko:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well luigi VI di Fatlington, I'd really like to hear some of your points. You see, I'd say that the Middle Ages were far more important for their social, cultural and technological achievements to the future than they were for their wars. Everything described by the original poster is, as far as I know, the product of events and, indeed, wars that are far closer to the present than this ancient conflict.I don't really have many points to add. Brenus and several others handled the specifics well already. It's just that, in general, after his being shred to pieces, I felt the urge to say that despite me disagreeing with his conclusions I can see where Derfasciti is coming from.

The Hundred Years War is not the most important war or historical event. Britain and France are not natural enemies. They've been allies as often as rivals. There is no bitter enmity between them, and it's certainly not one of the engines of European history.

But the Hundred Years War had far-reaching consequences indeed. For England, it ended its presence on the continent forever. Which in the end did create Englands / the UK's geopolitical position: an island large and centralized enough to be save from invasion, close enough to the continent to fully partake in all the cultural and economic developments, yet without a direct involvement through holdings on the continent. It set the stage as it were for England to develop into what it became. This however also means that once England had lost the 100YW, France and England were anything but natural territorial enemies anymore.

For France, it had even more repercussions. The Hundred Years War I think is best described as not a war between two nations, but a civil war for dynastic prevalence in the French / English state-complex. Fernand Braudel spoke of an Anglo-French state unit that was the grand prize, with a series of provincial and dynastic conflicts for ultimate control of it. In the end, the French kings established their dominance over their nobles, and the Île-de-France its dominance over the hexagon. A large territorial state covering the territory of modern-day France is not a natural given, neither historically, culturally or linguistically. It is the product of dynastic and military fortune and misfortune. For the centralisation of the kingdom of France, and its size and shape, the 100YW was a very important event.

So two clear, territorially separate states emerged from the 100 YW. A certain national feeling was also born during the Hundred Years War - but we should not exegarate this. For example, Joan of Arc is a nineteenth century 'invention', she was of little importance to the public conciounceness in the centuries before.

These aspects are why I can see Derfescati's point. Indirectly, very indirectly, the Hundred Years War did set the stage for later developments.
But yes, history is not a logical, or teleological process. The occurance of many later events cannot be traced back in a direct way to the 100YW. That is not a fruitful way of describing history. These events are as you say 'the product of events and, indeed, wars that are far closer to the present than this ancient conflict'..

[Brenus]

“You might be right about the humiliation and identity crisis thing if it were the Napoleonic Wars.” Even not this… Again I speak about the view of the French. Napoleon was defeated by the Russian, and most by the Russian Winter. The lost of the great Army was what gave the Coalition the upper hand. I am not sure that Wellington and Blucher could have won Waterloo (or the campaign of France) without this event.
Again, France was in war from 1790 to 1815 with all the rest of Europe… If you think that is a humiliation to be finally (and 2 against 1) in such conditions…
Napoleon was a tyrant as much as the Tsar, the English Monarchy and nobility or the Austro-Hungarian Emperor… But there is no feeling of shame about him.
The shame is about the WW2 and the quick defeat in front of the Germans with the legend of the refusal of fighting, which we know now, is a lie. The real shame is Pétain, the Collaboration, the Milice, Darnand. Pride and shame are difficult to see from outside.

[The Wizard]

luigi VI di Fatlington: your point on England is interesting, and I'm inclined to agree with it. You're also right on the civil war idea, in my opinion. What you said about France has already been said, IIRC.

Finally, in regards to your general conclusion that the Hundred Years' War had an, albeit very indirect, effect on the future (and today): of course! But as with so many things in the Middle Ages, this effect set the stage for the future (it didn't quite lay a foundation, but one could say that, I suppose) of England, France, and their geopolitical position, in Europe and abroad.

So, in some respects, Derfasciti is right -- but not in the assumption he makes that the Hundred Years' War had a direct effect on the subjects he names. It was more of a precursor.

