The Anglosphere is the only thing that keeps the world from descending into barbarism

[Greyblades]

Castillion happened several decades after Henry died.

Ultimately the treaty doesnt matter beyond giving the English kings a higher degree of legitimacy to thier claim, if the French lords refuted it there would have been another war and by his previous record I do believe that Henry V could have won that war too.

I believe that if henry had lived long enough to actually get the crown and bring up his kid properly his dynasty would have had a proper chance of cementing thier rule over france.

[Brenus]

"Castillion happened several decades after Henry died." Yeap, but was the last of a series of defeats.

"Ultimately the treaty doesnt matter beyond giving the English kings a higher degree of legitimacy to thier claim, if the French lords refuted it there would have been another war and by his previous record I do believe that Henry V could have won that war too." Agree and disagree. If you believed in Medieval way of dealing with Monarchy by blood line, The English Kings were right, as the son of the daughter of the French king should have been the King of France, if her uncle didn't forge document and made a false "salic" law forbidding the throne to be handed by and to women. Henry HAD a son from Catherine de Valois, and none of the French recognised him as heir of the thrown, as the treaty was signed by the mentally deranged king, to put it kindly...
However your claim about Henry winning the war, nope. Henry was still using the same tactic which ultimately was the down-fall of the English long-bow tactic. Bedford was not a bad leader and succeeded to keep and even to conquered more French towns and territory (Verneuil & Cravant). But in 1429 (14 years after Azincourt) the English faced defeat again at Orlean, followed by the battle of Patey 18 June 1729, battle the English choose or prefer to ignore (less than 5 French killed for more than 2000 English), battle showing the weak point of the long bow tactic.
Then the new French King went for modernisation of the French Army (cutting from the Medieval one) when the English stuck with the war they almost won tactic, which lead them to the ultimate defeat.

[Greyblades]

However your claim about Henry winning the war, nope. Henry was still using the same tactic which ultimately was the down-fall of the English long-bow tactic. Bedford was not a bad leader and succeeded to keep and even to conquered more French towns and territory (Verneuil & Cravant). But in 1429 (14 years after Azincourt) the English faced defeat again at Orlean, followed by the battle of Patey 18 June 1729, battle the English choose or prefer to ignore (less than 5 French killed for more than 2000 English), battle showing the weak point of the long bow tactic.
Then the new French King went for modernisation of the French Army (cutting from the Medieval one) when the English stuck with the war they almost won tactic, which lead them to the ultimate defeat.

I do not believe that would have been a factor:
Charles the Mad died the same year Henry V did, in 1422, if Henry had lived and attempted to take the throne the war would have resumed that year and I do believe that a strong England under the Leadership of an able king like Hal could have won it before the reforms that rendered the Longbow tactic ineffective could have been implemented.

Now I could believe that there's a large chance a later rebellion could have ripped apart what Hal built, but with a united kingdom of England and France and the proper upbringing that Henry VI was deprived of there would have been a chance of house plantagenet retaining france for a good long while.

But of course we have no way of determining what would happen with such large divergeants in history.

[Brenus]

What lost France to England was the end of the French Civil War. The 100 years War is in fact the factor which created a separation between English and French citizenship (even if the word itself will come later). The final reconquest by the French King of Normandy, Brittany and Burgundy went without one city closing its doors to the French armies. The now French had enough of now English occupation. Somehow, the nationalities became before the former feudal link. So, in order to keep France as part of a United Kingdom, the English King would have to stop both side to think to be enemies.
Even today, reading and believing some free-newspapers readers comments, it is still not achieved...
Even Hasting (1066) is described as a battle of the English King against the Normans (so France did not exist but England did apparently) as the English refuse any notion of being defeated by French.

[Gilrandir]

"Be grateful that you live in a civilised world today. Had it not been for the Anglos, you'd be speaking French now. The Anglo-Saxon civilisation saved the world from being conquered and exploited by the French. Of course, we did it by conquering and exploiting it ourselves, but c'est la vie." And every things would be much better if the French would.

