🎥 Join our RUclips members and patrons to unlock 180+ exclusive videos: ruclips.net/channel/UCMmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fwjoin or: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals
What total war game and mod is the footage from? Is it Attila total war and the 1212 AD mod? It would be handy if you mentioned the source of footage in future videos, I want to play that mod lol
You skip one big event between Poitiers and Bretigny with Edward 3 chevauchee in 1359-1360. Edward 3 tried to force the two treaty of London in 1358 and 1359 which will give him a massive ransom and all the land of the old Plantagenet empire but the future Charles 5 and the general estates refused them so Edward start another chevauchee hoping another big battle. The Valois refused this battle and close all the cities on their way starting an attrition war. Because of the Winchelsea raid, Edward tried to besieged Paris but failed and started to made war crime because the lack of supplies and success in the countryside. Finally, Edward stated the siege of Chartres but the Plantagenet suffer a tempest and lose 1000 men and will be seen as a divine punishment for their behaviour called the black monday. Edward will be forced to withdraw his chevauchee and finally sign the treaty of Bretigny wich will be far less advantageous than the treaty of London because he had to give up his claim to the french throne, give up the Normandy, Anjou and Maine and only take the Aquitaine and the ransom for Jean 2 will be 3 millions gold instead of 4.
Hello! I’m Johan and I am the writer who have stitched together the episodes of the Hundred Years War series. Apart from fixing some stuff (most importantly YELLOW England), adding some more infoboxes for context or minor events, we have also added new battles and campaigns: -More detail in the start of the war in Flanders -Battle of Sluys 1340 -Battle of Saint Omer 1340 -Post Crecy - w/ Seige of Calais (1348-49) -Bretton Civil War (1343-1365) w/ Battle of Mauron and Battle of Auray (1365) -Castillian Civil War with breef introduction of the War of the Two Peters w/ Battle of Najera -Battle of Cocherel 1364 -Carolinian phase, with Siege of Limoges (1370) and Battle of Pontvallain -Flemish rebellion of 1379-85 and Battle of Roosebeke -Siege of Harfleur 1415 -Battle of Verneuil 1424 -Battle of Patay 1429 -Campaigns in 1431-43, tying together the two parts -The aftermath and effects of the war Hope you enjoy our complete documentary on the Hundred Years War!
I'm a busy Dad and have only been watching this about 15 min at a time inconsecutively (only when there is peace and quiet because i genuinely dont want to miss any detail) and just wanted say... Thank you. This is a work of art and a magnificent transcription of the past. The Hundred Years War(s) is an obsession I didn't know I had until now. You all did an excellent job. In your statistics, if you see many people watching a bit and stopping, just know that many of us can't commit 3.5 hours to anything other than our families and (our) work. We appreciate your content all the same; perhaps more so Thank you.
I really can't fathom what it's like to be at war for 116 years years. Even the fact that they only called it the hundred years' war because no one was alive anymore who remembered a time before it started is just difficult to wrap your brain around.
It also part of the reason the English call the French ‘The Old Enemy’. We have fought for so long and so often that it became a way of life. Glad we are more or less friends politically speaking these days. But the old rivalry is still seen alive mostly in sporting contests. Both parties enjoy getting a victory over the other.
Something that also adds to this, is the fact that in this war, while spanning an enormous amount of time and land, there were lengthy peaceful intervals inbetween periods of very intense warfare, and certain areas could go years without any sign of a war going on, and then be raided and sieged out of the blue. It was a far less 'cut and dry' affair than we often think of as typical of armed conflicts.
I love this channel. It's literally the best history channel on yt and elsewhere. Literally every relationship and battle is broken down in such an exciting way
The French victory in the 100 Years' War can be explained by two quote from Napoleon. "You must not fight too often with one enemy or you will teach him all your art of war." "God favours the side with the best artillery" - Napoleon Bonaparte
You can talk about a topic that no one has ever dealt with before, which is the Yemeni kingdoms and the history of their wars and invasions, which is Sheba, Hadhramaut, Maeen Qataban, and Osan. I hope you look at this history well. Thank you. I was truly pleased to watch the leaders and kings on your channel.
Merci ! As a Burgundian, thanks for this interesting video. It's awesome to be enthusiast for both french and english troops. I didn't know about the Burgundian looters in Azincourt. Keep up the good work, great fan of the chain.
I’ve always desired to visit beautiful Burgundy. Mary of Burgundy has always fascinated me, her love with Archduke Maximilian remains to me one of the most beautiful glimpses of the Middle Ages, certainly as the last perfumed breath of Mediaeval chivalry…
Funny how Fance and England ended up in opposite positions at the end of the Hundred Year's war. In the 1330s, France was plagued by civil war, a weak monarchy, very strong and powerful nobles, and generally weak and divided. This gave a more centralized, stronger, and powerful English monarchy an opportunity to gather their forces and invade, cultimating in Agincourt in 1415. By the end of the war, it was England that had the weak monarch, had a civil war brewing, a series of battle hardened nobles who won glory in France with enough titles and land to challenge the king, plus they were broke from the oh I don't know, half a dozen invasions of France they had done. But France became a more centralized monarchy, with a standing army, the nobility was subbordinate to the crown, and the experiences of over a century of war made them extremely determined. The main difference is the French never made claims to the English crown, and they never tried to invade England during the War of the Roses. They were too exhausted in both willpower and resources to mount such a campaign. That being said, other than the 1640s, the 1450s was probably the best opportunity in France's history to invade and take over England. They had no real navy, a divided nation, and were weak and humiliated by war. I'm very happy that England (UK now) and France are buddies and they put aside all those centuries of war.
It really relied on a few decisive humiliating battles like the siege of Orleans, Castillion, Formigny, Patay with no battle won in the english side for more than 3 decades except maybe for Bordeaux when the people opened the gate for John Talbot because they wanted a special treatment in France witch the King refused.
There's a fair amount wrong with this such as the new class of men who took over the minor royal houses such as York and Lancaster were from trading Magnets and Oxford dons to put it in a really simplistic rubbish modern way. This ofc has something to do with the flower of england being spent in france and the meritocracy from what was then parliament which was expanded and used to transform england into a war economy such as with williams blackbook. Its something that doesnt get told much, how England's foreign policy remained in the hands of local elites who put in place what would be the agricultural revolution along with intellectual capacity for moderating power through again, sorry the the modern simplicity, commercial links with the rest of the british isles,scandinavia, Germany, ottomans (far east) and to russia as was seen in elizabeths reign. And no relations aren't good at all. Whitehall ignores france whilst quai d'orsay plays with toy soldiers. Five eyes, aukus, transpacific partnerships, nuclear subs and ofc brexit. And ofc the English were very much on the back foot against the french.
@@ommsterlitz1805 smokes pipe. Mmmyeess Hon Hon Hon Hon. We were getting very close to being silly there. And no not french. By this time and well before it's english, the minor royalty had to marry other persons not within the family. U know for, land and connections. Bureaucracy stuff, parliament and the rest. Anyways those cadet houses were staffed ran and backed by the new class of men in government or more precisely in the kings estate. Guys like the de la poles were merchant class up starts who lent money to the crown for titles and jobs in gov aswell eventually marriages into the costly royal cadet estates such as Lancaster. These gov or retinue posts meant free shit especially against the problems of population growth and the advancement of common-law along Locke lines.
@@weeewoooooooo The Lancastre just like all of the english nobility all of Français origin were sent to school in France to study until they were adults, this is how links between the 2 kingdoms remained strong and how Français is the largest part of English language as even to this the motto of the UK is "HONI SOI QUI MAL Y PENSE"
@@thomascatty379 Louis XI's nickname in French was "l'universelle aragne" the universal spider, like the spider he weaved the threads of his power with patience and constancy.
@@TheStrategos392 Paul Murray Kendal’s famous biography is brilliant as well. It presents him, rightly, as an intensely multifaceted and intellectual personality-similar to Frederick II Hohenstaufen-who seemed to have a universal capacity for understanding things and foresight.
I heard that Edward the 1st's law of every village being required to train longbowmen for the English army is still technically in effect, if not in practice.
One of my favourite games is Bladestorm: Hundred Years War which is a japanese action-strategy game which basically plays the "Greatest Hits" of the Hundred Years War and no matter if you choose England or France you have to save Jeanne D'Arc from her IRL fate.
Isn't it incredible how we have access to such extensive and high-quality content for free nowadays? What motivated you to choose a lengthy documentary on a rainy night, and what intrigued you the most about the Hundred Years War documentary?
