End of the Hundred Years War

kurt largo

I know that this may be a bit of a 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?

MarchDub

That’s a good question – and I don’t think there is a clear answer. But you know the Hundred Years War didn’t end cleanly – it wasn’t obvious to either the English or the French that the ‘war’ was actually over and the English did intend returning. There was no treaty until many years later –and the skirmishes actually continued into the next century. And then of course there was the fact that poor old Henry VI went mad in August 1453 [a secondary tradition amongst English monarchs] and the English got distracted by their own problems – the Wars of the Roses.

There was also the reality – as regards Calais – that Calais was actually by then populated by English settlers who were put there after the English expelled the original French inhabitants. And this had made a previous attempt to overrun Calais by the French impossible. A lot of sources also cite the weariness of both sides by the 1450s. Desmond Seward makes the point that what we view now as the ‘end’ of the war at the time felt more like a lull. I’m paraphrasing here.

But you make an interesting point - given that at the time the English did intend returning to claim the French throne, and at the time it wasn’t obvious that the war was over, it maybe made sense to the French – as you say - to ‘allow’ the English army to return via Calais and easier to pick off.

I agree, it’s a really interesting period in English history – and the lead into it all with the French raiding the coast of England and burning whole towns in England, Southampton for one. It’s also interesting that whilst the initial Norman invasion and conquest of England went over relatively easily the impact of the English Kings’ claim to the French Throne had repercussions for centuries.

kurt largo

Thanks for your prompt reply; I was afraid no-one would be able to come up with an answer. So, yes I think you have a good point there about the fact that there was no clear cut-off point for the war i.e. it effectively ended in 1453 but it was not formally over until Louis XI of France and Edward IV of England signed the treaty of Picquigny in 1461. Perhaps Charles VII thought that the period after the battle of Castillon was just a momentary lull in the fighting and he did not want to be the instigator of the next round of warfare by seizing the small enclave around Calais.

But, you mention the fact that the French had previously made an attempt to take Calais (in 1436, I think) and this makes the whole thing even more interesting. The fact that there had been a previous attempt to seize Calais reasonably early on (as even Paris was only taken back by Charles VII the previous year in 1435) means that the French must have viewed Calais as a strategically important and by no means insignificant military target. So, I think that Charles VII must have been very keen to take Calais back after 1453 but as you say, maybe he was willing to leave it alone for a good while so as to extend the lull in fighting for as long as possible.

With regards to the fact that much of the population of Calais at that time would have been essentially English people, I'm not so sure that this would have been as much of an impediment to the French as you think. For instance, there were large numbers of English people in many other towns such as Rouen, Harfleur, Bordeaux, etc but the French had no major qualms about compelling them to either accept Valois rule or to pack their bags and leave, once they had assumed control of these respective towns.

In any case, it's good to hear someone who also has a deep interest in this conflict, one that is central to the history of Western Europe. As you have mentioned, it was not just French people who suffered, as many unfortunate towns along the southern coast of England were sacked and burnt, such as Southampton, Plymouth, Winchelsea, etc in much the same way as towns in France were. It just so happens that in the event, the French has less opportunities to attack mainland Britain but when they did, the attacks were just as fierce as anything that was happening on the continent.

MarchDub

Been away for a few days...

The Treaty of Picquigny was actually later, in 1475 - in Edward's second 'term' [for want of a better word] and he was already on the march to start the whole thing over again. So the ending really was up in the air even at that time. I always found the 'pension' that he was granted from the French to be funny. I think it's a kindness to call it that.

It's been some time since I read the documents but wasn't Calais a different situation from the other English held French towns? - in that the entire French population was expelled after the English gave them the option of being massacred - in the tradition of siege warfare - or leaving. And they then left to be replaced entirely with English settlers. From that time the English felt that Calais was theirs - an extension of England - and the loss of it under Queen Mary was regarded as a national shame.

