Hundred Years' War: England vs. France
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- The Hundred Years' War, which is known to have lasted for 116 years precisely, is one of the most significant European medieval wars. This England vs. France conflict spanned more than a century of confrontation. It featured dozens of kings and princes who gained glory through famous - or infamous - military actions and personal decisions.
In this video we trace the full course of the war, from the crushing battles of Crécy and Poitiers for France, the signing of the Peace of Bretigny and the English capture of King John II the Good, the occupation of part of France and another defeat at Agincourt, to the revenge of Joan of Arc, also known as the Virgin of Orleans, and a French offensive that eventually ended the war when the British capitulated at Bordeaux. This war turned the medieval world upside down with its losses and successes, marking the decline of the age of chivalry.
100 years for an argument between cousins lol
thats the middle ages for ya
They continued in other wars
@@akramelalaoui2202 WW1
*soldiers in 1339:* "does anyone know why we call this the 'Hundred Years War'?"
💀
@@AdvancedGamer- r/whoosh
@@vid2422 ok
@@AdvancedGamer- hey you edited that that's cheating 😂
@@vid2422 lmao 😂
The video gets the main things right but there are some small mistrakes i'd like to point out:
1) Charles the bad had been scheming against the French way earlier then the capture of John II. Siding with the English multiple times even allegedly allying the Dauphin in a scheme to overthrow John leading to his arrest at Rouen in 1356. When the Paris riots started he escaped imprisonment at Amiens and allied Etienne Marcel, the leader of the Paris rebels. When the Jacquerie started though he switched sides and helped the dauphin suppress the rebellion.
2) In 1368 because of the high taxes raised upon the local nobles in Gascogne it was them, not the Prince who appealed to the French parliament. It was basically a ploy since if they appealed to the parliament of Paris they would signal that they still recognized the French king as overlord of Gascogne and force Charles V to actually intervene on their behalf.
3) While Chinon was briefly taken by Burgundian supporters, in the 1420s it was firmly in the hands of the Dauphinists. The Dauphin didn't take it back with Breton help nor did the English attack Orleans in response. Chinon was just a safe place over the Loire river where the Dauphin held court. The English attacked Orleans because it was a dauphinist stronghold and it held a very important bridge over the Loire river allowing them to plan operations deep in Dauphinist territory.
4) The duke of Burgundy did not give Burgundy back to the French crown nor did he "free" Flanders. At the 1435 treaty of Arras the Burgundians broke their alliance with the English and recognized Charles VII as the king of France in exchange for exception from homage. Meaning they became de facto independent. Burgundy would only come back to the french crown after Charles the bolds death in 1477 and Flanders would stay in the Burgundian/Habsburg family till 1795.
Thats about it, good video otherwise
Yes, thank you for your clarifications and extensive stories. We did not talk about Charles II the Evil in detail. We didn't even describe his most famous act, the murder of Marshals Conflan and Clermont, for which he received his nickname. But it is impossible to talk about Jacqueria without mentioning Charles II of Navarre. Similarly, we did not detail the conflict between the Black Prince and the aristocracy of Aquitaine. Though there were tax issues, personal grievances, Edward's failure to comply with financial obligations, and some other trifles. In 1328, Chinon was in the hands of the English Breton feudal lords, who had previously been pro-French (if we define the Dauphinists as pro-French), and were recruited by Arthur de Richemont. And the English campaign against Dauphin Charles stalled at Orleans, which blocked the road to the south. Despite the fact that the Duchy of Burgundy was at the peak of its power at this time, and in fact a state within a state, we must take into account the formal status, where the Duke of Burgundy brought omage to the French king. Philip III of Valois had only one choice: the Englishman Henry Lancaster or the Frenchman Charles of Valois. At first he supported the former, but later he sided with Charles.
@@History_Mapped_Out There's a small mistake at 8:55 as Jean the good was released in 1360 but came back to england in january 1364 (not 1362) because his second son Louis of Anjou who was prisoner since 1361 escaped in late 1363 so Jean chose to not tarnish his honor and became prisoner again.