I love the long form content guys. Keep it up! I like listening to podcasts and documentaries while I paint and this format is perfect! And as always, the dedication and attention to detail is appreciated!
Excellent ! I realise how difficult our language is, for towns characters names . You covered this war as well as the sources allows and you do it with the neutrality of historian, and you saved the epic side . One more time excellent, captivating.
Legendary for using Eu4 Campaign music. This was the music that accompanied me through my first English play through ten years ago and never would I have imagined that it would also accompany a K&G video on the Hundred Years’ War
The history of the 100 year war is so fascinating. I discovered it with the video game Crown Wars, and I'm just watching every history video about this period now
I don't know for Edward but it was unlikely for Philippe to think ahead about the tour de nesle affair, the Jacques de Molay curse and his 3 sons all dying in their 20s-30s without sons (Jean 1 was Louis 10 son but he only lived and ruled 5 days and that made him the best Jean/John to ever ruled in England or France)
You guys are awesome, I really love these longer videos, perfect to play in the background while I play certain games. I know they probably take a lot of effort so, just wanted to say thank you and keep up the great work
This animation of the Hundred Years' War is fantastic! The storytelling and visuals make history so engaging. Great job bringing these battles to life!
France was the first State that recognized science and technology as another key factor for his sovereignty, besides the professionalization of the army. Developing better metal alloys and improvement on the production techniques and high quality gunpowder as well, research and development never was neglected again by powerfull nations
Great video, amazing to see the level of violence, barbarity and low value of human life from the time. Also, always fun to hear the myths surrounding Jeanne d'Arc.
what a fucking saga. thank you so much for this 3 hours of unbelievable content. nothing like over complicated family drama to establish a feud between two nations that would last centuries.
what a crazy experience that would be. Fight all day then just causally walk by your enemy because you both say "Nah we good for now, time for bed" 19:15
The 100 years war is a tale of the English winning battles but losing the war. Just like Hannibal in Italy. It is not about tactics and battles, but about the party that has more men, financial resources, and resolve to continue the fight.
Hannibal was the outsider. The Plantagenet/Lancaster had the upper hand twice and blow it up. If we talk about battles, each side had won around half of battles and the Plantagenet/Lancaster had lost many battles when they outnumbered the Valois They also had resolve to continue the fight with Henry 5 restart the war in 1415 despite a truce since 1389. Both side suffer with loss of financial resources with the chevauchees being a disaster for the Valois then for the Plantagenet/Lancaster.
The French won a bunch of battles too. They had to in order to win. I think the English doing better at the start had a lot to do with being allied with the Burgundians. The French doing better towards the end and ultimately winning had a lot to do with the Burgundians switching sides. Burgundy was a large kingdom in those days, reaching up all the way from Burgundy in current day France to a large slice of Germany and all the way into current Belgium and the Netherlands. It wasn't the myth, propagated by the typically skewed historical education found in the anglo-sphere, of the plucky English besting the French at Agincourt, Crecy and Poiters. I find it sadly amusing how few people in the anglo-sphere have even heard of Patay, for example, where the longbowmen were finally destroyed by the French.
@@user-aero68 The dukes of Burgundy were the most powerful men in France after the king in the early 15th century. They owned both Burgundy (the duchy in France and the county in HRE), Flanders and Artois. Burgundy was not allied with England until 1419 but the civil war started in 1407 with the king being mad since 1392 prevent any unified reaction against Henry 5 invasion and Azincourt disaster was mostly because the nobles were at each other throats for the last 8 years. For the lack of knowledge about anything other Azincourt, Crecy or Poitiers, it seems Shakespeare made a great propaganda full of lies.
@@user-aero68Even considering the Burgundian alliance England still won victories whilst being significantly outnumbered. Also France was fighting in home territory.
I always thought the 100 years war was like 3 short wars with long periods of Cold War in between. But by god, it was an insanely destructive 100 year struggle with only short truces
This is absolutely amazing, thank you. I love history and I'm currently writing a light novel series so I've been browsing history channels to learn about battles and war. This channel was the most helpful.
The best history and strategy channel ever. Great explanations of the battles, great explanations of the historical context, you are without equal. I really enjoy watching your videos, it's like playing total war. I don't know your future plans but it would be interesting to see a documentary on the Spanish conquests in America in the 1500s. Keep it up you're great
I have always wanted a documentary about the Hundred Years’ War and I have been waiting for a while now on this video to be made and it was AMAZING. Thank you so much Kings and Generals
Edward III was the greatest British Warrior King. Such a shame what happened to the Black Prince. Imagine if he reigned as Edward IV instead of his son Richard II. How different history would’ve been. We would never have seen Henry V win his famed victory at Agincourt.
He start a war for a throne he never had a real legitimate claim and had lost almost all contiental land he had so Edward 1 seems way better. The black prince was already 46 when he died so even if he had ruled, it will be for only 10-15 years and the Plantagenet were already in the losing end after Bretigny but Richard 2 will be raised better to become king and the Plantagenet could keep their few land in the continent without Henry restrart the war.
@@robert-surcouf He had a better claim to the throne of France than Charles of Valois. His mother Isabella was the daughter of Philip IV. Whereas Charles was the grandson of Louis IX. The Salic law was just an excuse to bar an English king from his birthright. The last 8 years of the Black Prince’s life would’ve been completely different if he wasn’t ill. Edward III was taken advantage of in his later years by his mistress, Alice Perrers. But I do agree with you that Richard would’ve turned out a different person if his father didn’t die when he was so young. But Richard didn’t have what it took to be a successful king in my view. The Plantagenet dynasty would’ve been fine if Richard didn’t alienate half of the mobility and have the Lords Appellants killed years later out of spite. He didn’t learn the dangers of having favorites from Edward II reign. The dynasty would’ve collapsed if Henry IV wasn’t such a strong figure,. Although he was a tad too merciful at times. He faced constant civil unrest and turmoil. From the Welsh, the Scottish, the Percys etc. Henry V wouldn’t have had the success in France he had if it wasn’t for the stability his father’s tumultuous reign eventually brought. Because he would’ve been stuck at home dealing with the issues his father dealt with. It would be a different story.
@@giants2k8 The salic law was already used in 1316 when Philippe 5 take the crown instead of Louis 10 daughter and since then, it will be impossible for women to inherit the crown. Even if you don't count the agnatic succession, then the new king after Charles 4 death in 1328 will be any of Charles 4, Philippe 5 or Louis 10 grandson before Edward who's only Philippe 4 grandson. It means in 1328, the real king will be Philippe of Burgundy (Philippe 5 grandson) and when the war strated in 1337, there was also 2 Louis 10 grandson (Charles of Navarre and his younger brother) so once again, with or without the salic law (agnatic or cognatic succession), Edward 3 never had a legitimate claim (either it will be in 1328 or 1337). Illness indeed weakened Edward Woodstock but Charles 5 was also ill all his life and proved to be a great ruler despite that unlike Edward so his illness will stopped him to fight but not to rule. Edward 3 was taken advantage of in his later years but i coul say the same about Philippe 6 and Edward 3 start to lose the war in 1359-1360 when his chevauches miserably failed and forced him to made the treaty of Bretigny instead of the treaty of London in 1358. Richard 2 was made king at 10 and had no one to guide him but he was indeed a bad king (like Henry 3 with worse luck) who could be decent if he doesn't had bad odds since the start. If we talk again about the salic being invalid, then Henry 4 was a usurper and he indirectly made his grandfather claim nullified but he was good enough to deal with the rebellion he created. Henry 5 first and foremost succeed between 1415 and 1422 because France had a civil war since 1407 and a mad king (just like the war of the roses) but it indeed helped him that Henry 4 was a strong figure. However, it's because he restart the war in 1415 that his dynasty will collapse in 1471 and his greed will doomed his son and grandson.
Excellent video! It was basically a conflict between two French noble houses, the Valois-Capet from Picardy in northern France and the Plantagenet from Anjou in western France. The houses of Lancaster and York are cadet branches of the Plantagenet.
The plantagenet had already lost Anjou since the early 13th century but they kept their french roots and culture, even if it was diluted more and more at each generations until the lancaster that were the first complete english dynasty since the house of wessex.