[AntiochusIII]

“You might be right about the humiliation and identity crisis thing if it were the Napoleonic Wars.” Even not this… Again I speak about the view of the French. Napoleon was defeated by the Russian, and most by the Russian Winter. The lost of the great Army was what gave the Coalition the upper hand. I am not sure that Wellington and Blucher could have won Waterloo (or the campaign of France) without this event.
Again, France was in war from 1790 to 1815 with all the rest of Europe… If you think that is a humiliation to be finally (and 2 against 1) in such conditions…
Napoleon was a tyrant as much as the Tsar, the English Monarchy and nobility or the Austro-Hungarian Emperor… But there is no feeling of shame about him.
The shame is about the WW2 and the quick defeat in front of the Germans with the legend of the refusal of fighting, which we know now, is a lie. The real shame is Pétain, the Collaboration, the Milice, Darnand. Pride and shame are difficult to see from outside.I didn't mean it in the fashion of a national shame from military defeat, as French performance for the continuous decades of war was certainly, if not absolutely beyond belief, impressive -- sorry that it wasn't clear -- but more in the issue that France really acted like it lost its sense of direction after the whole Revolution-Empire shebang had ended. Nobody (except the monarchists) wanted the Bourbons back, and the Bourbons had been the identity of the nation up until, if we are to give a romanticized, symbolic answer, Bastille.

So what I really meant to say was that, in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, I believe there were a lot of conflicts about what exactly was France. Some harangued back to the Empire, some old guards stick to the royal courts, some liberal minds supported the legacy of the Revolution, and a few couldn't give a damn; that sort of thing.

But it's rather off-topic, so...

[Brenus]

Oh, in this meaning, yes… The after 1st Empire was a bit chaotic. But first, the texts from this period show a great relief to be finally in peace… France in term of territory lost nothing from the Napoleon era, except the territories Napoleon annexed to his Empire… Politically speaking after the end of the Revenge by the Monarchists you have mainly three political movements: The monarchists, the Republicans and the Imperialists. Charles X will be the Roi-Bourgeois and will stabilised France until the revolution of 1830, followed by Louis-Phillip, Orleans Branch, who accepted the French Revolution and didn’t try to undo what it done… Then 2nd Republic followed by II Empire, then III Republic (1870 to 1940)… From the Napoleonic Wars, the French politicians started to understand the problem and started to develop an over-sea Empire (the 2nd Colonial Empire), movement which really took speed after the defeat in 1870 against what become Germany. Napoleon the III went in several over-sea adventure (Crimea, Mexico…) but it was the III Republic which really work on it in order to have iron and coal for the revenge and the return of the lost territories (Alsace and Lorraine) taken by Bismarck. So from an anti-English feeling, the French Propaganda Machine will turns against the Germans…

[ShadesWolf]

Thankyou for this subject.

It has made an interesting chat.

I am very biased, so i wont get to involved, as i dont want to bore you all.

But please bare in mind that this was a massive conflict, and did not just involve England and France. It had a dramatic outcome on the history of both nations.

As a result of this conflict, England lost all her land (except Calias) on the mainland. This land had been part of the English crown since 1066 and the norman invasion. As a result of this England ended up in civil war (War of the roses) and took years to recover......

France on the other hand became a combined nation for the first time. Even land and cities loyal to the English crown eventually accepted French rule. With the death of Burgundy the outcome was complete.

[Brenus]

“This land had been part of the English crown since 1066 and the norman invasion.” Err, England was part of the Duché de Normandie, itself part of the Kingdom of France. That was the problem.:sweatdrop:

[Incongruous]

Perhaps that point can be considered redundant?
The lands pertaining to the Angevin inheritance were by right the posessions of the Kings of England, which the Title of Duke of Normandy was subordinate to no matter which way you look at it. Realistically I doubt that by the time of Stephen, the French and indeed the rest of Europe saw the Kings of England as Feudal underling of the King of France.

[Brenus]

“Realistically I doubt that by the time of Stephen, the French and indeed the rest of Europe saw the Kings of England as Feudal underling of the King of France.” If you study Medieval Society you will see you are making a mistake… And of course no kings would question the basic base of their power…

[Incongruous]

I still think that the belief that the French Kings could claim the Angevin inheritence because of thier overlordship is wrong. I dont believe that any overlordship existed, after all they were kings, the founder of their line had carried the Papal banner. The English kings on many occasions sgowed their independance and indeed their superiority over the French kings.