To be more accurate, it wasn't only the high taxes which made many nobles switch sides but also because the mercenaries who came back from castile after Najera were not paid by Pedro or Edward so they plundered southern france to have money but many of these lands were owned by Edward 3 and Woodstock who were not able to protect their own lands but still tax them heavily.
For the local nobles who switched sides, most of them were not from gascony irself (the duchy held by Edward 3 in 1337) but from the lands acquired with Brétigny like the armagnac, rouergue, limousin, périgord or agenais with all of them being reconquered between 1369 and 1370.
The coastal lands like the poitou, saintonge or the guyenne (besides bordeaux and bayonne) will take more time to take back between 1372 and 1375 mainly because they had economic interests to stay under Edward's rule.
@@randomuser-xc2wr Louis 8 (aka the heir to the throne of france) wasn't crown king of england because there was no archbishop to anointing him and was just a contested king of england just like Henry 6 will be a contested king of france 200 years later.
He didn't left england because of his father's death in 1217 (Philippe 2 aka Louis 8's father will die in 1223) but because with John's death, most of the revolted barons who supported Louis and were against John chose Henry 3 as a new king instead of Louis because the former was a child which means a regency while the latter was a grown man from the continent.
In the end, Louis lost at Lincoln, Dover and Sandwich and was forced to sign the treaty of Lambeth which means he had to give up the claim from england but was granted money as compensation while the crown never left the plantagenet dynasty.
French Leaders: “I’m willing to listen to this teenager who heard voices of God. At this point, what do have to lose?”
Joan of Arc: YEET
Do not know any English sources for Joan of arc. The french sources are suspect. Using language that wasn't used at the time. Including calling her french. Alsace and Lorraine were independent at the time,so not french.
@@Trebor74elle est pourtant bien française que ça vous plaisent ou non 😉
@@Trebor74
That's the English who are know for rewriting History and transform a defeat into a draw, and into a victory 40 years later.
But sir we have some military strategists who can…
Listen we have been doing the same mistake for about 90 yezrs now sending cavalry into archer for no reason so listening to a 15 years old who claimed to hear voices and who doesn’t have a single drop of blood that comes from the nobility in her veins doesn’t seem that bad to me.
Ironically though battle at Crecy was won by England in long term it proved to be a win for France because high number of nobles died in it it allowed french King gain more power which eventually turned into absolutism and highly centralized power.
The House of Capet did not end. It never ended. It still exists today. What happened is that the direct line ended, but the Valois are still Capetians, they are just a cadet branch. They are called Valois because of Charles de Valois, who was a son of King Philippe III. Louis XVI was sent to the guillotine under the name of citizen Louis Capet, even though he was a Bourbon (which claim came from Louis IX, saint Louis). The main claimants to the French throne are still Capetians, because House Capet could always find a male successor to the throne. It's like the Lancasters and the Yorks in England. Both were cadet branches of House Plantagenet. However, House Plantagenet died with Richard III, because Henry VII's claim to the throne derived from his mother Margaret of Beaufort, a great-grand-daughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, third son of King Edward III. And so a new dynasty began in England, the Tudors.
Love your content! Thanks For this❤❤❤❤
A good French victory that acted the fact that the salic law, excluding women from the crown, was the law in force
Very well done. I'll be sure to check your videos more often. Cheers!
One mistake at the start, Edward 3 didn't really consider war with France until France backed Scotland in their current war with England. That was truly the trigger point for 100-year wars. England only brought the claim up again when France backed Scotland. (France was also threatening Gascony as well). Gascony was important to England not because it could attack France (they held come coastal cities in Flanders as well not mentioned in video) but because it brought significant tax revenue (via tariffs on wine) to the English crown.
I love how the visual language of these map based videos and channels has developed and evolved since the the early days. I think your pacing, delivery, style, and high quality images (i assume AI) are some of my favourite.
Absolutely criminally undersubbed, liked, commented, shared. Good luck growing, hope the algo finds you.
This plays out like a game of Crusader Kings II
CKII reflects real-world Middle-Ages. They did not need to add lots of features.
Thank you for the video😊
The king of navarre had the best claim. Ironically, one day his descendant, another king of navarre, would become king of france as henri iv
Actually the enlish bowmen , were Welsh bowman, also the map of England is incorrect. Please be accurate.