Thank you for your work guys!! Really nice documentary!! So basically Guesclin was a monster, loosing or winning the guy had guts 🤣 also Black Prince died so early but managed to create legendary stories.... what a time seriously compare to modern times. Big up to all the plebes and common people who suffered during those times, they we're just trying to live simply but some nobles shenanigan as per usual makes raping, killing and pillaging the norms 😩
Context: My father hails from Calais, where my grandparents and most of his side of the family still lives. He moved to the U.S. to attend Purdue where he decided he would settle in the U.S. for good. When I heard 2:08:38, I paused the video, rubbed my hands against my forehead and groaned "Oh nooo"
Thx for your content! Absolutely blessed to found this channel. Especially 6:30 mins in as the EU IV music kicks in im like "oh yeah your gonna binge watch their vids"
Can we really call the 100 Years' War a war between France and England? Given that the sovereign protagonists were all French or of French origin, that a good part of current France was under the domination of the Anglo-Norman kings and that Guyenne, Gascony, Béarn and Normandy provided a large part of the contingent men-at-arms on the English side? In my humble opinion it was more of a dynastic quarrel or even a civil war.
Yes, we can call it a war between france and england, because it was. Edward III considered himself English, the first monarch which we know for absolute certain considered himself as such. I've read contemporary sources too -- french and english, with refer to the english as indeed being english, with english nobility referring to themselves as english. Within 5 minutes of the video starting, K&G mentions that Froissart -- one of our key historians for the time period, and a frenchman no less -- called the Gascons english.
@@sirgoo9962 I believe that we need to move away from this “nation state” vision that we know and put into our heads a feudal worldview where belonging to a nation is still a vague concept for most. A "nation" no longer represented by a county or a duchy. A vision that is still very present in France today, how many people will tell you that they are Burgundian, Norman, Breton, Bearnais before telling you that they are French?
@@olivierpuyou3621 Your right in saying that we need to apply how the people from this period would have viewed themselves- but that applies for the french too- many at this time, particularly non nobles would have been unable to speak french and would not have necessarily have seen themselves as such . Most nobles in England and most kings (apart form a few outliers) spoke English, knew English history/tales had intermarried with English people and celebrated English saints. But your right defining them as truly “English” is difficult especially given their Norman legacy and usage of french/Latin at court.
@@Yellow-kp9gs What is true in France in speaking regional languages is also true in England in the 14/15th century. Welsh, Manx and surely other languages were spoken on the big island. Now let's stop telling ourselves fables, the language spoken by the nobles and the court was French ALL the English "barons" had land in France the feudal system being pyramidal each noble whether English or French had possessions of one side or the other of the Channel. And at that time the cultural beacon of the West was (and still largely is) France. Even the motto of England's most prestigious honorary order (the Order of the Garter) is in French: "Honi soit qui mal y pense". And the motto of the kings of England is also French. "Dieu et mon droit".
@@olivierpuyou3621 As we’re mainly talking about the kingdom of England the language comment isn’t actually a fair comparison- especially compared to the linguistic variety in France vs England even into the 19th century- also it’s important to note that at the start of the Hundred Years’ War Wales had only just been incorporated into the realm (even then not legally) and the Isle of Man flipped between Scottish and English control. So yeah a bit of a weak argument. Language- most nobles were bilingual and English was expected to be known on some level by the 12th century- John actually had one of Lionhearts best councillors thrown out of power for being a “foreigner” and one of the ways he proved this was his inability to speak English. Barons- depends, lower nobility didn’t have much/no land in France, higher nobility would often pick the territory they felt more based in, usually England after the fall of Normandy during johns reign (there were some exceptions such as William Marshal but this was rare) Court- would have had (depends on the period obviously), Anglo-Saxon, Normans, Bretons, Italians, Frisians etc. That doesn’t prove much- identity until the development of nationality was largely based off loyalty to a liege lord (ie supporting Edward III meant you were “English”). Cultural beacon- Kind of- definitely the most powerful for most of European medieval history but after the rise of the Spanish, not as much. And then by 1700 English culture was starting to dominate conversations about politics and science. Also now??? No English/Anglo culture dominates the whole world after 1800 and the fall of Napoleon don’t live in fantasy (there’s a reason you speak English). Yes and Edward III also spoke English fluently, hated the “French”, embraced English saints and celebrated Arthur, a Celtic. This is important as despite making up the majority of the french population Gauls we’re largely ignored or looked down upon in the historiography until the revolution- nobility saw themselves as Franks. Kings motto- look above Peace.
Can you make a broadcast on what happens on the battlefields after battles were over? what happened to the slain people? How were they buried? What happened to their gear? What happened to injured by no quite dead yet soldiers? etc. cc. I realize there might be a wide range of possibilities and concrete procedures. but are there any general conclusions that can be drawn?
At this point English culture was firmly established, hell edward III was most likely not even trying to become king of France he was just using it as a way of threatening the french.
@@Yellow-kp9gs Yet he and his own aristocracy had French blood and culture. They weren't even Normans, they were from a dinasty from other region of France, the French kept settling in the country. Like i said, the king of England spoke French until 1400, and French was still used in courts after that. The English language's vocabulary is 58% Latin because of that, it was already a French culture. The current aristocracy of England still has a bit of French DNA. The English like to see things in nationalistic ways, always diminishing others and raising themselves, it was a separate colony of the French ruled by a French aristocracy until 1400, period.
@@EVEUX Once again genetically they had multiple inheritances, hence why they celebrated their anglo Saxon, Norman, French and Breton heritage in various histories they commissioned- hell they even linked the “kings touch” to their Anglo Saxon heritage from Matilda. At this point the king wasn’t a Norman- more Anglo french his nobility we’re definitely english, hell many even questioned why they were going to war in France, further showing the disconnect to their culture. Like I said most kings of England also spoke English, Richard actually lost control of England while on crusade because John accused his councillors of being “foreign” as they couldn’t speak a word of English (amongst other things too tbf). The language part is debatable as the percentages change but it’s core was still old English. The current aristocrats can trace their heritage to Alfred the great too, that statement means nothing. Ironically you fail to see that France wasn’t United culturally at this point, especially compared to England, most of France didn’t even speak french and would have been unable to communicate.
@@Yellow-kp9gs Again, you're trying to contradict facts because you don't want to believe in them, maybe you feel better thinking that England was always the colonizer... nope! It was a colony for a long time and that defines England today, the French had huge swathes of land in the whole country, and it was a primogenital inheritance, even in the English Revolution you see many French surnames involved. "Also spoken English", yeah, *also* spoken it, their dinasty was French, their culture was French, your culture is not Germanic, it is more French. The moment you start talking about law, science, military, goverment... your language turns more French. It was a French dinasty, English culture is too French to these days, some French phrases are still used in law in your country, the dinasty was first Norman and afterwards from central regions of France, "de Joinville", "D'Evreux" became surnames also in England and it even fought side by side in the Crusades with their fellow Frenchmen, it was a French dinasty, just look at its origins. They had no reason to bent to barbaric Anglo-Saxon culture when they were part of a wider French horizon, their wars were directed to that direction, and they wouldn't forget their aristocratic origins and let them be mistaken by their Anglo-Saxon peasants.
@@EVEUX No it’s just more complicated than your making it seem lol, you have a very basic view of how identity was forming in this period. The geographic element (ie being an island), the fact that french culture and identity would be “broken” until after the revolution in 19th century,that the Normans arguably didn’t see themselves as french (or at least didn’t just see the french side of their identity) and the intermarriage and encouraged co-operation between Saxon and Norman during Henry I reign led to one of the most unique and complex identities/political situations in history. It’s just silly and inaccurate to go “ThEY WerE FrEnch”. Many surnames were also English and were also anglicised overtime tbf. The Germanic elements of English culture were also highly important, it affected the economic and political systems of the country, ie magna carta and ancient rights lol. The Angevin side of the crusade had people from all over the english territory friend- even welsh and Scots and Bretons- who didn’t see themselves as french as well. Even Gerard of wales, who hated the English, recorded that 4,000 welsh man tried to join the crusade for example- not just french.
I just wanted to say that I like this video and the work you made to compile an interesting video summarizing the entirety of the 100 years war and almost all of its battles. my other comments objectives were to correct a few inacurate points about the 1400-1435 period, which I know a bit about.
English is my second language. The first time I encountered this history was in a book, and it was very painful to learn. Eight years later, when I encountered it for the second time, I never imagined that there would be such a detailed film available for me to learn from, whether it's the language or the history. Thank U.
Even if it's not perfect, i think it's the most unbiased video about the 100 years war by an anglo-saxon channel history. 99% of this anglo-saxon channel will never talk about the 1356-1415 era because it doesn't fit with the narrative "french were dumb and losers and english wins everything until Jeanne of Arc" so KG was more honest than most. My only fair complain is that KG don't talk enough about the civil war between armagnacs and burgundians, Charles 6 madness and how it leads to the war of the roses and they should talk more about the battle of Montiel in 1369 that end the castillan civil war instead of the battle of Najera who don't have real impact and was lost because Henri of Trastamare (and it will showed du guesclin dark side when he helped Trastamare to "murdered" Pierre the cruel)
@@robert-surcouf Brother the majority of RUclips channels that cover the Hundred Years’ War eventually get to the french victories lmao. It’s just the English victories are more well known cause Anglo/America culture dominates.
