The Hundred Years' War: Part 4 - Joan of Arc

When I was nineteen years old, I had just finished high school, was busy coasting through the first year of university, and my most important struggle was balancing just enough time to pass my courses while devoting as much time as possible to World of Warcraft. Joan of Arc at the age of nineteen had the somewhat more significant worries of convincing a king her visions of saints were real, rallying the beleaguered forces of France to an unlikely victory, and eventually trying to find a way to avoid being burned at the stake for heresy. Fortunately, now at age 23, I can safely say I've caught up in notoriety as I have now found that balance of video game time and schoolwork.

In case you hadn't read the previous entires, at the point in history when Joan of Arc was born, France was in a tremendous amount of trouble. The Hundred Years' War was drawing to a close with Britain controlling much of northern France and tightening the noose around the southern half. Orleans was one of the last bastions of French power, and if that city were to fall it would have been quite likely the food in France would be changing from baguettes to crumpets.

Joan of Arc, hardly concerned with
her terrible case of helmet-hair.

Fortunately, the saviour of the French people (saving them from generations of terrible English bread) came in an unlikely form - a twelve year old girl who hears voices. Honestly, the whole story sounds so ridiculous if it were a television show instead of cold, historical fact it would be deemed so unbearably ludicrous no one would have any interest. Well, I suppose Joan of Arcadia was created, but from what I can tell from IMDB she didn't lead any armies into battle, and the series finale contained one less stake burning than you would expect.

Joan began to see visions of saints - Catherine, Margaret and Michael, specifically - who told her she was the only one able to drive the English out of French territory. The dreams must have been convincing as she actually bothered to act on them; I feel with most dreams, you wake up and forget the majority of it and wonder what the heck garden gnomes had to do with any of it. Believing them to be true, she tried to manage safe passage to the soon-to-be French king, but was initially denied. What finally won the army over to let her see the dauphin was an accurate prediction on a British assault. Likely fearing they have nothing to lose if they brought her over, and their eternal souls at stake if they were to deny the will of God if the girl was telling the truth, Joan was on her way to the court of the dauphin.

Somehow she managed to impress the French court. The government gave her armour, and her horse, sword and banner came through donations provided to her through other means. The reason why the French went along with this seemingly asinine plan was they simply may have exhausted all of their non-ridiculous options. With Orleans under siege and pretty much everything going to crap around them, they must have been in the mood for a long-shot.

When appearing on the battlefield, she quickly changed the course of the siege. France had been defending for an exceptionally long time, pretty well allowing the British to step in and begin to attack the city. In all fairness, Orleans was exceptionally well defended, and would have proved to be an incredibly difficult city to overtake. However, defence was not in the cards for Joan's plan, and she decided to take the fight to the British. She hit the outlying areas and small encampments of British that were surrounding the city, effectively stopping the siege itself after only a few days time. The beginning stages of the military campaign of Joan of Arc were off to a resoundingly strong start.

Joan of Arc bringing the dauphin to Reims. She's... in the centre I think.

The dauphin, Charles VII, realized that if Joan of Arc were to lead the military movements, or at the very least be the face of the resistance, it was soon to become a religiously charged war seeing as the visions of Joan's youth were the reason for her taking over. Background checks (I don't know how these were done - I don't think they had computers) were done on Joan's character, which she passed with flying colours. The worry was if she was to succeed, but was not morally sound, the crowning of the king would be as if it was given to him by the devil - false visions from someone of a low moral standing. They had to ensure she was good or else she would be branded a heretic or sorceress, but not the cool kind of spell-casting sorceress in RPG video games.

As for the actual military leadership of Joan of Arc? Well, it's a little up for debate: she never actually had direct command, and she played more of an advisor role more than anything else. She was likely just a standard bearer, carrying around a sword but not one to really charge into battle and lay waste to a bunch of snarling Brits. That being said, she wasn't entirely out of the fighting either; she took an arrow around the neck and shoulder but returned to the fight shortly after. Later she would take another wound, this one a crossbow bolt to the leg, but power through it once again.

Her capture while trying to pass the dreaded Burgundian wallpapered pass.