Except the spelling.

I believe that if henry had lived long enough to actually get the crown and bring up his kid properly his dynasty would have had a proper chance of cementing thier rule over france.

His son inherited his grandfather's mental problems, I doubt that any upbringing would change it.
If it comes to might-have-beens that could have an influence on the outcome of the war, one could wish Edward I had fewer offspring.

The now French had enough of now English occupation. Somehow, the nationalities became before the former feudal link. So, in order to keep France as part of a United Kingdom, the English King would have to stop both side to think to be enemies.

I would recommend you to read The Hundred Years War by Jonathan Sumption (three volumes are available, the forth one is bound to be published this year - guess what event it is to be timed to).

The author argues that generally people in France didn't mind who was their king. If they had any allegiance, it was to their fuedal lord. They were likely to follow him whatever course he might have taken, whether following his monarch or abandoning him and allying with the English.

When an enemy was seen from a city's walls, the chief purpose of the citizens was to keep their dwellings intact, so they as often as not went into negotiations with the enemy to that end or made the garrison of the keep surrender or even evicted it - and accepted the hated English as long as they behaved civilly enough and/or were not likely to bring any havoc upon them from another quarter.

It is a common mistake to impart people of the past with modern ideas of patriotism, nation, loyalty which were quite different even a 100 years ago.

[CrossLOPER]

Krast listens to funny people talking. Talking in funny words, that are not Krast's simple, easy-to-speak barbarian language.

Maybe one day, Krast's world will be transformed, no more funny talking people, only barbarian talking people and then Krast can finally hang up his axe, job well done.

Gah.

Does Krast become confused when one is speaking of Krast or Krast? How does Krast know which Krast is spoken to or of by Krast? Which Krast would Krast reckon it be?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What lost France to England was the end of the French Civil War. The 100 years War is in fact the factor which created a separation between English and French citizenship (even if the word itself will come later). The final reconquest by the French King of Normandy, Brittany and Burgundy went without one city closing its doors to the French armies. The now French had enough of now English occupation. Somehow, the nationalities became before the former feudal link. So, in order to keep France as part of a United Kingdom, the English King would have to stop both side to think to be enemies.
Even today, reading and believing some free-newspapers readers comments, it is still not achieved...
Even Hasting (1066) is described as a battle of the English King against the Normans (so France did not exist but England did apparently) as the English refuse any notion of being defeated by French.

England is an older country than France, the very fact that a Norman vassal of the French King could break away and declare war on England independently shows how weak the French Crown was and how France lacked any sense of "Frenchness" at the time. By contrast England was resiliant enough that the Danish Kings were not so much overthrown when Cnut died as simply frozen out by the English Earls and Bishops.

One theory for why the English rolled over after Hastings is that they didn't believe the Normans would last - England would just shrug them off in a generation like the Danes. What they didn't count on was William the Bastard being quite that much of a bastard that he killed or exiled the entire English aristocracy, dethroned all the English bishops and either dissolved or "re-founded" the Enlish monasteries as Norman establishments.

In a way it was the 100 years war that created France, as you say, the French banded together and became defined by their opposition to English rule - throwing off the English yoke was something the French did together.

[Brenus]

"England is an older country than France" ? Please explain this claim, because it is not clear to me. GB was as much invaded than France before and during the Middle Ages. Not only by the Vikings but numerous Germanic Tribes. The division between languages, rival tribes and clans was as effective than on the continental Europe. So, where is this Englishness suddenly comes from? No common identity, no central power, as much as I am aware...

"the very fact that a Norman vassal of the French King could break away and declare war on England independently" That is a modern point of view. William didn't declare war to a State, he claimed his Thrown which, according to him, was his. Noting national, all medieval and feudal. The Great Feudals always fought their King and alleged Suzerains.
In France, the one who put a stop to this was Louis the XIV, after the Fronde. And it is easily forgotten that the ones who started (against their objectives, I might add, it was an unexpected result) the French Revolution was the High Nobility wanting to restore their privileges and forcing Louis the XVI to gather the French Parliament, les Etats Généraux, created in 1302...

