Who Do You Root For: Hundred Years War

[garbon]

I'm a crazed girl who preys on desperate men.

Any teenage peasant girl in the Middle Ages who manages to prey on full grown noblemen is pretty awesome in my book.

Okay fan of teen dystopia fiction.

[Oexmelin]

It was the Hundred Years War that changed that.

no it wasn't. England, and then Britain, would remain much ore centralized than France at least until the Revolution, if not after that - if, centralization is measured by the number of intermediate bodies in a polity. As for the role of the Estates General, ascribing their decline in influence to the Hundred Years War is either teleological, or simply believing the propaganda of the Bourbon kings (which a form of Wigghish history of France usually does). The Wars of Religion did much more to establish the legitimacy of a strong, absolute ruler than the Hundred Years War, which actually reinforced the Estates (culminating in the 1484 Estates) - and even this seems quite oversimplifying, considering the difficulties of summarizing a series of almost ordinary conflicts between The crowns of France and England as a single war.

[Valmy]

It gave the French King a series of permanent taxes. That was a major blow to regional power sources.

[Oexmelin]

It gave the French King a series of permanent taxes. That was a major blow to regional power sources.

Not at all. It enabled regional power sources, who succeeded in making themselves the necessary interlocutor for raising, and collecting them. It is the birth of Parlements in France, and organized estates throughout the kingdom.

[CountDeMoney]

Okay fan of teen dystopia fiction.

Joan of Arc: Maiden France and Joan of Arc, Part II: Fire Come Pray With Me from the Century War Chronicles novel series

[grumbler]

The war's actual outcome was about as positive for future development as we could have hoped for, so that's what i "root for."  A long-term English crown presence in France would have delayed or even stopped the development of the system of common law and devolved powers that made England (and later, Britain) the cockpit of democracy, liberalism, and market capitalism.  A longer stay on the continent would have reinforced absolutism and sucked the economy dry of money to pay for wars.

This relies on the tautology that things have unfolded the way they did because they unfolded the way they did. "Absolutist" France did not develop in a linear fashion.

No, it doesn't rely on a tautology, but, instead of just saying that it does, why don't you make an actual argument that will add to the discussion?  You know more about this period than most, I'd say.

[Razgovory]

I'm a crazed girl who preys on desperate men.

No you aren't.

[grumbler]

Yeah France was much less centralized and much less absolutist than England. After all it was French nobles and their traditions of autonomy that led to Magna Carta anyway. Simon de Montfort anybody?

It was the Hundred Years War that changed that.

An English victory in the Hundred Years' War would have reinforced the English trend towards absolutism, not weakened it.  The trend towards centralized tax collection was spurred by the need to pay for the war.  An English "victory" would have guaranteed another century of on-and-off war, IMO.

[crazy canuck]

It was the Hundred Years War that changed that.

no it wasn't. England, and then Britain, would remain much ore centralized than France at least until the Revolution, if not after that - if, centralization is measured by the number of intermediate bodies in a polity. As for the role of the Estates General, ascribing their decline in influence to the Hundred Years War is either teleological, or simply believing the propaganda of the Bourbon kings (which a form of Wigghish history of France usually does). The Wars of Religion did much more to establish the legitimacy of a strong, absolute ruler than the Hundred Years War, which actually reinforced the Estates (culminating in the 1484 Estates) - and even this seems quite oversimplifying, considering the difficulties of summarizing a series of almost ordinary conflicts between The crowns of France and England as a single war.

I was hoping you would comment on this thread 

Having an educated view by someone who actually knows this area is a nice change.

btw not a comment aimed at Valmy 

[Valmy]

It enabled regional power sources, who succeeded in making themselves the necessary interlocutor for raising, and collecting them. It is the birth of Parlements in France, and organized estates throughout the kingdom.

Well sure. To the extent France actually was a centralized absolutist monarchy it still had those qualities. But that is different from the provinces being basically independent like what had gone one before.

I still have a hard time viewing permanent taxation rights by the central government being a force FOR regional power.

[Valmy]

An English victory in the Hundred Years' War would have reinforced the English trend towards absolutism, not weakened it.  The trend towards centralized tax collection was spurred by the need to pay for the war.  An English "victory" would have guaranteed another century of on-and-off war, IMO.

I think I was just set to argue that connection to the Continent did not necessarily mean absolutism as I don't think that was really a trend on the continent at the time. I also do not think there was a strong trend towards absolutism going on in England at the time. The Parliament kept a pretty firm grasp on the purse strings.

But, you know, maybe I am wrong about that.

[Razgovory]

I don't see how anyone could make the argument that if you change the outcome of a medieval war it would result in a definite political climate 500 years later.  That seems like a long time to extrapolate.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm a crazed girl who preys on desperate men.

No you aren't.

How dare you presume her gender?

[Sheilbh]

An English victory in the Hundred Years' War would have reinforced the English trend towards absolutism, not weakened it.  The trend towards centralized tax collection was spurred by the need to pay for the war.  An English "victory" would have guaranteed another century of on-and-off war, IMO.

I think I was just set to argue that connection to the Continent did not necessarily mean absolutism as I don't think that was really a trend on the continent at the time. I also do not think there was a strong trend towards absolutism going on in England at the time. The Parliament kept a pretty firm grasp on the purse strings.

But, you know, maybe I am wrong about that.

I'm not sure about it just because it's difficult to read back from absolutism which is really a later concept. I similarly don't think it's terribly easy to look back and say democracy was helped or not by it.

What is true which may have later led to more democratic/absolutist institutions is that England through the Hundred Years War (but in many ways before then too) managed to balance feudal institutions with a centralised state. So, my understanding is, it was rare elsewhere in Europe for the members of Parliaments to also be the local enforcement officers as was the case in England where MPS were routinely justices of the peace or sheriffs in their home area.

Again I may be wrong but my understanding is that England was unusual in that respect. The people who voted for laws were also the ones who ensured they were then followed. So local notables were tied into an effective centralised body rather than just one that tended to guard local privileges in exchange for subsidies (though that was part of it).

I believe, though I could be wrong again, that France had more of a separation of power and enforcement which did mean the monarchy had to rely on people other than the estates.

I'm sure Oex knows more though, only read one book on the (beginning of) the Hundreds Year War and found it all a bit confusing for me

[garbon]

Okay fan of teen dystopia fiction.

Joan of Arc: Maiden France and Joan of Arc, Part II: Fire Come Pray With Me from the Century War Chronicles novel series