Regardless of how strong of a role she played, she brought a strong morale boost to the people of France, a gleaming beacon of hope on an otherwise disparaging battlefield. Showing her boldness once again, she planned to charge the English ranks and cut a gap in their defences allowing the French dauphin to march towards Reims for his coronation. This caught the English off-guard, as they expected her to go pretty much anywhere but, and the result was a slaughter of the English and a resounding French victory.

This would be the last great victory for Joan of Arc, as she was captured by the Burgundians (one half of the French civil war that sided with the British) in a battle sometime after. In spite of rescue and escape attempts (she tried jumping seventy feet from the tower she was kept in) she was put on trial for heresy. Now, it sounds a little silly to say she didn't get a fair trial - I mean, she's about as far as friendly to the British as she could be - but the whole thing is actually kind of a mess. She was tried for heresy - that means it was a trial that was taken care of by the church, and should have no secular interference. However, because of the degree of importance in British affairs, there were threats-a-plenty, tampering of evidence, and the jury was all English (presumedly put in place by a medieval-era Johnnie Cochran). Obviously, she was convicted and burned at the stake, showing that if you claim to hear the voices of saints and be under orders of God, you best be able to prove it.

She was later deemed innocent after a retrial (her ashes ecstatic at the verdict) and went on to become a saint. Now, France has to deal with the fact that one of their greatest military leaders was a teenage girl.

The Hundred Years' War: Part 3 - Lancastrian War

A modern depiction of the Dauphin.

If you have found this blog by chance, saw the word 'Lancastrian' and read it as 'Lannister', I apologize but you are about to be sorely disappointed. This blog is about the third instalment of The Hundred Years' War, detailing the Lancastrian period in which we see such delightful characters as Joan of Arc (later represented by Lisa Simpson), the King of France (later represented by Milhouse Van Houten) and the King of England (later represented by a great number of boring and aesthetically displeasing paintings made during or after that century). The previous section of the war reminds us that history is no cohesive story, meant to entertain and follow a beginning, middle and end style narrative with a thrilling climax brought to us by Gerard Butler in slow motion. It's simply a retelling of events as they happen - in this case, the middle section (the Caroline war) was simply a number of battles and exchanges of territory, spicier than peacetime but not being altogether all that groundbreaking. I guess the burning and pillaging of the French countryside and the Fabian tactics to defeat the British were pretty cool, but.. I don't know. The addition of some interesting subplots (the king of England is secretly a woman! or every single battle turns into an underdog/last stand story in which the outnumbered win in a surprise victory!) would certainly have made it a little better. Fortunately, this one has a little more substance.

But anyways...

A civil war had started in France between the Armagnacs party and the Burgundians - two rivals in south and northern France, respectively. The first battle in the Lancastrian War went soundly to the British, the Battle of Agincourt being a strong victory for the English over the Armagnacs. Henry V, the king, continued on to win fight after fight and take greater levels of territory all the while spilling all sorts of French blood, not to be confused with wine, despite the high blood/alcohol level. At this point the French king, Charles VI, started to get a little weary of all this death and destruction rampaging across his homeland which would be more than a little bit of a downer. Fearing the worst, he was forced into a treaty with the British, stating that Henry was to marry his daughter (whoring out your daughters was socially acceptable back then, when women were pretty much political currency for alliance purposes). Anyone who was to marry the French princess would then be the one to take the French throne - this of course meaning that the Dauphin (which I have just now learned means the eldest son of the king of France - you're welcome for saving you a google search) no longer has a legitimate claim to the throne. We can only imagine that upon hearing that news the poor lad would be rather peeved.

Both sides quickly learn that arrows are not the only
form of weaponry that can be fired at unnecessarily
close range.

Henry V died sometime afterwards, as the French king followed suit. In the wake of the British king's death, his infant sone took what I can only imagine to be an adorable baby sized crown and made an alliance with the Burgundians who backed the young one. The Armagnacs, on the other hand, continued to support the French side of things and held out in the southern half of France.

Despite already losing a great number of battles and men, things continued to go downhill for France when at this point they thought the drop couldn't get much steeper. A French and Scottish army lost 16,000 men, the Scots being surrounded and destroyed along with their commanders, marking the last time major reinforcements would come to France from Scotland. Losing allies, fighting a civil war and the British, their leaders killed and their ranks scattered or dead as well, France was looking like they were on the brink of annihilation. In fact, Britain thought so too - they began to lay siege to the exceptionally well defended Armagnac capital of Orleans. Taking that would be a crippling blow to France.

