>>18324150
>If "England" had won the 100 Years War, would "England" even exist? Or would it have become an extension of France under Plantagenet rule?
During the Lancastrian phase (Henry V), the plan was to create a personal union with two countries having different parliaments and sharing a monarch

>did the French, living under Richard I for instance, feel as though they lived under English rule? Or did the English under him feel as if they were living under French rule? Or did anyone alive at the time even comprehend things in that sense? Did these Kings of England regard themselves as English Kings or as French Nobility?
No, back then the so-called English kings spent most time in France (e.g. Angers) and spoke exclusively French.
Only in 1400 CE did this change, with Henry IV

The idea that the English were a foreign army intending to Anglicise and oppress France is a post-Joan of Arc narrative.
The common rabble would have only had issues with a non-Christian monarch

>>18324160
>No, back then the so-called English kings spent most time in France (e.g. Angers) and spoke exclusively French
>The idea that the English were a foreign army intending to Anglicise and oppress France is a post-Joan of Arc narrative
I suppose the English were actually the oppressed ones, being sent across the channel to fight in what seems to amount to a French Civil War more than anything else. Were there not also soldiers pulled from their existing French holdings to fight during this time?

>>18324150
>But I'm thinking it was more like a power struggle between two powerful dynasties. One of which happened to control some land across the water.
This is a pretty good understanding of the conflict really. At points it is much closer to a French Civil War than a conflict between two different kingdoms
As for books Jonathan Sumption's are the most obvious recommendation

>>18324173
>I suppose the English were actually the oppressed ones, being sent across the channel to fight in what seems to amount to a French Civil War more than anything else
Those were professional soldiers, there was no draft back then.
And several men in the English army were sourced from south of the Channel, chiefly Normandy and Gascony, which at the times had a strong local culture and didn't see themselves simply as provinces of France

>>18324173
Both affirmations are true, but not ar the same time as the Hundred Years War shows the reinforcement of a state apparel over the feudal system. It was somewhat just a dynastic thing during the first phase of the war, between two french nobilities, wich one of them happened to own possessions accross the Channel. this slowly switched along the war : the king of England lost possessions on the continent, regained it later, his claim became more and more unlawful. He started to distance himself from France. (speaking English, spending most of his time in England...)
During the second phase of the Hundred Years War (after Agincourt), it was clear it had become a war between two foreign nations, each one having decelloped its own identity. The king of England don't really considered french peasant as "his" people, regarding how he pillaged. On the meanwhile, the english occuper faced a lot of rebellion and guerilla-style fighting from the common folk, proving it was'nt just nobility business over who sit on the throne. The whole Johan of Arc thing also prove how the war had raised a national conscience. Her fight was about "throwing the English out of France", not "supporting the Capetian claim over the Plantagenet's" .
The Hundred Years War was essential to create both french and english national sentiment.
Before the war, peoples of France were loyal to whatever king their duke or their count decided to follow. As the war progressed, they came to realize the kingdom of France was a single country.

>>18324150
It bothers me that this kind of map always makes it look like France was split between the French and English kings, when as far as I know places like Toulouse and Flanders were just as independent of the king as any of the Angevin territories.

>>18324150
>they seem to depict it as a war between nations. But I'm thinking it was more like a power struggle between two powerful dynasties. One of which happened to control some land across the water.
The kingdoms were distinct political entities. But yes, your view that this was a struggle between dynasties rather than nations is correct.
>did the French, living under Richard I for instance, feel as though they lived under English rule? Or did the English under him feel as if they were living under French rule?
Definitlet more the latter. However, by around Richard I and John's reigns, the nobility in England were developing sense of English identity even if their primary language was still French.
>Did these Kings of England regard themselves as English Kings or as French Nobility?
Essentially, both.
>If "England" had won the 100 Years War, would "England" even exist? Or would it have become an extension of France under Plantagenet rule?
England had always been a separate kingdom and not an appanage of France, and this probably wouldn't change.
>I'd appreciate any book recommendations that might cover this specific topic, since it really interests me.
It's not about English and French identity specifically, but J.R. Maddiccott's "The Origins of the English Parliament, 924-1327" does cover a lot of stuff on how the post-conquest nobility became more English over time.

>>18324386
>England had always been a separate kingdom and not an appanage of France, and this probably wouldn't change.

