Henry V wasn't the first one to use the long bow. Edward III used them at Crecy. And it was actually the battle of Bonnackburn that foot soldiers first defeated a mounted cavalry charge of knights.
The longbow wasn't invented in a response to plate armor. ötzi the iceman had a longbow. The problems with longbows is that you need to learn and train with the longbow from a very early age in order to use it. So if you didn't excercise everyday since the age of seven, chances are you were never able to pull the 300 pounds necessary to pierce through armor in your teens when you were conscripted to fight against the french. So the English shire reeves simply made a law that everybody was requieredto train at least two hours a day with a longbow.It puzzles me how historians view a simply yewrod from the sap and a string of hemp and sinew to be the culmination of warfaretechnology in the 14th century.330 pounds is pretty much the maximum a human being can achieve, but the windlass operated heavy crossbows had a force of 1200-2500 pounds and could not only pierce through lines of armored horsemen, but also through wagons, parapets and oakshields. The advantage of the longbow however, is that it can be mass produced and fired in a rapid succession. It may not kill a heavy armored knight, but when the knight arrives alone at the enemy front because everone of his unarmored footman has been shot down he's gonna find himself in a bit of a hassle.
I want to thank you for your work! I just discovered it and look forward to hours of educational, well-spoken and pictured videos. Much better than reading on wikipedia. You deserve more attention and views :)
Wait a sec, the French king didn't want to ransom Joan because it would weaken the English king, so he didn't? THAT requires an explanation. I thought the whole purpose of the French was to weaken the English?
great video. dr. Ryan Reeves it helped me understand the hundreds years war way better than just reading a packet. i will continue watching your videos for my AP euro class.
Great video. Though I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but the Longbow was used at both Crecy and Poitiers and was well established far before Agincourt. It was probably used in the opening stages of the battle, but the English and Welsh ran out of Arrows very early in the battle and took on hand to hand combat. Most seem to agree that mud won the day for the English.
The outcome of the Hundred years war was determined by the Burgundians (who controlled Flanders). I believe around 1435 they switched sides, from being allies with the English to being allies with the French. I don't know for sure, but I suspect this has to do with economics. As soon as the Burgundians switched sides, things started going bad for the English and never really reversed. Flanders was one of the wealthiest places in Europe because it was the center of cloth production in the middle ages. The Flemish got their raw material for the cloth, raw wool, from England, especially the northern Midlands and Yorkshire which was great for raising sheep and had short easy access to Flemish ports. The production of cloth takes skill and infrastructure and a developed network of skilled people and supply chain, etc... In essence, in the manner of cloth production England was the colony supplying raw material to the more advanced and richer manufacturing country and the bulk of the wealth in the creation of cloth going to the manufacturer not the colonial raw material supplier. This economic relationship made them natural allies at the beginning of the Hundred Years war. In the 16th century England begins to implement a proto-form of industrial policy. They are no longer satisfied being just a cloth provider. They have the wool - which they can control if they want to; now they aspire to be the cloth manufacturers too, because that's where the value is really added and where the big wealth is. So they begin to prop up trade barriers, both for the import of finished cloth from Europe as well as the export of raw wool to Flanders. This economic history can be picked up in "Bad Samaratans" by Ha Choong Chan (Korean scholar at Cambridge) and if memory serves, also in "Global Economic History: A very short introduction" by Oxford Economic Historian Richard Allen (This is a very very good book and yet incredibly brief and accessible, not just to read but to buy). The (industrial) policy for the development of cloth manufacturing took a very long time (centuries, perhaps hampered by English civil wars) before it became successful. As I recall from my reading, i.e. if memory serves, England's policy was not just tariff's against imported cloth, but tax and/or (perhaps at times) embargoes of raw wool to Flanders and other parts of the continent. This was a dagger aimed at the heart of Burgundian wealth in the Netherlands/Flanders. I'm quite sure that the emergence of English industrial policy regarding cloth production and the Burgundians deciding to switch sides in the 100 years war is not a coincidence. (The Duke's of Burgundy almost successfully achieved the creation of a major state between Germany and France, from from Burgundy (including Franche Compte) north to the Netherlands and was relying on England to help them do this. Imagine a state from the alps, north, consisting of Burgundy, Loraine, Belgium and the Netherlands, perhaps with an eastern border on the Rhine. Had they succeeded, how might history have been different? Anyway, they would have had problems with identity because there are 3 different languages involved: French German and Flemish/Dutch. The nations of Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg might be seen as legacies of this failed attempt). I don't have to tell anyone that the English ultimately prove successful in their industrial policy (but it took a long time). It is the cloth trade that is first revolutionized in the English industrial revolution in the 18th century - this would not have happened if the English had not developed a strong establishment in cloth production but it took centuries for them to become successful. I think this is an episode of change in history. England basically chooses to lose lands in France in order to succeed in becoming a major manufacturer of cloth. This is a shift in what is viewed as a source of wealth away from land ownership in favor of manufacturing and trade. In the middle ages, the source of wealth was land. And France had the best land for growing things. The population of France, even when its eastern border was the Rhone-Meuse line, was never less than 3 times more than Englands. By the time of the Napoleonic wars, thanks to the industrial revolution, England's industrial production exceeds that of the entire continent combined in a host of areas. But at this time things are again changing. Napoleonic Code will create a legal system that brings the continent up to proximity of that of England's common law for purposes of trade and individual status (eliminating vestiges of fuedalism and making everyone equal before the law) and Hamilton's Report to Congress on Manufacturers laying out the industrial policy that will industrialize the rest of the world outside Britain, and the widespread diffusion of the Prussian education system making it possible for societies to absorb technology and technological change necessary for industrialism to take place.