Joan of Arc, nicknamed "The Maid of
Orleans"; she was the original French Maid.
Oh la la.

Like most great battles of history, the tides turned when one teenage girl started hearing voices in her head. Joan of Arc, after apparently having visions of God instructing her to defeat the British, convinces the Dauphin to send her to the siege. She then steps up to the plate, inspiring the troops through medieval pump-up music and paintings of montages, and rallies the broken French armies into a powerful fighting force. Hitting the small groups surrounding the city, she frees it from the siege and continues on to break the lines of English troops. This allows the Dauphin to march through to Reims and be crowned officially.

After leading a number of minor victories, Joan of Arc was eventually captured and burned at the stake as a witch, the British simply blaming the fact that they got out maneuvered by a girl on nothing short of magic. Regardless of her progress, the English still thought they would be able to maintain control of France and eventually succeed in the takeover. What was the real nail in the coffin for them was Burgundy eventually removing themselves as an ally, leaving them without adequate support to take over such a large territory with such a high number of people.

Thus ends the Hundred Years' War. Over a century of incredible battles summed up in three crappy, poorly informed blog posts.

The Hundred Years' War: Part 2 - Caroline War

I remembered thinking "you know, I've got a lot of time at home this month, being between school and my summer job - I best write a lot, as I'll have more time now than ever." This was before I realized the World Cup was starting, and if I wasn't there to watch Spain fail, who would? Well... pretty close to half the world would... but I wanted to be a part of that half.

Numerous technological and military strategy advances
since the time of the Edwardian War led them to figure out
they could shoot their bows not just one foot away from
their enemy, but two.

Anyways, we left off with the end of the first third of the Hundred Years' War. In case you didn't read it, I'll sum it up; both the English and the French are fighting, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, and they'll eventually call a truce. They'll cancel it shortly after, fight a little more, sometimes winning, sometimes losing, until they're out of resources and call a truce. Repeat these steps for a few years, and that's the Edwardian War. The second, named the Caroline War, is so named after Charles V of France who started the war back up again after the treaty no longer seemed appealing, which seems like all the rage back then. If you're wondering how the name 'Charles' converts to 'Caroline', well, you're not the only one.

Anyways, do you remember the War of Breton Succession? It occurred during the first section of the war, and the result was an English victory (or at least in the sense that the victorious claimant to the throne was the one England was backing). However, during the Caroline war, the French king reconciled with the new leader of Brittany, effectively giving the English no advantage. In fact, if anything it worked against them - Bertrand du Guesclin, who backed the French interests in Brittany, became an important commander for the French after the British pretty well swept in and took things over in there.

A statue of Bertrand du Guesclin,
apparently riding an eyeless, soulless
horse into battle.

Upon the restarting of the war (an English commander was killed, reigniting it) du Guesclin ran a series of carefully planned hit and runs, Fabian strategy style. He avoided major English armies, but took a number of towns along the way. When he did engage them, he was successful as well - he actually forced the Black Prince to leave France after defeating him soundly. To draw him into more open battle, bringing him out of his Fabian hidings, the English began to launch a number of Chevauchees. Chevauchees were attacks to basically break the world - crush the whole countryside to the point that they would have to face you, lest your country be pretty well annihilated. Even then, he was reluctant to attack, picking away at the forces and ultimately being quite successful.

Continuing the streak of French dominance in this section of the war, the English also began to lose their dominance at sea - kind of a low point for them considering their whole freaking country is pretty darn close to a coastline. The Battle of La Rochelle proved disastrous for the English, preventing them from properly supplying any expeditions into France and stifling their trade. The reaction was presumedly a great number of Brits saying "blimey...". England has had a rough go lately - first, the great sea battle of La Rochelle, and today they've lost 2-1 to Uruguay in the World Cup... if you see a British person, give them a pat on the back and some Earl Grey.

In the wake of getting their butts most thoroughly kicked, a one year truce was called and stretched out for several more years, ending the Caroline War with a number of French victories. Between this third and the next, Edward III and Charles V both died, being replaced by their much too young sons. That's surely to bring some controversy up.

