100 years war- english policies

[Flavius Nevitta]

Hi there!

So I'm no expert on medieval history (actually I did only read very few things on it so please forgive my ignorance).

I have a few questions about the hundred years war:

I know the English often lacked money, had problems to field enough troops a.s.o. In the beginning their chevauchées proved quite useful and I understand that many people went to join the war for the profit gained during such actions, but why did the English continue to plunder and take hostages a.s.o. even in their captured territories?

I'm thinking here especially of the time between Herny V's victory at Agincourt and the final loss of their holdings in France. The garrisons and their commanders ruined their own lands, at least that's my impression. It must have been a horrible situation for the peasants and other inhabitants.

Why did they not try to stabilize the situation, get rid of the roaming mercenary bands? Especially during a period when the French were weak and busy with their war between Dauphinists and Burgundians? Once the situation improved you can gather more taxes and have more loyal subjects...

2nd question: close to the end it looks like the English were more or less overrun. Why didn't they show more effort? The reinforcements for the troops on the continent arrive in low numbers and rarely. Was this because of the financial situation? Political intrigues in England?

How come that the french recovered and managed to build up a professional army and the English spent several years more or less watching the development but not reacting?

Thank you

[gaius valerius]

Hmm, a general remark is that in general states in that time didn't have a lot of power. It is not because at times they controlled half of France that England was a superbly oiled machine. The fiscal complex in this time just wasn't that developped. So war always put a heavy burden on both victors and losers. It seems the English in the end pulled the shortest straw (and the war of the Roses of the end of the century didn't help much either).

I think Rufats might know more on this.

[Henry of Grosmont]

I'll post as soon as I can. I guess, I have an answer for you...

[Ahlerich]

way to build up the tension

[Henry of Grosmont]

Hi there!

So I'm no expert on medieval history (actually I did only read very few things on it so please forgive my ignorance).

I have a few questions about the hundred years war:

Excellent point by Gaius.
Let's dig a little on other matters:

I know the English often lacked money,

War is a very expensive business. Even the French, even after the years of plenty lacked money. So, lack of money was rahter universal than "English only". On the other hand, Henry V was able to finance his Agincourt campaign, and although it lasted longer than he planned (thanks to Raoul de Gaucourt, captain of Harfleur), he was able to pay his soldiers all vages and repay all his loans. But this is an extreme example, for Henry was as exceptional in statecraft as in military matters.

had problems to field enough troops

Hmm, I think the problem was to transfer all those troops to continent. Edward III, because he lacked the fleet that was fit to transport troops, took with him between 7,000-10,000. instead of 12,000-15,000.
Henry had even bigger problem. Existing evidence shows that he had to send home up to 1/3 of all army gathered in Southampton. So, numbers weren't the problem...

a.s.o. In the beginning their chevauchées proved quite useful and I understand that many people went to join the war for the profit gained during such actions, but why did the English continue to plunder and take hostages a.s.o. even in their captured territories?

I don't quite understand this. For there was patis (taxes for "protection", imposed by the nearby garrisons on towns and villages) and actually taking prisoners in battles.
Let's start with patis.
Although Englishmen prospered personally, the kindgdom's treasure was often empty. Edward, at some point, was held hostage with his wife and son in Flanders because of his debt. He had to sneak back to England to gather the required sum. The other time, he left his cousin, Henry of Grosmont, in debt prison (as his substitude). Henry Bolingbroke had similar problems. His son, while campaigning in Wales, send him a letter where he threatened the king to disband the army "for the lack of moneys and provision".
Besides that, the only territories that remained English or belonged to their allies, even after Crecy and Poitiers, were Brittany (which was an ally) and Aquitaine (so many families were switching sides that we can't talk about any proper budjet there). With the exception of Bordeaux and Bayonne. But becasue of the war and Castilian pirates, Gascogne needed subsidies from London. The outstanding case here - Calais. Having a garrison of 900-1,200 men-at-arms alone, he demanded around £12,000 a year (roughly equivalent to £48,000,000 today) - an enormous sum.
So, all those "really English" garrisons in Brittany were forced to impose patis. It worked the same way the mobsters do nowadays.