Basically the moral of the story is Edward 3 was a coward who was afraid of the French and cowardly waged war against the innocent and land to insure his victories . A king with NO Honor...
um, 30 minutes into this, cowardly seems odd... yes burning villages was insane... but these french attacked britanny... neither of them at that point were thinking rationally... those who tried to talk sense into them were both rebuked... it became personal, and other people were fighting a war of pride with no winners at all...
Average 100 year war battle -English troops take position on high ground -french knights charge into heavily fortified positions -english longbowmen kill 10 trillion knights -english cavalry mopp up fleeing troops -french general taken prisoner -english are unable to make full use of victory due to money and supply issues -french are able to make a new army -repeat
If you're right : -why there is only 3-4 battles with the high ground instead of 10-20 ? -why the french knights had many victories in the 100 years war if they charge like idiots ? -Most knights were not killed by arrow because of their armor plate but were killed because they fall from their horses and can't stand up with their armor weight. -If the french general were taken prisoner, how could they still fighting in the nex battle ? -Each time they had the upper hand (in 1356 and 1428), they don't lack money or supply issues but only screwed and it's way later that they dealt with these problems -If the french were able to make a new army, why half of them always side the Plantagenet/Lancaster whose could also raise a new army every time they suffered a big defeat
Bravo! Well done! I'm hearing the same music that plays during Europa Univeralis IV, a strategy game set during the periods of 1444 to 1821. I wonder whether the music is publicly available?
Great video as always! Just one tiiiny lil thing for the Breton civil war. The city Edwar III besieged in 1342, Vannes, is pronounced... well... "van". Like the vehicle! 😃 Other than this tiny lil nitpick, it's perfect! Thanks a lot for covering this important part of european history
England wasn't even ruled by the English. It was France x France, and that's why the war happened. England? Its kings still spoke French until 1400, but afterwards it still had the same French culture, same French dinasty.
@@EVEUXAt this point most of the nobility spoke English (tbf not always as first language especially the higher nobility) celebrated English saints like Edmund, and called themselves English.
@@Yellow-kp9gs I will repeat it here like you did it: Yet he and his own Aristocracy had French blood and culture. They weren't even Normans, they were from a dinasty from other region of France, the French kept settling in the country. Like i said, the king of England spoke French until 1400, and French was still used in courts after that. The English language's vocabulary is 58% Latin because of that, it was already a French culture. The current aristocracy of England still has a bit of French DNA. The English like to see things in nationalistic ways, always diminishing others and raising themselves, it was a separate colony of the French ruled by a French aristocracy until 1400, period.
@@Yellow-kp9gs "English" LOL. They were speaking French at the times, and even the English you claim sounded more like Latin than a Germanic language, most of its vocabulary was French, that French colonialism was already embedded in the English culture and language. Do you think "language" is a Germanic word? LOL. What a about "pork vs pig"? If you count only sophisticated speech, it is even more overwhelmingly French.
@@EVEUX Once again genetically they had multiple inheritances, hence why they celebrated their anglo Saxon, Norman, French and Breton heritage in various histories they commissioned- hell they even linked the “kings touch” to their Anglo Saxon heritage from Matilda. At this point the king wasn’t a Norman- more Anglo french his nobility we’re definitely english, hell many even questioned why they were going to war in France, further showing the disconnect to their culture. Like I said most kings of England also spoke English, Richard actually lost control of England while on crusade because John accused his councillors of being “foreign” as they couldn’t speak a word of English (amongst other things too tbf). The language part is debatable as the percentages change but it’s core was still old English. The current aristocrats can trace their heritage to Alfred the great too, that statement means nothing. Ironically you fail to see that France wasn’t United culturally at this point, especially compared to England, most of France didn’t even speak french and would have been unable to communicate.
🎥 Join our RUclips members and patrons to unlock 180+ exclusive videos: ruclips.net/channel/UCMmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fwjoin or: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals
Gaijin sellout
What total war game and mod is the footage from? Is it Attila total war and the 1212 AD mod? It would be handy if you mentioned the source of footage in future videos, I want to play that mod lol
You skip one big event between Poitiers and Bretigny with Edward 3 chevauchee in 1359-1360.
Edward 3 tried to force the two treaty of London in 1358 and 1359 which will give him a massive ransom and all the land of the old Plantagenet empire but the future Charles 5 and the general estates refused them so Edward start another chevauchee hoping another big battle.
The Valois refused this battle and close all the cities on their way starting an attrition war.
Because of the Winchelsea raid, Edward tried to besieged Paris but failed and started to made war crime because the lack of supplies and success in the countryside.
Finally, Edward stated the siege of Chartres but the Plantagenet suffer a tempest and lose 1000 men and will be seen as a divine punishment for their behaviour called the black monday.
Edward will be forced to withdraw his chevauchee and finally sign the treaty of Bretigny wich will be far less advantageous than the treaty of London because he had to give up his claim to the french throne, give up the Normandy, Anjou and Maine and only take the Aquitaine and the ransom for Jean 2 will be 3 millions gold instead of 4.
I think that "news" was debunked long time ago :) @@kurtru5selcrowe607
😊@@jihadijackass
You guys are a blessing. I can't believe we're living in a time where videos of such lenght and quality are available to watch free of charge.
add free web , add grass root perception , add expert research.. ess liberty of thought and lessons of the past be them painful or glorious
PRETENSE falling out of youre ass.
@@Amoth_oth_ras_shash
Great stuff, isn't it?
not free, we paid for this in multiple ways, youtube just hasnt paid out our royalties yet
I love RUclips.
Hello! I’m Johan and I am the writer who have stitched together the episodes of the Hundred Years War series. Apart from fixing some stuff (most importantly YELLOW England), adding some more infoboxes for context or minor events, we have also added new battles and campaigns:
-More detail in the start of the war in Flanders
-Battle of Sluys 1340
-Battle of Saint Omer 1340
-Post Crecy - w/ Seige of Calais (1348-49)
-Bretton Civil War (1343-1365) w/ Battle of Mauron and Battle of Auray (1365)
-Castillian Civil War with breef introduction of the War of the Two Peters w/ Battle of Najera
-Battle of Cocherel 1364
-Carolinian phase, with Siege of Limoges (1370) and Battle of Pontvallain
-Flemish rebellion of 1379-85 and Battle of Roosebeke
-Siege of Harfleur 1415
-Battle of Verneuil 1424
-Battle of Patay 1429
-Campaigns in 1431-43, tying together the two parts
-The aftermath and effects of the war
Hope you enjoy our complete documentary on the Hundred Years War!
Haha I was in the patreon and I mentioned yellow England
Thank You sir for your hardwork!
Thanks for your work, we have almsot the same name my name is Johann
Many thanks for your tireless efforts!
I love that yt videos come with patch notes these days
I'm a busy Dad and have only been watching this about 15 min at a time inconsecutively (only when there is peace and quiet because i genuinely dont want to miss any detail) and just wanted say...
Thank you. This is a work of art and a magnificent transcription of the past. The Hundred Years War(s) is an obsession I didn't know I had until now. You all did an excellent job.
In your statistics, if you see many people watching a bit and stopping, just know that many of us can't commit 3.5 hours to anything other than our families and (our) work. We appreciate your content all the same; perhaps more so
Thank you.
Thank you for watching! As a dad myself, I also was working in small bursts, so I understand. :-) Hope you will enjoy our future videos, too!
Im not sure you guys know how much of a blessing your channel is to the youtube, history enthusiast and in general every history lover.
Rainy night, bed and 3 and a half hour long Hundred Years War documentary POGGERS
These 1 hour + docs are so entertaining it's crazy
++
W comment
They truly do spoil us.
pog
I really can't fathom what it's like to be at war for 116 years years. Even the fact that they only called it the hundred years' war because no one was alive anymore who remembered a time before it started is just difficult to wrap your brain around.
It also part of the reason the English call the French ‘The Old Enemy’. We have fought for so long and so often that it became a way of life. Glad we are more or less friends politically speaking these days. But the old rivalry is still seen alive mostly in sporting contests. Both parties enjoy getting a victory over the other.
the states have been at war for most of its existence lol
Something that also adds to this, is the fact that in this war, while spanning an enormous amount of time and land, there were lengthy peaceful intervals inbetween periods of very intense warfare, and certain areas could go years without any sign of a war going on, and then be raided and sieged out of the blue. It was a far less 'cut and dry' affair than we often think of as typical of armed conflicts.