The Hundred Years' War: Part 1 - Edwardian War

The Hundred Years' War, just from the name itself, gives rise to three varieties of people: one, a somewhat embarrassed person running a google search for "how long was 'The Hundred Years' War?"; two, someone eagerly awaiting the chance to correct someone and state the war actually spanned 116 years; and third, a one-upper arises to gleefully correct number two in saying that the timeframe stretched 116 years but the times in which they were actually fighting was somewhat shorter. Personally, I have already been number one, but by the time I am done this series I hope to be more than ready to be the jerk who becomes two, three, or even better, both on separate occasions when the need arises. As you know, the surest way to make friends is to correct people on minor details.

Edward III, practicing drawing the
family crest.

To set the tone for this exceedingly long conflict, I'll give a little background. The Edwardian War is the first of three sets of conflicts to split up the Hundred Years' War into more manageable pieces, this particular piece ranging from the dates of 1337-1360. The fighting arises from issues of who is the rightful owner of the French crown. The two choices came down to a matter of lineage mixed with a little bit of a distate of the idea of women in power. Charles IV, the king of France, died, the nearest male in line being Edward III of England - his mother being Isabella, sister of the dead king. However, since only men could be the leading monarch, he could not have lineage passed down from his mother - or so was the argument from the French aristocracy who claimed the nearest heir was Philip VI who may have been a little further out but went through a line of manhood. It was a case of "no girls allowed" that turned into a series of wars that lasted over a century.

Now, keep in mind that the war has not yet started - this is all just build up. When things really went south was when the French decided they were going to go in and take over Gascony, a place that preferred the rule of an English king that, for lack of a better term, decided to let them do their own thing without too much intervention - the French, on the other hand, felt the need to stick their stereotypically long noses into their affairs. This was what largely led to the war, but there were some other notable issues as well. Allegiances in the lower countries were split, France moved a naval fleet close to England (the middle ages way 'flexing' when you're a ruler), and France also supported Scotland who were by no means cool with England, which is an entirely different matter altogether. The issues in Scotland later allowed Mel Gibson to yell while wearing blue face-paint - a win for the whole world, really.

Edward III, the king of England, taking over in the wake of Edward II (who history seems to acknowledge was somewhat of a screwup) was charged with defending Gascony while the rest of the English fighting force would invade France from the north. Edward also purchased support in the lower countries in the form of mercenary groups and allegiances, forming an alliance which cost in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. He had to take out a loan from a few separate banks just to pay for the war, and you'll find that economics plays a massive role in how it all plays out.

While the English were holding out in Gascony, the French attacked the coastline of England, raiding a number of cities. England's armies split between a number of locations (the coastal defense, moving south into France, and defending in Gascony) meant a notable lack of protection against the general unrest of Scotland. Edward knew he had to solidify alliances with other lands or else he would slowly crumble under the weight of just too many battles. Fortunately, he got some help from Philip, although not intentionally. The would-be French king placed an embargo on the English goods going into Flanders (it's stated as mostly wool, but one can naturally assume tea, soccer balls and VHS copies of Monty Python were likely in the mix). Relying on those goods, Flanders revolted, taking a few other cities with the in the fight. It resulted in a strengthening of his forces in the south, as the low countries saw themselves as rebelling against Philip in favour of the true king of France - who, in this case, would be Edward... England's king. Yes, I find that a little confusing as well, but here we are.

A picture of one of the battles where they have not yet
learned that a bow and arrow can be used to attack an
enemy from greater than one foot away.

Many battles waged between both sides with varying degrees of success for both. Eventually, what struck the hardest was the economic pain of war. Crippling levels of debt plagued (foreshadowing!) both sides of the war, and they decided on a truce mostly due to a lack of funds to continue paying soldiers to go fight. As a result, they called what would be a relatively brief peace treaty.

During the peacetime, the Breton War of Succession came to pass. In a similar situation, a desire for the throne threw everything into chaos. Instead of going fully in depth about what the sides were so upset about, I'll give you the basics: France supported one guy who wanted the throne, the guy they didn't support went to England for help. By the way, a Breton is someone from the area in France called Brittany, in what I can only assume was called Breton instead of Briton because the English had already beaten them to the punch on that one. Anyways, to sum it up, England's armies won out and they called a truce once again due to exhaustion of resources.