Yep, Wales wasn't joined with England until 1536, and then it was a union in all but name. Nowhere does it say the Britons became english, it actually went the other way and the English adopted Britishness.
@@WalesTheTrueBritons british is just the name of someone from the island
@mdl2427 Nope, they interchangeably use Briton and Britsh for anyone from the island now, before the 1600s, they were solely used for the people who are now known as Welsh.
Ireland was not under the crown of the English in the 13th century either.
@@WalesTheTrueBritonsBritish as a nationality is due to the English.
Angles and Saxons dominated your Brittonic ancestors, you subjugated yourselves… well except for the Welsh and Cornish at least.
Awesome video!
This channel is amazing, keep up the great work ❤🎉
Thanks!
We appreciate your support
Imagine starting a war with swords and bows and arrows and end with muskets. Wild
Interesting topic... However, please restrain from word "however"...
Anyone counted how many Times it was used?
16 times 🙂
Great stuff, surprised the subscriber count isn't significantly higher. Keep it up!
Edward III was not only French through is mother (a royal princess of France, daughter of Philipe the fair, great grand daughter of Saint Louis) but also through his father line, as he was a Plantagenet. And all his grandparents were French. He was actually completely French and viewed himself as such.
Reeeeems... mate, that's definitely not how we say Reims.
0:20 the hundred years war is an interesting argoument❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Anyone know where I could find the specific map he uses in this video?
Charles the Bad also claimed the Duchy of Burgundy as the most senior heir according to male-preference primogeniture. As the male line had died out in 1361 and his maternal grandmother's line was the most senior one.
War of the roses next? 👀
I do understand that the English nobility got slaughtered at the Battle of Hastings, there was no England it was a Norman conquest of England, these Kings were Normans not English they spoke French, it was like Norman1 vs Norman 2
During the Edwardian and Castilian faze of the war I agree, but during the Lancastrian faze all English nobility spoke English as their first language
The French royal dynasty was definitively not Norman. The Capetians and the Valois both hailed from the Ile de France. And you could argue that since the Plantagenets hailed in the male line from the house of Anjou, they were also not Normans. They both were French noble houses though and it is true that up till Henry 4 they both would have spoken French rather then English. The more the war dragged out, the more its leaders tried to frame it as a conflict between peoples rather then a dynastic spat between two very closely linked royal families.
The Normans were not Norman's. 😂😂 Normandy is a generic name like England . It means nothing. Rollo was given a tiny territory around Rouen after having been crushed by the Robertians ( capers) . The Carolingian king was far more afraid of the Robertians than of the poor vikings. 😂😂😂. The dukes extended their rule but it was very common for every french feudal lord. Normandy then was absolutely not Scandinavian.
@@antoinemozart243dans tes rêves, Normandie scandinave
@@chrisdel2564 Non. La Normandie n'est pas scandinave, seulement ds tes rêves.
I think these videos are great!!
"Reemes" are you freaking kidding me?
To be honest its hard to pronounce for non native speakers
The AI images ruined the video for me. Sorry, but it just stains an otherwise good production quality. I'll keep an eye out for more videos, but if this doesn't change, I doubt I'll watch many more. It really irks me.
Anyone know the music used in this video??
Did you know that fairy tales were invented and written by a Frenchman (Charles Perrault). He wrote "Cinderella", "Beauty and the Beast", "Sleeping Beauty", "Puss in Boots", Bluebeard"...and others at the end of the 17th century. Walt Disney only put them in images 😉
Walt disney who has norman's ancestry
From Isigny in Normandy
Could you do one on War of Austrian Succession next?
Sorry but that map in the thumbnail is hilariously incorrect, Wales and England weren't joined until 1536. Why do so many want to erase the presence of the Britons before England's adoption of the term?
Southern Wales was brought under English rule pretty much at the time when most of England was set on fire, after the Norman invasion. By the 14th century all of Wales was under the authority of the English crown. Not sure where you got 1536 from. So you cannot erase a culture that was no longer a sovereign power, plus at this point in history people all over the British Isles would of identified as 'Briton' and not just in Wales.