[Watchman]

Duke William the Bastard of Normandy fought one brief war against his nominal feudal superior the King of France before he went off to invade England.

That's Medieval feudalism for you in a nutshell, really. The barons bucking the monarchs for their own benefit every chance they got (and thought they could get away with, as was usually the case) was pretty much the norm.

[IrishArmenian]

I don't like this title much. It makes it seem as if the English and French were fighting for the world. This may have impacted Western and Central Europe, but that is really it. The Hundred Year's war isn't taught in schools here because, it was irrelevant to us. We are only in the Cacaus Mountains. There is another side of the globe that was unchanged after the Hundred Year's War.

[Watchman]

It's not like it had much effect in Scandinavia either.

[ShadesWolf]

The argument doesnt wash :(

What effect did Rome or Egypt have on the US, or Japan - None
What direct effect did China have on Europe - none...

Until the world became smaller what happened around the world, didnt bother the other side of the globe.....

Europe on the other hand was a different matter.....

The hundred years war spread as far east to involve the King of Bohemia, who I believe , BKB can put me right if im mistaken, owned land in France or on the border..... as did the king of Navarre.

It spread to include the Italian states, ie White companies and the Genoese crossbowmen were included.

The Spainish nations were involved, directly as well as indirectly...

What else do I need to say.

The outcome of this conflict led to the Swiss/ Burgundian wars and then the Austrian lands in Flanders and Holland.

I just cant understand why more studies on this conflict dont happen.

[ShadesWolf]

I suggest to take this further we should discuss the conflicts?

Wot do you all think?

[Incongruous]

Sounds like a good idea. Howvere I must disagree with you that Rome did not influence the U.S.

But that's now besides the point.

[Derfasciti]

I suggest to take this further we should discuss the conflicts?

Wot do you all think?


What exactly do you mean by "conflicts"? The specific battles, the causes?

[InsaneApache]

Sounds like a good idea. Howvere I must disagree with you that Rome did not influence the U.S.

But that's now besides the point.

You might think that but the English speaking peoples use the Roman alphabet. Not to mention their numerals.

[Watchman]

Arabic numerals are the standard these days you know. The Roman ones sorta suck for any real math.

Some silly Anglo-Saxons still stick to the horrible, clunky old Imperial measurements however, nevermind the Fahrenheit heat scale. Talk about unnecessarily complicated.

[Ignoramus]

At least we have the first rights to speaking English. It is our language by the way. People may try and tell you that English is an internation language, unfortunately, many people confuse English with Amercian. American is the international language.

[InsaneApache]

All the muncipal clocks, not to mention church clocks I've ever seen in my life have been in Roman numerals.


At least we have the first rights to speaking English. It is our language by the way. People may try and tell you that English is an internation language, unfortunately, many people confuse English with Amercian. American is the international language.

American? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

I shall assume you mean American-English. :yes:

Now; what else have the Romans done for us? :beam:

Let's see.....

Baths, road building, the three course meal, map surveying, semophore.......

[ShadesWolf]

I was talking about a concept of the time, ie medieval ages.

As for the conflicts, I was more leaning towards battles and sets of battles, like the siege of Orleans.....

As well as the knock on battles - Burgundian wars etc..
So what would we like to talk about first?

[Incongruous]

You might think that but the English speaking peoples use the Roman alphabet. Not to mention their numerals.

No no, I meant that I disgreed with the statement that Rome did not influence the USA!:2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

All the muncipal clocks, not to mention church clocks I've ever seen in my life have been in Roman numerals.Well, they look cool. That's why they're used in royal names as well.

About as much use as they get these days, too. :beam:

[InsaneApache]

No no, I meant that I disgreed with the statement that Rome did not influence the USA!:2thumbsup:

:dunce2: :bow:

[Derfasciti]

I was talking about a concept of the time, ie medieval ages.