Taking prisoners profited only those who participated in pitched battles, or were kidnapping, yes kidnapping, valuable citizens in their raids.
Oh, and marrying a rich widow, which wasn't a problem to find in Brittany due to the civil war between Montforts and de Blois. The young man was getting the lands and the money. The not so young widow - protection.

I'm thinking here especially of the time between Herny V's victory at Agincourt and the final loss of their holdings in France. The garrisons and their commanders ruined their own lands, at least that's my impression. It must have been a horrible situation for the peasants and other inhabitants.

Well, take into account that lands under dauphin Charles (the future Charles VII), so-called king of Bourges were far more richer than lands held by the English. Besides that, they were not as devastated by the constant war. And English weren't the main reason. The war between Armagnacs and Burgundians costed France more than the French-English conflict at the time. When Harfleur was surrendering, the English promised that "it isn't Soissons, have no fear". If you don't know, Soissons (Burgundian town) was sacked so savagely by Armagnacs that it shocked all of Europe. Kind of Magdeburg of the 30 years war, maybe worse.

Why did they not try to stabilize the situation, get rid of the roaming mercenary bands? Especially during a period when the French were weak and busy with their war between Dauphinists and Burgundians? Once the situation improved you can gather more taxes and have more loyal subjects...

Well, John, Duke of Bedford (Henry's brother) tried everything in his power to stop the bands. He even distributed arms between villagers and started the Sunday's archery in Normandy. The French, especially Parisiens and Orleanais, loved him and he loved France back and did everything in his power to bring peace and unite both kingdoms. But Henry's death first, then political problems in England itself and death if his wife (sister of the Duke of Burgundy) ruined his plans.
Also, those weren't English soldiers. Those bands contained, mostly: Britons, Flemings, French and Germans in the North. English too, of course but not at the scale the French were claiming. They called every routiers or bandit an "Englishman". Southern routiers were predominanlty Gascons, Navarese, Bearnese and Savoyards. Sometimes even Castilians and Aragones joined with them.

2nd question: close to the end it looks like the English were more or less overrun.

Please, don't fall into the Jeanne d'Arc trap. The English weren't overrun. Actually, only after the death of John of Bedford and because of Dukes of Brittany and Burgundy started to flirt with Charles, the English were forced to begin to abandon several strongholds. Duke of Burgundy misplaced his hopes, for he was murdered by Charles and Duke of Brittany surrendered when was left alone. Which brings us to...

Why didn't they show more effort? The reinforcements for the troops on the continent arrive in low numbers and rarely. Was this because of the financial situation?

First and foremost.

Political intrigues in England?

Because after York was sent to Aquitaine as king's lieutenant, in England, the peace party took over. And the war party of Duke of York lost. So, "if English France can't provide its needs, it's not our problem".
The fact is, that after Henry's death, only Bedford, Beauchamp and Montague (and maybe York) were considering French territories as a part of England.
The parliament with the powerful Suffolk saw France as another source of income, barely anything more than that.

How come that the french recovered and managed to build up a professional army and the English spent several years more or less watching the development but not reacting?
Thank you

Because Charles emerged as a great leader, surrounded by able council and generals. After the death of Salisbury, Warwick and Bedford, the only soldier that left was Talbot. And although brilliant tactician, he was a poor strategist.
While the French were lead by Arthur de Richemont, Dunois, Alencon, etc. Don't discount maitre Bureau either.
And what leader the English had to oppose them? Henry VI?

Sorry, got to run now...
If you have anything more to ask (or some details), don't hesitate.


P.S. I could've written waaaaay more than this. And more properly and in details, that's for sure. Also, I'm certain that there are things I wanted to include but forgot about them.