Took a while but hey, the French ... won. Got to count for something, I guess.
At war for 116 years? Ha, more like 800 with some calm periods untill the triple entente!
I love this channel. It's literally the best history channel on yt and elsewhere. Literally every relationship and battle is broken down in such an exciting way
The French victory in the 100 Years' War can be explained by two quote from Napoleon.
"You must not fight too often with one enemy or you will teach him all your art of war."
"God favours the side with the best artillery"
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Yeah or can be explained by "canons hurt bad"
I would rather say that England started the war with bows and the French ended it with cannons.
-Moi-😜
Napoleon: *proceeds to fight the same enemy time and time again allowing them to adopt his corp system and ultimately beat him*
@@811chelseafc napoleon had to fight all of Europe who coalised against him. Difficult to find new enemies when they're all already against you
The early death of Henry V is what you meant to say.
If he had of lived into his 50's hiatory would probably be very different today.
It’s amazing how the French showed such restraint as to not name a single king Louis during the entire war.
😂
Because the louis are bourbon
@@linkmastaer the Bourbon dynasty did not last that long as to name 18 kings Louis
As a CK fan, I love this comment 😂
Whoever was in charge of putting in the music has an excellent taste in video games! :D
EU IV, Civ 5 and I think... Civ 6 as well? Really great!
* *searches for documentary on the 100 years war* *
* *finds quick summary videos* *
* *scrolls* *
* *FULL STORY, EVERY BATTLE, 3 HOURS+* *
*“Ohhh yeahhhh!”*
You can talk about a topic that no one has ever dealt with before, which is the Yemeni kingdoms and the history of their wars and invasions, which is Sheba, Hadhramaut, Maeen Qataban, and Osan. I hope you look at this history well. Thank you. I was truly pleased to watch the leaders and kings on your channel.
Yeah boiiiiii! Give me another 3+ hour video!!! Keep up the phenomenal work, K&G.
Merci ! As a Burgundian, thanks for this interesting video. It's awesome to be enthusiast for both french and english troops. I didn't know about the Burgundian looters in Azincourt. Keep up the good work, great fan of the chain.
I’ve always desired to visit beautiful Burgundy. Mary of Burgundy has always fascinated me, her love with Archduke Maximilian remains to me one of the most beautiful glimpses of the Middle Ages, certainly as the last perfumed breath of Mediaeval chivalry…
She was from a different burgundy. She was living in Belgium. The commenting guy is from southern France @@hugejackedman7423
Funny how Fance and England ended up in opposite positions at the end of the Hundred Year's war. In the 1330s, France was plagued by civil war, a weak monarchy, very strong and powerful nobles, and generally weak and divided. This gave a more centralized, stronger, and powerful English monarchy an opportunity to gather their forces and invade, cultimating in Agincourt in 1415. By the end of the war, it was England that had the weak monarch, had a civil war brewing, a series of battle hardened nobles who won glory in France with enough titles and land to challenge the king, plus they were broke from the oh I don't know, half a dozen invasions of France they had done. But France became a more centralized monarchy, with a standing army, the nobility was subbordinate to the crown, and the experiences of over a century of war made them extremely determined. The main difference is the French never made claims to the English crown, and they never tried to invade England during the War of the Roses. They were too exhausted in both willpower and resources to mount such a campaign. That being said, other than the 1640s, the 1450s was probably the best opportunity in France's history to invade and take over England. They had no real navy, a divided nation, and were weak and humiliated by war. I'm very happy that England (UK now) and France are buddies and they put aside all those centuries of war.
It really relied on a few decisive humiliating battles like the siege of Orleans, Castillion, Formigny, Patay with no battle won in the english side for more than 3 decades except maybe for Bordeaux when the people opened the gate for John Talbot because they wanted a special treatment in France witch the King refused.
There's a fair amount wrong with this such as the new class of men who took over the minor royal houses such as York and Lancaster were from trading Magnets and Oxford dons to put it in a really simplistic rubbish modern way. This ofc has something to do with the flower of england being spent in france and the meritocracy from what was then parliament which was expanded and used to transform england into a war economy such as with williams blackbook. Its something that doesnt get told much, how England's foreign policy remained in the hands of local elites who put in place what would be the agricultural revolution along with intellectual capacity for moderating power through again, sorry the the modern simplicity, commercial links with the rest of the british isles,scandinavia, Germany, ottomans (far east) and to russia as was seen in elizabeths reign. And no relations aren't good at all. Whitehall ignores france whilst quai d'orsay plays with toy soldiers. Five eyes, aukus, transpacific partnerships, nuclear subs and ofc brexit. And ofc the English were very much on the back foot against the french.
@@weeewoooooooo Lancaster ?? You mean "Maison de Lancastre" younger branch of the Plantagenêt dynasty, it's not game of throne lmao
@@ommsterlitz1805 smokes pipe. Mmmyeess Hon Hon Hon Hon. We were getting very close to being silly there. And no not french. By this time and well before it's english, the minor royalty had to marry other persons not within the family. U know for, land and connections. Bureaucracy stuff, parliament and the rest. Anyways those cadet houses were staffed ran and backed by the new class of men in government or more precisely in the kings estate. Guys like the de la poles were merchant class up starts who lent money to the crown for titles and jobs in gov aswell eventually marriages into the costly royal cadet estates such as Lancaster. These gov or retinue posts meant free shit especially against the problems of population growth and the advancement of common-law along Locke lines.
@@weeewoooooooo The Lancastre just like all of the english nobility all of Français origin were sent to school in France to study until they were adults, this is how links between the 2 kingdoms remained strong and how Français is the largest part of English language as even to this the motto of the UK is "HONI SOI QUI MAL Y PENSE"
I wish Louis XI got a full video on his genius statecraft after the Hundred Years’ War. He is criminally underrated.
Absolutely, Machiavelli admired him greatly
@@thomascatty379 Louis XI's nickname in French was "l'universelle aragne"
the universal spider, like the spider he weaved the threads of his power with patience and constancy.
Well said. Robert Greene wrote about him prominently. The man was a top tier strategist. The Spider King 🕷️
@@olivierpuyou3621 exactly, one of the very best monarch of France
@@TheStrategos392 Paul Murray Kendal’s famous biography is brilliant as well. It presents him, rightly, as an intensely multifaceted and intellectual personality-similar to Frederick II Hohenstaufen-who seemed to have a universal capacity for understanding things and foresight.
I heard that Edward the 1st's law of every village being required to train longbowmen for the English army is still technically in effect, if not in practice.
I wonder what would constitute a village these days
@@asiberiantiger188 all those American small towns. They aren’t really towns. They are villages due to size and population count.
@@asiberiantiger188I think village still has a technical definition in the UK
@@connerSphotography yes but town sounds cooler
One of my favourite games is Bladestorm: Hundred Years War which is a japanese action-strategy game which basically plays the "Greatest Hits" of the Hundred Years War and no matter if you choose England or France you have to save Jeanne D'Arc from her IRL fate.
I loved that one!
Isn't it incredible how we have access to such extensive and high-quality content for free nowadays? What motivated you to choose a lengthy documentary on a rainy night, and what intrigued you the most about the Hundred Years War documentary?
Putting another hundred hours on BLADESTORM: Nightmare.
I love the long form content guys. Keep it up!
I like listening to podcasts and documentaries while I paint and this format is perfect! And as always, the dedication and attention to detail is appreciated!
Excellent ! I realise how difficult our language is, for towns characters names . You covered this war as well as the sources allows and you do it with the neutrality of historian, and you saved the epic side . One more time excellent, captivating.
This channel continues to amaze me with comprehensive, documentary level content on a regular basis. I am truly impressed.
Love those epics. I usually watch them separately, but there is something in many-hours dedicated videos.
Legendary for using Eu4 Campaign music. This was the music that accompanied me through my first English play through ten years ago and never would I have imagined that it would also accompany a K&G video on the Hundred Years’ War
Oh my - 3 hours long docu. I am all for it.
The history of the 100 year war is so fascinating. I discovered it with the video game Crown Wars, and I'm just watching every history video about this period now
The demo was bonkers.
You could say, this is the Original Blue Team 🇨🇵🟦⚜️ vs Red Team 🏴🟥👑
42:27 Would love to have a separate video on the Combat of the Thirty as I find the circumstances surrounding that battle fascinating!