William de la Pole, an important investor
for Edward III's war effort. Money was so
important they made a statue out of him.

The peace of course didn't last forever, and Edward was at it again with a great number of ships and men meant to raid and loot the countryside of France. They wouldn't take the territory, not wanting to engage the French quite yet, and would instead just pillage. The French eventually forced a battle, but the longbowmen of the British side were ultimately the deciding factor in pushing them back successfully. The Black Death (foreshadowing complete!) eventually stopped England from mounting any further pushes through France for the time being.

Once the plague started to recede, the fighting in this excessively stop and start war began again. Edward's son (lovably nicknamed the Black Prince, although not for any love of Ozzy Osbourne) took up the reins and went back to war, but this time with a notably savage twist; the raids he conducted were meant to kill the resources of the king, spread fear, and demoralize the French. During the fighting, the British captured the king and ransomed him off for a massive cost.

Completely lacking money at this point, France picks whatever is left of the bones of the peasantry, but scrapes a little too hard. An uprising (the Jacquerie, it's called) of the peasant class from the imposition of ridiculously high taxes, unpaid work and, regardless of all the taxation, the duty to defend the houses of the people pushing these rules on them. It was more of an anvil that broke the camel's back, rather than a straw. They destroyed a number of chateaux (the fancy houses of the nobles) while committing a bunch of atrocities against the higher class along the way. While they were eventually defeated, Edward tried to capitalize on the chaos and attacked but was defeated here and there regardless of the possible advantages he held.

In what feels like a somewhat anti-climactic end to the Edwardian section of the Hundred Years' War (I really was hoping that Black Prince guy - not to be confused with Martin Lawrence's The Black Knight - was going to be more of a central character) they decided to once again call a truce. Edward agreed to give up the throne to the French king, and he would take control over the territories of Aquitaine and Calais. Tune in next time for more war-time fun that surely will rival the excitement of next week's Game of Thrones episode.

Napoleon Bonaparte

There are three stages of university that allow you to gauge where you are in terms of the degree in which you care about your grades. The first stage is your early years where you still believe attendance is going to better you and your marks regardless of what is going on that day. The second stage is when you start becoming jaded and you realize you can easily miss the presentations and still be O.K. - this happened in EDIT (years later I have yet to learn what that acronym stands for) class when we had three weeks straight of presentations, of which I attended two. The third stage is where I’m at today. You show up for the first time in a while and realize there’s presentations going on, but at that point it’s too late to skip out on them. Your past attendance record (or lack thereof) was ultimately your undoing. 

"'I am the state'? Ha! I
am the fancy!"

Naturally, this seemed like a good time to learn some history. I’ve been facing an embarrassingly strong addiction to Civilization 5 lately. The game centers around real civilizations, so the leaders have certain unique buildings and military units are all related to the cultures you choose. Of course, all of the leaders are major figures in history as well. I usually choose Napoleon in these games because generations ago I apparently have some Frenchmen in the ancestry. I would choose Canada, but unfortunately they aren’t in the game. Honestly, having John A. Macdonald as a leader with Mounties as a unique military unit and a Maple Syrup Facility or Hockey Rink as their unique buildings that replace a market or stadium respectively would be freaking amazing. I’d play that in a heartbeat, but alas, no such option exists. I suppose I’ll have to settle with this fanciful man in knee socks and tight pants who is apparently checking how effective his ab workouts have been as of late (see left).

To justify my addiction I feel I should at least take something out of it and learn a little of the history of the guy that I’m currently rolling over Ghandi as (suck it, pacifists, I have musketmen). This meant a little wikipediaing during the presentations in which I learned a lot. Somehow, the man in the above picture was one of the greatest military commanders of all time. He also rose to the rank of emperor, a title slightly cooler than king and slightly less so than czar. Bonaparte was the first of which France has seen in over a thousand years. He also benefitted from having a 1970s rock star mullet (as seen below) - with a bow because... because France.

Napoleon, ruining his picture with
that absolutely ridiculous bow.