[gaius valerius]

To add, just look at the consequences of the war had in England itself. The peace of 1360 caused a lot of troubles for the English themselves, to the extend that Henry IV of Lancaster dethroned and executed Richard II, and legitimised his usurtpation by continuing the offensive in France. Politically the time was opportune since France was in turmoil itself between the Armagnacs and Bourguignons, but a real cristallisation of succes didn't come to pass. Instead the balance of power shifted against the English as Burgundy switched sides and their economic relations with the Flemish - the most important trading partners/commercial allies of the English - were under severe pressure (we haven't even touched the uttermost failure of the previous century when the English intervened in Spain, causing more harm to their own cause). The consequences in the War of the Roses (1561-1485) are probably the nastiest inheritance of this episode.


Economically the French suffered the most, since their agriculture was directly affected. Institutionally they however prevailed. As England drifted towards civil war, France, or rather, the royal house, had severely strenghtened itself, not just fiscally (I think they in this period introduced the taille, a tax independant fromt the Estates), but also politically, as they were the pinnacle of resistance and deemed the only possible saviour of the fatherland. The English monarchs still had to deal with severe opposition from Parliament and the barons.

[Henry of Grosmont]

Again, excellent points.
I'd like to add something to Gaius' post. Henry IV wasn't really in position to take the offensive overseas. He had his hands full in Wales and Northern England. Plus, his participation in the Armagnac-Burgundian war, first fighting on Burgundian side, then sending his son, Thomas, to fight on Armagnac side (although, nothing came of it and Armagnacs were forced to pay Clarence for nothing) leads you to conclusion that he never really thought of renewing the war on the scale his son did. He acted like a mercenary (which I can understand, the man desperately needed the money, due to his inability to rule. Such a waste of such a promising man).
Later, Henry V had to do something to strenghten Lancaster's claim to the English throne. Nevrmind the fact that he genuinly believed that an English king should rule in France as well.

[gaius valerius]

I still remember when I was a kid, and less informed about history then what highschool at a glance could teach you (and somewhat influenced by AoE II ) and that I just couldn't understand how the hell those English got their arses handed to them, look at the map, think about the awesome longbowmen, etc. But when you read into the subject later on, you get the real picture.

[Nik]

AFAIK the French also had huge problems with the independent mercenary companies, that began to maraude as soon as they lacked an employer.
The standard solution they employed was to export the problem, i.e. hire a large amount of mercs and send them to support an ally in domestic troubles. E.g. to Castille under DuGuesclin after the treaty of Brétigny and to help the Habsburgs in the old Zurich War under the Dauphin Louis.

[Flavius Nevitta]

Thank you all for the answers.

about the patis:

That's what I meant. So as England couldn't finance the garrisons, they had to get most stuff themselves which in turn bled the surrounding areas dry? But wouldn't there have been possibilities for the English government to improve the situation?

Weren't there more people supporting a policy like that of the Duke of Bedford? (I mean ok this policy kind of backfired as well, when the now armed peasants rose) I somehow miss a governmental policy to really include the newly gained areas properly. WOuldn'T they all profit or was it really beyond the financial possibilities for England? If so, then why conquer in the first place if you know you can't afford it?

[Henry of Grosmont]

Thank you all for the answers.

about the patis:

That's what I meant. So as England couldn't finance the garrisons, they had to get most stuff themselves which in turn bled the surrounding areas dry? But wouldn't there have been possibilities for the English government to improve the situation?

