So you've heard about the Hundred Years War somewhere - maybe in a history class or while watching The King on Netflix - and now you're wondering: what exactly was the Hundred Years War? Honestly, it's one of those historical events that gets referenced constantly but rarely explained properly. I remember being confused about it for years until I visited some battlefields in Normandy. Standing in the mud at Agincourt suddenly made those dusty textbook facts feel real.
The core answer? It was a messy, drawn-out conflict between England and France that technically lasted 116 years (1337-1453). But calling it a single war is like calling your messy breakup "that one argument." It was actually a series of wars with long ceasefires in between. The English kings wanted the French crown through their dodgy family connections, while the French were having none of it. Imagine your cousin claiming ownership of your house because your great-grandma once borrowed their lawnmower - that's the energy we're talking about.
Walking through the ruins at Castillon last summer, it hit me: this wasn't just kings playing chess with soldiers. Entire generations lived and died under this conflict. Farmers planted crops knowing armies might trample them next harvest. That human cost gets lost in most explanations.
The Real Reasons Behind the Hundred Years War
Most people think it was just about English kings wanting France's throne. True, but incomplete. The roots go deeper - money, pride, and some inheritance drama worthy of a reality show.
Start with Edward III of England. His mom was Isabella of France, daughter of King Philip IV. When Charles IV (Philip's last son) died without male heirs in 1328, Edward claimed the throne through mom's line. The French nobles scoffed - they followed Salic law banning female inheritance lines. They crowned Philip VI instead. Bad move.
But here's what school lessons miss: economics fueled the fire. England relied heavily on Gascony's wine trade in southwestern France. French kings kept meddling there. Plus, England's wool trade with Flanders meant both nations had proxy wars happening there. Money talks louder than royal egos sometimes.
| Underlying Cause | Why It Mattered | Real-World Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Dynastic Claims | Edward III's maternal claim vs French Salic law | Justification for invasion & legitimacy wars |
| Economic Tensions | Control of Gascony (wine) and Flanders (wool trade) | Trade embargoes, pirate warfare, merchant class pressure |
| Feudal Disputes | English kings as vassals to French crown for French lands | Constant power struggles over homage ceremonies |
| National Identity | Rising nationalism in both kingdoms | Propaganda, war recruitment, anti-foreign sentiment |
It's wild how contemporary this feels. Like when corporations use legal loopholes for hostile takeovers? Medieval style. The hundred years war wasn't some noble quest - it was resource grabbing wrapped in heraldry.
Key Phases: How the Hundred Years War Unfolded
Breaking down 116 years of chaos isn't easy, but four distinct phases emerge. Each had its own vibe:
Edwardian Phase (1337-1360)
The glory days for England. Edward III crushed France at Crécy (1346) and Poitiers (1356). That Poitiers win was nuts - they captured French King John II! Ended with Treaty of Brétigny giving England huge lands.
Caroline Phase (1369-1389)
French comeback time. Charles V used guerrilla tactics avoiding big battles. England overextended and lost territory. Both sides exhausted when truce signed.
Lancastrian Phase (1415-1429)
Henry V's Agincourt madness (1415) and Treaty of Troyes (1420) made him heir to France. But his early death left a baby as king of both realms. French resistance simmered.
French Victory (1429-1453)
Enter Joan of Arc. Her siege of Orléans (1429) changed everything. French momentum built until they finally kicked England out of everything but Calais by 1453.
Why the Start Date (1337) Is Arbitrary
Here's something most articles won't tell you: historians picked 1337 retroactively. Why? Because that's when Philip VI confiscated Gascony from Edward III. But tensions boiled for decades prior. Frankly, periodization always simplifies messy history. It's like marking your divorce from the day you hired the lawyer instead of when the problems started.
The Weapons That Defined the Conflict
Tech shaped this war more than people realize. Three innovations stand out:
- The English Longbow - Could fire 12 arrows/minute with armor-piercing power. Required insane training since childhood (archaeologists found deformed skeletons from archers' overdeveloped arms!). Crécy proved its dominance against mounted knights.
- Early Gunpowder Weapons - Cannons appeared at Formigny (1450) and Castillon (1453). Still primitive (took 30 minutes to reload!), but terrifying against castles. The psychological impact mattered most.
- Transitional Armor - Plate armor improved to deflect arrows, making knights walking tanks. But it got so heavy knights needed cranes to mount horses! By war's end, mobility beat protection.
The hundred years war became a lab for military evolution. Old chivalric ideals died when peasant archers could slaughter noble cavalry. Brutal but effective.
Game-Changing Battles You Should Know
Some battles defined entire generations. Forget dry casualty counts - here's what really mattered:
| Battle | Year | Commanders | Why It Changed Everything |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crécy | 1346 | Edward III (ENG) vs Philip VI (FR) | Proved longbow superiority; knights became obsolete overnight |
| Poitiers | 1356 | Black Prince (ENG) vs John II (FR) | Captured French king; showed England could win deep in France |
| Agincourt | 1415 | Henry V (ENG) vs Charles d'Albret (FR) | Greatest English underdog win; muddy terrain neutralized French numbers |
| Orléans | 1429 | Joan of Arc (FR) vs Earl of Suffolk (ENG) | Morale miracle; broke English siege spirit; Joan's legend born |
| Castillon | 1453 | Jean Bureau (FR) vs John Talbot (ENG) | First field battle won by cannon; ended English hopes permanently |
Visiting Agincourt taught me one thing: numbers lie. English had maybe 6,000 exhausted men against 20,000+ fresh French troops. Yet they won because of longbows and that genius defensive position in a muddy field. Sometimes terrain trumps troops.
