Few conflicts in this world's troubled history have lasted
as long as the war between England
and France
known as The Hundred Years' War. A bloody ping pong match between ruling
families, the body count would reach epic proportions for just a few extra yards
of land, just to be lost again with the same – or higher – loss of life. What
started the constant clash? Was it a disagreement over borders, or plain and
simple greed? Or was there something more nefarious at work, an underlying
power play to unite all the major nations of Europe
under one house to begin an empire?
The Hundred Years' War officially lasted from 1337 until
1453, consisting primarily of on-again, off-again sieges, raids, and sea
battles between England and France. But to
fully understand why King Philip VI of France instigated the fighting, one
must look further back, to the days of William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy.
In 1066, when William shook off the title of "Bastard" and donned the
mantle of "Conqueror", he united England
and northern France for the
first time since the Roman Empire. His
descendent, Henry II, expanded the lands owned by England to proportions unseen
before that time, though his successors found this expansion too great and
complicated to control. This lack of control led to a slow erosion, until
Edward III's reign, when England's
holdings in France consisted
of only Gascony
and Ponthieu. Technically, these holdings were still under French rule, thus
making the King of England a vassal of the King of France, at least in regard
to the territories held on mainland Europe. Then,
in 1328, just one year after Edward's ascension to the English throne, Charles
IV of France
died, with no heir, or even a brother to pass the crown to. His sister,
however, happened to be the mother of Edward III, and it was by this lineage
that Edward made a claim to the French throne as well. (Trueman, 2011) The
French people did not share his view, though, and enthroned Phillip – a cousin
to the deceased Charles. This move infuriated Edward, but he was virtually
powerless to intervene, at least for nearly a decade. In May of 1337, Phillip
moved on the English-controlled duchy of Aquitaine,
and Edward jumped at the opportunity for war – a politically astute war, where
he would not be viewed as the aggressor by neighboring kingdoms. However,
merely appearing as the defender was not enough for King Edward, and he responded
with a claim to the French throne, saying that he was the next legitimate heir
to Charles IV, not Phillip.
Edward's attempts to raise an army to challenge King
Phillip were fruitful, for the most part, as there was no shortage of
adventurous men willing to risk life and limb for king and country. Although,
Edward shrewdly sweetened the deal by allowing volunteers to bring any French
plunder they could carry home to England, which would often make even the
poorest man feel as rich as the king himself. There were some, however, who
were more concerned about leaving their farms, as the war didn't start heating
up until the end of summer and beginning of autumn – right in the middle of the
harvest. (Gormley, 2001) The feudal system in place at the time helped
alleviate some of this, though, as the king called upon his vassals and feudal
lords to draw armies, who would in turn allow individual villages and manors to
select their fighting force. Those sent to the king – primarily archers, as
most people in England
were expected to be proficient with use of the feared English longbow – were
paid three pence a day, along with the spoils of war; those left behind were
cared for by the community as a whole until their volunteer's return, if he
would indeed return.
Three years into the conflict, Edward began what today
would be called a public relations campaign, officially adopting the moniker of
'King of France and the French Royal Arms'. (Keen, 2011) It is still debated to
this day if Edward actually thought this was accomplishable, or if it was
merely a ruse to garner support, but regardless, it gave him vital leverage and
pull in his consequent dealings with King Phillip. He used that title to split France
amongst herself, with some French that were more friendly toward the English
backing Edward's claim, and pitting those supporters against those of
Phillip's. Additionally, the title became a negotiating piece, a bargaining
chip as it were, if he were to offer a renunciation of it in return for vast
territorial surrenderings, such as the independence of the duchy of Aquitaine,
or even the cession of Anjou and Normandy. (Keen, 2011)
Edward's army was almost as successful as his political
maneuverings for the most part, smashing the French forces all the way south to
Castillon and controlling most of the western coast. Battles at Agincourt, Crécy,
and Poitiers
gave the English a chance to employ a new technique of warfare, combining
divisions of longbowmen with units of men-at-arms to devastating effect. But
then, in 1429, as the English pushed eastward at the Siege of Orleans, a young
peasant girl believed by the French to be divinely blessed rose up against the
English. Joan of Arc, leading a relief force, smashed through the English siege
and delivered the city from falling, and marked the end of the English advance,
having them retreat from all their French holdings, save Calais.
Depending on the heritage of the historian you ask, Edward
III was either the aggressor or defender, with a stark contrast between the
two. Ask a Frenchman, and he was a bloodthirsty English king seeking to
greedily devour as much land as he could while king; yet to an Englishman, he
was a noble defender of English holdings on the mainland, with a perfectly
legitimate claim to the French throne. Regardless of thoughts on either king,
however, the Hundred Years' War proved to be nothing more than a horrific loss
of life, for both sides. Little ground even permanently changed hands, and in
the end, it was a poor decision for both parties involved. Yes, greed was a
factor, but both Edward and Phillip showed that land they could claim as their
own was worth more than the lives of their subjects, and that is nothing to be
proud of, regardless of bloodline, pedigree, or perceived divine right.
References
Gormley, L. (2001). eHistory at OSU | Hundred
Years War. Retrieved from http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/archive/hundredyearswar.cfm
Keen, M. (2011, February 17). BBC - History -
British History in depth: The Hundred Years War.
Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/hundred_years_war_01.shtml
Trueman, C. (2011, February 16). The Hundred
Years War. Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hundred_years_war.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment