@Count Noctilus arrrghhh tis but a detail 😂 is all about strategy, if the bow could get into distance of the cannon then it would have the crews looking like pin cushions.
@Sunbro Adresse Accidentally the greatedt period of growth (economic, scientific, cultural) in Europe occured after the Revolution. Surely, it had nothing to do with the freedom of citizens, equality towards law and taxes, respect of property, parliamentary rule, that the most advanced countries enjoyed in Europe. Serfdom, birth privilege, arbitrary power of the rulers of good old time were so much more effective.
Welp as a player who conquered the world on ck2. I'm having difficulty playing Eu4 with all the alliances and coalitions And the trade system which is too herd to understand in Eu4.
@@michazadkowski8516 Lets share some tips with each other dude. How does the trade system and manpower system work in Eu4? I having trouble making enough money as Portugal and maintaining an army large enough to conquer foreign lands i'm going to be taken over by castile eventually as I have to choose between colonization or expanding my army as i don't have sufficient funds to do both at the same time.
@@achillesrodriguezxx3958 as portugal you need fleet to protect trade and always watch at numbers, if you want more manpower you need ideas with bonuses, if you spending to much on army just change military spending when you are at prace. Just look at numbers 🤗
I like how the Hundred Years War illustrates very well key dynamics in West-European history : - The end of chivalry illustrated with Agincourt in 1415 ; - The end of middle-age type castles made obsolete by the artillery , illustrated with Castillon in 1453 ; - The birth of a key aspect of modern statehood with Charles the 7th permanent army, less depending on feodal lords' loyalty ; - The rise of the national sentiment, or proto-nationalism. Knights and castles made obsolete, modern statehood replacing feodal military organisation, and the rise of national sentiment : it appears that this war's first casualty was the Middle-Age itself.
Le sentiment national a même commencé assez tôt dans cette guerre, sous Charles V, sinon c'est vrai qu'à la base pour le paysan un seigneur était un seigneur et comme les anglais et les français venaient des mêmes familles ils ne voyaient aucune différence.
Knights weren't made obsolete in the 100 years war. Look at patay, formigny, pontvallain, and castillon. Hell, look at marignano, ravenna, fornovo, seminara, and agnadello around 50 years later. If anything it was the English longbowman who went obsolete, they never won a major victory after agincourt (yes that includes vernuil it was the knights who won that) while french knights dominated battlefields for another 70 years after the war ended. If there is any battle that you can claim made knights obsolete it would be that battles of pavia and mohacs in the 1520s.
Castles were not obsolete for your fact if the byzantines had been given more stuff to work with i guarantee you the ottomans couldve failed their siege
English people : "lmao you need a teenager girl to win" French people : "still you loose against a teenager girl and when you had her prisonner you have burned her alive"
@Just Getting By She did wear an armor, a flag and a sword, and while she was a huge morale boost for the randoms soldiers when they saw her or just know she was near, some historians say she participated in some fights, wich doesnt mean she killed anyone or dozens of foes as some people of this era told so. Anyway she was an heroine.
@Just Getting By French wikipedia says she was given a standard bearer fonction by french king Charles VII, was often on the frontline during the war and may have fought during Orléans siege ( in Augustin keep assault ) and Compiègne defensive battle. Also in 1459 she had her own knights and troops, allowed by Charles VII. fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_d%27Arc#Campagnes_militaires_(avril_-_d%C3%A9cembre_1429)
Would you consider making a video about the French knight 'Bertrand Du Guesclin'? It's a part of the 100 years war that gets barely any attention. I would love that.
I've never heard of him. Actually I've never heard alot about French history except from the French Revolution to present day. Will have to look up the knight you mentioned.
@@olliefoxx7165 Du Guseclin was the chief of war who reconquered most English strongholds between Poitiers and Agincourt. He is well known in France not for his battles (he did not win many), for the tricks he used to take castles by surprise, avoiding tiresome siege. He also get France rid of unpaid mercenaries, by leading them to Spain to win a feud between English and French supported pretenders to the kingdom of Castille.
@@gengis737 Thank you for the interesting information. I'm going to read about him as well since you pointed him out. We werent taught about that era of history so it's very nice to find new gems to learn about.👍✌
@@romain2305 True. By then fighting for another country was not a big deal. Fidelity was to a lineage and an overlord, not to a nation. Hence Britons fighting each other in support of French or British candidates to dukedom. This was not civil war, only usual feudal contest between big names.
