Customer Reviews

The Hundred Years War: The English in France 1337-1453

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Desmond Seward has written a great, short (270-text pages) book about a conflict that, incredibly, has shaped the relations between France and England ever since, and has influenced the course of history. The English claim to the throne of France started with the Norman Invasion and the crowning of Duke William as King of England in 1066. Ethnically, the Normans were Vikings, but they had become French in a cultural way. William was followed by his descendants, and they formed the Plantagenet Line, to which some of the most famous and illustrious of English kings belong. Seward sees the conflict as what it was: the invasion of France by English troops in a time where loyalties were given to the feudal lord (duke, prince, king) more than to the country. By the time the war finally ended in 1453, the concept of "nationalism" was firmly entrenched in both England and France. Between the years 1337 and 1453, England had won an amazing string of victories against a bigger, richer enemy, but one that had been wretchedly led, only to be driven away from France towards the end of the war. The English despoiled the rich French countryside; they burned fields; destroyed towns; and, finally, were hated even by those who, a few decades earlier, had been loyal subjects of their English lords. Seward focuses this narrative from a perspective to which we are not used: the French perspective that, honestly, has never received a fair hearing in the English-speaking world. Of particular interest to me was Seward's description of King Henry V, the hero of Shakespeare, the hero of Agincourt, the symbol of nobility..., and a murderer who burned prisoners alive, who destroyed towns for no reason, who applied a religious fanaticism to his campaigns and who, instead of being the ideal of a Prince, was a paranoid, greedy psychopath. Is this an accurate portrayal of Henry? I don't know. But Seward does provide us with a different look at a much written-about hero of the English. Perhaps he is biased, but the glamorized biographies I have read through the years do tend to pale next to this work. Still, as with many historical figures, Henry will keep on being controversial. (And authors do not have to please us every time: I really did not agree with Seward's biography of Richard III.) So, as for the Hundred Years War, the author puts us right there at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt (all extraordinary English victories), and at the counterattack with Joan of Arc, the betrayal of the French (maybe they did deserve the English after all), the final push, and the English being sent back to England, while the French retained France. The French went on to lick their wounds after 116 years of rape, pillage, and destruction. The English went on to fight their own conflict, later known as The Wars of the Roses (but not during the Wars between Lancaster and York), and managed to escape major retaliation from the wounded French. This conflict, immense in expanse, extremely important for the future of the world, given the dominant position of both France and England in a resurgent, imperialistic, planetary Europe, is seen with French eyes by a man who seems to stand, sometimes uneasily, on both lands. Excellent book. I hope you enjoy it, too.

This is an excellent, if rapid, retelling of the hundred years war, which was not one war, but a series of bloody conflicts, started by the English refusal to recognize the French salic law which denied inheritance through the female line. Edward III' s mother Queen Isabella was the daughter of king Phillip the Fair, and as such many, including Edward, felt that he,NOT King Phillip's nephew ought to inherit the throne.Meanwhile in France, dependence of salic law had only recently been revived and was, of course being used for political reasons, including specifically that of keeping an Englishman off the throne. Alas, nothing is even so simple and there were many pretenders and schisms, including the Great schism between the Popes of Avignon and Rome as well as between French factions during this period. Seward covers the motivations for conflict, on different class levels, as well as the effects of various conflicts and gives us some great characters. There are several genealogical charts which explain the dynastic imperatives, as well as a real attention to military detail, the descriptions of different kinds of weaponry, particularly English bow and arrow versus French crossbow are impressive. And several battles are accompanied by military diagrams, so that those who are military minded can have a real grasp of the actions at Crecy and Agincourt, for example, as well as of the military intelligence of Edward III, John of Gaunt, Henry V and Joan of Arc. Seward relies on many primary sources, but in particular on Froissart and the Bourgeois of Paris (whom I had not heard of.) He quotes Shakespeare and ancient songs appropriately at the beginning of each chapter, and provides an excellent appendix of maps showing the vicissitudes of French territories and English occupations, as well as an appendix explaining the meaning of the currencies in the economics of the time. This is a straightforward, exceedingly comprehensive, delineation of one of the most confusing occasions in Western European history. One is still left confused at the end about how and why the dynastic, commercial, political and military factors interacted as they did however. And it becomes very difficult to sort one French King and political pretender from another. I never did quite figure out what Phillip of Burgundy was up to.

