100 years war poll

who would you side with France or England and why


  • Total voters
    30
Sep 2018
22
Salonica
#1
I would side with the French for the reason that the English were too brutal and didnt behave as conquerors but bandits.I mean the invasion of Normandy in 1346 the chevauche(raid) of the black prince in gascony totally devestated the french people.Edward burned everything in his trail during the 1346-1347 campaign even though he ordered his man not to.The french of course brutal too(in every war) were not as the English (probably because they held high the codes of Chivalry) of course they didnt invade mainland England but raided their coast till some time after sluys.So even though France was at the start of the war the military powerhouse of Europe after Crecy till the end of the war i saw them as the underdog who was fighting a stronger and less honorable enemy
 
Last edited:
Sep 2014
1,194
Queens, NYC
#2
France.
1. I think the French kings were correct in attempting to get the Acquitinian, Angevin, etc. areas to recognise French suzerainity and obey laws;
2.I think France was entitled to its own laws on royal succession.
 
Nov 2010
7,594
Cornwall
#3
What about Castille, Aragon and Navarra? Not to mention the whole Pedro el Cruel/Henry de Trastamara thing?

You have to consider what 'France' was then , rather than what size France is now
 
Sep 2018
22
Salonica
#4
What about Castille, Aragon and Navarra? Not to mention the whole Pedro el Cruel/Henry de Trastamara thing?

You have to consider what 'France' was then , rather than what size France is now
Yes Castille did fight but i wouldnt conisider them main belligerents in the war.Castille had a crisis and of cousre due its shipbuilding capacity the two kingdoms who contested naval supremacy would join the fray.Of course the expedition in Castille had consequences for both sides(french defeat at Najera,Drain of public income due to Gaunts claim on the throne of Castille).Well navvare did fight to but it was just a sweep of charles the bad's norman territories by Charles v and then he disappeared from the war.In the end you re right there were a lot of Belligerents in the war and France nor Eangland were the same country as today however i just wanted to see the opinion between the main belligerents
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
13,911
Navan, Ireland
#5
Well firstly its rather a rather foolish way to try and understand history 'siding' with one side or another its not really going to help with understanding if you want one side to be the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys'.


I would side with the French for the reason that the English were too brutal and didnt behave as conquerors but bandits.I mean the invasion of Normandy in 1346 the chevauche(raid) of the black prince in gascony totally devestated the french people.Edward burned everything in his trail during the 1346-1347 campaign even though he ordered his man not to.
Sorry why were the English 'too brutal'? raid and counter raid was the main style of warfare in the supposed war (which wasn't 'a war' but rather an on going feud between to royal dynasties both of whom claimed the throne of 'France') and the French are hardly likely to pillage their own property.


The french of course brutal too(in every war) were not as the English (probably because they held high the codes of Chivalry) of course they didnt invade mainland England but raided their coast till some time after sluys.
So why is the French brutality acceptable? because they were supposedly had codes of chivalry-- which didn't apply to common folk by the way ---and why wouldn't English knight believe in this, they essentially come from the same gene pool?

So even though France was at the start of the war the military powerhouse of Europe after Crecy till the end of the war i saw them as the underdog who was fighting a stronger and less honorable enemy
So the French are the more powerful but are the 'underdog'? doesn't make much sense.

And why are the English 'less honourable'? since the roots of the ruling class are much the same is it some tainting by 'English blood/culture' of French chivalry?
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
13,911
Navan, Ireland
#6
France.
1. I think the French kings were correct in attempting to get the Acquitinian, Angevin, etc. areas to recognise French suzerainity and obey laws;.
So why is the French King expansionist plans ok but the English Kings not acceptable -- because that's how history worked out and that where the borders are 'supposed' to be?

2.I think France was entitled to its own laws on royal succession.
Which 'Frenchmen' would this be?
 
Apr 2014
121
Liverpool, England
#7
Being English, I would obviously have to support the French. Suppose Henry VI of England had made good his father's claim and become Henry II of France. The new kings of England and France would inevitably have ended up with Paris as their main address - France being then the larger and richer kingdom with a better climate. Look at what happened when William of Normandy conquered England. He moved his capital to London and Normandy became a province of England. It is easy to see what the French and English kings were fighting for, but (plunder apart), the English were fighting to become a province of France and the French were fighting to prevent this. If they hadn't lost the 100 Years' War, the English would have had to fight a war of independence.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,741
SoCal
#8
Being English, I would obviously have to support the French. Suppose Henry VI of England had made good his father's claim and become Henry II of France. The new kings of England and France would inevitably have ended up with Paris as their main address - France being then the larger and richer kingdom with a better climate. Look at what happened when William of Normandy conquered England. He moved his capital to London and Normandy became a province of England. It is easy to see what the French and English kings were fighting for, but (plunder apart), the English were fighting to become a province of France and the French were fighting to prevent this. If they hadn't lost the 100 Years' War, the English would have had to fight a war of independence.
This does make me wonder--might a France that controls England also be eager to expand into Scotland and Ireland?
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,240
here
#9
I voted for England.

From what I know of the conflict, they showed more skill and acumen when it came to combat. The French, overall, showed more hubris. Also, I think the English can claim to have the more awe inspiring figures on their side, Henry V, for example. And the English had the famous Longbow, which may be overrated, but is nonetheless very cool.

As an aside, I've been taken to task by another of members for framing the Hundred Years War as being fought by the "English," against the "French." He said there was no England or France back then and that was a terribly unsuitable way to describe the conflict. It was better he said, to say the war was fought between the house of Valois and the house of Plantagenet. Imo, that, too is an oversimplification. Ergo, imo, some generalization is helpful in matters like this and "England vs France," is an acceptable way to frame the war. Thoughts?
 
Likes: macon

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,741
SoCal
#10
I voted for England.

From what I know of the conflict, they showed more skill and acumen when it came to combat. The French, overall, showed more hubris. Also, I think the English can claim to have the more awe inspiring figures on their side, Henry V, for example. And the English had the famous Longbow, which may be overrated, but is nonetheless very cool.

As an aside, I've been taken to task by another of members for framing the Hundred Years War as being fought by the "English," against the "French." He said there was no England or France back then and that was a terribly unsuitable way to describe the conflict. It was better he said, to say the war was fought between the house of Valois and the house of Plantagenet. Imo, that, too is an oversimplification. Ergo, imo, some generalization is helpful in matters like this and "England vs France," is an acceptable way to frame the war. Thoughts?
Is this other member Underlankers?
 
Likes: Menshevik

Similar History Discussions