Fun fact: the battle of Patay has given it's name to a french idiom, in which you can say about someone that you gave him some Patay, meaning a great beating. That's where the expression "mettre la pâtée" comes from! The spelling has changed since no one knows about Patay, but I imagine we are more knowledgeable about "pâté"
@@justsceptic3085 Unrelated but there is a saying in France. "La culture c'est comme la confiture. Moins on en a, plus on l'étale". In english: Culture is like jam, the less you have the more you feel the need to spread it.
"The Hundred years war" followed by "the War of the Roses" marks the end of the Ideology of England being a Land Army Power (like France, HRE etc). As they turned away from this idea of controlling the continent by brute force of Land Army, they became a Sea Nation instead.
The Nova renaissance I’m sorry, my knowledge on this subject is shaky, but wouldn’t we consider Henry VIII to be the start of this idea of England being a naval power due to his establishment of the Royal Navy?
The transitions are little rough, it does 1/3 of the screen at first and then does the rest. Hope this is intentional, example at 5:48 (other occurrences as well).
Hi Hilbert. I just read a book “De twee kanten van het kanaal” by Harry de Paepe. It covers the shared history between the Low Countries and the British Isles, from the Roman invasion to the 20th century. The writing style is also somewhat entertaining at times. Maybe it’s something that would interest you.
It's worth to emphasize even more the part of the French military reforms that sought to protect peasants from the violence & robbery they regularly suffered at the hands of the mercenary and feudal armies and thus win their support. Whoever thought of this must have been influenced by the example of Joan of Arc (a peasant girl with naive but powerful notions about "her" king-to-be) and the popular support she garnered, and had the wisdom to exploit it. Also, the Battle of Patay is a very interesting one. Why did it turn out so differently from the Battles of Agincourt & Crécy? Mainly because the French forces didn't take their time but rushed into battle, their vanguard surprising and overwhelming the English archers before they could set up to destroy cavalries like so many times before. This was Joan of Arc's doing, she urged his men to push on, against the concerns of her seasoned commanders. The sudden total victory must have been a shock to all of them. So even though it wasn't a conscious strategy and she wasn't much involved in the actual battle, she had a crucial role in the turn of the tide for the French.
"It's worth to emphasize even more the part of the French military reforms that sought to protect peasants from the violence & robbery they regularly suffered at the hands of the mercenary and feudal armies and thus win their support." Fun fact, the organisation created at that time, to regulate the mercenaries, is the direct ancestor of the french military law enforcement organisation known as "la Gendarmerie Nationale"
@Napoléon Bonaparte Have you even read what I wrote? Yes, having been embedded in the main army that couldn't catch up with the vanguard as it trashed the British, Joan of Arc did not take part in the actual fighting, but it was at her urging that the French forces rushed into battle.
@Napoléon Bonaparte One of the French commanders stated that even though she didn't participate in the battle the victory was basically her's, due to how she raised the morale of the french soldiers some time before
When you think about it, the Hundred Years War was a victory for the English culture because it's losing the conflict that lead the English aristocracy to stop speaking French. Had the English won and because the French population was so much larger, the aristocracy would not have stopped speaking French. England would have kept being bombarded even more by French influence. When would the English get independance from "England"? I find it irronic that England could have ended up being assimilated by the land it would have had conquered.
Conversely the Hundred Years War consolidated French national identity and the efficacy of the central government, making France one of the first (European, at least) true nation-states
Dominic French Revolution only cemented French national identity. The Kingdom was stagnant and people no longer had faith in the Crown. It’s super complicated but the fundamentals of the revolution were positive
3:07 Actually Hilbert, the first undisputed depiction of European artillery comes from 1326 English treatise called "De nobilitatibus, sapientiis, et prudentiis regum" written by Walter de Malimete. It's a revolutionary work describing vast array of the newst inventions and science of the time. Apart from the first cannon (called pot-de-fer) it depict other inventions, like the first incendiary parachute bomb. It was created 102 years before the siege of Orléans.