One has the sense that Seward might have better served his purpose by writing a book a hundred pages longer with attentions to the less heady but equally important details of character, personality and relationship. Maurice Druon's fictional series "The Cursed Kings" (1-6) makes a good introduction to the Political events that led up to the start of the Hundred Years war.

This was the first work I read on the history of the Hundred Years War independent from general British history accounts and it served as an excellent introduction to the subject. I was especially impressed with evolution weaponry and its effects on the tide of various battles and eventually the war. The dominace of the French heavily armored knight in battlefield being replaced by the English long-bow archer during the opening period of the war. The latter was dominated by emergence of French canon in concluding battles of the war. In addition to tactical analysis, the English employment of the tatics of Total War against the French population and economy with its effects on both side was quite fasinating. Lastly, it provides an interesting sequel of events which lead to the War of the Roses in England years later, which was one of the bloodiest episodes of civil war in Biritsh history.

This series of conflicts really starts with the ascendency of the plantegenet line at the time of Henry II. This was an inevitable conflict due to a sovereign King of England also having a Lordship over Gascony, a title held when King Henry II married Eleanor, Duchess of Aquitaine. With Edward III having a legitimate claim to the throne of France through his mother Isabella, Seward's book tells the story of the off and on conflicts that occured from 1337-1453.

Early in the conflict, with victories at Slurs, Crecy and Poitiers, the French became aware of the fact that they could not defeat the English forces in the field. However, though the English were capable of conquering territories, they never possessed the strength to hold them indefinately. Seward does a good job of putting the reader in the shoes of the main characters, from the proud but unlucky Philip VI, to the crazy mental patient known as Charles VI. He also gives a good biographical sketch of English monarchs and princes during this period, from Edward "the Black Prince", to John of Gaunt's militarily incompentent bastard granchildren, the Beaufort brothers John and Edmund.

Seward gives a historically accurate portrayal of English hero Henry V that is a far cry from the anglo-centric version we all know through Shakespeare. A man with a tenuous claim to the throne of England invaded France and nearly became the King of France. The atrocities he committed are repugnant, even by the standards of the day and should include him with other evil despots who have ruled through terror and murder. After Henry V's death, despite the competence of his brother the Duke of Bedford, England was doomed to a protracted conflict when the young religious fanatic Joan of Arc decided she was called by God to evict the English from France.

Seward does a good job of viewing the conflict from the perspective of the French peasant, who suffered mightily under the oppression of English rule and the anarchy that existed in the conquered lands. He also details how the loss of the alliance with Burgundy, coupled with the ending of the minority of the incompetent Henry VI doomed England and precipitated the Wars of the Roses.

This is a fascinating period of time in English history that impacted greatly the history of the world. One of the most significant conflicts that shaped the modern world, I highly recommend this book as an overview of the period.

I was largely ignorant of this period of European history, but after playing "Age of Empires 2" I became interested in medieval warfare. This book does an excellent job of describing the events, battles, and characters that shaped this period in history. An excellent introduction to those who know nothing about the Hundred Years War. Perhaps those who want a real in-depth study of the war should look elsewhere. All others should be pleased with one of the most readable history books ever written.

The Hundred Years War was a long, brutal, complicated conflict (1337-1453) between English and French nobility for the control of France. England had been conquered in 1066 by invaders from Normandy and for several centuries was ruled by a French-speaking aristocracy. Slowly native English language regained its supremacy (absorbing many French words in the process) and by the 1300's England and France no longer shared a common language. However, through complex intermarriages, English royalty could muster claims for France. As Shakespeare's Henry V proclaims before invading France, "No king of England if no king of France."

My interest in reading Desmond Seward's book was kindled by both a recent reading of Henry V and viewing Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation of Shakespeare's Henry V.

Seward's recounting of the Hundred Years War is quite readable, but at times rather detailed, especially the first chapter. But the prize is worth it. Seward paints a vivid painting of of medieval diplomacy and politics as well as providing detailed descriptions of medieval warfare (not very chivalrous as little distinction was made between combatants and noncombatants).

