Why did England Lose the Hundred Years War?

[unmerged(1064)]

I am reading volume II of the "Trial by Battle" series on the Hundred Years war --- but it looks like volume III is still being written!!!

It is like a cliffhanger now for me. In the 1350-60's, everything is going Edward III's way. France is falling apart, the French King is Edwards' prisoner. Champaine and Landouc (sp) are the only provinces able to keep out the bandits.

What went wrong? I know it took 60 years and Joan of Arc for things to really turn on England, but things look so bright, in the middle of Volume II.

thanks,

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Because they refused to pay the soldiers with chocolate donuts... The English officers kept telling the army that chocolate wasn't even known to them (same goes for donuts for that matter), but the soldiers kept calling it a government cover-up.

Why the English lost the 100 Years War?
Fewer men than France? Less motivated (compared to Jeanne d'Arc that is)? I don't really know...

 

[Drakken]

From what I understand from the Hundred Years War, England couldn't handle the French kingdom without Burgundy. Burgundy was necessary as an ally against the phony king of France and an eventual vassal to control the land afterwards. From 1337 onwards, one of the main reasons why England could beat the French army and still have supply and popular support in the occupied territories were the help of the Burguignons, which recognized the king of England as their suzerain to save their the wool trade in the Flanders.

The liberation of Orleans with the help of Joan the Maid is a symbol of the turning point in the war, but the real turning point isn't really military, but diplomatic and political. With Charles VII efforts to appease the Burguignons even against his own pride, the duke of Burgundy, Philippe III the Good, began slowly but surely to distance himself from the regent Bedford, as he feared that England could become too strong and turn his hegemony toward him. Philippe saw his role as a sort of "keeper of balance" between England and France, and finally saw his own advantage with Charles VII as recognized king of France rather than with Henry VI.

Drakken

 

[joak]

The simplistic explanation

Ultimately the English can't field nearly enough men to pacify France, as long as France is willing to fight.

Things fall apart long before Joan of Arc. After (during?) a truce, du Guescelin reduced the English holdings to a tiny sliver along the coast, retaking territory but refusing to engage the English army directly. Tactics generally well ahead of his time.

Henry V gets things going for the English again, but the French (meaning, I guess, the nobles) are never willing to concede, even after the king does.

I know this was in the days before nationalism, but basically the French ruling classes didn't want to be ruled from London.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Skyjack
I am reading volume II of the "Trial by Battle" series on the Hundred Years war --- but it looks like volume III is still being written!!!

It is like a cliffhanger now for me. In the 1350-60's, everything is going Edward III's way. France is falling apart, the French King is Edwards' prisoner. Champaine and Landouc (sp) are the only provinces able to keep out the bandits.

What went wrong? I know it took 60 years and Joan of Arc for things to really turn on England, but things look so bright, in the middle of Volume II.

Quick and Dirty

The French adopted "Cunctator" tactics, Edward III got old and senile and the Black Prince got sick and died young. In the 1370s the great Constable Du Guesclin reconquered most of the former French territories back from England.

Richard II, Edwards eventual successor, was ineffective and quarreled with his nobles (read your Shakespeare). He was overthrown by Henry IV (Bolingbroke) who then had to deal with rebellions by Northern magnates and Welsh nationalists.

By the time of Henry V's accession, the English position in France was very weak. Of course Henry changed that soon.

Basically the Hundred Years War is actually something like four or five different war combined in one. Jeanne doesn't really show up until a couple of wars after where you are now.

 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Estimates of the populations of the two countries for the period vary, but they were certainly not very similar (unlike today).
For England the estimates vary between 2.5 - 4.5 million, for France between 10 - 18 million. So I think the question is better phrased as what on earth was France up to that she could do so badly in a series of wars with little old England. Quick answer.....England was a proper country while France was a "geographical expression".
This also raises the question of one of history's interesting long-term trends, namely, why have Frenchmen been so reluctant to breed for the past several centuries?

 

[unmerged(5627)]

Good question

I've pondered that also.

Perhaps the surveys included lands no associated with France's population today.

Or, perhaps the population wasn't done correctly or exagerated then released to England so as to scare them perhaps of garrisoning such a large population.

Or, not enough men. France back then may hav had a shortage of men. Many men killed during the Hundred Years War, other conflicts killing off men. Napoleon took alot of Frenchmen with him during his wars. I know of a quote by a French General talking about Napoleon that says '......something blah blah... at the price if 3 million Frenchmen!'.

Also WW1 and WW2 could have seriously killed off a large enough percentage of the male population so as to stunt reproduction in great numbers.

Or, the French were ahead of their time and created some means of a efficient contraceptive(and used it) unknown to us today.

 

[unmerged(3571)]

On the military side of England losing the Hundred Years war, I always thought the development of artillery and changes in siege warfare had a lot to do with it?

 

[unmerged(1064)]

Thanks all! I appreciate your detailed answers.

From what I do know, population wasn't a big English problem because they were fighting with Frenchmen mostly. Pitting 'their' french Gascons and Bretons (and Navaresse) against the rest.

If the English had been recognized clearly as English and foriegners to the French, and if the French had seen each other as fellow countrymen back in the 1300s, well then it would have been a 5 or 10 year war.