The status of Wales in those years was indeed quite separate from England. However, its head, the Prince of Wales, was then an English feudal lord - a prince from England. Therefore, it is not surprising that in 1400, Owain Glyndŵr had to raise a Welsh uprising against the English.
EU4 has it wrong???
Apa nggak capek berperang selama itu?
Nope
Top 10 greatest comebacks in history
one of the best videos seen on youtube
top animations
thanks @ItsCharlieVest for introducing me to the channel
respect from France
Sigh. I am going to tap out after just 1 minute. Edward III never contested the throne after the senior capetian branch died out, because if his dynastic argument was true and the throne could be passed through a female, then he was *not* the candidate, but the king of Navarre, son of the daughter of Louis X. *Everybody* knew that, and that's the reason he went back to England and *did not* prepare for war with France at all. It was only years later (like 9 years later, actually, no less...) that he intervened in the nightmare that was the nearly perpetual conflict of the French Crown with the Flemish cities, in which England had a great interest because of the massive wool trade that England's revenue depended so much. It was *then* and not before that Edward III used his supposed claim to the French throne as a leverage to seek better terms again and again against the French crown. The problem with war, as it usually is, is that this slowly took roots in the English public and royal conscience and ended up becoming a cause in itself (specially after the admittedly stunning English military victories in the next years).
For the love of god, if you are going to do *another* video (there are whole series about this in other channels) about the 100 years war, at the very least read Lord Sumption. It's not even a particularly heavy or academic work and it's very easy to get into. You could just have said what I just said in the previous paragraph in two sentences, but instead, you just preferred to say things that are not true and thus invalidate any trust I could have in the rest of the video.
Charles of Navarre was born in 1332 so he wasn't there for the succession of 1328.
Without the salic law, the heir was Philippe of Burgundy (Philippe 5's grandson) who was born in 1323.
@@robert-surcouf Very true, thanks for the correction, as others, I was thinking of the first true moment England actually contests the succession (as a side supporting argument for their Flanders intervnetion). In any case, yeah, Edward III never made a serious attempt to contest the Valois succession in the first time (as, even when it was not Charles the Bad, England non-salic argument still did not put Edward Plantagenet in the forefront of the succession then), and even later it was half assed at best, that was more the heart of my point.
@@cathakjordi The medieval succession are always complicated when there's no clear rule but i always with a patriarcal society in the middle ages, the safest way to prevent any conflict was the salic law which was easy to understand.
The only thing that i don't know is that if in 1337, Philippe 6 was forced to abdicate because the cognatic succession was applied retrospectively (but with male monarch only), who will be the new king between Philippe of burgundy and Charles of Navarre with the former being born first and Philippe 5's grandson by his first daughter (Philippe 4's second son) while the latter was born second but was Louis 10's grandson (Philippe 4's first son).
In the case Philippe of burgundy became the new king, it gave another problem because both him and his son died prematurely in 1346 and 1361 and once again, there will be another conflictual succession between Charles of Navarre and Louis of Flanders (born in 1330 so two years before Charles and Philippe 5's grandson by his second daughter).
@@robert-surcouf Indeed. You are again right in all points, but I think you forget the cause of my comment in the first place, and that was the affirmation of the video that Edward III was contesting the succession as soon as the capetian main branch males died out, and I am saying that is not only not true then, but not true later. The origin of the intervention of Edward III in France is helping out his Flemish allies and protect the English wool trade (and in a second place reinforce his hold on the duchy of Gascony that had been regularly been diminished more and more through legal means by the French crown during the last decades), never claiming the throne of France, that was just a flimsy side argument to legimitize (very tenously) his intervention in French-Flemish affairs, and only much later the succession argument took a life of its own as a reason for the conflicts. It was for the most part of the war just a legal bargaining tool to trade in the peace negotation table. It could be argued that only in the very late Lancastrian phase this was truly pursued, and then only as a target of opportunity.
Even after the amazing victory of Poitiers, with the French king captured, the most that the English dared to argue for real is the recovery of all the old Angevin possessions, but never went for the French crown for real.