Seward's portrayal of Henry V is particularly fascinating. I found myself returning to Shakespeare's rendering of Henry V and the battle of Agincourt and seeing more clearly the contradictory nature of this heroic English king.

The major battles during this extended conflict are remembered as remarkable English victories. Seward reminds us that these heroic events were absolute disasters from the French perspective. The English were not benevolent rulers. Much of subsequent history can be understood from what occurred during the Hundred Years War.

Several months after reviewing Desmond Seward's book, I encountered "Shakespeare's English Kings" by Peter Saccio and I now suggest that most readers would benefit by first reading Saccio's book before undertaking the more detailed analysis of the Hundred Years War by Seward. I have maintained my four star ranking of Seward's history.

Seward does a great job in illustrating what the Hundred Years War was and how it affected the French and the English. For someone looking for a concise overview of this important time, I would recommend this book. It does not go into too much depth within the actual battles and how they were fought, focusing only on who fought and the general formation taken, so if you are looking for the military approach this book should only be used as a reference.

Seward is a great historian and one that I will gladly turn to when I have a question.

Well, there isn't much for me to say as the Orange County Fellow below covered most of the points I wanted to cover.

But, let me say that a good beginning book for understanding this is a basic European book. Try TIMEFRAME AD 1300-1400: THE AGE OF CALAMITY.

From there, move on to Seward''s book as he gets more into the details of things. Good info on how armies changed, how kings funded them and the overall conception of the war on nobility and commoners. Good spread of family trees to understand the claims in back.

Strongly recommended. Easy read, too. Not dry like a majority of History book.

THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR THE ENGLISH IN FRANCE, 1337-1453, by Desmond Seward, is a 296 page book, with ten non-glossy black & white photos, several maps, and several ink drawings showing military equipment. This book is different from other books on English history, in that it pauses, from time to time, to describe advances in military technology. The maps disclose battleground layouts for battles at Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Formigny, Castillon, as well as maps of France in 1337, 1360, and 1429. This book is an excellent starting point for people interested in English and French medieval history. It is a good starting point for people interested in working their way backwards (to William the Conqueror) and for people interested in working their way forwards (to King Henry VIII). Of course, this book will breath meaning into Shakespeare's historical plays from this era.

While the book is clearly written, it will be confusing to neophytes with an interest in English history, because of the fact that there are multiple people with the names: "Warwick," "Gloucester," "Henry," "Edward," "John," and so on. The "Warwick" in Desmond Seward's book is NOT the same as the Warwick in the time of the War of the Roses. The "Gloucester" in Desmond Seward's book is NOT the same as "Gloucester" (Richard III) in the time of the War of the Roses. Furthermore, "Warwick the Kingmaker" is NOT the same as Warwick, who served as one of the two protectorates during the reign of King Edward VI.

Another confusing aspect of English history, is that some characters change their name from time to time. For example, first, they have a real name, such as "Edward Seymore." But then, when they acquire a title such as Earl of Hertford, history books call them "Hertford," and later, when they acquire another title such as Duke of Somerset, history books call them "Somerset."

Desmond Seward states that the term, "The Hundred Years War" is a contrived term, generally referring to the years 1337 (when French confiscated the English Duchy of Guyenne) to 1453, when the English lost Bordeaux. I agree that it is an arbitrary term.

Please note that, in my opinion, the most accurate starting date, for an invasion by an English King into the continent, with fighting against a French king, is the war between King Henry II and King Philip of France (King Philip and King Henry's son "Henry the Younger" were co-conspirators). September 1173 was the date of Henry II's victory over the king of France.

Please also note that, in my opinion, the most accurate ending date of the One Hundred Years war might be March 1550. In MARCH 1550, the Treaty of Boulogne allowed Henri II of France to buy back Boulogne. This treaty was effected by Warwick duke of Northumberland (not Warwick the Kingmaker, but a different "Warwick"). This ended the invasions of France during the reigns of the following English Kings: Henry II, Edward IV, Henry VII, and Henry VIII. This Warwick was the second of two protectorates who ruled England during the time of King Edward VI. Since King Edward VI was only a boy, during his term, England was really ruled first by Somerset and then by Warwick duke of Northumberland.

