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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"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

"King of England refuses to submit to King of France, King of France declares War."

That particular example is terrible because it's a King as vassal to another King, and it's two Kings who want each other's land.

[Brenus]

"That particular example is terrible because it's a King as vassal to another King, and it's two Kings who want each other's land." Nope. Suzerain take back tittle and Lands to Vassal (as he was allowed by feudal's rules) because felony.

Gilles de Rais was as well stripped of his tittle and Lands. Little and Lands which were returned to his Daughter by the French King. Contrary to what you are saying, the Nobility at that times was not owner of the land nor the tittle, but were only the recipient of it.