Check out the history squad channel on it. Pretty cool.
Saw this on my feed this morning and insta-clicked. You are an absolute legend for these long format videos.
Absolutely perfect to binge and enjoy.
Edward III and Philip IV had no idea what they were starting 😂
A 3 hour long kings and generals video
I don't know for Edward but it was unlikely for Philippe to think ahead about the tour de nesle affair, the Jacques de Molay curse and his 3 sons all dying in their 20s-30s without sons (Jean 1 was Louis 10 son but he only lived and ruled 5 days and that made him the best Jean/John to ever ruled in England or France)
Never ceases to astonish me how cruel humans can be to eachother.
It’s been like that since the first humans it will never stop
The 30 years war was much more brutal.
This is one of the best videos I have seen in my life.
You guys are awesome, I really love these longer videos, perfect to play in the background while I play certain games. I know they probably take a lot of effort so, just wanted to say thank you and keep up the great work
This animation of the Hundred Years' War is fantastic! The storytelling and visuals make history so engaging. Great job bringing these battles to life!
France was the first State that recognized science and technology as another key factor for his sovereignty, besides the professionalization of the army. Developing better metal alloys and improvement on the production techniques and high quality gunpowder as well, research and development never was neglected again by powerfull nations
Best thing France ever done was help create America
@@Jjhawkkworst thing
You forgot about the Byzantine empire and their greek fire.
I learned that I'm still a child at heart when the narrator said "war of the two Peter's" and choked on my coffee
Great video, amazing to see the level of violence, barbarity and low value of human life from the time. Also, always fun to hear the myths surrounding Jeanne d'Arc.
what a fucking saga. thank you so much for this 3 hours of unbelievable content. nothing like over complicated family drama to establish a feud between two nations that would last centuries.
what a crazy experience that would be. Fight all day then just causally walk by your enemy because you both say "Nah we good for now, time for bed" 19:15
The 100 years war is a tale of the English winning battles but losing the war. Just like Hannibal in Italy. It is not about tactics and battles, but about the party that has more men, financial resources, and resolve to continue the fight.
Hannibal was the outsider.
The Plantagenet/Lancaster had the upper hand twice and blow it up.
If we talk about battles, each side had won around half of battles and the Plantagenet/Lancaster had lost many battles when they outnumbered the Valois
They also had resolve to continue the fight with Henry 5 restart the war in 1415 despite a truce since 1389.
Both side suffer with loss of financial resources with the chevauchees being a disaster for the Valois then for the Plantagenet/Lancaster.
The French won a bunch of battles too. They had to in order to win. I think the English doing better at the start had a lot to do with being allied with the Burgundians. The French doing better towards the end and ultimately winning had a lot to do with the Burgundians switching sides. Burgundy was a large kingdom in those days, reaching up all the way from Burgundy in current day France to a large slice of Germany and all the way into current Belgium and the Netherlands. It wasn't the myth, propagated by the typically skewed historical education found in the anglo-sphere, of the plucky English besting the French at Agincourt, Crecy and Poiters. I find it sadly amusing how few people in the anglo-sphere have even heard of Patay, for example, where the longbowmen were finally destroyed by the French.
@@user-aero68 The dukes of Burgundy were the most powerful men in France after the king in the early 15th century.
They owned both Burgundy (the duchy in France and the county in HRE), Flanders and Artois.
Burgundy was not allied with England until 1419 but the civil war started in 1407 with the king being mad since 1392 prevent any unified reaction against Henry 5 invasion and Azincourt disaster was mostly because the nobles were at each other throats for the last 8 years.
For the lack of knowledge about anything other Azincourt, Crecy or Poitiers, it seems Shakespeare made a great propaganda full of lies.
@@robert-surcouf yes Dukes not kings, thanks for correcting
@@user-aero68Even considering the Burgundian alliance England still won victories whilst being significantly outnumbered. Also France was fighting in home territory.
I always thought the 100 years war was like 3 short wars with long periods of Cold War in between. But by god, it was an insanely destructive 100 year struggle with only short truces
I would watch Kings and Generals over Netflix any day, any time and any where. I love you guys.
What a rollercoaster of a show! Good thing something like this wouldn’t happen in real life
How lucky are we to be able to have this level of information and entertainment all for free, thank you guys very much!
Love when Scarborough Faire plays as background music, perfect vibes
DAMN!! This was a tour de force! It's no wonder this war changed West forever. Amazing effort, guys!
Thank you for this epic tale of history! Over 3.5 hours of learning while I'm relaxing. Awesome job, keep up the great work!!!
This video definitely sold me on becoming a proud member of this fine channel, way to go!!!
So many full videos this week!!!! Thank you for consolidating them. 🥰🥰🥰
This is absolutely amazing, thank you. I love history and I'm currently writing a light novel series so I've been browsing history channels to learn about battles and war. This channel was the most helpful.
Awesome work K&G!!! 👏👏👏
The best history and strategy channel ever. Great explanations of the battles, great explanations of the historical context, you are without equal. I really enjoy watching your videos, it's like playing total war. I don't know your future plans but it would be interesting to see a documentary on the Spanish conquests in America in the 1500s. Keep it up you're great
2:00:25 Louis de Guyenne never sent a box of balls to Henri V. It was an invention of the Shakespear's play.
Charles VII: It's so over
Joan the Maiden: We're so back
I fall asleep to these and then Wake up and hear this dude still rattling away at the details always has me confused in the middle of the night 😂
I have always wanted a documentary about the Hundred Years’ War and I have been waiting for a while now on this video to be made and it was AMAZING. Thank you so much Kings and Generals
We're so spoiled lately.
Love these long ones, thank you so much for the work you guys do. :)
Another amazing series! Thanks KnG!
Definitely among the top 5 videos I’ve seen on the internet. Amazing work
Edward III was the greatest British Warrior King. Such a shame what happened to the Black Prince. Imagine if he reigned as Edward IV instead of his son Richard II. How different history would’ve been. We would never have seen Henry V win his famed victory at Agincourt.
He start a war for a throne he never had a real legitimate claim and had lost almost all contiental land he had so Edward 1 seems way better.
The black prince was already 46 when he died so even if he had ruled, it will be for only 10-15 years and the Plantagenet were already in the losing end after Bretigny but Richard 2 will be raised better to become king and the Plantagenet could keep their few land in the continent without Henry restrart the war.
@@robert-surcouf He had a better claim to the throne of France than Charles of Valois. His mother Isabella was the daughter of Philip IV. Whereas Charles was the grandson of Louis IX. The Salic law was just an excuse to bar an English king from his birthright.
The last 8 years of the Black Prince’s life would’ve been completely different if he wasn’t ill. Edward III was taken advantage of in his later years by his mistress, Alice Perrers. But I do agree with you that Richard would’ve turned out a different person if his father didn’t die when he was so young. But Richard didn’t have what it took to be a successful king in my view.
The Plantagenet dynasty would’ve been fine if Richard didn’t alienate half of the mobility and have the Lords Appellants killed years later out of spite. He didn’t learn the dangers of having favorites from Edward II reign.
The dynasty would’ve collapsed if Henry IV wasn’t such a strong figure,. Although he was a tad too merciful at times. He faced constant civil unrest and turmoil. From the Welsh, the Scottish, the Percys etc. Henry V wouldn’t have had the success in France he had if it wasn’t for the stability his father’s tumultuous reign eventually brought. Because he would’ve been stuck at home dealing with the issues his father dealt with. It would be a different story.
@@giants2k8 The salic law was already used in 1316 when Philippe 5 take the crown instead of Louis 10 daughter and since then, it will be impossible for women to inherit the crown.
Even if you don't count the agnatic succession, then the new king after Charles 4 death in 1328 will be any of Charles 4, Philippe 5 or Louis 10 grandson before Edward who's only Philippe 4 grandson.
It means in 1328, the real king will be Philippe of Burgundy (Philippe 5 grandson) and when the war strated in 1337, there was also 2 Louis 10 grandson (Charles of Navarre and his younger brother) so once again, with or without the salic law (agnatic or cognatic succession), Edward 3 never had a legitimate claim (either it will be in 1328 or 1337).
Illness indeed weakened Edward Woodstock but Charles 5 was also ill all his life and proved to be a great ruler despite that unlike Edward so his illness will stopped him to fight but not to rule.
Edward 3 was taken advantage of in his later years but i coul say the same about Philippe 6 and Edward 3 start to lose the war in 1359-1360 when his chevauches miserably failed and forced him to made the treaty of Bretigny instead of the treaty of London in 1358.