To view the big picture, it could be argued that the One Hundred Years War really lasted from SEPTEMBER 1173 (when the King of France surrendered to Henry II of England) to MARCH 1550 (when Warwick transferred Boulogne to France). This period is THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SEVEN YEARS. Therefore, it could be argued that all schoolchildren be taught the term: THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SEVEN YEARS WAR (and not be taught the term ONE HUNDRED YEARS WAR).

CHAPTER ONE. King Charles IV of France had a daughter. Since it was a girl, and not a boy, the next king was automatically Philip, Count of Valois (35 years old). Philip thus became, Philip VI in 1328. At this time (1330), King Edward in England was 18 year old. Edward killed his mother's boyfriend Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, who was the effective ruler of England. Mortimer was a nasty dude, who had killed Edward II and who had murdered his own brother. Edward III ruled England, Aquitaine, and Guyenne. Guyenne's toll bridges provided money to England, and Guyenne's wine was sent to England. In exchange, England shipped grain, wool, leather, resin, and salt to Guyenne. People in Guyenne spoke Gascon (not French), and decisions in Guyenne's courts could be appealed in English courts. It was not settled if England had full control over Guyenne, or if the English were merely tenants who must obey the King of France. In 1331, Edward III met Philip VI to negotiate a peace (meeting at Pont-Saint-Maxence). At this point in time, the papacy resided in Avignon, where it had been established in 1309. At this time, France was the most powerful and stable force in Europe. Also, at this time, England's monarchy was not a dictatorship, as the king needed to heed the wishes of Parliament (group of 100 barons, bishops, abbotts). Edward III was married to Philippa of Hainault (daughter of William the Good, Count of Hainault, of Holland). The French used Scotland as an ally in wars (against England), and the English saw Flanders as an ally in wars (against France). Edward III bribed the Flemish (counts of Guelders, Juliers, and Limbourg, and Duke of Brabants) to be against France. The English and Flemish cooperated also in cloth-making, where England provided the wool, and the Flemish made cloth. In 1339, Philip VI invaded Guyenne, taking Blaye, Bourg, La Reole, and almost taking Bordeaux. Edward III surrounded France diplomatically, by making allies (using bribes) with Roman Emperor Ludwig IV, counts of Burgundy and Savoy, and dukes of Brabants and Flemings. France invaded England, from Cornwall to Kent, attacking Dover and Folkestone. Thus, at least according to this book, is that Guyenne was English territory, and the French started the Hundred Years War by invading Guyenne in 1339.

CHAPTER TWO. Edward III used ships called "cogs" for troop transport. A cog had one sail and was slow to maneuver, but could navigate in shallow rivers. The French had ships called galleys, which were very maneuverable because they had oars, and they had a ram and a catapault for stones. In a sea battle of June 1340 (Battle of Sluys), the French fleet was commanded by Nicolas Behuchet, who was a former tax collector (and not familiar with battles), and nearly all of the 20,000 men on board were fishermen, longshoremen, or barge-workers, and without training in battle. The English won, because they could shoot 3 arrows for every French crossbow shot. Behuchet was killed and dangled from an English ship, which caused the French to panic. The Flemish (allies of the English) attacked from barges. In July 1340, Edward III laid siege to Tournai with 30,000 troops. But Edward was not able to pay his Dutch and German mercenaries, so he negotiated a truce (Truce of Esplechin) and then fled to England. A by-product of events in 1340, was growth of power of Parliament, relative to power of Edward III. Edward III blamed John Stratford (the Chancellor and Archbishop of Canterbury) for mishandling taxes, thereby preventing Edward III from paying his mercenaries. In return, Stratford blamed Edward III for violating Magna Carta (Magna Carta required that ministers be tried by Parliament, but Edward III instead had Stratford's officials arrested without trial). Edward III backed down. Still lacking in money, Edward III could not repay his loans, which forced men in England and elsewhere to go bankrupt.