 

[w_mullender]

I think there are two reasons for England not winning:
-Not being able to raise enough funds as the english nobles and parliament were not that interested in the foreign adventures of their king.
-Three great french leaders: Charles V, Bertrand du Guesclin and Joan of Arc.
Especially the first two were far ahead of their time regarding government and warfare and managed to beat off the English almost entirely from France.

 

[unmerged(1064)]

Originally posted by w_mullender
I think there are two reasons for England not winning:
-Not being able to raise enough funds as the english nobles and parliament were not that interested in the foreign adventures of their king.
-Three great french leaders: Charles V, Bertrand du Guesclin and Joan of Arc.
Especially the first two were far ahead of their time regarding government and warfare and managed to beat off the English almost entirely from France.

Can you (or anyone else who knows of one) suggest a good book (or books) on that part of the hundred years war? Trial by Battle and Trial by Fire, by Jonathan Sumption, are excellent, but only reach the 1360s or so.

 

[w_mullender]

I mostly know generic books on the middle ages, but I know a couple of good ones. There is one very interesting one on France's military hero (considered second only then Napoleon). I don't know the english title (and if it is purchasable in English) but in French it is La vie du Bertrand du Guesclin (the life of B du Guesclin) by Cuvelier.
It is a very amusing biography by his personal assistent. He portrayes him as a sort of illiterate peasant knight and the book is full of jokes and anecdotes.
Although he mixes up dates and events, since he wrote it at old age and had to get everything from memory, I think it should rank higher than the Canterbury tales. But I will look up some more specific ones for you tomorrow.

 

[unmerged(6476)]

Can you (or anyone else who knows of one) suggest a good book (or books) on that part of the hundred years war? Trial by Battle and Trial by Fire, by Jonathan Sumption, are excellent, but only reach the 1360s or so.

I can recommend "The Hundred Years War: The English in France 1337-1453" by Desmond Seward. The reference on Amazon is http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...3501/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/102-2941814-6648109

I have the hardback version, and it is a well-written and attractive book. It is not the most in-depth academic work, and doesn't pretend to be. However, it is an excellent introduction and is only $12

I based a Civ II scenario on it, as it inspired me so much!

 

[unmerged(6694)]

Gosh, and I always thought it was just divine intervention that did the trick for France. Well, TV is a bad source for history understanding...

 

[C.N.]

Originally posted by Skyjack


Can you (or anyone else who knows of one) suggest a good book (or books) on that part of the hundred years war? Trial by Battle and Trial by Fire, by Jonathan Sumption, are excellent, but only reach the 1360s or so.

Try this one:

Title: The Agincourt War
Author: Lt Col Alfred H Burne DSO FRhistS
Publisher: Wordsworth Military Library
Publication Date: 1999
ISBN: 1-84022-211-5

Covers 1369-1453.
I would say that the two major factors of Englands loss was the defection of Burgundy and that idiot Suffolk that ceded Maine.

 

[unmerged(1064)]

Originally posted by C.N.



Try this one:

Title: The Agincourt War
Author: Lt Col Alfred H Burne DSO FRhistS
Publisher: Wordsworth Military Library
Publication Date: 1999
ISBN: 1-84022-211-5

Covers 1369-1453.
I would say that the two major factors of Englands loss was the defection of Burgundy and that idiot Suffolk that ceded Maine.

Thankyou, I will get it!

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Richard Hakluyt
.......................
This also raises the question of one of history's interesting long-term trends, namely, why have Frenchmen been so reluctant to breed for the past several centuries?

The women have not heard of soap yet!

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by w_mullender
I think there are two reasons for England not winning:
-Not being able to raise enough funds as the english nobles and parliament were not that interested in the foreign adventures of their king.
-Three great french leaders: Charles V, Bertrand du Guesclin and Joan of Arc.
Especially the first two were far ahead of their time regarding government and warfare and managed to beat off the English almost entirely from France.

I would say the first one is the main reason. The French leaders certainly played a part, but they came and went and the war went on. In the end England was suffering from war apathy. Only the few folks who held lands in France had any interest in funding a war which gained nothing for them.

 

[unmerged(6779)]

Re: Good question

Originally posted by Lord xEnderx

Or, not enough men. France back then may hav had a shortage of men. Many men killed during the Hundred Years War, other conflicts killing off men. Napoleon took alot of Frenchmen with him during his wars. I know of a quote by a French General talking about Napoleon that says '......something blah blah... at the price if 3 million Frenchmen!'.

Also WW1 and WW2 could have seriously killed off a large enough percentage of the male population so as to stunt reproduction in great numbers.

Or, the French were ahead of their time and created some means of a efficient contraceptive(and used it) unknown to us today.

In the XVIIth century France had a population of about 20 million, it was the largest in Europe. As French leaders were warmongers (Louis XIV and Napoleon are the best exemples) France suffered many losses. During WWI, many men were killed (but less than in Germany or in Russia), but not so much during WWII. The main reason is that France has been the first country to undergo a demographic transition, which reduced the number of births during the XVIIIth century.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Kort
During WWI, many men were killed (but less than in Germany or in Russia)

Actually, on a per capita basis, France suffered the greatest from casualties in WWI.