Richard 2 was made king at 10 and had no one to guide him but he was indeed a bad king (like Henry 3 with worse luck) who could be decent if he doesn't had bad odds since the start.
If we talk again about the salic being invalid, then Henry 4 was a usurper and he indirectly made his grandfather claim nullified but he was good enough to deal with the rebellion he created.
Henry 5 first and foremost succeed between 1415 and 1422 because France had a civil war since 1407 and a mad king (just like the war of the roses) but it indeed helped him that Henry 4 was a strong figure.
However, it's because he restart the war in 1415 that his dynasty will collapse in 1471 and his greed will doomed his son and grandson.
Excellent video! It was basically a conflict between two French noble houses, the Valois-Capet from Picardy in northern France and the Plantagenet from Anjou in western France. The houses of Lancaster and York are cadet branches of the Plantagenet.
The plantagenet had already lost Anjou since the early 13th century but they kept their french roots and culture, even if it was diluted more and more at each generations until the lancaster that were the first complete english dynasty since the house of wessex.
Thank you for your work guys!! Really nice documentary!! So basically Guesclin was a monster, loosing or winning the guy had guts 🤣 also Black Prince died so early but managed to create legendary stories.... what a time seriously compare to modern times. Big up to all the plebes and common people who suffered during those times, they we're just trying to live simply but some nobles shenanigan as per usual makes raping, killing and pillaging the norms 😩
A FREE three and a half hours long quality documentary. What a time to be alive on Earth 🎉
Seriously the best channel putting out content like this such a gem
This shit is wild. I knew of this channel, but I didn't think you guy did history vids like this. This stuff is amazing.
Imagine all those peasant serfs they just threw into a meat grinder for 100 years! The nobles put so little value on life.
Context: My father hails from Calais, where my grandparents and most of his side of the family still lives. He moved to the U.S. to attend Purdue where he decided he would settle in the U.S. for good. When I heard 2:08:38, I paused the video, rubbed my hands against my forehead and groaned "Oh nooo"
This is awesome. Can you do a full thirty year's war.
At some point
@KingsandGenerals Can you also make videos on the Haitian revolution.
@@jessie4696Not that impressive or complex at least in my opinion.
these long-form videos are a treat, really amazing, thank you so much. Better than most movies :)
lmao at the chivalry boxart on the thumbnail
Thx for your content! Absolutely blessed to found this channel.
Especially 6:30 mins in as the EU IV music kicks in im like "oh yeah your gonna binge watch their vids"
Can we really call the 100 Years' War a war between France and England?
Given that the sovereign protagonists were all French or of French origin, that a good part of current France was under the domination of the Anglo-Norman kings and that Guyenne, Gascony, Béarn and Normandy provided a large part of the contingent men-at-arms on the English side?
In my humble opinion it was more of a dynastic quarrel or even a civil war.
Yes, we can call it a war between france and england, because it was. Edward III considered himself English, the first monarch which we know for absolute certain considered himself as such. I've read contemporary sources too -- french and english, with refer to the english as indeed being english, with english nobility referring to themselves as english. Within 5 minutes of the video starting, K&G mentions that Froissart -- one of our key historians for the time period, and a frenchman no less -- called the Gascons english.
@@sirgoo9962 I believe that we need to move away from this “nation state” vision that we know and put into our heads a feudal worldview where belonging to a nation is still a vague concept for most.
A "nation" no longer represented by a county or a duchy.
A vision that is still very present in France today, how many people will tell you that they are Burgundian, Norman, Breton, Bearnais before telling you that they are French?
@@olivierpuyou3621 Your right in saying that we need to apply how the people from this period would have viewed themselves- but that applies for the french too- many at this time, particularly non nobles would have been unable to speak french and would not have necessarily have seen themselves as such .
Most nobles in England and most kings (apart form a few outliers) spoke English, knew English history/tales had intermarried with English people and celebrated English saints. But your right defining them as truly “English” is difficult especially given their Norman legacy and usage of french/Latin at court.
@@Yellow-kp9gs What is true in France in speaking regional languages is also true in England in the 14/15th century. Welsh, Manx and surely other languages were spoken on the big island.
Now let's stop telling ourselves fables, the language spoken by the nobles and the court was French ALL the English "barons" had land in France the feudal system being pyramidal each noble whether English or French had possessions of one side or the other of the Channel.
And at that time the cultural beacon of the West was (and still largely is) France.
Even the motto of England's most prestigious honorary order (the Order of the Garter) is in French:
"Honi soit qui mal y pense".
And the motto of the kings of England is also French.
"Dieu et mon droit".
@@olivierpuyou3621 As we’re mainly talking about the kingdom of England the language comment isn’t actually a fair comparison- especially compared to the linguistic variety in France vs England even into the 19th century- also it’s important to note that at the start of the Hundred Years’ War Wales had only just been incorporated into the realm (even then not legally) and the Isle of Man flipped between Scottish and English control. So yeah a bit of a weak argument.
Language- most nobles were bilingual and English was expected to be known on some level by the 12th century- John actually had one of Lionhearts best councillors thrown out of power for being a “foreigner” and one of the ways he proved this was his inability to speak English.
Barons- depends, lower nobility didn’t have much/no land in France, higher nobility would often pick the territory they felt more based in, usually England after the fall of Normandy during johns reign (there were some exceptions such as William Marshal but this was rare)
Court- would have had (depends on the period obviously), Anglo-Saxon, Normans, Bretons, Italians, Frisians etc. That doesn’t prove much- identity until the development of nationality was largely based off loyalty to a liege lord (ie supporting Edward III meant you were “English”).
Cultural beacon- Kind of- definitely the most powerful for most of European medieval history but after the rise of the Spanish, not as much. And then by 1700 English culture was starting to dominate conversations about politics and science.
Also now??? No English/Anglo culture dominates the whole world after 1800 and the fall of Napoleon don’t live in fantasy (there’s a reason you speak English).
Yes and Edward III also spoke English fluently, hated the “French”, embraced English saints and celebrated Arthur, a Celtic. This is important as despite making up the majority of the french population Gauls we’re largely ignored or looked down upon in the historiography until the revolution- nobility saw themselves as Franks.
Kings motto- look above
Peace.
Can you make a broadcast on what happens on the battlefields after battles were over? what happened to the slain people? How were they buried? What happened to their gear? What happened to injured by no quite dead yet soldiers? etc. cc. I realize there might be a wide range of possibilities and concrete procedures. but are there any general conclusions that can be drawn?
You cannot go wrong being subbed to this channel! Thank you for the great content and late night videos ❤️‼️
just the amount of detail and information in these videos is mind blowing, truly amazing work.
This was a war between the French using their French pawns (France) vs the French using their English pawns (England). If you know what i mean.
At this point English culture was firmly established, hell edward III was most likely not even trying to become king of France he was just using it as a way of threatening the french.
@@Yellow-kp9gs Yet he and his own aristocracy had French blood and culture. They weren't even Normans, they were from a dinasty from other region of France, the French kept settling in the country. Like i said, the king of England spoke French until 1400, and French was still used in courts after that. The English language's vocabulary is 58% Latin because of that, it was already a French culture. The current aristocracy of England still has a bit of French DNA. The English like to see things in nationalistic ways, always diminishing others and raising themselves, it was a separate colony of the French ruled by a French aristocracy until 1400, period.
@@EVEUX Once again genetically they had multiple inheritances, hence why they celebrated their anglo Saxon, Norman, French and Breton heritage in various histories they commissioned- hell they even linked the “kings touch” to their Anglo Saxon heritage from Matilda.
At this point the king wasn’t a Norman- more Anglo french his nobility we’re definitely english, hell many even questioned why they were going to war in France, further showing the disconnect to their culture.
Like I said most kings of England also spoke English, Richard actually lost control of England while on crusade because John accused his councillors of being “foreign” as they couldn’t speak a word of English (amongst other things too tbf).
The language part is debatable as the percentages change but it’s core was still old English.
The current aristocrats can trace their heritage to Alfred the great too, that statement means nothing.
Ironically you fail to see that France wasn’t United culturally at this point, especially compared to England, most of France didn’t even speak french and would have been unable to communicate.
@@Yellow-kp9gs Again, you're trying to contradict facts because you don't want to believe in them, maybe you feel better thinking that England was always the colonizer... nope! It was a colony for a long time and that defines England today, the French had huge swathes of land in the whole country, and it was a primogenital inheritance, even in the English Revolution you see many French surnames involved. "Also spoken English", yeah, *also* spoken it, their dinasty was French, their culture was French, your culture is not Germanic, it is more French. The moment you start talking about law, science, military, goverment... your language turns more French.