As for the conflicts, I was more leaning towards battles and sets of battles, like the siege of Orleans.....

As well as the knock on battles - Burgundian wars etc..
So what would we like to talk about first?



I'll talk about anything hehe. I started this post mainly out of curiosity about the war since I'm no expert.

[ShadesWolf]

Lets talk about the battle of Crecy and the people/ individuals involved.

[Brenus]

Let’s talk about Patay and the people/individual involved.
French Commanders: Alencon, Joan of Arc and Richement: 8000 men
English Commanders: Talbeot and Falstoff: 3000 men

Casualties:
French: around 5. Well, the link says less than 5.
English: More than 2000.

Or
Formigny:
French Commanders: Clermont, 3000 men and Richemont, 1200 men, total 4200 men
English Commander: Kyriell, 3800-4000 men

Casualties:
French 200
English: 3774

Or
Castillon
French Commanders: Jean Bureau 4000-6000 men, Jean de Blois Penthieve, 1000 men. Total 5000-7000 men
English Commander: John Talbot, 2500-4000 men

Casualties:
French: 100
English: 4000.

:beam:

[Innocentius]

Or Verneuil:

French/Scottish commanders: William, vicomte de Narbonne, Jean d’Harcourt, comte d’Aumâle, Archibald, earl of Douglas and the earl of Buchan with 11 000 - 14 000 men.
English commanders: Bedford and Salisbury with ~9 000 men.

French casualties: ~6 000 (mostly Scots)
English casualties: 1 000 - 1 500+


And even Wikipedia suggests the French suffered more than 5 (about 100 is suggested) casualties at Patay.

[Brenus]

Well, that is the problem with Middle-Ages. No real figures and more propaganda than real figures. Azincourt is know thank to Shakespeare, not because it was the most devasted deeat. According to some historians Verneuil was worst in term of slaughter. BUT it didn't change the fgact that the English were losing the war. Verneuil and Azincourt were just incidents, bloody and costly , but incidents which just prologued the war.
The battles I gave as example are the last one (let's say the more important) which will lead French victory over the English.
The Throne of France was lost for the English Monarchy, and more they became English, less their chance were.
With the end of the Bourgignons, their Allies in France, they couldn’t and didn’t win.

[Innocentius]

The Throne of France was lost for the English Monarchy

It has been debated whether the English kings were actually serious in their efforts to claim the throne of France, or if it was just an official reason for the war.

And by the time of Verneuil, the English were certainly not losing the war, actually, things were going very well. It wasn't until 1429 that their luck changed.

[Brenus]

“And by the time of Verneuil, the English were certainly not losing the war, actually, things were going very well.”
You’re right. With the defeat of Fresnay (3rd of March 1420) and the signature of the treaty of Troyes (21st of May) Henry V obtained to marry Catherine, daughter of Charles VI, and to become king of France on the death of his father-in-law (and not after Azincourt as some believe)
The problem is there is a Dauphin to the Throne of France, Charles.
And I am not sure this marriage would have been accepted by the Bourgignon, when the main reason to refuse to the great son of Phillippe Le Bel the throne of France was the fact that no succession should go through a woman.
Anyway, we know what did happen: An alleged female sheep keeper (most probably a natural Daughter of the Duke of Lorraine) went in Chinon, recognised the Dauphin, proved she was a virgin, and she booted the English about of France (bouter les Anglois hors de France, in-old- French in the Text, allegedly orders given by God, what could the English do?). Well, at least from Orleans, then the Dauphin was anointed at Reims, became King of France.
From 1429, the tide reversed. First in Orleans, then Patay, the English started to suffer from what will became France’s power, demography. They couldn’t compensate the numerical advantage by a technological/tactical one (long Bow) because they lost the technological war as well… The cannons eliminated the Long Bows from the battle field…
In 1436-40, Talbot tried and succeeded partially to recover some lost territory and towns.
In 1441, the French started the definitive re-conquest in capturing Creil, Conflant and Ponthoise.
In 15 of April 1450, the battle of Formigny put an end to the English supremacy, re-conquest of Normandy and Guyenne (1453, Bordeaux is re-taken after Castillon).
After, between truces and wars, the French Dynasty succeeded to recover, or re-conquered the territory, with the capture of Calais in 1558.
“It wasn't until 1429 that their luck changed”: I will put September 1426, with the Battle of Montargis, where La hire and Dunois defeated Warwick.
I am a sceptic concerning Joan of Arc. I think that she was more a propaganda tool than a real commander, and Montargis is the illustration of this belief. But that is me.:beam:

[ShadesWolf]

Well wot about Bordeaux?