Napoleon’s wikipedia entry got me off to an interesting start. Apparently, he was born into a family of noble Italian ancestry. The future French emperor with Italian parents? That’s a little confusing. They sure as heck wouldn’t allow that in America - just ask Arnold Scwarzenegger.  But anyways, Napoleon’s early life wasn’t really so consequential - at least not compared to the importance the timeframe in which he was born was. Napoleon would be about twenty years old at the time of the French Revolution, which in a sense paved the path to his eventual rise to power. He became a military commander in the French First Republic which came to be shortly after the revolution when everyone was... well lets just say there were some beheadings going on and everything was going pretty bananas. The other European monarchies, both seeing a possible weakness in the French and fearful of a revolution against the monarchies of their own respective lands, waged wars in attempts to squelch the revolutionary might. Bonaparte had a bone to pick (sigh... sorry) and went off to war against Austria and Prussia. Napoleon held them off leaving only the Brits to fight, who without allies soon gave way to the advance - at least for now.

Soon after they were at it again in the Second Coalition. However, this time it started sans Bonaparte, who was off in Egypt at the time causing some trouble and flipping off the sphinx. Upon hearing word that his homeland was going to war again, he returned and held the line once more. He also led a successful invasion of the Italian peninsula, and considering Napoleon’s “I raid who I want to and when I want to” type attitude, he probably just wanted some pizza. Possibly lasagna if his small stature made him particularly cat-like.

Having made a name for himself, he started to convene with revolutionaries to stage a coup d’etat with Abbe Sieyes, a politician in the republic in power at the time in the wake of the revolution. However, in a Seinfeld-esque ruse, he formed a coup within a coup and eventually turned it into a military affair, which he would naturally be well inclined to lead. He then became first council until becoming an emperor after a plebiscite. In short, not only was Napoleon an excellent military commander, but he really knew how to play his political cards right. To quote him: “I am sometimes a fox and sometimes a lion. The whole secret of government lies in knowing when to be the one or the other.” He basically bided his time until he could use his force. He’s like Hitler except without all the anti-semitism and mustaches. In fact, maybe if Hitler learned from Napoleon’s mistakes in attacking Russia, we would have a very different world as we know it, but more on that later.

Shortly after his rise to emperor, he fought a number of wars against - guess who? - even more coalitions. He was incredibly successful and soon began to dominate much of Europe. While the map didn’t necessarily reflect just how wide reaching Napoleon’s rule was, this wasn’t because of a lack of army value or power. Instead, he employed many of  his family in vassal states, meaning he sent his relatives to rule over other countries thus maintaining French loyalty and power. He was basically rolling through Europe as an unstoppable machine, but he feared fighting Britain and left them relatively untouched. I mean, they didn’t call it the Hundred Years War for nothing - fighting Britain, a country known for their vast armies and mighty sea power, would be a nightmare to attack. Surely, attacking Russia would be the better plan, thought Hitler. Err... I mean, Napoleon.

Nope. Attacking Russia is never a good idea. Not because of number of troops, fighting ability or weaponry. Oh no. Russia doesn’t need that. Russia had two major factors that proved to defeat the French advance, and those were cold and sheer size. The Russians simply didn’t fight the French very often, and instead retreated further and further into the heart of Russian territory. They used their scorched earth policy, meaning they burned everything in their wake, leaving no supplies to forage to fuel the increasingly hungry and battle weary Frenchmen. An eventual retreat was inevitable, in which the cold Russian winter set in and did more damage than weaponry ever could. Napoleon was broken, and he was later exiled to Elba. 

However, Napoleon thought himself indomitable, and exile just wasn’t made for him. He returned to France and rose to power once again before being defeated at Waterloo, his last stand. His second reign was much shorter and held nowhere near the same steam his previous expedition had. Once again, he was sent into confinement and, under suspicious circumstances, Napoleon was no more.

Time-traveller aficionados argue to this day if "Napoleon Dynamite" was named after Bonaparte, or the other way around.

Famous Historical Figures Say the Darndest Things!

1. "There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous."
2. "I am a monarch of God's creation, and you reptiles of the earth dare not oppose me. I render an account of my government to none save God and Jesus Christ."
3. "Destiny urges me to a goal of which I am ignorant. Until that goal is attained I am invulnerable, unassailable. When destiny has accomplished her purpose in me, a fly may suffice to destroy me."