For the record, Frank DID speak an idiom (vieux francique) related to Flemmish, especially during the Carolingian times. It did not give a lot of vocabulary in current french (but for instance "the Louvre" comes from a francique word) and it influences grammart as the Court used both language for some time before switching to a more latinized language especially under Charlemagne's influence. That's one of the reason French is the only Latin language where you cant use a verb without its pronouns for instance (while Italian, Spanish or Portuguese can) ... so Arras is a legitimate french claim ;-)
@@pierren___ louwer: sorte de tour de guet en francique et il yen aurait eu une très tôt, avant le siège de Paris par les vikings. Origine incertaine et ça pourrait aussi venir de la présence de loup sur la forêt préexistante.
@@mickmeadows Not even. William would have invaded England before Harald Hardrada even arrived in York, he was just stuck in Normandy for like 3 months because he couldn't get favorable winds to make the crossing until nearly October.
@@mickmeadows You mean the same way Henry V took advantage of the civil war in France in order to seize French land? I'm just asking, because in war, you always attack when you have an advantage, an opening, so why mention this specifically about the French?
9:16 Not true at all. Back then, there was multiple regional languages in France. Plus, the nobility of england was basically french and, as such, spoke mostly french.
Henry iv and his Hrnry V and his children spoke English as a first language. Yes the English are related to Normans and other French folk. France to some degree did belong to English rule its all political and family tree based.
Atrecht gives me as a Dutch man ptsd because of the Union of Atrecht and what happens after when Belgium left the union and joined the Spanish we never forgot that treason
Overall a good video (and good pronunciation of French names), although historians have pointed out that Joan of Arc didn't exactly "lead", according to eyewitnesses and Charles VII's military records which show that there was always a nobleman in command. Some of the nobles said they asked her for advice because they believed she was sent by God, but they also sometimes put her way in the back (such as at the battle of Patay) and in other cases didn't tell her what their plans were.
Nope. Actually, Burgundy always considered themselves loyal subjects to the Crown of France. The precedent king of France, Charles VI, was traumatized by violence and somewhat lunatic, so he let his cousins and council rule his realm. However, the two main families, Armagnac and Bourgogne, had very divergent views on politics. When Charles VI made the King of England his heir, the French nobility splits into supporters of the King of England and followers of the Dauphin, Charles VII.
@@johnwotek3816 Not really. As a native French speaker, I always called the colour Burgundy ''Bourgogne'' just like the family name in the second comment. Never, ever heard rouge Bordeaux in my 33 years of French speaking life.
@@jonathanallard2128 je suis un français francophone, c'est bien la première fois que j'entends quelqu'un parler de rouge Bourgogne pour autre chose que du vin... Vous êtes plutôt de l'est ?
this 1800 drop the title thing here... with no France title holder in either paris or uk... as france runs ministers not kings now, i claim the froggy woggys for angletterre , please continue to talk english frenchies ×😑×
You should pronounce the trailing s in arras. Yes, i know, french language is explicitely designed to extend the hudred wars by eternally trolling englishmen trying to use it
You're well aware that the French Revolution was NOT the end of the monarchy in France, right ? ... right ? Also, Agincourt in french is aZincourt. Loved the cornichon joke though. Speaking of Bordeaux, could there be a correlation between the presence of the English and the unusual amount of pubs there or am I overinterpreting ?
Louis XVIII, Charles X, and Louis-Philippe are not well known to the layman. Most people assume Louis XVI was the last King; remember, we live in an age where history is not cared for by millennials
@C Pegg obviously wrong. you're on a millenial's channel watching history videos along with thousands of other millenials. The misconception has much more to do with pop culture wanting to be dramatic & the very american habit of ignoring the subleties of reality. 'the french got angry, chopped off some heads, and then BAM the monarchy was toppled forever' makes for a punchier plot than the complexity of what actually happened. (that being siad, how dumb can you be to forget the existance of bloody NAPOLEON, I really don't know)
I specified “Kings”. No, I have no idea who Napoleon or Napoleon III are. Why would I? It’s not like they were two of 19th-century France’s most famous leaders...🙄
England overperformed relative to its resources for most of the war. France underperformed given its greater manpower, money, land area, etc. When each began to perform on the expected level, France was able to pull ahead. That, and cannons.
It's a rewritting of History. England did at some point even had more lands in France than...the French king himself. The longbowmen also gave a huge technological advantage to the English (until they lost the technological advantage to the French cannons). And we are not talking about unified kingdoms, it's decentralized feudalism. At some occasions powerful noblemen even allied themselves to the English. We are not talking about an unified England in its current borders against an unified France in its current borders. Far from it.