[Greyblades]

"England is an older country than France" ? Please explain this claim, because it is not clear to me.

Proto-National identity, the 100 year war made the idea of "the french" as more than just "people who serve under the guy who calls himself king of france" whereas "the english" gained such a distinction a few hundred years earlier with the various pre norman invasions.

The question I have is whether or not this formation of a french national identity came before 1422, because if it didn't I'd argue that Gilrandir is right, the french lords might rebel to resist a king they see as foreign, but once Henry V beat them (which I believe he could) the french pesants would just accept being Henry's subjects.
With thier lords supplication or replacment and a vaguely legal looking endorsment by the previous king, the pesantry would just get on with thier lives as subjects of a new king, with the obvious caveat that they didnt get treated worse than they did before.

[Brenus]

"Proto-National identity, the 100 year war made the idea of "the french" as more than just "people who serve under the guy who calls himself king of france" whereas "the english" gained such a distinction a few hundred years earlier with the various pre norman invasions." So the English had a proto-English Identity when the French didn't is your. What in history sustains this claim? The first document in French is the treaty of Verdun (845) so we had a vague idea that the language exist, so at least, the Franks didn't speak any more a Germanic language.
In the Battle of Bouvines, in 1214 Phillip II August is the King of France and the Knights serving in the French Ost recognised themselves as French.
In the battle of Bremule (1119), Henri VI the Fat is describe by the chroniclers as the King of France, and is recognised as such by Henri I, Duc of Normandy and King of England.
And yes, we speak for the leaders.
"the pesantry would just get on with thier lives as subjects of a new king, with the obvious caveat that they didnt get treated worse than they did before." So did all peasantries in Europe, including England and Ottoman Empire. So this doesn't prove or reject your claim of a early Englishness conscience in the English population, as their Lords were French.

Whereas Henri V would have been able to defeat the French is another story and we will never know. I doubt it as he employed tactic which became obsolete, the same methods use by his successors. The final French victory didn't came from the English lack of courage or will, it came from the French King creating a first national army (it is said that the 1st Infantry Regiment is the heir of the Bandes de Picardie, France created at that time, taking model on the English but including artillery, a weapon the English knew about it as they were the first to employed, but too confident in the long-bow tactic, put aside.

[Gilrandir]

The question I have is whether or not this formation of a french national identity came before 1422, because if it didn't I'd argue that Gilrandir is right, the french lords might rebel to resist a king they see as foreign, but once Henry V beat them (which I believe he could) the french pesants would just accept being Henry's subjects.
With thier lords supplication or replacment and a vaguely legal looking endorsment by the previous king, the pesantry would just get on with thier lives as subjects of a new king, with the obvious caveat that they didnt get treated worse than they did before.

Once again, at those times peasants didn't consider themselves subjects of the king (unless in domains personally owned by the king), but subjects of their feudal lord. Nobility could hold land (with the duty to answer the summons of their liegelord and serve 3 months a year (IIRC) at their expense) directly given to them by the king or by another high noble who in his turn might (or might not) have been given this land by the king. Sometimes nobles were richer than the king and consequently wileded more power and could gather a larger army. So the feudal relations between the subjects were an intertwining of personal loyalties and must be viewed adopting such standpoint.

At no place did the national identity of the liegelord enter them. More so in England-France knot of relations in which lords on both sides owned land in France. Some of French lords were subjects/allies of English kings not as kings of England per se but as Dukes of Aquitaine (and as Dukes of Aquitaine English kings were subjects of the king of France). French lords could ally with the Dukes of Aquitaine against their neighbors (the Armagnacs vs the Foixs). Moreover, some parts of France (namely Brittany) were not even nominally considered a part of the French kingdom. Brittany was ever allied with the English kings.

The language of the English court and parliament was French (or its Norman dialect, to be precise) for most of the XIV century. The first seating of the parliament conducted in English happened in 1377 (IIRC) and the first English king whose mother tongue was English was Henry IV.