kurt largo

Ah yes, you're right there about the treaty of Picquigny taking place in 1475; I got it mixed up with the coronation date of Louis XI (1461). Apologies about that slip-up. Actually, just on this topic, I think that you're right about the pension that Louis XI awarded to Edward IV being a bit odd. It was essentially a case of the French buying off the English, but although it might seem as if Louis XI was not exactly showing himself to be an especially brave king by following this course of action, it is in-keeping with the behaviour of his predecessors. In particular, Charles V and Charles VII both favoured using bribery and persuasion rather than brute force when dealing with English and Gascon military commanders. I think Louis XI was taking a large but calculated risk in paying Edward IV to basically shove off in 1475, because it's like any policy of appeasement towards an aggressor. In the short term, you might get some breathing space from appeasement but in the long run, you are weakened in the eyes of the bully, who might become bolder in his demands in future. In my opinion, Louis XI should have stood up to Edward IV because he still had a well-trained and well-equipped army at his disposal (a legacy from his father, Charles VII) and he would have sent the English crown a message that threatening to invade France again would not be an advisable thing to do.

Anyway, leaving that lengthy monologue aside, you are right about the fact that Calais was a town almost exclusively occupied by English settlers and their descendants after the French inhabitants were unceremoniously booted out in 1346, so this would make the task of re-taking Calais a bit of a challenge for the French. However, I think the same could be said of several towns in northern France (in particular, Harfleur and Cherbourg) which were depopulated of French people who would not accept English rule when Henry V took them and their place taken by English people. When Charles VII re-took these places during the 1449-1450 reconquest of Normandy, his commanders had absolutely no hesitation in telling the inhabitants of these places that if they didn't like the sound of Valois suzerainty, then they would be well-advised to take the next available ferry back to England.

The thing that I am trying to argue is that the fact that Calais would have been fiercely pro-English in 1453 would have merely been an inconvenience to Charles VII if he chose to invade there. In fact, I think that there was no major military obstacle to Charles VII seizing Calais, if he had made up his mind to do it because his artillery would have been up to the job of knocking down its defensive walls and his infantry were, at that stage, becoming seasoned experts at taking control of towns once there were breaches in the walls.

So, I believe that reasons other than military considerations (be they political or personal or otherwise) held Charles VII back from ordering another siege of Calais. The fact that Philip the Good (Duke of Burgundy) might be a bit peeved by the French king's army launching a massive operation in the former's back yard does seem like a valid enough reason for Charles VII to back down from the enterprise to keep the powerful Duke on his side, but in my opinion, there might be some other reason(s) to explain Charles VII's reluctance to grab the last remaining English stronghold on the continent.

I welcome any further comments or discussion of my views.

Batsy

One of the myths perpetuated by the anti-English brigade today is that the greedy, imperialist English invaded France and took over vast swathes of it, causing the French to fight heroically to drive out the nasty English.

What REALLY happened is that the French were the ones who did the landgrabbing.

At the time England was merely a part of the Angevin Empire and the Angevin Empire was actually ruled by a Frenchman.

England became a part of the Angevin Empire in 1066 when it became a colony of Normandy. So England joined the likes of Normandy, Gascony, Aquitaine and Anjou as mere possessions of the Angevin Empire. The ruler of these possessions had different titles in each of his possessions: for example he was the Duke of Nomandy but also the King of England. And, of course, since 1066, England's king had been a Frenchman (the ruler of the Angevin Empire). England did not invade these territories. It just joined them as part of the Angevin Empire after Normandy invaded it.

Then, when Richard the Lionheart (a Frenchman who had hardly ever set foot in England) ruled England and the rest of the Angevin Empire (he was also Duke of Normandy), the King of France started taking over Angevin territories and claiming them for France. Phillip II of France marched through the Angevin Empire and annexed huge swathes of it for France.

The result was that King Richard I and his successor King John, who were the rightful rulers not only of England but of the rest of the Angevin Empire, lost land to France, leaving them, in the end, in possession of only England and Gascony:

Philip II of France himself was leading the operations. By April 1193 he had reached Rouen and although the ducal capital couldn't be taken, he and his allies were then controlling all the ports from the Rhine to Dieppe. Confronted to the situation, Richard's regents conceded the Treaty of Mantes in July 1193, confirming Philip II's control on all the land he had taken including the entire Norman Vexin, the castles of Drincourt and Arques in Normandy and the castles of Loches and Châtillon in Tourraine as well as adding a substantial payment once Richard is back.