In late 1342, Edward III and 12,000 men attacked Brittany, laid siege to Rennes, Nantes, and Vannes. John Duke of Normandy (King Philip's son) came to the rescue and a truce was negotiated in Jan. 1343. At this point, Edward III's goal was to gain a stronger hold of Guyenne, and to gain a stronger alliance with Flanders. Edward III continued to attack France. Edward III succeeded, capturing Bergerac, Agenais, and Angouleme. On July 13, 1346, English landed at La Hogue and burned Cherbourg, Montebourg, Caen, and Troarn, and stole huge quantities of gold, silver, and jewels. Edward III found, in Caen, Philip VI's secret plan to invade England and as propaganda device, Edward III had copies of this plansent to every church in England. Philip VI tried to impede the English by demonishing French bridges. Edward approached Crecy-en-Ponthieu. His leaders with Black Prince (16 years old), Reynold Cobham, John Chandos, Godefroi d'Harcourt, Earl of Northampton, Earl of Arundel. Edward III dug many foot-deep holes to make French horses fall down (later, at the Battle of Agincourt, Edward III imbedded spikes in the ground, so that they would stick up and stab French horses). Edward III had 11,000 men, but Philip VI had 30,000 men. On Aug. 26, 1346, English arrows fell like snow. But the French (crossbowmen) had earlier discarded their heavy shields, and so they retreated. French horses panicked and piled on top of each other. Philip VI fled to refuge in Amiens. Thus, Edward III won the Battle of Crecy, but he did not attack Paris, but instead took Calais by siege (starving the inhabitants). In July 1347, Philip approached to rescue Calais, and tried to negotiate a truce, but failed. For the next 200 years, Calais was totally English. The author, Desmond Seward, calls the Crecy and Calais victory one of the greatest victories in Western history. France had another problem, namely the plague, which broke out in Marseilles and spread all over France in 1348, and crossed the channel in Aug.1348, and spread all over England. The plague wound down in 2 years. In Aug. 1350, Philip VI died of an illness.

CHAPTER THREE. Edward III's son (Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales, a.k.a. Black Prince) was 20 yeas old in 1350. Philip VI's son, King John II, had a thick red beard, the characteristics of blind rage, and tendency to panic. At this time (1348), all England was flooded with French plunder (furs, cushions, linen). William Edington in 1346 became Treasurer, and in 1356 became Chancellor. Black Prince won the Battle of Poitiers (Sept. 1356) and defeated King John II and the England made money by capturing and ransoming Archbishop of Sens, Bishop of Le Mans, and others. In Treaty of London (1358), France surrendered one third of France: Guyenne, Limousin, Poitou, Santonge, and Ponthieu. Later, in Treaty of Bretigny (1360), it was agreed that England would keep the captured areas, and Edward III would stop calling himself the King of France. Then, Black Prince was named Duke of Aquitaine, and John II was allowed to go home in exchange for 400,000 crowns (again, the English make money from ransoming). The author, Desmond Seward writes that, "it was amazing that a poor little country like England . . . could bring so rich and powerful neighbor to her knees."

CHAPTER FOUR. Charles the Wise (1338-1380) was King of France from 1364 to 1380. He was son of John II (remember, John II, had a thick red beard, the characteristics of blind rage, and tendency to panic). Before Charles became king, he received the title "dauphin," after the region of Dauphine, and he was the first person ever to be called, "dauphin." Charles the Wise was crowned upon his father's death from illness (April 1364). In books of medieval history, one gets tired of reading that kings were tall, strikingly handsome, and powerful warriers. Not so with Charles the Wise, who was "wretchedly frail, afflicted by ulcers." Charles the Wise's method of battle with the English was guerilla raids (he forbad full-scale battles with the English). Throughout 1368, Charles the Wise collected 900 appeals (I guess that these were legal complaints, Desmond Seward fails to provide details) against Black Prince. These were appeals from magnates, squires, bishops, and abbots, in Aquitaine. In Jan. 1369, Charles the Wise sent a summons to Black Prince who was at Bordeaux (a town in Aquitaine). Black Prince refused to comply. And so, in June 1369, Charles the Wise declared war and captured Aquitaine, Abbeville, Ponthiew, Rouergue. John of Gaunt (duke of Lancaster) struck back, but Charles the Wise prevailed. As mentioned above, Charles the Wise's tactics were raids, ambushes, night attacks, cutting communications. In Oct. 1372, Black Prince permanently retired from action, due to chronic illness. John of Gaunt was extremely wealthy, but it was not in his cards to push back the French. (John of Gaunt is famous for being the first Lancastrian, noted component in the civil war between Lancastrians versus Yorkists, in the War of the Roses). In June 1377, Edward III died of natural causes (65 years old), and was succeeded by 10-year old son of Black Prince, namely, Richard of Bordeaux (Richard II). We learn that the Pope played a vital role in negotiating truces, but this useful role of the papacy was messed up during the Great Schism, wherein Pope Urban V ruled Italy and Pope clement VII ruled Avignon.

