Home
The Hundred Years' War with France
|
The Hundred Years' War with France
Edward III and Richard II 1327-1399
Edward II's reign began in 1327. He was, however, only fifteen years of age, and the real power lay in the hands of the queen, Roger Mortimer, and the Council of barons. These had been united in the hostility to Edward II, but there agreement ended. The Council was soon shaken by quarrels between Mortimer and Henry of Lancaster (younger brother of Thomas). Each schemed against the other. Mortimer surprised a plot headed by Edward II's half-brothers, the Earls of Norfolk and Kent, and punished the Earl of Kent with death. This piece of violence, added to the facts that the Government had been singularly unsuccessful in its dealings with Scotland, and that all were scandalized by the conduct of Mortimer with Queen Isabella, turned everyone against him. Edward acted quickly and decisively. He caused Mortimer to be seized and hanged, and, by imprisoning his mother, Isabella, he freed himself from leading strings.
The English Archer
The striking fact in the war is that over this long period the English win the great battles, and that in spite of being much weaker in numbers. Chroniclers' numbers are not very trustworthy, but neither at Crecy, nor Poitiers, nor Agincourt were the French less than three to one; probably their advantage was still greater, yet in every case they were hopelessly beaten, and indeed, until the appearance of Joan of Arc, no pitched battle went against the English, with the one exception of Beauge. This superiority in the field was due to the English archer.
Crecy and Poitiers
France provoked Edward to war by her invasion of Gascony in aid of the Scots. But Edward was by no means unwilling to embark on a war. One English king after another had ruled large possessions in France. Since John's day, however, these had dwindled. Gascony alone remained, and the fact that the French had been eating into it for some time was in itself quite sufficient provocation for war. Yet beyond this, the traditional policy of an adventurous English king was to seek to recover the lost provinces. If we may transplant a phrase out of its proper age, we might say that the natural field for English "expansion" in the fourteenth century lay in France. Edward went a step beyond his predecessors: even Henry II, whose domains in France were wider than those of the French king himself, acknowledged himself to hold those domains from the king. He was after all a vassal. Edward, however, boldly claimed the Crown of France as his own.
The First Period of Decline
The Treaty of Bretigny (1360) marks the crest of the first wave of English success in France. The results may be summed up shortly under three heads. First, the acquisition of Aquitaine in full sovereignty, that is to say, free from all claims of overlordship on the part of the French Crown. Secondly, the establishment of a close connection between England and the Flemish cities, which is marked by: (a) the appearance of England as a sea power, wielding a supremacy of the sea, at any rate on the Channel; (b) by the growth of a busy trade in wool and woollen goods; and (c) by the holding of Calais as a door through which help might be given the Flemings, or attacks made on France. Thirdly, the perfecting of a new method of fighting, in which the old feudal chivalry became of little use when opposed to a combination of archers and infantry. It is well to bear in mind that these results were of solid value. Edward Ill's reign is sometimes described as being one of barren glory rather than of substantial gains: that is true in a sense only. Substantial gains were made: the fostering of the wool trade and a control of the chief markets for wool, the capturing of the wine trade of Gascony, the supremacy in the Narrow Seas, the invention of a system of invincible tactics, were all substantial additions to England's power. As a nation she stood far higher in 1360 than in 1327. But the gains did not prove permanent, and so the glory became barren. Edward's war policy had definite enough aims, and for the time attained them; it is only condemned by its failure to hold what it had won.
Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI
Agincourt
It happened that England recovered her strength first. At the very time when Henry IV had seized the crown, had beaten the alliance of the Percies, Glendower, and the Scots, who were trying to overthrow him, and had really gained a strong position, France was falling into ruin. The king, Charles VI, was mad: the parties of Burgundy and Orleans battled for the business of ruling his kingdom. The Duke of Burgundy, whose chief dominions were in Flanders, was strong in the north-east of France, and was supported by the towns and especially by the lower classes in Paris. The Orleanists or "Armagnacs" were the party of the nobles; their stronghold was south of the Loire. In 1407 the Burgundians murdered the Duke of Orleans, and from that time on the affairs of the country swayed about as first one party and then the other gained the mastery. Henry IV intrigued with both, finally inclining to the Armagnacs, and intending, as the price of his support, to win back the lost English provinces. How hopelessly distracted France was, is revealed when we read that an English army under Clarence landed in Normandy, and was able to march unchecked to Bordeaux. Even in the worst days of the Wars of the Roses we can hardly picture a French army marching practically unmolested, say, from Bristol to York.
The Second Period of Decline
The Treaty of Troyes marks the crest of the second wave. It was indeed higher and more imposing than the first. Instead of taking a quarter of France, the English king had married the French king's daughter, and was hailed as his heir. Everyone expected he would come to the throne. This, indeed, the accident of his early death prevented. Had he lived another two months he would have been crowned king in Paris. As it was, his infant son Henry VI was proclaimed in his place. And then slowly but surely the English power crumbled away. The apparent explanation is that, so long as the strong king lived, things went well, and that when an infant took his place they went awry. This, however, is not the real explanation.
|
Chronology
|