Why did France win the Hundred Years' War?
>>352961
England simply didn't have the resources or army to permanently occupy a much larger country. Simple as that.
>>352961
The god was on their side as it was an unjust civil war against the crown by a satellite state.
>>352961
England couldn't handle 16 year old pussy
It literally had God on its side.
The Angevins had to rely too much on inferior English soldiers.
The real question is why did it take is so long for us to win it.
The answer is Charles VI.
>>353017
>I do not know whether God hates or loves the English, I only know one thing: He wants them out of France.
>>352982
This desu senpai
>>352961
>Why did France win the Hundred Years' War?
France was always going to win. The question was what language the King would speak in his cradle for 60 years.
>>352961
>Implying that other side winning wouldnt count as France winning today.
>>352961
The english claim for the throne was weak, and I believe english people didn't want a war that concerned their king only. It's the birth of nationalism for both France and England.
>>352961
>France
>>352982
>England
Nope
It was a civil war between two French houses (Valois and Plantagenet)
One of them simply happened to own England as a colony and used it for ressource (and eventually moved the capital city there to make it safer from enemy attack)
>>353631
>14th-15th century
>british soldiers
>>353987
Majority of plantagenet soldiers were english
Many french believed they fought the english
Many english believed they fought the french
Also began nationalism. I know it is one person that makes this post word for word. It is pedantry at best and I wish would you stop.
>>352961
Because they didn't post thumbnails.
>>354067
You don't disprove what he said. Those English troops were part of the resources available to one French house like he said
What the peasantry may have thought or led to believe is irrelevant here
>>354051
Yeah, as in "from the island of great britain". I was going to write english then vaguely remembered that some were from wales.
>>352961
Burgundy burned itself out, and without them England hand neither the resources or logistical capacity for a invasion, occupation and administration of France.
Idk what say the previous answer but :
1st phase : longbows btfo the french (ie : fighting with honor against other nobles)
2nd phase : french btfo brits, Du Guesclin and other peoples
3rd phase : brits btfo french, french have a mad king and other bad stuff
4th phase : Joan of Arc, the end of the english-burgundy alliance, and based artillery finish the brits
>>352982
Thanks anon This is my new desktop pic.
>>353987
>It was a civil war between two French houses (Valois and Plantagenet)
Such a meme analysis. Literally nobody saw it that way at the time.
Read any contemporary chronicle. They never say "the soldiers of the house of Planatgent". They are always called English, and they are always said to be fighting against the French.
In the 1420s, the Duke of Bedford issued an ordinance making it a crime to refer to the two factions as "English" and "French". This was a PR move, because the English occupied much of northern France at this stage of the war and the goverment was trying to endear itself as the rightful rulers of the land to their new French subjects. But the implication behind this ordinance is that, previously, everybody saw it as a war between the English peoples and the French peoples. And that's exactly what the war was, in practice.
>>352976
This is the most correct answer. Once the French recovered from their semi-stupor after Agincourt and the dukes of Burgundy and Brittany had deserted the English camp, French victory was guaranteed. Things were only made worse by England's refusal to compromise or sue for peace because they viewed Charles VI as an illegitimate king.
>>353987
I'm sorry, it looks like you're confusing the hundred years war with some succession crisis in the 12thc
>>355595
What house was ruling England during the HYW?
>>355638
I mean your description of England as simply a colony to be extracted from by one side whilst the real interest lay in France does not belong in this time period, French and English identities had solidified and no contemporaries were in any doubt that this was a clash of "nationes" and to fight was a patriotic duty.
>>355661
>French and English identities had solidified
The people of course, no one denied that
But the "English" kings were basically Frenchmen in exile using English fodder to take control of their homeland
>>355688
Whether or not Kings or any leaders in history were being "genuine" is moot. It is not something that can be known and it is not something that matters. Whether or not kings used the values and beliefs, or cultivated them deliberately, for political ends does not change the fact that people considered this war to be infused with patriotism and national identity.
>>355688
Wow what incredible insight! Let's just oversimplify every conflict in history by saying "it was basically just x powerman using y powerless to achieve his goals, no more depth needed to this analysis!
Some tart with schizophrenia
>>353631
>Did she manage to put the idea in the minds of the british soldiers that they might indeed have God against them ?
There's some evidence that she did. There was one instance where a large force of English reinforcements refused to sail from England to France because they didn't want to fight her. Also, her executioner was very disturbed after her burning and told a priest that he was afraid they killed a saint.
Source: I used to obsessively read lots of books about her. Couldn't even guess where those bits come from though.
>>355714
WWII was just Hitler using the German people to achieve his goals tho.
>>352961
>Why did France win the Hundred Years' War?
The War was decided when Valois got the support of the Duke of Brittany and the Duke of Burgundy.
>>352976
Indeed. Bear in mind that, before London and other cities were industrialized, England had a population about as rural as Spain or Bulgaria.
The Hundred Years' War wasn't one conflict. It's like describing the Franco Prussian War and both World Wars as one seventy-year war.
>>356071
Also the Russo Japanese war, and resulting cold war, Korean war, and Vietnam war, Cambodian conflict, and while you're at it, Spanish fascism takeover and all wars resulting from the fall of the Soviet union (which can include all the middle eastern wars)
Looking at history through a context of uniform causality is stupid, it makes everything result from everything making everything a giant category for everything
>>354362
>English Kings
You mean French kings in rule of England.
>>356128
Well, in a few centuries aren't we going to see the WW as two parts of a bigger conflict? And the cold war and the war on terror as single conflicts?
>>352961
Edward III probably claimed the French crown either for real or just as a bluff to get some land and cash.
He had spectacular early success and so did his son. Then France got it shit together and reconquered all the land they had lost in siege warfare and a few field battles they won.
By 1415 England had essentially lost the war until they pulled of their Agincourt thing and wiped out large part of the Armagnac party. At roughly the same time the Armagnac party decided it was a good Idea to kill the Duke of Burgundy, his son promptly allied himself with the English and together they got everything north of the Loire.
Luckily Henry V died, the war effort was half assed and the French received a helping hand from God.
>>356472
Probably not, due to the information age
>>356045
England had disproportionally large capital city though, as London represent 10-15% of the nation's population already in 1500s, when most european Capitals were around 5%.
>Why did France win the Hundred Years' War?
HYW was a French civil war. If Plantagenets won, France would just had been bigger.