In a new treaty in 1194, concessions to the King of France went much further, when Tours with all the castles of Tourraine and all of Eastern Normandy except for Rouen were surrendered. The County of Angoulême was declared independent of Aquitaine, Vendôme was given to Louis of Blois and Geoffrey III of Perche acquired Moulins and Bonmoulins. Emperor Henry VI finally released Richard I in 1194 in exchange of the ransom.

Richard freed, recovers his lands, and finally dies

Richard I was in a difficult position, Philip II had taken over large parts of his lands and had inherited Amiens and Artois. England was Richard's most secure possession, Hubert Walter who had been to the crusade with the King of England was appointed his justiciar. King Richard took over John's lordship over Ireland and rejected William the Lion's claim over the northern territories.


The construction of Château Gaillard began under Richard's rule, but he died before it could be seen finished.



Richard I had merely crossed the English Channel to claim back his territories that John Lackland (future King John) betrayed Philip II by murdering the garrison of Évreux and handing the town down to Richard I.

John was not king yet; he had to fight to keep his lands. Following the news of Richard's death, Philip II captured Évreux in a rush. John tried to take the Angevin treasure and the castle of Chinon to install his power. But, in the local custom, the son of an older brother was preferred to a claimant. Henceforth they recognised Arthur as their ruler, son of Geoffrey of Brittany, depriving John of the Angevins' ancestral land. Only in Normandy and England he could install his rule. In Rouen, Normandy, he was made Duke in April 1199 and he was crowned King of England in May at Westminster Abbey. He left his mother, Eleanor, controlling Aquitaine.
His allies, Aimeri of Thouars and three Lusignan nobles led an attack on Tours in an attempt to capture Arthur and install John as count. Aimeri of Thouars was promised the title of seneschal had he captured Arthur. By this time John went to Normandy to negotiate a truce with Philip II. He took profit of this truce to gather Richard's former allies, especially the Count of Boulogne, the Count of Flanders and the Holy Roman Emperor. In the end no less than 15 French counts swore allegiance to John who was now definitely in a much stronger position than Philip II. A strong supporter of the King—William des Roches—even switched side in front of so much power and handed down Arthur, whom he was supposed to protect, to John. Arthur managed to espace and join Philip II's court very soon though. It was also the moment the Count of Flanders and many knights decided to join the crusade in 1199 and deserted John's court. John's dominant position was short-lived and then he had to accept the Treaty of Le Goulet in 1200. Philip II was confirmed over the lands he had taken in Normandy joined by further concessions in Auvergne and Berry. John was recognised at the head of Anjou in return of what he swore he would not interfere if Baldwin IV or Otto IV attacked Philip II.

Here is the cause of the Hundred Years War a bit more simplified:

Its basic cause was a dynastic quarrel that originated when the conquest of England by William of Normandy created a state lying on both sides of the English Channel (Angevin Empire). In the 14th cent. the English kings held the duchy of Guienne in France; they resented paying homage to the French kings, and they feared the increasing control exerted by the French crown over its great feudal vassals (the Angevin Empire). The immediate causes of the Hundred Years War were the dissatisfaction of Edward III of England with the nonfulfillment by Philip VI of France of his pledges to restore a part of Guienne (to the Angevin Empire) taken by Charles IV of France.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/HundredY

Now, it was these imperialist annexations of the Angevin Empire by the French which later led to the Hundred Years War. Future Kings of England would, quite rightly, want to try and regain their ancestral lands which France had stolen. The result was English troops marching into France to try and gain back lost lands, lands lost by King Richard I of England/Richard Duke of Normandy and King John of England/John, Duke of Normandy to the French.

The French were the landgrabbers, not the English (or the Angevins as it should be more accurately termed). I think I'm correct in saying that, by rights, virtually the whole of what is now western and northern France (inclouding Normandy and Britanny) should be a part of England. Instead, the only part of that which England still has is the Channel Islands, which were once part of Normandy (which became joined with England when Normandy invaded England in 1066). The Channel Islands are the only part of Normandy which the French didn't steal off the Angevins. As a result, the only part of the Angevin Empire which remains is England and the Channel Islands.