It is true, though, that as the war progressed both sides wished for a clearer identity (Edward I once claimed that the French wished to "wipe out (God forbid) the English tongue"; when one of the heirs to the throne was born (don't remember who) the king (I think it was Richard II, but not sure) wanted to call him Louis, but encountering the indignation of the relatives and the higher nobilty gave up the idea).

So the French national identity was starting to take shape only by the end of the war, but even so Burgundy as definitely French in nature was allied with England and opposed the French kings in 1420-1430s. The same could be said of the English identity as the English kings considered themselves kings of France and spent most of their life in their French domains.

So did all peasantries in Europe, including England and Ottoman Empire. So this doesn't prove or reject your claim of a early Englishness conscience in the English population, as their Lords were French.

National consciousness was awake only with the advent of capitalism when centralisation and absolute monarchy propagated the idea to hold the subjects together.

[Greyblades]

So the English had a proto-English Identity when the French didn't is your. What in history sustains this claim? The first document in French is the treaty of Verdun (845) so we had a vague idea that the language exist, so at least, the Franks didn't speak any more a Germanic language.

Yeah I'm not touching this point, I dont really care much whose nationality came first, PVC and Gilrandir can argue this.

In the Battle of Bouvines, in 1214 Phillip II August is the King of France and the Knights serving in the French Ost recognised themselves as French.
In the battle of Bremule (1119), Henri VI the Fat is describe by the chroniclers as the King of France, and is recognised as such by Henri I, Duc of Normandy and King of England.

These examples are of the french nobility, not the pesantry. Which is the point, all Henry had to do is win a succession war and kill or evict any French nobility that wouldn't kneel and the pesants will fall in line.

Whereas Henri V would have been able to defeat the French is another story and we will never know. I doubt it as he employed tactic which became obsolete, the same methods use by his successors. The final French victory didn't came from the English lack of courage or will, it came from the French King creating a first national army (it is said that the 1st Infantry Regiment is the heir of the Bandes de Picardie, France created at that time, taking model on the English but including artillery, a weapon the English knew about it as they were the first to employed, but too confident in the long-bow tactic, put aside.

I say that if Henry was around to press his claim after Chales the Mad died england would have been strong and uninhibited by infighting and thus France would have been won before the longbow was countered.

[Gilrandir]

I say that if Henry was around to press his claim after Chales the Mad died France would have been won before the longbow was countered.

Sumption argues that France could have been won over after Poitiers had the Black Prince not embarked on a wild goose chase to Iberian kingdoms. It sucked in his money leaving him impecunious, depleted his manpower and eventually got him into bed with gout.

Damn, you make me wish to get Volume IV (which is bound to be published in August) asap. Unfortunately, it is not to happen that soon.

[Montmorency]

Well, you know, if you lobby Kiev to come to terms with Moscow, the sooner you'll be able to obtain an electronic copy through one of those sites.

[Brenus]

"I say that if Henry was around to press his claim after Chales the Mad died england would have been strong and uninhibited by infighting and thus France would have been won before the longbow was countered." The problem with this theory is the Long Bow was always victorious. It was not. Henry embarked for France and Azincourt in order to re-conquer. RE-conquer means it was lost before.
Bertrand Dugueslin did it.
Then at Patay, the Long Bow didn't do it. So Henry would probably put his faith in a tactic which saw him victorious and lost, as his generals did after his death... Most probably...
Battle of Verneuil is 5 years after Azincourt, and Orléans Campaign 4 years after.

[Greyblades]

Verneuil was in 1424, 9 years after agincourt, the English won overwhelmingly and thier bowmen were only caught out due to poor terrain making the deployment of stakes take too long.