Human Faces: Key Players Beyond the Kings
Textbooks obsess over monarchs, but these people actually shaped events:
Joan of Arc
The farmer's daughter who heard saints' voices telling her to save France. Her leadership at Orléans (age 17!) broke the siege in 9 days. Captured by Burgundians and burned as a heretic in 1431. Her trial transcripts survive - eerie reading.
Bertrand du Guesclin
France's resistance hero. Ugly as sin (chroniclers called him "the dog"), but a guerrilla warfare genius. Avoided big battles, starved English garrisons, harassed supply lines. Proved you don't need chivalric glamour to win.
The Black Prince
Edward III's son. Brilliant commander (won Poitiers), but shockingly brutal. His 1355 chevauchée raids burned 500 villages in southwest France. War crimes before the term existed.
Frankly, Joan fascinates me most. Modern psychologists would diagnose her with schizophrenia. Yet she mobilized a broken nation. Makes you rethink what "madness" means in context.
Daily Life During the Hundred Years War
Ever wonder how regular folks survived? It wasn't pretty:
- Economic Hell - Both kingdoms raised taxes to insanity levels. English Poll Tax (1377) sparked the Peasants' Revolt. French peasants (Jacquerie) rebelled in 1358 after nobles failed to protect them.
- Mercenary Menace - During truces, unemployed soldiers became routiers - bandits extorting villages. Chronicles describe them as worse than plague.
- Plague Combo - Black Death hit in 1347, killing 40-60% of Europe. Labor shortages caused inflation. Fields lay fallow while armies marched over them.
"Villages lie empty, churches collapse, wolves roam where towns flourished..." - Monk's letter from Normandy, 1360
My takeaway? War wasn't just battles. It was the slow bleed of pillaged harvests and stolen livestock. Generations knew only instability.
Long-Term Impacts That Shaped Nations
So what? Why care about medieval conflicts today? Because the hundred years war forged modern Europe:
- France United - Entered as feudal patches; exited a centralized kingdom. Charles VII created Europe's first standing army (1445). Tax systems professionalized.
- England's Identity Shift - Losing French lands forced focus on British isles. Parliament gained power over war funding. English language replaced French among elites.
- Military Revolution - Cannon ended castle dominance. Infantry > cavalry. National armies replaced feudal levies. War became the state's business.
- Cultural Myths - Joan of Arc became patron saint. Agincourt symbolized English resilience. Shakespeare immortalized Henry V. Legends outlived the politics.
Frankly, the most ironic outcome? England kept Calais until 1558 - over a century after the war "ended." Old habits die hard.
Debunking Myths About the Hundred Years War
Let's correct some nonsense floating online:
Myth: "England nearly conquered France!"
Reality: Even at their peak (1420s), they controlled only northern France. Southern regions resisted constantly.
Myth: "It was one continuous war."
Reality: Major truces lasted years (1360-69, 1389-1415). Soldiers went home, farms recovered. Calling it one war is like labeling 1900-2000 "The American Century" as a single event.
Myth: "Chivalry died at Agincourt."
Reality: Chivalry was already fading. Edward III exploited it for propaganda, but mercenaries and professional soldiers dominated later stages.
Your Top Questions Answered
Did the Hundred Years War really last 100 years?
Technically 116 years (1337-1453). The name was coined by 19th-century historians who rounded down. Imagine if we called WWII "The Six-Year War" - same energy.
What finally ended the Hundred Years War?
France's cannon victory at Castillon (1453). England couldn't fund new campaigns after losing Bordeaux. Both nations were exhausted and distracted (England by Wars of the Roses). No formal treaty until Picquigny in 1475.
How many died in the Hundred Years War?
No exact records, but estimates suggest 2-3 million military/civilian deaths. Including plague? Much higher. Some regions lost 50% of their population. Grim.
Could England have won?
Early on? Possibly. But occupying France was like trying to hold water in your hands. By Henry V's death (1422), their best chance faded. Logistics favored defenders. Personally? I think they underestimated French resilience.
Where can I see Hundred Years War sites?
Agincourt has a solid visitor center (open Tue-Sun, €9 entry). Castillon's battlefield is free with interpretive signs. Rouen's Joan of Arc Tower (where she was imprisoned) is €6.50. Honestly, French sites preserve this history better than English ones.
Why This Still Matters Today
Understanding what the hundred years war was explains so much modern geopolitics. It birthed centralized nation-states - the system we still live under. The shift from knights to gunpowder mirrors drone warfare replacing tanks. Even Brexit echoes England's ancient pivot away from continental ambitions.
The human lessons resonate too. Joan of Arc shows how belief can move armies. Henry V's St Crispin's Day speech ("We few, we happy few...") remains iconic leadership rhetoric. And the suffering of civilians reminds us that war's cost isn't counted in territory alone.
So next time someone trivializes medieval history, remind them: the hundred years war wasn't just kings squabbling. It forged nations, revolutionized combat, and scarred generations. Not bad for something that started over a lawnmower.