Anglo-French Relations (History)

[Mick Harper]

By the by, Tel, I disagree with your characterisation of the Hundred Years War. England had truly become England when John lost the last bit of Normandy, ie it was a full nation state, with immortal borders. France hadn't. That's why England was able to beat France so regularly: it could never lose (immortal borders) but it could, whenever it chose, invade any bit of France, allied to any bit of France, and fight against the rest of France.

When finally France became a de facto nation state (round about the middle of the fifteenth century) England could never again adopt this policy. Dynastic issues are never the point. They are just a handy casus belli.

[TelMiles]

Mick Harper wrote:

[Mick Harper]

You make my point admirably since John was the last French(only)-speaker on the English throne, and Stephen was before John.

All English sovereigns are "intertwined" with all the ruling houses of Europe. I am not disputing that the war was dynastic any more than the Second World War was over the Polish Corridor. However it was certainly England vs France. In fact it was the first truly national war since England was the first nation state and the war created the French nation state.

[TelMiles]

I agree with you to a certain extent, Mick, by the time Henry V rolled around, it was definitely England vs France, my point is it didn't start that way. Let's not forget it wasn't a continuous war. Edward III did have a legitimate claim to the French crown, being the nephew of the old king (still can't remember who that was).
I just don't think it's a clear-cut case of England vs France.
_________________
Against all Gods.

[Mick Harper]

But, Tel, Henry V had an even better claim than Eddie. And he actually made good his claim at the Treaty of Troyes. Up until quite recently (Elizabeth II?) all English sovereigns claimed to be Kings of France. It's absolutely routine foreign policy small change. Do you really think Edward III actually aspired to be King of France? 'Course not, he just wanted a slightly larger slice of the Gascon wine trade (or whatever). And only the archers would have thought of themselves as anything but an English army. Being Welsh. And a few of the nobs who had French titles. And the Flemish mercenaries. Possibly the Italian crossbowmen too. But everyone else.

[TelMiles]

[Mick Harper]

Tel, all the English kings could be criticised for prolonging the war. My reading of the situation is that every English king fought in France so long as he was winning and quit when he wasn't winning (or the money ran out, or the Scots made trouble, or the peasants revolted, or..blah di blah di blah).

That's the whole point of being a nation state. Being immortal you can win, draw or lose any given war and not much happens. But the poor old French had no such choice. Anytime the rosbifs fancied partying they got to be partied on. So the French were forced to become a nation state too. So now the competitive pressure was on Spain...cue Ferdinand and Isabella...

[TelMiles]

Mick, I concede to your point of the immortal borders and that the English Kings were the aggressors, it's easy to pick on a weak country when things ain't going quite right for you at home (eg. the Falklands war), but I still maintain that the English kings did believe they had a legitimate claim to the French throne and that this has its roots in the accession to the English throne of Henry II.
_________________
Against all Gods.

[Mick Harper]

You're losing it big time, Tel. France was the strongest power in Europe at the time. However, not being a nation state, France was constantly prey to fissiparious tendencies as first one fief tried to break away and then another. All England had to do was wait until some particularly juicy combination was at odds with the central authorities (say Burgundy and Anjou) and we could stroll in, allied to these regional powers, and do a bit of bish-bash-bosh. If it didn't pay off, we'd stroll off home again.

Still you are spot on about the Falklands. The Argentinian junta was in desperate domestic difficulties and, spotting we were weak when we scrapped the Endeavour, our only military unit in the area, picked on us.

[TelMiles]

Was there actually a "France" though, Mick? You yourself said it didn't emerge as a nation state until the 15th century, before then it was a set of warring dukedoms and England could easily pick on this "weaker" state, doing exactly what you say, siding with one faction against the other. Once France pooled its collective strength, the English could no longer do this and were booted out.
_________________
Against all Gods.

[Mick Harper]

No, no, Tell, you're flogging a dead cheval. France was recognised by everyone as a "nation" since way back including, and especially, by all the appanages. Even the English in Bordeaux knew they were only there on sufferance and vassalage. [As a matter of interest, it was only when Brittany finally succumbed that France became a nation state.]

Nobody else managed to invade France but France was always invading everywhere else. The point about England was that it was a brand new type of state -- just not very susceptible to the usual medieval weaknesses. Including, I might say, chivalry. We were the first since the Romans to put our faith in infantry (which is what the longbowmen actually were) and demonstrated for the first time (in the modern era) that horses just won't charge formed bodies of men.

A lesson the Scots, the Swiss and the Brugeois quickly picked up.

[TelMiles]

[admin]

From The Teslarian

Mick Harper wrote:

[Ishmael]

TheTeslarian wrote:

[Mick Harper]

Tessles, you've just proved my point. France didn't exist until after