CHAPTER FIVE. From 1380-1399, wars involved France, Spain, Ireland, Aquitaine, Brittany, Flanders, Scotland, and Portugal, and this situation was made more miserable because of the Great Schism. Trade suffered because ships transporting wine required the protection of armed convoys. Under Richard II, the French and English signed Truce of Leulinghen (June 1389). King Richard II admired the French and in 1396, married Charles VI's 9-year old daughter. The first of John of Gaunt's descendents became king in 1399. This was Henry IV (duke of Bolingbroke, the first Lancastrian king). Henry IV seized the throne from Richard II, a change welcomed by the English, because Richard II had become a "mumbling neurotic who sank into complete melancholia."

CHAPTER SIX. The demise of Richard II was unhappy news for the French, and the child queen Isabel was sent back home to France in 1400, so that she could be with her family, and eat snails, frogs, and overly-ripened camembert. But in addition to the replacement of peaceful Richard II with war-like Henry IV, France's troubles arose from within. Duke John the Fearless of Burgundy and Duke Louis or Orleans both wanted to be king. John supported the Pope in Rome. Louis supported the Pope in Avignon. John opposed war in England (since he did not want to endanger Flemish trade), but Louis wanted to kill all the English. In Nov. 1407, Louis was ambushed and beheaded. Actually, it was John who'd engineered the assassination of his cousin.

CHAPTER SEVEN. Henry IV died of an illness in 1413, and was succeeded by Henry V (Henry V was 25). Henry V decided it was time to capture Aquitaine, Normandy, Anjou, Touraine, Poitou, Maine, and Ponthieu (duchys in France) (Note that the previous king, Henry IV, was in bad health and could not lead these invasions). Henry got loans from prelates, abbeys, nobility, gentry, cities, and burgesses. Henry V assembled 1,500 ships and on Aug. 11, 1415, invaded France, and after a 2-month effort, captured Harfleur. Next, at the Battle of Agincourt (Oct. 25, 1415), where the battlefield consisted of deep mud, the English lost 300 men, and the French lost 10,000 men. The mobility of the French was impaired because they wore heavy armor. On Nov. 23, 1415, Henry V was back in London, and in Feb. 1417, Henry V conquered Cain, Lisieux, Bayeux, Argentan, Alencon, Falaise, then Louviers and Rouen (the seige of Rouen started on July 29 and by Christmas, the inhabitants were eating dogs, cats, and mice) and by the end of 1418, all Normandy belonged to Henry V. Henry V's success was made possible by the conflict between the Armagnacs (led by Count of Armagnac. The Dauphin was the puppet of the Armagnacs) versus Duke John of Burgundy. In Shakespeare's play, Henry V offered tennis balls to the Armagnacs. The Armagnacs and Burgundians hated each other more than they hated the English. Thus, if any take-home lesson is to be learned from Desmond Seward's book, is that Henry V's victor was made possible by the feud between the Armagnacs and Burgundians, and the eventual French victory over the English was due to the end of this Armagnac vs. Burdundian feud (plus Joan of Arc's leadership).

In the Treaty of Troyes (May 21, 1420), Henry V was declared King of France. Henry V married Charles VI's daughter, Catherine. (Please note that two years later Henry V died, and then Catherine married Owen Tudor, thus providing the single and only common point between the Lancastrians and Tudors.) Then, the English occupied Paris for 15 years, and French Parliament declared the Dauphin to be a criminal. In Paris, things did not go well. Garbage dumps contianed dead French children, and wolves ate bodies floating in the Seine, due to food shortages. Back in London, Catherine became queen. Henry V died of dysentary at age 35. He appointed his brother to be Regent of France (John Duke of Bedford) and he appointed Goucester to be Regent of England (not the same Gloucester as Richard III).