@@cathakjordi I indeed digress and you're right in your first paragraph (for Henry 5 reasons to restart the start, it's not completely clear if he saw an opportunity of easy conquest because of the armagnac-burgundian civil war, if he wants to shut down the opposition in england against his dynasty with a foreign war or if he really thinking the valois dynasty was illegitimate for the throne unlike him).
For the second paragraph, i disagree because France was in a complete disarray until 1364.
The first treaty of London was signed in 1358 by Jean the good because his son had to deal with Charles of Navarre, Etienne Marcel and the general estates and it gave Edward 3 all the old Aquitaine from the 12th century, 4 millions gold for Jean's ransom and Edward didn't give up his claim for the throne.
This treaty create another turmoil in france with the defestration of 3 marshals of france and the great jacqueries but ended with Etienne marcel's murder, the jacqueries being squashed and Charles of Navarre's popularity decreased which lead the future Charles 5 to become officially regent and nullified the first treaty signed by Jean.
Jean who was scared to lost the power signed the second treaty of London in 1359 wich was the same as the first treaty plus Normandy, Maine, Touraine, Anjou and Britanny while ransom deadline will be sooner.
Soon after, Charles and the general estates refused the second treaty which means for Edward 3 a declaration of war and he made a new chevauchee to take Reims and became king but Charles chose to use guerilla warfare by avoiding pitch battles and the chevauchee ended as a failure with Edward 3 being unable to take Reims or Paris ( a thousand died in the black monday).
The chevauchee ended with the treaty of Brétigny which gave Edward the old aquitaine and a 4 millions gold ransom but he had to give up the claim for the throne and all the other lands from the second treaty of london.
The only reason why Edward chevauchee failed in 1359-1360 (and all the next ones xill fail too) is because Edward faced for the first time, an opponent who unlike his predecessors didn't care about the honor but want to keep his future crown and kingdom and with anyone against him besides Charles, Edward will likely became king of france in 1360 or could take even more than what he stated in the second treaty of london.
The effort you put into this video is amazing
Then Joan of Arc comes in
Why paris is in river
Reims is not being pronounced REEMS, its not that hard
The video should be called "the French of England claims to the french throne"
Only if you're telling lies ans trying to French-wash history and see history through tricolour-tinted glasses and French bias.
Otherwise the rest of the globe and England that isn't rotten by French propaganda know it as the English vs the French.
Even your own French king called all the nobles of England Englishmen.
But because of thr humiliation of Napoleon's loss at Waterloo and thr failed French invasion, you now go back in time to do a fraudulent cover up job to hide the anger.
Apparently this war cost france 1,700,000 lives
can you talk about Saadi Amazighian Dynasty in north africa. 1510-1659.
Please make more videos
Expecting history accuracy from an american channel is to much i guess...
It's not an American channel. It's an AI voice, so the channel owner is probably a non-American 😂 you just insulted yourself.
Henry V declared war cause of a rebellion 10yrs ago😂😂
I saw the burning on Joan coming😂
du Guesclin cleaned up hard
Even in civil war and with burgundy and britanny against the rest of france the english still cant beat the french 😂
It became basically an occupation war, which always gets one-sided as the nation is against you. The English overstepped with trying to acquire the French crown. They could have put a puppet on the thrown or something similar to get away with it maybe.
@@tip0019 It was hypocritical for Henry 5 trying to dismiss the salic law while he was king of england because the lancaster were the senior male line related with Edward 3 (which also denied Edward 3 claim for the throne of france).
Even if Charles 7 was judged illegitimate, Henry's marriage with Catherine didn't make him Charles 6's heir because Catherine was Charles 6's youngest daughter (and 2nd youngest child after Charles 7) so :
-by salic law/agnatic succession, the heir will be one of Charles 6's nephew (both were prisoner since Azincourt)
-by cognatic succession, the heir will Francois, son of Jean 5 of brittany and Jeanne of france who was Charles 6's eldest daughter and Catherine's oldest sister
The English also had their own civil war and invasion by the Scots. The French people in England were just better at the beginning of the war than the French people in France were.
@@paulraines9635 England's civil war started in 1455 while the 100YW ended in 1453 so both are unrelated (unlike france's civil war which started in 1407 and ended in 1435, meaning that between 1415 and 1435, england had many allies in france)
There was always tension at the english/scotish border but england indeed suffered two defeats at Piperdean in 1436 and Sark in 1448.
What make the difference at the start of the 100YW was that england had his own military revolution in the early 1330's with the rise of archery which started in the second scotish independance with battles like Dupplin Moor or Hallidon hill.
On the opposite, until the late 1320's and the war of saint sardos or the first scotish independance war, england had the same war tactics as the other kingdoms which made theor own revolution later (France made her own partially in the 1360's with the guerilla warfare and completely in the 1430's with artillery)
@@robert-surcouf Are you totally insane? The Wars of the Roses and the end of the 100YW are directly linked. My God. I get sick of the constant French lies and French bias. It's exhausting seeing the millions of comments just all packed with extreme levels of French cope. When Napoleon said history is just a collection of lies you all agree upon, you French literally took it as the truth and now think history csn just be changed and lied about to suit your imagination.
The English civil war started because the Duke of York wanted to carry on the legacy of Henry V and focus all their resources on fighting in France. Meanwhile Henry VI's court were taking advantage of his mental illness to enrich themselves, they believed thier postion in France was secure and didn't need to put as much effort into fighting France. Basically the Lancasters got lazy and thought the war was over and the Yorkists knew work still had to be done and it broke England down into civil war. It's not like the 100YW magically ended on one day and the civil war magically started on another...the two are over lapped.
Who stole whose idea? There's a Ukrainian TH-cam channel "Історія на карті" and they posted the same video in Ukrainian 8 days ago
"The capetian dynasty ceased to exist"
Literally the first statement and it's already a falsehood. It's the house of Capet that ceased to exist, not the entire family
John the good was a badass not gone lie
Bro the bratange was inispedence until 1532
In the same period 1340 to 1453 .. Turks destroyed Byzantium empire and captured Constantinople
Edward obviously is the son of william wallace according to braveheart.
Please, I beg you, look up the pronunciations of these French towns and cities. You don't have to get them 100% accurate, but you will feel very embarrassed once you learn how 'Reims' is pronounced... (clue: it kind of rhymes with 'France')
its really interesting how england came really close sometimes it does make me wonder what would’ve happened of england was actually able to conquer france and if they were able to keep hold of france 🤷
They’d be French too now
@@sebe2255
So why don't the French support the Plantagenets then? Surely if England would have become French, then the perfect kings for France should be Plantagenets and all of France should 100% want England to win the war....n'est-ce pas?
Or are the French telling their angry little lies again?
@@JustAnotherDayInEngland Because you are thinking in terms of modern nation-states and not feudalism. The French kings wanted to keep their own throne. You are basically asking me why France didn’t fight itself on behalf of the Plantagenets more (parts of what is France did support them). It is a ridiculous question.
It also isn’t a French lie to say that France had a larger population, more urbanisation and far more wealth than England at the time. There is no world in which a Plantagenet victory would lead to a more English character of England. The only reason English monarchs abandoned French as their language of court was because they lost their French possessions
good video should use less ai art though
feels like ai slop even if its not. im forced to unsubscribe, please fix this
Du Guesclin MVP
Vive la France !!
What about then wanting the Ohio River Valley
I am French from bordeaux, we have many british people living here. I side with the British people because here we don't like Parisians and its totalitarian regime, we want to re-join the united kingdom because King Charles is our real king.
Joan of arc God sent savior of france
However however however however however however
SOMEHOW MASSACRES DIDNT MAKE CHARLES MORE POPULAR?!?!?!?!?!
Reims is pronounced as REEM exactly like you did, congrats ! 🎉
Not really no
Comme toujours la France a vaincus et comme toujours elle reste début VIVE LA FRANCE 🇫🇷
I dont like that dude Charles the Bad
What if England won this war
Always win english 🤔
FRANCE!
Azincourt lol more like agincourt
AI video fake
dog pack 404
Actually it was the French who burnt Joan for witchcraft
Source?
U sure?
try more history than European History . otherwise nice channel
It’s an English speaking channel so it’s going to focus on European history
@@Lingist081 Then the Channel should be renamed "European History Mapped Out"
@@Lingist081😡😡😡😡