100 years war poll

who would you side with France or England and why


  • Total voters
    29

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,701
SoCal
#31
If that's the case, then it shouldn't be wrong to frame the 100 Years War in terms of "France vs England."
Agreed.

I don't see anything there calling these places "countries."
A kingdom isn't a country?

Also, if you want, you could create a separate thread about this topic and ask when exactly the idea of countries--as opposed to merely royal fiefdoms or royal domains--actually came about. Would you like me to create this thread?
 
Likes: Menshevik

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,240
here
#32
A kingdom isn't a country?
It can be. But Not always. Not in the way we think of it. Are you familiar with Crusader KIngs 2? I'm not good at that game, but it helped to show me how fluid power structures were back in medieval times. Whereas the modern nation state has a much more linear and centralized power structure.

Also, if you want, you could create a separate thread about this topic and ask when exactly the idea of countries--as opposed to merely royal fiefdoms or royal domains--actually came about. Would you like me to create this thread?
Yes. Please. And thank you.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,701
SoCal
#33
It can be. But Not always. Not in the way we think of it. Are you familiar with Crusader KIngs 2? I'm not good at that game, but it helped to show me how fluid power structures were back in medieval times. Whereas the modern nation state has a much more linear and centralized power structure.
Unfortunately, I did not play that game. I'm not into video games in general, for better or for worse.

Yes. Please. And thank you.
OK. I'll do this tomorrow. I don't want to get in trouble for creating too many threads on a single day.
 
Likes: Menshevik

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,837
Republika Srpska
#36
Can we say that the Hundred Years War featured some proto-nationalism? For example, English preachers warned of an impeding French invasion that will not only end Edward III's claims on France, but also destroy the English language. There was also the Statute of Pleading that said English should be used in law debates instead of French.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,387
#37
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.
Look at the later stages of the warfare, and the tables were completely turned, with the French victorious and the English getting lost in the hubristic mythology of themselves.

In English everyone only looks at these things through a lens of the battles of Crezy and Agincourt. Switch to French and you can do it through the battles of Patay and Castillon.

Why is it implicit that Crecy and Agincourt form a sound basis for assumed essential national characteristics for the French and English? But Patay and Castillon does not? I mean, I really would recommend against doing it like that either war (not a fan of that kind of "moral theory of history"), but on the face of it there is nothing more "essential" about the English kings' victories early in the war than there is about the French late in the war.

Except maybe how it's how it ends that really matters, and then the French won the battles and the war.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Menshevik

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,387
#38
Can we say that the Hundred Years War featured some proto-nationalism? For example, English preachers warned of an impeding French invasion that will not only end Edward III's claims on France, but also destroy the English language. There was also the Statute of Pleading that said English should be used in law debates instead of French.
That seems one of the outcomes. The early English success and the late French victories both helped sharpen a sense of separateness on either side. Going into the conflicts the English Nobles were effectively Frenchmen. Coming out of it the English nobility was a lot more English, and a lot less French. As for the French, they came out of the conflicts as a militarily extremely strong country, with a modern standing army based around siege-war and artillery fire-power.
1562311684155.png
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,387
#39
Okay. When was France a country?
Several decent asnwers to that one. One is at least since Philippe Auguste restyled himself as "King of France" and not like before as "King of the Franks". The Capetingian dynasty in the early 13th c. extended their rule to the Mediterranean and created the kinds of dynamic that has held for French history since, with France as both and Atlantic and Mediterranean power.

And as already said, the HYW in itself sharpened distinctions and identities. By its end the kings of France were a lot more specifically French, and by 1539 promulgated the the Ordinance of Villiers-Cotterets, specifying henceforth the administrative language of the whole of France would be French, not Latin anymore, or anything else. (They could already look at the English example of the Welsh Act of Union of 1534, mandating English as the language of administration in the entirety of that realm.)
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions