The Hundred Years War (England vs. France)

My favourite war ever was the Hundred Year's War, the reason is of my favourite weapon, the longbow.
So, in the start, everything was well, and The Black Prince (Edward, Prince of Wales) won at the battle of Crecy, 200 (approx) English deaths compared to 10 000 (approx) French deaths.
And then Henry V came, my favourite ruler/general of all time. He was awesome, especially at the Battle of Agincourt, and now, nearly everything I have a name for it will say Longbow inspired from that one battle. That is what got me into history.
From there Joan of Arc came, and then cannons for the French came, and before we knew it, we were blown to cookies which we eat today (J/K).
However, Joan of Arc got captured by Burgandy and handed her over to us, the English.
We trialed and burnt her, as a witch (shows the barminess 500 years a go). Then we signed a treaty with France, lost our ally, the Burgandians, everything went smoothly. Everyone lived happily ever after, well, happy for 20 years, when the English Civil War began.

 

You have omitted an '0', right? Or did you refer "English Civil War" to the War of the Roses, which was however not 20 years later?

 

And if I'm not mistaken 'The Black Prince' was already King Edward III of England...

Welcome aboard, Liam! Hope you enjoy these forums!

Definately some of my favourite battles are Crécy and Poitiers too. Agincourt is not that bad either.



Edward III of England (1312-1377), who reigned from 1327 until his death, being one of the British monarchs to have longest reigns.

[ 22. January 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

Sorry, I started a new topic on this reply with the same name.

 

And here's your answer!

 

Thank you -=LoL=-

 

Last week stayed at a Chambre d'Hotes not far from this place.
Decided to put tent away for last two nights and have some luxury.
Wish I'd had me longbow with me, I haven't touched it for weeks now.

 

Owen, you need to eat properly, you're skinnier than some grasshoppers I've seen

 

I can eat.
That's what annoys so many people.
I eat loads and don't put on any weight.
Good init?

 

I Think it was a foolish idea to attack a country of 20 millions of inhabitants when English population was 4 million. At first, french were divised and their moral was low but, then by 1380 they had reconquered the major part of the kingdom.

We were again close to collapse in 1422 when Henry V died (what a good idea he had). Then Joan arrived and we were back to fight once more. Then All French nobles decided a sort of "union sacrée" and the british projects were doomed.

 

edward the black prince was the son of the third. the BP never became king having died of the plague before his father. but his son became richard II. edward the third won crecy thought the BP was already in attendance. the BP won poitiers.

edward the third had a nominal claim to the french throne. he was actually the nearest in terms of consanguinty but unfortunately, the proximity was through a female ancestor. shortly before his claim, the french instituted the salic law stipulating that only males can transmit royal blood.

 

Don't forget that the French only started winning after Azincourt because they finally twigged that using the English army's own tactics against them was more sensible than persisting with their own. Only took them 78 years......

 

Not to mention the British were fighting a war in a foreign country - bit harder to get troops/reinforcements places when you had to muster in england, board some ships, disembark in France, and march to wherever. French mustered in france and marched wherever - bit faster that way, and the french were a bit more 'modernized' by those-days standards.

 

That's not entirely true though Muss. Remember that the English monarchy was Anglo-Norman at this time; not only did they hold vast lands in France including Normandy, technically the English king was a vassal of the French king while in France! That's what kicked the whole war off. The English managed to hold onto Calais until the reign of Bloody Mary.
The major problem for the English was raising and keeping an army in the field; there are many accounts of soldiers fulfilling their feudal service of 30(?) days and then going home. The monarch had to resort to hiring mercenaries. And when the season ended and all these mercenaries were paid off until next Spring, they had to resort to chevauchees (armed mounted raids on villages) to secure food supplies. They weren't too fussy whose side they raided, which had a knock-on effect on all subsequent campaigns.
The French weren't slow in that respect either; they mounted several seaborne raids on the south coast of England- the village of Winchelsea was one raided a few times.

 

Its still a foreign country - the armies the BRITISH were raising were coming from Britain, not Normandy. I am well aware (being English myself) of the History of Britain. William the Conqueror is the reason the British controlled Normandy, and things get very complicated when you start talking Royal Marriages and Bloodlines. I believe it in part started because the English King claimed the French Throne as next in bloodline? Clearly the French didn't want an Englishman to be their King...

 

Well given that the English kings spoke French, were related to the French and often married the French it was all a bit like a civil war really.

Some of the troops used by the English Armies were raised in France. Actually the logisitics seem to have worked quite well. Henry had no problem in raising a fleet to take his army over to Harfleur... Its seems to have been the getting back part that caused the trouble.

How were the French more modern? I would say the English force represented a more modern army of the times given its composition and inter-relation of its arms.

 

Well, in a roundabout way I suppose Muss. I forget the exact details of that one offhand.
The French had been using a system of Rex Designatus since the time of the Capetian dynasty's founder, Hugh Capet. This meant that the king's eldest son was officially named heir and co-reigned with his father. This was meant to pre-empt any attempt on the throne, as seen in England a few times.
one of the reasons for the Hundred Years War was that a Norman vassal of the English king decided he had been unfairly treated and exercised his right to go over his head to his feudal superior- the French king-who immediately summoned the English king to his court to explain himself.
Now that was never going to happen, for obvious reasons, so the French seized Normandy, and the English promptly sent an army.

 

Not exactly, between 1370 and 1380 they took every british garrison one by one and in 1380 they had again there territory except some single cities.

In these years, british still were the best for the field battles tactics by french global strategy won. Charles V wasn't a great commander but he was a clever and wise king. He united the french and his plan was to isolate the british on the continent and besiege evry british garrisons forcing them to surrender one by one while the british field armies became useless. Tactical british superiority may have still been obvious but it became useless in that new warfare.

But in 1380, charles died and his son quickly became crazy and after 30 years of relative peace, Henry V crossed the channel. After the disaster of Agincourt in 1415, they were several littk=le battles and skirmishes with british or french indecisive victories, before the decisive battles of Orleans and on the Loire.

 

Thanks Clems.
One point though; can we please stop referring to the English army as being British? It tends to annoy those of us of the Caledonian persuasion.
Besides, the war was between the kingdoms of France and England; there certainly Scots, Irish and Welsh contingents present, but the majority of Scots and Irish were there voluntarily. There was NO United Kingdom.

 

And they were scots on french side too.