Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

End of the Hundred Years War

  • 20-06-2011 2:24pm
    #1
    kurt largo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41 ✭


    I know that this is a real long shot here, as I don't know if anyone in this forum is interested in this topic, but I am absolutely fascinated with the Hundred Years War between England and France. One question that has always bugged me is why Charles VII never fully expelled the English from the continent when he had the chance, i.e. why he allowed them to hold on to the region around Calais after 1453. I just cannot fathom why he didn't just besiege this enclave, as he had vast sums of money at his disposal, plenty of intelligent and well-experienced military commanders, possibly the best artillery train in Europe at the time and he also had the momentum going with him after the battles of Formigny(1450) and Castillon(1453).

    So, why did he make an exception for Calais? Was he just tired of fighting? Was he just too busy consolidating his rule in Normandy and Guyenne to worry about anything else? Was he afraid of annoying the powerful Duke of Burgundy, who was in possession of most of Flanders (which is adjacent to Calais) at the time? Or was he being quite clever in that by giving the English crown a small patch of land on the continent would mean that if they ever launched another large-scale invasion, that they would probably land their army on that piece of land and therefore, that the French could have an element of certainty about where to expect a future attack. There are many different possibilities but I can't figure out which one seem to be the most plausible option. The historian Edouard Perroy says that Charles VII did not take Calais because he didn't wish to irritate the Duke of Burgundy but I think that there must be more to it than that.

    Thus, to cut a long story short, could anyone shed some light on this matter and/or do they know if there is any book that addresses this specific question?


Comments

Advertisement