The longbow wasnt the only part of the English arsenal Henry also had a very professional core of men at arms and knights of a higher grade than the average french knight. In Agincourt Henry put his faith in his knights holding out against three larger waves of french dismounted knights, the archers were there to harass the french into attacking on Henry's terms, disrupt cavalry charges and to keep the french horde from enveloping the knights, who did most of the fighting

[Brenus]

"Verneuil was in 1424, 9 years after agincourt, the English won overwhelmingly and thier bowmen were only caught out due to poor terrain making the deployment of stakes take too long" Correct. The Long bow tactic worked only on chosen field. Azincourt is a good example of it: good terrain for the English, which cancelled the French advantage of heavy cavalry, helped by the rain and the fact that the heavy infantry cannot deployed. The bottle neck configuration was a killing zone. It still would have a trouble if the French Knights wouldn't break ranks and charge the English, hacking their own infantry in the process.

But it doesn't change the fact that this tactic didn't work later. It was obsolete, and Henry would have repeated the same tactic, as his generals did after him, and probably would have the same result as shown later at Formigny and Castillon but as well much earlier at Patay.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"England is an older country than France" ? Please explain this claim, because it is not clear to me. GB was as much invaded than France before and during the Middle Ages. Not only by the Vikings but numerous Germanic Tribes. The division between languages, rival tribes and clans was as effective than on the continental Europe. So, where is this Englishness suddenly comes from? No common identity, no central power, as much as I am aware...

Bede wrote the first "history of the English People"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccles...English_People

When was the first "history of the French"?

Alfred the Great was the first King of the Anglo-Saxons and the modern English state is directly descended from his Kingdom, having passed through various dynasties but in fact every English monarch since except Swyen, Cnut, Harcnut, William I, William II, Henry I and Stephen was descended from him.

doubtless you will say that's a long list for "only" but collectively they make up about a century in over 1200 years of the Kingdom existence.

Francia has, by contrast, ceased to exist several times and had to be recreated.

"the very fact that a Norman vassal of the French King could break away and declare war on England independently" That is a modern point of view. William didn't declare war to a State, he claimed his Thrown which, according to him, was his. Noting national, all medieval and feudal. The Great Feudals always fought their King and alleged Suzerains.
In France, the one who put a stop to this was Louis the XIV, after the Fronde. And it is easily forgotten that the ones who started (against their objectives, I might add, it was an unexpected result) the French Revolution was the High Nobility wanting to restore their privileges and forcing Louis the XVI to gather the French Parliament, les Etats Généraux, created in 1302...

Before the Conquest it was treason to fight the King of the English - the claim "The Great Feudals always fought their King and alleged Suzerains." because England was not really a Feudal State, the Earls were not Feudal Vassals but the King's deputies in their respective counties. The English King could do this because there was a greater sense of national identity.

[Greyblades]

But it doesn't change the fact that this tactic didn't work later. It was obsolete, and Henry would have repeated the same tactic, as his generals did after him, and probably would have the same result as shown later at Formigny and Castillon but as well much earlier at Patay.

Obsolete? I dont think so, merely like all formations it is at the mercy of the terrain and overuse. In good conditions it was devastating, in unfavourable ones it could be disasterous, yet as verneuil shown it could still be durable enough to prevail in bad conditions. Henry had the judgment to seek the good.

As shown by Verneuil the french hadnt fully figured out how to defeat it by 1424, and I doubt they could figure it out before Henry defeated them.

I dont think it truly became obsolite until proper field artillery became available, its previous failures being a result of its users dropping in quality, what with the incompetencies of John Beaufort and the like during Henry VI's regencies

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Massed Longbow fire was extremely effective, to the point that the French started using it themselves, but over time there was a tendency to skimp on the more expensive men-at-arms, sergeants and even knights. Longbowmen backed by sufficient cavalry and infantry would be devastating but without proper support they would be required to fight hand to hand themselves, and every archer swinging a poleaxe is an archer to raining death upon his enemies.

Combined arms will always beat a one-note army and it was the failure of the English generals, and their inferior economic position at the time, that cost England the Hundred Years War in the end. Had Henry lived another ten years he would have been able to claim his right as King of France, if he could maintain control over enough of the coast he could have likely taken and held all of Normandy and Brittany and Henry VI would have had a better general position when he took the thrown.

Bear in mind, Henry V's death also sparked a succession crisis in England, and that's what really ended the Hundred Years War.

