The Hundred Years War: The English In France 1337-1453 (1999) - Plot & Excerpts
To understand the Wars of the Roses and Henry VIII's obsession with France, we must look back at the Hundred Years War. At least that is what Desmond Seward believes and he is right. The source of the conflict he points out doesn't stem out merely from Edward III's claim to the French throne on account of his mother being the daughter of one of the most famous (and ruthless) Capetian monarchs -Philip IV "the Fair" but also from the times of Henry II. More than a claim, it was a question of sovereignty. The treaty of Bretigny wasn't meant to last and as soon as the French saw an opportunity, they took advantage of it to take the territories they had previously agreed on the English. Henry V's conquest was rapacious and brutal, but no less brutal than his predecessors or his rivals, and yet his death did not mean the end of the English France. Had his brother John, Duke of Bedford lived, or had his wife, Anne of Burgundy not died and he did not marry Jacquetta, France wouldn't have been lost and England would've maintained Burgundy's friendship. Yet amidst all this chaos, new men rose. From all walks of life, war provided them an escape from their daily routine, and many of them (including already established wealthy magnates) enriched themselves and some rose to become Knights and even Barons as is the case of a John Stourton or Sir John Falstaff (who became a Baron as well). I enjoyed the maps and the details that Seward provided about the battles, and was not surprised to see the rapaciousness that all sides of the conflict inflicted on one another, but I was very shocked on some examples he drew. Clearly war broke all moral boundaries. Even the Duke of Bedford (Henry V's brother) as popular as he was in Paris and as much as he was fond of the French people, he was no more ruthless than his predecessors and rivals. The level of violence inflicted by the English and French is just appalling.The only thing I found confusing and this is my only critique is that he lent credibility to some popular myths such as Edward II dying by a hot poker which has been discounted by many modern historians and saying he was a known homosexual -which is another myth. And also his rednering of Henry V as one of the greatest military geniuses but the worst king in terms of savagery and comparing him to Hitler. If I am not mistaken, the way he described (and from what has been said of the other monarchs that went before and after him in this conflict) he was no less fanatic. In fact Edward III's were just as palling such as killing denizens of women and children and and the Black Prince's merciless pursuit of his enemies or destroying towns based on the actions of one and what he did to traitors, burning them, cutting them to pieces, etc. Marguerite of Anjou's appearance is another thing he got wrong but I passed this one since one description of her described her as blond but "somewhat dark" so that may have lent to the confusion of Seward describing her as dark.Regardless, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about the Plantagenets and Valois. I started reading on the Plantagenets a while back and I am glad that I've started again, this was a great companion to the other Plantagenet books in my shelf. I am eager to see what his opinion is on all the Plantagenets in his upcoming book.
I read this for Medieval England university class, but it had been on my Want To Read list for awhile. This is a military history of the Hundred Years War, more from the English perspective than French. It was a strange war with more raids than sieges and more sieges than battles. It was also an incredibly ugly war: pillaging, looting, extortion, rape, torture, murder of civilians and prisoners.The two most interesting points: a negative view of Henry V ("brutal singlemindedness" and gets compared to Napoleon and Hitler) and a downplaying of Joan of Arc's impact ("It was not the maid who ended English rule of France" - credit seems to go more to failings of the English than actions of the French).If you want a one-volume military history of this war I'd say this is probably your best choice.
What do You think about The Hundred Years War: The English In France 1337-1453 (1999)?
I'm being a little mean to Desmond Seward with only three stars. I read 1066 by David Howarth around the same time and Howarth's writing makes Seward's serile and dry.That said, Seward gives a well sourced account of the wars that made up the Hundred Years War. He keeps accounts concise and includes enough personal information about the players to explain their behavior, but doesn't get too long-winded.A European Medieval History class would help in getting more out of this book and, unless you're trying to learn about this war, there isn't much reason to read this book. If you are, though, it's a good read.Okay, I'm bumping him up to four stars.
—Jon
This is another of those books I really hoped to like - and I did, to a point. It's a fairly readable (if more than a tad academic and for the most part accurate rendering of this epic conflict.But it's a thoroughly British account. He presents brief and for the most part clear portraits of the English commanders, very few of the French. He seems unable to stop his enthusiasm for the battles one by the British, and begrudges nearly every victory by the French. His dismissal of Joan of Arc marks the high point of his Anglo-prejudice - he assures us that while she had her uses she did not save France, and seems puzzled at all of the writers who have focused on her of all people in this time. Two brief responses - first, she may not have won the war for the French (and they DID ultimately win the war) but without her the disillusion in the French, from the king down to peasants, may well have continued, leading to an entirely different outcome. Second, why wouldn't writers and indeed all those the author mentions (he cannot understand why Americans as well as British seem to remain fascinated - Desmond, she was interesting! The story of Joan is more dramatic than any other aspect of those 100 years, even of the greatest battles such as Crecy and Agincourt! His lack of acceptance of these two points and more is almost laughable. But then he is pro-British. At times in his remarks about the maid he sounds almost like the Brisith in Shakespeare's Henry VI plays. Ah well. I had hoped for more balance, but I am now more aware of the entirety of those 100 years than I was before, so it was not an un-useful read - just somewhat disappointing.
—Jack Hrkach
After reading this brisk and enlightening book, I kept asking myself "just how many people died in the Hundred Years War??" Overall, Seward provides a tour de force of this much forgotten and incredibly brutal period of warfare between England and France. Invasion after invasion, usually ending in a "chevauchee" -- essentially a rolling holocaust of men-at-arms and other troops that stole, burned, raped, and destroyed every town, every village, every farm, every church and monastary in their path and which, as to my earlier reference, thousands and thousands of peasants would be slaughtered. But, according to Seward, served as the primary means of enriching greater England bringing it to the majesty of Great Britain. What this book also essentially does is puncture the romantic historical lore of a brave and honorable King Henry V (who, without the aid of Shakespeare, might be seen correctly as one of the more brutal and sadistic English kings), the life of brave knights and the emergence of England as a great power in Europe and eventually the rest of the world. Seward's book is, in the end, a smart intial primer to studying and understanding this much misunderstood period of history.
—Frank Kelly