@@shakya00 England was still smaller. English-ruled lands in France were not England, and France as a whole was richer, more populous, and yet, underperformed.
Another parallel of the 100 years war would be the Second Punic War. The English would be the Carthaginians led by Hannibal winning impressive victories early in the war. The French would be the Romans who would learn the war the hard way and finally come on top at the end thanks to a larger population and economic base.
So, Britain conquered French land, France got most of its land back, and France is considered victorious? Britain ruled Calais for a century after the war, but they sure paid a heavy price for it.
France: took back its lost land + conquered old English possessions in France such as Aquitaine and Normandy + reinforced its central power England: only kept Calais + endured a civil war + nearly went bankrupt So yeah, I think France can largely be considered victorious here...
Britain did not conquer French land. French became kings of England but kept their title on France. in a nutshell, the 100 years is a dynastic civil war between the French kings of France and the French kings of england
Arras being a Flemish speaking city is greatly overrated. Even though Arras is in Artois, even a part of the neighbouring county of Flanders was mainly of latin language (like Tournai (Doornik), Douai (Dowaai) and, partly, Lille (Rijsel)... being called "Flandre romane". Same Can ne applied to the duchy of Brabant (with the "roman païs de Brabant") and the principalty of Liège (Luik)(mainly French speaking, but with Dutch like speaking parts as Maastricht and the conquered county of Loon). So, we are more into a flout area where germanic and latin languages mix and where there is no neat border between the two. And, just for the fun, at that time there was no question : Dutch and Belgians didn't exist, they were all Burgundians ;-)
Burgundy was a kingdom and the Duchy of Flanders, Brabant and Holland were sworn to the duke of Burgundy who in turn was supposedly sworn to the king of France. The Dutch were not Burgundians.
@@rickrozen2341 I was jesting by oversimplifying... Burgundy wasn't a kingdom neither. It just happened that the Duke of Burgundy was also Duke of Brabant, Luxemburg, Rethel, Limburg, Nevers and count of Flanders, Burgundy (yeah, there is also a county, next to the duchy), Namur, Hainaut, Holland, Zeeland, Artois... but there was no kingdom, and he was swearing fealtyto both the king of France and the holy roman empire. But there was a political entity, and considerable efforts were done to give it a unified administration (in fact, two: le pays de par deçà (Burgundy, Nevers and Franche-Comté) and le pays de par delà (mainly Belgium and Netherlands)). To be fair, no one there, but the people of Burgundies, were Burgundians. All the others were just subjects of the Duke of Burgundy who was also their count/duke. Furthermore, around 1430-50, the gravity of power into that political entity completely moved to the north... making it more Flemish/Brabantian than anything else. It was a result of John the Fearless killing. As the house of Burgundy had no more hope to grab the French throne for itself, they changed their strategy and decided to make a new kingdom... an ambition they never achieved.
@@francoisdebellefroid2268 The duke of Burgundy was not the duke of Brabant and Holland. The duchy of Burgundy is a product of the Frankish empire and it’s many succession wars due to Sallic inheritance.
@@rickrozen2341 in fact, they are all a product of the Frankish empire (at some extend, Brabant and Holland are more at the core of the Frankish expansion than Burgundy is, since it was conquered later by the Franks (only under Clovis) over an other germanic tribe, the... Burgondes). And yes, Philippe III de Valois, duke of Burgundy, even though he was a French prince, did become duke of Brabant (1430) and count of Holland (1433, along with Hainault and Zeeland)... in a disputable way, especially when it comes to Holland, but still he did. Furthermore, the sallic rule as understood for the French throne since the 14th century was in use only for this, and not for any other kind of inheritance. Sallic inheritance rule planning fair division between children was not in use anymore neither.
@@francoisdebellefroid2268 The duchy of Burgundy is more or less a product of Lotharingia. France of West-Frankia and the HRE of East Frankia. Except that the king or emperor became more or less a figurehead. That’s why the king of France was pretty weak and many it’s vassals like the Burgundy and some duchy’s in the south were fighting the French throne. Also Brabant, Holland and Flanders as far as I know weren’t fighting in the hundred years war which shows that the duchy of Burgundy barely had any real power over them. Feudalism is a complicated mess but it also caused Western Europe to be much more peaceful as compared to the time of the Franka. The eventually victory of the French throne over it’s rebellious subjects and England caused a surge of absolutism were the French throne would seek to empower the monarchy and lessen the power of the various vassal states of the high medieval era.