After the French capture of Bordeaux in 1451, the Hundred Years' War seemed to end. However, after three hundred years of English rule the citizens of Bordeaux considered themselves English and sent messengers to Henry VI of England demanding he recapture the province.

On 17 October 1452, the Earl of Shrewsbury landed near Bordeaux with a force of 3,000 men-at-arms and archers. The French garrison was ejected by the citizens of Bordeaux, who then gleefully opened the gates to the English. Most of Gascony followed Bordeaux's example and welcomed the English home.

you make is sound like all France welcomed the rule of the native French, this was not the case.

IMHO the only reason the war ended in 1453 was the cost of the conflict and the growing unreast in england. The loss of French territory cast England into civil war, and it was not until the tudors was the nation in any state to wage war and by then it was to late and our French terrotory was lost forever.

It is an interesting point I bring up here, Henry V was one of the greatest English Kings from the period, but his rule was a result of the thrown being taken from Richard II by his father. This eventually cast English into civil war (War of the Roses).The outcome of this conflict was the tudor dynasty So wot might have happened if Richard II had of been a better ruler? Interesting through and a pure plantagenet line had of continued?

[ShadesWolf]

Interesting thought


Whether Henry V's slender resouces would have allowed him to rule both England and France is open to doubt. As Edward III had discovered, conquest was one thing, the establishment of stable governement over the conquerored territities another.

Anybody like to chat about?

[Incongruous]

I had always thought that conquests in France would be self fulfilling...:oops:
However, I disagree that Bolinbrokes usurpation set the seeds for civil war. Even those whom had greater claim to throne than Henry V were loyal to him. It was the unfortunate match between D'Anjou and Lancaster which allowed the rot of the Beuforts bad government to set in. If Humphrey and Richard Plantagenet had been left to what they knew best, I can see everything going differently. Perhaps not on a scale allowing for the total conquest of France. But in terms of Brittany and Normandy, it probably could have been possible.

But it was made impossible by D'Anjou and Sommorset.

[ShadesWolf]

I must agree, Henrys son Henry VI, who was mad became the tool of competing magnates. His fathers spectacular gains in France were now being lost almost as rapidly as they had been won. His over throw came only a matter of time.

england was very unstable under Henry Vi reign, this is the true legacy of Bolingbrokes coup d-etat. It climaxed in 1461 and 1485 when England found itself in civil war.

Please remember all through Henry IV reigh the country was unstable, the battle of shrewsbury shows this.

Its was only the excelleny kingship of Henry V that stopped this, and his successes in France.

[Brenus]

“,you make is sound like all France welcomed the rule of the native French this was not the case” Did I? Well, I don’t know if the French Local were probably better off with an English garrison or not is not the point.

You make it soud like the English always had it easy. But if Henry V had to go to invaded France again, it is because the English lost the war before him. Azincourt, Verneuil and Fresnay come after the period not so good for the English: Charles of Navarre's forces (English’s Allies) were defeated in the battle of Chocherel (May 1364) by the French king's army, led by a low-ranking Breton knight, Bertrand du Guesclin. Du Guesclin was later captured by the English at the battle of Auray (29 September), in which Charles de Blois was killed. Montfort's son, became Jean IV, duke of Brittany, but paid homage to the French king, Charles V.
Charles deployed du Guesclin to lead a force of routiers to aid Enrique [Henry] of Trastámara against Pedro 'the Cruel', king of Castile, who was supported by an English force under the Black Prince. Enrique was defeated at the battle of Navarete [Nájera] (2 April 1367) in Castile, and du Guesclin was again captured by the English and ransomed by Charles V. Later, the English withdrew support of Pedro, and Enrique (with du Guesclin's help) defeated Pedro at Montiel (14 March 1369). The new king of Castile, Enrique II, rewarded the French for their support by sending the formidable Castilian navy to assist the French in the struggle against England.