CHAPTER EIGHT. After Henry V died of an illness in Aug. 1422, it was not right away that Joan of Arc inspired the French to fight back. Instead, Thomas Montagu, Earl of Salisbury (called "Salisbury" in Shakespear's Henry VI) was Lieutenant-General of Normandy, Richard Beaucamp, Earl of Warwick (not the same man as Warwick the Kingmaker) was lieutenant-General of France (1437-1439). Although Bedford threw big parties in Paris, and although he was friendly with members of the French Parlement, the English imposed high taxes, and English rogues roamed the countryside pillaging the French. At this time, England extended its control over France, wherein Bedford attacked Orleans, Beaugency, Meung, Jargeau, but by April 1429, the English were not able to capture Orleans (I guess the diet of gumbo and jambalaya made stronger soldiers out of the the men of Orleans).

CHAPTER NINE. In 1425, a 17-year old shepherd, Joan of Arc, revived morale of the Dauphinists. At this time, the Burgundians and Armagnacs still hated each other. At this time, Charles VII was the Dauphinists leader. Charles VII's court consisted of a bizarre team, including Marshall Gilles (satanist and child murderer), and La Tremoille (a murderer). Joan of Arc went to visit the Dauphin and also Charles VII. The Dauphin advised Charles VII to let the girl try to lead the French against the English. Joan of Arc re-captured Tourelles, Jargeau, Meung, and Patay. Then, Joan of Arc attacked Paris (Sept. 8, 1429) and Bedford gave up the Regency of France to Philip of Burgundy. In November, Joan of Arc was captured, put on trial, and she met her end on May 30, 1431 (age 19). Throughout 1430, rougues ambushed people traveling near Paris, and wolves roamed the streets of Paris looking for dead bodies, and Paris was beset with famine. Henry VI (9 years old) was then trotted out and annointed King of France. His coronation infuriated Parisians. In 1433, Bedford returned to England and stayed there, to be the King's chief councellor.

CHAPTER TEN. In Sept. 1435, Charles VII and Philip of Burgundy signed the Treaty of Arras, which recognized Charles as King of France, and it ended the dual monarchy in France (Armagnacs/Dauphin versus Burgundians). An edict ordered that anybody using the terms "Burgundian" or "Armagnac" would have their tongue pierced with a red-hot iron. (I guess that explains why so many college students in the 21st century have pierced tongues -- they must have been caught talking about the Burgundians and Armagnacs). Salisbury died in 1428, and Bedford dieed in 1435, and Warwick died in 1439 (not the same man as Warwick the Kingmaker). In 1445, Henry VI married Margaret of Anjou. At this time, the English still occupied Normandy, while Charles VII ruled France. In July 1449, Charles VII finally took Normandy, and that winter took Harfleur, Honfleur, Fresnoy, and most of Cherbourg peninsula. In Aug. 1450, Cherbourg surrendered. And that was that.

CRITIQUE. My only criticism is that this book fails to disclose how the English originally got possession of the Duchy of Guyenne. W.L.Warren's book, HENRY II, provides this information. Also, it would have been nice to see a table correlating all of the relevant characters in Shakespeare's historical plays with persons living in the time of the Hundred Years War (please note that the author does, in fact, disclose a few tie-ins with Shakespeare plays).

This work succeeds on several levels, not the least of which due to Seward's robust prose and scholarship. The mix of eyewitness accounts, pacing and explanation really makes for an informative read. While the fighting often takes center stage, the interaction between the English and French Kings and their courts is fascinating. The need to balance ambition with finance really is illuminating, showing that our 'modern' issues are in many ways no different than the 14th century.

The horrors English Chevauchees perpretrated on the French countryside are a preview of Sherman's march through Georgia, and the impotence of the vaunted French heavy cavalry when confronted by English longbows is told elegantly in coverage of Crecy and Agincourt. The characters that float through the narrative are fascinating: the Black Prince, Henry V, Bedford, Jeanne d'Arc, Sir John Fastolf and many others provide interesting color.

Overall, this is a good introduction to the period and provides a firm basis for understanding the subsequent events of the War of the Roses and the rise of the House of Tudor.