It was a French dinasty, English culture is too French to these days, some French phrases are still used in law in your country, the dinasty was first Norman and afterwards from central regions of France, "de Joinville", "D'Evreux" became surnames also in England and it even fought side by side in the Crusades with their fellow Frenchmen, it was a French dinasty, just look at its origins. They had no reason to bent to barbaric Anglo-Saxon culture when they were part of a wider French horizon, their wars were directed to that direction, and they wouldn't forget their aristocratic origins and let them be mistaken by their Anglo-Saxon peasants.
@@EVEUX No it’s just more complicated than your making it seem lol, you have a very basic view of how identity was forming in this period.
The geographic element (ie being an island), the fact that french culture and identity would be “broken” until after the revolution in 19th century,that the Normans arguably didn’t see themselves as french (or at least didn’t just see the french side of their identity) and the intermarriage and encouraged co-operation between Saxon and Norman during Henry I reign led to one of the most unique and complex identities/political situations in history. It’s just silly and inaccurate to go “ThEY WerE FrEnch”.
Many surnames were also English and were also anglicised overtime tbf. The Germanic elements of English culture were also highly important, it affected the economic and political systems of the country, ie magna carta and ancient rights lol.
The Angevin side of the crusade had people from all over the english territory friend- even welsh and Scots and Bretons- who didn’t see themselves as french as well. Even Gerard of wales, who hated the English, recorded that 4,000 welsh man tried to join the crusade for example- not just french.
Anybody else watching this absolutely cooked🤣🤣🫡
What did we do to deserve this? ❤
I just wanted to say that I like this video and the work you made to compile an interesting video summarizing the entirety of the 100 years war and almost all of its battles. my other comments objectives were to correct a few inacurate points about the 1400-1435 period, which I know a bit about.
Thanks
So basically, the Battle of Sluys was basically Agincourt but at sea. Huh. Those Longbows, gotta respect.
English is my second language. The first time I encountered this history was in a book, and it was very painful to learn. Eight years later, when I encountered it for the second time, I never imagined that there would be such a detailed film available for me to learn from, whether it's the language or the history. Thank U.
well there goes three hours of my life
I've always loved these format of videos since the game of thrones battles, with the same brilliant narrator. Absolutely love this even more!
Very pro-english though. And Im neither English nor French but I could even tell a bit of the bias of the narrator in some parts.
Ok
@@ΑΘΑΝΑΣΙΟΣΣΙΔΕΡΗΣ-δ8ι He should mind me though. Its contrustive critizism. After all this is made by an English, total impartiality is hard.
This is not constructive. Constructive criticism lists concrete examples, so the one criticized can improve. And, no, we are not English.
Even if it's not perfect, i think it's the most unbiased video about the 100 years war by an anglo-saxon channel history.
99% of this anglo-saxon channel will never talk about the 1356-1415 era because it doesn't fit with the narrative "french were dumb and losers and english wins everything until Jeanne of Arc" so KG was more honest than most.
My only fair complain is that KG don't talk enough about the civil war between armagnacs and burgundians, Charles 6 madness and how it leads to the war of the roses and they should talk more about the battle of Montiel in 1369 that end the castillan civil war instead of the battle of Najera who don't have real impact and was lost because Henri of Trastamare (and it will showed du guesclin dark side when he helped Trastamare to "murdered" Pierre the cruel)
@@robert-surcouf Brother the majority of RUclips channels that cover the Hundred Years’ War eventually get to the french victories lmao. It’s just the English victories are more well known cause Anglo/America culture dominates.
Dude, Im going through dark times and I can honestly. Say that this channel and the why files have saved my life... Thank you
It gets better, I promise. Hold fast!
Wait, this is not the history of Agatha vs the Mason Order? 😮
Amazing!! Thank you all so much!
Basically the moral of the story is Edward 3 was a coward who was afraid of the French and cowardly waged war against the innocent and land to insure his victories . A king with NO Honor...
um, 30 minutes into this, cowardly seems odd... yes burning villages was insane... but these french attacked britanny... neither of them at that point were thinking rationally... those who tried to talk sense into them were both rebuked... it became personal, and other people were fighting a war of pride with no winners at all...
there were no winners in this war... no clear goals... just carnage...after a while not even that made sense... cowardice gave way to chaos...
Really enjoyed learning more about this history.
So this all explains the English French rivalary
Goes back earlier to the 12th century
That was brilliant, thanks for all the insight amongst the great efforts you’ve done to provide us with this.
Average 100 year war battle
-English troops take position on high ground
-french knights charge into heavily fortified positions
-english longbowmen kill 10 trillion knights
-english cavalry mopp up fleeing troops
-french general taken prisoner
-english are unable to make full use of victory due to money and supply issues
-french are able to make a new army
-repeat
Only according the anglo propaganda
If you're right :
-why there is only 3-4 battles with the high ground instead of 10-20 ?
-why the french knights had many victories in the 100 years war if they charge like idiots ?
-Most knights were not killed by arrow because of their armor plate but were killed because they fall from their horses and can't stand up with their armor weight.
-If the french general were taken prisoner, how could they still fighting in the nex battle ?
-Each time they had the upper hand (in 1356 and 1428), they don't lack money or supply issues but only screwed and it's way later that they dealt with these problems
-If the french were able to make a new army, why half of them always side the Plantagenet/Lancaster whose could also raise a new army every time they suffered a big defeat
@@robert-surcouf I was just making a joke lmao
The sound and the video seem to be misaligned in this video. Makes it hard to watch. Is it possible to fix this?
Should be fixed now. Can you ctrl+f5 and check again?
Looks great now!
@@Grolpoza glad to hear that! Knowing that you guys can't enjoy it was heartbreaking
Bravo! Well done!
I'm hearing the same music that plays during Europa Univeralis IV, a strategy game set during the periods of 1444 to 1821. I wonder whether the music is publicly available?
❤
Jeanne d'Arc's on fire, your defense is terrified.
Jeanne d'Arc's on fire.
Na na na na na na na na
⚜⚜⚜
Great video as always!
Just one tiiiny lil thing for the Breton civil war. The city Edwar III besieged in 1342, Vannes, is pronounced... well... "van". Like the vehicle! 😃 Other than this tiny lil nitpick, it's perfect! Thanks a lot for covering this important part of european history
France Won!
I’m showing my age by saying this but I was always amused that the greatest PVP match of the Middle Ages began in the year LEET
It do be like that
Hundred Years War always bums me out lol. England deserved the French Throne!
England wasn't even ruled by the English. It was France x France, and that's why the war happened. England? Its kings still spoke French until 1400, but afterwards it still had the same French culture, same French dinasty.
@@EVEUXAt this point most of the nobility spoke English (tbf not always as first language especially the higher nobility) celebrated English saints like Edmund, and called themselves English.
@@Yellow-kp9gs I will repeat it here like you did it:
Yet he and his own Aristocracy had French blood and culture. They weren't even Normans, they were from a dinasty from other region of France, the French kept settling in the country. Like i said, the king of England spoke French until 1400, and French was still used in courts after that. The English language's vocabulary is 58% Latin because of that, it was already a French culture. The current aristocracy of England still has a bit of French DNA. The English like to see things in nationalistic ways, always diminishing others and raising themselves, it was a separate colony of the French ruled by a French aristocracy until 1400, period.
@@Yellow-kp9gs "English" LOL. They were speaking French at the times, and even the English you claim sounded more like Latin than a Germanic language, most of its vocabulary was French, that French colonialism was already embedded in the English culture and language. Do you think "language" is a Germanic word? LOL. What a about "pork vs pig"? If you count only sophisticated speech, it is even more overwhelmingly French.
@@EVEUX Once again genetically they had multiple inheritances, hence why they celebrated their anglo Saxon, Norman, French and Breton heritage in various histories they commissioned- hell they even linked the “kings touch” to their Anglo Saxon heritage from Matilda.
At this point the king wasn’t a Norman- more Anglo french his nobility we’re definitely english, hell many even questioned why they were going to war in France, further showing the disconnect to their culture.
Like I said most kings of England also spoke English, Richard actually lost control of England while on crusade because John accused his councillors of being “foreign” as they couldn’t speak a word of English (amongst other things too tbf).
The language part is debatable as the percentages change but it’s core was still old English.
The current aristocrats can trace their heritage to Alfred the great too, that statement means nothing.
Ironically you fail to see that France wasn’t United culturally at this point, especially compared to England, most of France didn’t even speak french and would have been unable to communicate.