The “1369-73” period saw renewed warfare between France and England began in June. Charles V announced that he was confiscating Aquitaine (Guyenne) and launched an invasion which took several towns. The Black Prince, experienced revolts in his domain (so apparently the English were not welcome there) and sacked Limoges (19 September 1370). The Prince returned to England in 1371, leaving his French dominion to his brother, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster.
Charles V had prepared his treasury for war, financed a new fleet, Clos des Galées at Rouen, and recruited commanders with proven battlefield experience: Oliver de Clisson, Boucicault, Amaury de Craon, the Bègue de Vilaines, the Admiral Jean de Vienne. In particular, Charles made du Guesclin constable (2 October 1370). In that same year the new constable and Oliver de Clisson routed an English force at Pontvallain, near Le Mans.
By mostly avoiding open-field battles, where the English longbow tactical system dominated, the French followed Fabian methods of raids, ambushes, night attacks, and harassment. Du Guesclin led most of the main French operations and reconquered several towns in Guyenne in 1372. In June of the same year, a Castilian fleet destroyed the English fleet off La Rochelle. The trend was repeated in Brittany and Normandy, as the French reclaimed, by force or bribery, most all of the territories that had been ceded to Edward III at Brétigny.

[IrishArmenian]

Despite what I said earlier, the Hundred Year's war did indirectly contribute to the fall of the Christian East. Because the French and English were fighting amongst themselves with such fervor that they denied King Levon (the last Armenian* King of Kilikia, good ruler, despite his being a Lusignan) when he pleaded for assistance.

He was well recieved, but the only support he left with were the "Blessings" of the King of France and the King of England.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Despite what I said earlier, the Hundred Year's war did indirectly contribute to the fall of the Christian East. Because the French and English were fighting amongst themselves with such fervor that they denied King Levon (the last Armenian* King of Kilikia, good ruler, despite his being a Lusignan) when he pleaded for assistance.

He was well recieved, but the only support he left with were the "Blessings" of the King of France and the King of England.

Can you blame them? Sending troops into that theatre in that period would have been pointless and would have not done much for either nation

[Incongruous]

Also, the prize of Aquataine was far more alluring to both Monarchs.

[ShadesWolf]

interesting choices to talk about.....

a civil war within Breton, where Egland aided one faction and France the other......

And then war in Iberia,

Just goes to show how far reaching the effects were..

[Incongruous]

We could also talk about the conflict between the Beuforts/D'Anjou and Good King Harry's Brothers and Richard Plantagenet Duke of York. In effect this could show that the Wars of the Roses were not fought between the Houses of Lancaster and York of the family of Plantagenet, but between the Plantagenets and the Beuforts, and their fallout over the running of Henry V's French Conquests.
Or if one was feeling rightly agrieved against Sommorset (the horrible man that he was!), Sommorset vs. the people of England...:2thumbsup:

[Furious Mental]

Interestingly enough at one point the Papacy brokered a deal with one of the Great Companies for all the routiers in central and eastern France to make their way to Anatolia and fight for the Byzantine Empire against the Turks. The whole plan fell apart because the Germans and Italians (wisely) closed their borders to the approaching horde of mercenaries and thugs. In the end those that didn't manage to make their way back to Gascony (where most of them came from) mostly ended up being lynched, beheaded, drowned or otherwise gruesomely killed by the angry French. A Castilian rebel turned mercenary captain, Henry of Trastamara, in conjunction with Peter IV of Aragon and Charles V also got the Pope to put up 100,000 florins for an army of routiers to go on crusade against the Moors, but the plan was always to invade Castile and boot out Pedro I, which they did with considerable ease. Then when that army was abandoned they joined the Prince of Wales' expedition to reinstall Pedro I.