[Brenus]

"When was the first "history of the French"?" I don't know, but your link is NOT about the history of English neither... Read it "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" is not History of the English.

"the Earls were not Feudal Vassals but the King's deputies in their respective counties" In theory. In fact it is the meaning of Baron and Comtes in the Carolagian Empire.
And you still not backing-up your claim of a great sense of Englishness, political or institutional.
England was part of the Roman Empire doesn't mean the English inhabitants felt Romans.

"and that's what really ended the Hundred Years War." Hmm, I would say the end of the French Civil War was.

[Myth]

You know you're on the org when a thread about english speaking supremacy turns into a debate of the 100 years war and longbows. I was not disappointed.

[Gilrandir]

Well, you know, if you lobby Kiev to come to terms with Moscow, the sooner you'll be able to obtain an electronic copy through one of those sites.

Gotta disappoint you. The first three volumes I got fair and square through my students who happened to be in Alaska and brought them to me. Besides, I hate reading from the computer - eyes get tired fast and the back aches after half an hour. It can't compare to the feeling you get when you take a book smelling of printing ink and lay down on the couch and...
There are two reason I can only wish for it (at the moment):
1. After our national currency took a plunge I can't really afford it right now.
2. Even if I could, there are no Ukrainian acquaintances out there who could bring it here, and Internet stores don't ship things over here (at least not Amazon).

Bertrand Dugueslin did it.

According to Sumption, the role of Duguesclin was vastly exaggerated.

Verneuil was in 1424, 9 years after agincourt, the English won overwhelmingly and thier bowmen were only caught out due to poor terrain making the deployment of stakes take too long.

The longbow wasnt the only part of the English arsenal Henry also had a very professional core of men at arms and knights of a higher grade than the average french knight. In Agincourt Henry put his faith in his knights holding out against three larger waves of french dismounted knights, the archers were there to harass the french into attacking on Henry's terms, disrupt cavalry charges and to keep the french horde from enveloping the knights, who did most of the fighting

Drawing a line under the discussion of the power of longbow I would like to say that, in fact, the English didn't win all those battles - it was the French that lost them. Each time the English were caught on the march and couldn't very well follow any tactics of their choice. The French, when they saw the enemy, just rushed at them rivaling with each other to harvest all the glory (and prisoners) they felt were within an easy reach.

Alfred the Great was the first King of the Anglo-Saxons and the modern English state is directly descended from his Kingdom

Whatever the pre-conquest kings might have claimed their realms were precarious, usually the death of the king spelt the death of the kingdom. The heirs had to make new alliances, fence off the attacks of the neighbors who saw their chance to enlarge their domains, put down the dissident barons and so on. Even if such an heir was good at it, the boundaries of his kingdom didn't neccessarily coincide with what his predecessor left him. Moreover, the success of the king depended on which kingdom of Heptarchy was at the apex. For some time it was Kent, later Mercia and then Wessex.
So, I think that the name of the king of Aglo-Saxons could be applied to such kings intermittently, only Edward the Confessor and the Norman kings put an end to such processes.

The English King could do this because there was a greater sense of national identity.

I believe one could find indirect proofs to that fact.
If an English king's position wasn't secure enough (abscence overseas, old age, disease) usually claimants to the throne started a struggle. There were exceptions to this rule (Henry II was absent from England for the first three years of his reign, yet he was patiently expected by his subjects), but this general tendency could be explained by the fact that the "king" was the most important "job" of the realm worth fighting for if the incumbent wasn't fit for it.

France is a complete opposite to it. John II was held captive for eight years but his sons didn't even think they should supplant him. Charles VI was out of his mind for a greater part of his reign, but he served his term till his death. Of course, there always was rivalry for influence upon the monarch, but the latter's figure was impregnable. I see the explanation of it in the fact that monarchs in France were "first among the equal", so no special power was attached to royalty. Thus, the French seemed more "atomized" than the "congealed" English.

All these ruminations need a reservation - they may not appear correct for other time than the one in question.