Yup. It would have inevitably split off even if the Plantagenets consolidated control over France.

>>18324150
>did England and France even exist?
They existed, but they understood themselves very differently to how we imagine modern nation states. National sentiment existed in both countries (stronger in England) but people based their loyalties on other things.
>even comprehend things in that sense?
The English regarded their king as foreign, but so did most of the french. For example Normans had long believed the Angevins were the literal spawn of the devil.
>books
Sumpton's already been mentioned. "A people's history of the hundred years war" is also good (also much shorter and focuses in on a lot of this stuff about identity). "English Identity and Political Culture in the Fourteenth Century" also. A bit off topic but "The Norman Conquest in English History" is very good if you want to understand how the medieval English saw and understood 1066
>>18324160
>with Henry IV
This is debatable Henry IV is often stated to be the first King who's first language was English. But whether they identified as English is a trickier question entirely and can be argued for earlier monarchs.
>The English were a foreign army
The English army was always regarded as something of a foreign invading force (it'd be hard to convince any peasants who had their villages destroyed otherwise) it just becomes really obvious in the latter parts of the war when French national identity truly consolidated and the french stop regarding those other french who live across the river as also being foreign.
>>18324173
They were pretty happy to do so, Edward III framed the conflict as a defensive war (the best defense is a good offense etc).The English only became reluctant later on, particularly under Richard II, but that was because they regarded their leaders as incompetent. It was only really until late in the war when;
>>18324441
This, around when the dual monarchy was declared, they became reluctant to support the war and attempted to introduce stuff that would keep England independent.

File: average argentine gentleman.png (412.6 KB)

412.6 KB PNG

>I suppose the English were actually the oppressed ones, being sent across the channel to fight in what seems to amount to a French Civil War more than anything else

>>18324150
>did England and France even exist?
Legally, to both parties, yes. England and France were specific kingdoms with lands which belonged to them exclusively. Both French and English parties under the English kings pushed to keep the crowns separate as they feared the other might become a lesser part of a union. They wanted to preserve the independent existence of the kingdom of England.
>>18324173
>Were there not also soldiers pulled from their existing French holdings to fight during this time?
Outside of Gascony, no. During John's and Henry III's early reign nearly every man lost their French estates as they were confiscated by Philip. England was practically the exclusive land of most men from that point forward.

It does make me laugh how the people at the time saw it as England vs France, and so did every generation of Englishmen and Frenchmen thereafter, until the Third World gained access to the Internet and tried to use it as a means of scoring 'anti-Anglo' points by rewriting history on behalf of the French.

>>18324150
Imagine it like this:
In Crusader Kings, a title can be held by only one person, and anyone else who pretends to also have that title is represented as actually having merely a claim to that title.
But this is an oversimplification. IRL, there was no such thing as a rock-solid title. Rather, everybody was merely a claimant, and different vassals could choose which claimant to support.
In most cases, one claimant obviously had a lot more support than all the other claimants. However, the Hundred Years' War is an exception to that: the claimants vied for many years, with no reasonable way to call one person the definitive title holder and the other person the lowly claimant. The breakup of the Eastern Roman Empire after the Fourth Crusade is another exception--there were multiple claimants to the same title, none particularly more legitimate than the others. These situations are simulated rather poorly by the mechanics in the Crusader Kings games.

French texts were still referring to peasants as 'Gallici' in the early modern period. The nobility specifically saw themselves as distinct in both England and France, though there was growing attachment to each nation from the 1200s onwards (as there was within Britain amongst the Normans of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland).

Yeah you're talking about a time where nations were not the real units of power. Power was held by families of nobles related by networks of patronage in a feudal system. In France the king was just another noble until Philip II and as late as the 16th century you get extraordinarily powerful nobles in both England and France

>>18325191
It doesn't seem like anyone's rewriting history here, it's just a different perspective. Sorry I don't want to look at the whims of a Norman-French Aristocracy as the will of the English state and people.