Despite not being the Monarch of France, Queen Elizabeth is still considered the Duke (yes Duke, not Duchess) of Normandy by the Channel Islands. As far as I know, France has dissolved the title, so she's currently the only claimant.
@Napoléon Bonaparte The Channel Islands are essentially a rump state of the Duchy, having been part of it and keeping the titles involved and the language alive.
Not quite, Arras was the capital of Artois. Since a personal union is not a merge, and a conquest is not annexed without a peace treaty, Arras was never a part of Flanders. That said, by the heritage of Charlemagne and the partition of Lotharingia, this question holds little value, as both counties are rightfully part of France :).
was there a decisive victory for either england or france at the end of the war? in many popular histories, the conclusion is that the conflict ended because neither side was able to gain the upper hand in any decisive manner.
Nope, England got it ass completly wrecked during the battle of Castillon (1445) which was their final attempt to retake control of the situation, and after that, they lost all their teritory in the continent (exept Calais). Even thought the conflict officialy ended in 1475 there was no other serious fight betwen the two kingdoms after that battle.
"Thees lit-tel veelage of Agincourt". Ugh! Hollywood drops another turd on history. Gotta have a name actor, who speaks no French, to play the dauphin of France, who speaks English "like thees" when we know both royal families spoke fluent French. And we complain about French arrogance!
Just to remind everyone his intention was to mock English. The conversation starts in French, did you watch the film or just a selection of RU-vid snippets?
This time has nothing to do with us. Today we are french and english. At that time a lot of different groupes of people were in France England and burgundy.
Great video. I am not sure whether the linguistic difference was that important. King of France supporters were from Southern France and except the commanders the men spoke Occitan (latine linguage closer to Italian than to French). French army also had a large Scottish force and recruits from overpopulated Flemish country. All unintelligible for Normans. Having to pay contributions to English occupying army to keep war on, or to pay taxes to French invading army to end the war was perhaps more relevant. Also taxes were not only paid by peasants. When the cities realized they could not get protection from traditional knighthood, nor protect themselves, be it from French or British army or from unpaid mercenaries, they agreed to pay the French treasury to get nation wide professional army.
@@johnwotek3816 you know its wide open, one if their kings promiced one of our kings the crown on the basis of who dies first, i mean the entire crown was promiced... he out lived ours , BUT ... this type of promice about heirs... it translates to the last king of france, literally we won france in royal law the minute napoleon cropped up and they killed a king, just like the dutch got england when cromwell cropped up, very crooked but tell me this, if one day their is only one reigning king left, doesn't he get every other defunked crown, one the basis of possetion is 9 tenths of the law, haves and hve nots, and the lst man standing rule, in the schoolyard of human affairs , any monarch in neighbouring lands can claim it, id rather it go to some 3rd rate dutch , its like im in heaven and i say 'operator , can i get online with a current french king ' and its like , this number is not available try egen later!!! and you need to be a king or higher to claim other, lesser, crowns...
I have very good knowledge of this period so i will resume short: France had quite a lot of luck and 2 major allies (Scotland and Brittany) and English only one that didn't like them that much: the Burgundians (many of Burgundians lords participated in Agincourt battle on french side and lost family members they were not liking the english even if allied, there's a report of Jean de Villiers de L'Isle-Adam speaking very bad to duke of Bedford). Scottish send 25 000 troops in France during the 1420's at the moment French "Armagnac" faction was in the worse shape, it's huge amount of troops for this time period, they most probably saved France. The siege of Orleans is "kind of miracle" but if you look at it, there very logical explanations, everybody "kind of forget" the Burgundians were guarding right flank of Orleans siege with 2500 troops that have been removed to send them to Namur that they just acquire; that's just after this event and from this side Jeanne comes! Jeanne has been a major morale booster and many citizens of Orleans took arms an joined the milicia. After Orleans victory, Britons army of Arthur de Richemont join French army and this leads to Patay victory, french had cease artillery that english were using to Orleans siege, thanks to this they have stormed many castles on their road to Reims, so ironically the artilery "game changer" of french started with english canons (artillery will be a real game changer with iron canon balls at the very end of 100year war in 1429 they still use stone cannon balls). Charles VII was crowned and the tide turned, soon the Burgundians will come back french side: it's over for English, at this time France was far more populated than England, no way they can send enough troops to fight and invade more.