Massed Longbow fire was extremely effective, to the point that the French started using it themselves, but over time there was a tendency to skimp on the more expensive men-at-arms, sergeants and even knights. Longbowmen backed by sufficient cavalry and infantry would be devastating but without proper support they would be required to fight hand to hand themselves, and every archer swinging a poleaxe is an archer to raining death upon his enemies.

According to Sumption, all armies of the War in documents were counted as containing a certain number of archers and a certain number of men-at-arms.
No other types of units were in evidence.

[Greyblades]

You know you're on the org when a thread about english speaking supremacy turns into a debate of the 100 years war and longbows. I was not disappointed.

But of course, history and games are the two things that unite the entire board.

[Papewaio]

If the longbow was a key technology in determination nation state and language the U.S. would be speaking Welsh.

Old colonial thinking: confusing technology with how civilized one is.

[Greyblades]

If the longbow was a key technology in determination nation state and language the U.S. would be speaking Welsh.

...who said it was?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"When was the first "history of the French"?" I don't know, but your link is NOT about the history of English neither... Read it "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" is not History of the English.

It was the same thing, then.

"the Earls were not Feudal Vassals but the King's deputies in their respective counties" In theory. In fact it is the meaning of Baron and Comtes in the Carolagian Empire.
And you still not backing-up your claim of a great sense of Englishness, political or institutional.
England was part of the Roman Empire doesn't mean the English inhabitants felt Romans.

No, in fact they were different. Feudalism is a top-down Pyramid, prior to the Conquest there was no Pyramid, not everyone in a village owed allegiance to the Thane, not every Thane owed allegiance to the county Earl.

Some villagers owed allegiance to the Earl, or the King, or an Earl in a different county.

"and that's what really ended the Hundred Years War." Hmm, I would say the end of the French Civil War was.

As England was the aggressor (at least in a military sense) I would say the English Civil War crippling England's ability to fight was key.

[lars573]

Before the Conquest it was treason to fight the King of the English - the claim "The Great Feudals always fought their King and alleged Suzerains." because England was not really a Feudal State, the Earls were not Feudal Vassals but the King's deputies in their respective counties. The English King could do this because there was a greater sense of national identity.

Not true. An Earldoman was the most senior of Anglo-Saxon Royal deputies. An Earl was a Norse derived title* for a quite Feudal local chieftain. The reason it got equated with the Roman Comes and Frankish Comte was the local leadership connotations. The modern form of Earldoman is Alderman. You'll note it's quite inferior to Earl.




*Jarl.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not true. An Earldoman was the most senior of Anglo-Saxon Royal deputies. An Earl was a Norse derived title* for a quite Feudal local chieftain. The reason it got equated with the Roman Comes and Frankish Comte was the local leadership connotations. The modern form of Earldoman is Alderman. You'll note it's quite inferior to Earl.




*Jarl.

How does what I wrote conflict with your response? We both used the phrase "deputy" even. Fact: Earls could by stripped of their responsibilities and replaced without creating an uproar - unlike a Comte who was considered a hereditory landowner who held his feudal title by right of birth (in this period).

[Brenus]

"Comte who was considered a hereditory landowner who held his feudal title by right of birth (in this period)." Nope. The land belongs to the King at these times (or the Suzerain) who delegated it to his vassal. Tittle and land (tittle going with the land, not reverse) could be withdraw if felony.
"John Lackland provided the excuse when, in 1200, he 'abducted' and married (30 August) the fiancé, Isabelle d'Angoulême, of Hugh 'le Brun', son of the comte de la Marche. John I then rejected a summons to appear (as duc d'Aquitaine) before King Philippe II, technically his suzerain. In 1202, John was declared 'a felon' and Philippe II seized Anjou, Brittany, Maine, Normandy, and Touraine. "
in http://www.xenophongroup.com/montjoie/bouvines.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pK8SrkJUDs

Charlemagne created functions, jobs which become title and hereditary: Dukes, Comte, Barons, Marquis, all were administrators. A little bit like if Line Manager would become a Nobility title.