>>18325839
>different perspective
There's looking at something differently and then theres keeping your eyes shut, knowing nothing and just making shit up
>Norman-French Aristocracy
No longer in existence by 1337
Also England didn't start the hyw, so it can't have been their "whim" anyway

>>18325888
>England didn't start the hyw,

Salian Law, bro

>>18324160
English kings were kicked out of French in 1204 and lived in England since then. And once the justifications in 1337 for the war was that the king claimed the French wanted to destroy English culture and language

>>18325919
Retard

>>18324160
>The idea that the English were a foreign army intending to Anglicise and oppress France is a post-Joan of Arc narrative.
And yet the French nobility still largely rallied around Charles VII

>>18325963
yes, that was post-Joan of Arc, because of Joan.

>>18325839
Why'd you just rewrite history then? LOL

>>18325919
Salian law was introduced in the 14th century for the justification that the Valois should have the throne. They didn't even use real Salian law either because it wouldn't have supported them.

You are astute to notice this OP, many people make the mistake of projecting modern nationalist identities onto the past. You are correct in your summation that it was more properly a feud between two rival dynasties that were interrelated, rather than a national conflict.

But it's even more complex than these simplificaitons make out.

You see, the French king did NOT actually rule all that blue territory. A lot of it was ruled by his vassals. This isn't splitting hairs. Vassals owed allegiance to the French king, this made their lands "French" in that sense, but it meant the actual control of that land, its people, and its wealth, belonged to other lords, lords who could, if they felt it was in their own interests, choose to not support the French king in his dynastic squabble against his cousins in England.

There's another aspect of this related to feudalism as well: a single man could simultaneously hold multiple titles of nobility, and thereby also own multiple concurrent feudal obligations. To wit: the King of England was ALSO the Duke of Normandy. This means that while the King of England was a sovereign ruler of his own domain (England) he was ALSO the vassal of the King of France in his capacity as the Duke of Normandy, as the fief of Normandy owed its allegiance to the King of France.

The reason, then, why all these historically French fiefs are painted red instead of blue, is because the Kings of England refused to pay their lawful tribute to the King of France, rejecting him as their liege, and claiming his title for themselves.

>>18324150
Yes the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of France both existed. Anyone telling you they didn’t is trying to pull a “nations and borders n shiet never existed” ruse on you. A king ruling over two kingdoms and trying to integrate them into one has literally existed since Assyria ruled Babylon.

>>18326245
As far as I'm aware the English kings always ruled there French possessions separately from England

>>18326396
Yes, correct

>>18325888
>England didn't start the hyw, so it can't have been their "whim" anyway
How did it start then? I've always understood that it started when Edward III sailed his army across the channel and started raiding and attacking France

>>18326553
This is ignoring the first few years of the conflict, including a fairly significant naval contest over the channel. There were several French maritime raids of England and then a number of English reprisals eventually it all culminated at Sluys. But I can't really blame you since it's entirely forgotten in pop culture
There were two primary immediate causes
>Scotland
Soon after gaining power in England Edward III restarted his grandfather's war in Scotland. After some early rebel/English successes the boy king David II went into exile in France. The nobles of Scotland attempted to conclude a peace with English, but this was rejected by the exiled king on advice of his French host, and the French king began offering Scotland support.
>Roger of Artois
French nobleman who went into exile in England. There are a number of stories of questionable truth about him calling for war. But whatever the reason the french king wanted him out of England, which he demanded on the basis that the king of England was vassal to the french through Gascony. The English refused. This became the actual casus belli the french used to confiscate Gascony and declare war.
This leads into the underlying reasons around sovereignty, whether or not the entire English crown lay under French vassalage, disagreements over Gascony. Everyone having a load of money meant for a crusade they didn't really want to go on. Etc.
Edward III only laid claim to the French throne a few years after the start in 1340, but this was to give legal camouflage to a Flemish rebellion. He had no actual desire on the french throne itself, and traded it away in the many peace negotiations in exchange for a independent Gascony free of the French King's authority and more lands in France.
It was only much later, under Henry V, that an English monarch would aim to actually become king of France.

>>18325969
No, no it wasn't. There was a ton of support well before Joan of Arc

French vassals like Burgundy and Flanders basically did what they wanted during this time.

>>18326658
Edward *was* the rightful king though

>>18327431
Was William the rightful King of England? No, he took it by force. Might does indeed make right, and Edward and his descendants tried and failed to make right their claim to France. And they failed. His only claim to it was through dependency of a dynasty which itself had used might to stake its claim. Arguing about the rights of kings to rule in 2026 really is foolish, anon.