The English needed a better fiscal system at the time. And for that they needed leadership. Let's put it this way: Only Henry was able to
a). Gain such trust of the parliament as the prince that he was appointed the head of the council that would control and investigate the king's spendings.

b). After dealing with the Welsh revolt, he abolished the Welsh exluding from offices policy and gained so much popularity there, that his Agincourt army was composed mostly of the Welsh and Lancashire archers. Besides that, in recognition of their role in the battle, he declared that two Welsh saints days were to be a double chruch feasts as only Christmas and St. George's day were. The Welsh were calling themselves "Our King's men". The same person that laid waste in Wales during Owain Glendwyr.

c). End all feuds in England. On his coronation day, he restored John Mowbray, the son of his father's sworn enemy (their feud lead to Bolingbroke's exile) as Earl Marshal, including all his estates. Later, Edmund Mortimer revealed Henry a plot that was supposed to put Mortimer himself to the throne.

d). Provide justice for all. For example, he punished the retainers of his closest friend Arundel for acting like a band of outlaws, by fining them AND Arundel himself (FitzAlan had to pay more that a £1,000). Just to compare, if your annual income was £40, you were obliged to provide yourself with full armour and four horses that fit man-at-arms status. If your income exceeded that sum, you were considered well off. So, even being a personal friend of the king didn't make you immune to the law. Btw, of those Arundel's retainers, four served in his Agincourt campaign and two more became sherriffs.

e). Personally check the expenditures and other finances. Some of the parchments have his remarques on the sides. What clerk would want to cheat his king and get cought by him?

f). Protect the Church. His dealing with Lollardy (considered heresy in England) was swift and gained him "The Most Christian King" title. And not just in England, but throughout Europe.

g). The most outstanding episode in his dealing with the parliament was when the House of Commons granted him for life with the wool taxe. Basically, they willingly surrendered to Henry their joker card that allowed them to twist every king's hand before. So much confidence they had in him. So much they trusted him in spending that money for the good of the kingdom.

h). In all his proclamations, he directly addressed his subjects. When he needed to raise more money for Agincourt, he didn't just impose a new tax. He had people reading his plea for help in every town and village. With his new recruit system (the soldier, even a single archer could sign a contract with the king's clerk, meaning with the king himself) he was able to assemble an utterly trusting him army. And inspire more patriotism. How could you fail your king when he personally hired you?

I can continue on and on, but you already can see, that Henry was able to govern England in a way that peace and working tax system were reality.
After him, none was there to provide such leadership. Bedford came close, but a). he was just a regent, b). Not just Suffolk and Beaufort but even his own brother Humphrey caused him a lot of headache. Residing in France didn't help his English position either.

Weren't there more people supporting a policy like that of the Duke of Bedford? (I mean ok this policy kind of backfired as well, when the now armed peasants rose)

Very few. As I wrote before, only those who remained of his brother's council supported "united kingdom" policy. The rest, well the saying that the English were the most arrogant nation has some basis to it.
Also, his policy did not backfire. Most of the clerks on captured territories were French. The Normandy remained very loyal to the English. Same with Paris. The city was devastated and "full of grief", as one chronicle wrote, after hearing of Bedford's death. He was burried in Rouen on his wish. There's a story that when some of Louis XI men advised him to exgume the corps and send it back to England, he replied: - Neither your, nor my father were able to do that when he was alive. Let's not disturb him now.
Back to the population. The French of Charles VII did not trust the Parisians and Normans for a couple of decades. Keep in mind that one generation of, let's say, Rouen knew no other rule than the English.

I somehow miss a governmental policy to really include the newly gained areas properly.

How? It's not that all lands were just transefferd to England. The villages were devastated, the towns were piss poor (with rare exceptions). Normandy, Picardy, Ile de France were the ultimate arena of the French civil war.

WOuldn'T they all profit or was it really beyond the financial possibilities for England?

How could England alone provide both kingdoms with finances. Plus, don't forget the fact that they were the winners. What winner is going to pay to restore the loser's property.

If so, then why conquer in the first place if you know you can't afford it?

If Henry didn't die at the age of 35, he could.
But there's more to that. First and foremost, the English wanted to regain their Angevin Empire.
And the war wasn't just "to gain the territory from your neighbour". Not in Henry's view, for sure. He was absolutely certain in his cause being just (which he reminded evryone in Europe about, throughout his reign) and his right to the French throne.