Bows weren't really used as it is presented in the movies. If you shoot the the arrow in to the air and then let it fall down on the enemy it looses it's power and won't pierce anything. Simple physics.
Quick question, you said twice that Calais was lost under the reign of Henry VIII, but from what I know it was under his daughter Mary, so you sure about that ? "If you open my heart, you'll find the name of Calais engraved in it" - Queen Mary Tudor upon hearing the loss of Calais in 1558
That's interesting and correct but it's a really quick summary, the story is much more complicated than that. French population was divided between 2 factions. One standed for the English as they believed the English king had the strongest legitimacy to take the French throne. The other one standed with the French Dauphin. Actually the 100 years war was a deep civil war, most fights opposed the French factions. It was French opposed to French, and the situation favored the English. Of course at first the English won important pitch battles and managed to hold vast lands in France, but the French population supported them. It's all about royal dinasties history, at that time the nationalist sentiment isn't prominent. After Joan of Arc's arrival the French won most of other battles, the 1 century's conflict involved a war in Spain, and a lot of other local conflicts where the French supported a faction against another one supported by the English. Joan of Arc was an important figure, maybe the most important of the war, she raised the French morale and showed nothing was lost yet but she didn't won the war. After her many other important figures won the most decisive battles and used never seen before tactics. For exemple Bertrand Du Guesclin, or Olivier De Clisson. Du Gueslin could defeat the English in pitched battles, but he could use cunning tricks like entering cities disguised in English soldiers, and slauther the garnisons while it was asleep. This war is very interesting from the beginning to the end, there's not only Crécy, Poitiers and Joan of Arc.
+Ryan Reeves I would have thought Du Guesclin the more important figure.Was it not he who whittled away at the English until only Calais remained in their possession.
One thing I don't understand. Why would the French King pass on ransoming Jeanne, if by him doing so the English king would be weakened. Why would the French King care about the English king being weakened?
the longbow as apposed to other bows was not cheap and rather than being 'carved out of any wood long enough', very specifically required yew or at a push elm or ash. Again very specifically, this weapon was a laminate of two types of wood, the young sap wood on the outside able to curve and spring back and then heartwood on the inside able to withstand great pressure without breaking. In this way a draw weight of up to 140lbs was achieve which along with the bodkin arrow gave the archer its armour piercing ability. Also far from being a cheap option, arrows were hugely expensive and very labour intensive to make. Massed ranks of longbowmen were employed at Crecy also, with great effect.
Mr Reeves, Why are all the kings you discuss are "coronated" rather than "crowned?" In the 40+ years I've been working in history in the US and Europe, I have never heard of this usage in English. I do appreciate your clear and concise discussions of history; I've recommended my daughter to listen to them, as schools in Australia don't teach much world history. Thank you for your readily understandable lectures.
Hi Ryan. I'm confused at 22:00, when you explain Joan of Arc's randsom to the English. You mention that Charles 7 refuses to randsom her back because it would weaken the king. First, I don't understand how this would weaken the English king. Second, wouldn't he WANT to weaken the English king? I've read a few web sources which mention that he was either self-centered or by the time it came to "rescue" her it was too late. Could you elaborate please? Thanks, J
By the way there is an interesting coincidence at Compiegne: Joan of Arc was captured by the Burgundians, allies (actually closer to frienemies than allies) of the English, at Compiegne, France. WWI ended in 1918 with the signing of the Armistice at Compiegne, and in WWII, France surrendered to the Germans in 1940 at Compiegne in the same railway carriage brought to Compiegne for the surrender ceremony. A lot of history took place at Compiegne.
He didnt care about joan of arc because her impact on the war was extremely exaggerated by legend. She was a glorified cheerleader who played her part, but outlived her usefulness.
It may have been that the Charles simply did not want to incite another English offensive. Since the Burgundians were allied more to the English than the French, it makes sense that the English were aware of her capture; even as a figurehead she'd be a big prize, after all it had been by her influence that the French had begun to take back so much land. The French king's ransoming of her might have signaled another wave of French expansion and reclaiming of territories, or at least might have seemed that way to the English; perhaps appearing that the French were investing in her as an asset for future campaigns. Charles may have simply have been trying to let the English feel that they had the victory by giving them a scapegoat in Joan, a conciliatory prize, instead of pressing another campaign to reconquer French lands. Considering how much the English had been "wiping the floor with France", it strikes me that Charles would have been more content to protect what they had taken rather than incite another wave of English fury, considering this is the man who needed a peasant girl who heard voices in her head to spur him to commit armies to battle. Just my opinion. Take it as you will.
Christopher Preyer Alot of narrative and story there. Little of it is supported by history. The story of Joan of Arc is fun, but I would wager that the french turn around had more to do with increased centralization efforts, improved powers of the monarchy to levy taxes (making the taille permanent) and the creation of a permanent standing army. Tactically, artillery shortened sieges, and destroyed the English ability to defend her french holdings. That and the death of Henry V and his weak son plus the war of the roses helped. All of this should have been mentioned in the video, but this guy is more interested in story than in history. Charles VII was no where near as weak as the stories make him out to be. Just ask Machiavelli.
I went to see the Field of the Cloth of Gold today. I am currently staying in the village of Guines. There is no Cloth of Gold there anymore just a ploughed field. I filmed it so I shall publish that once I get a decent internet connection!
You said that Henry 5th used longbow men to defeat the french in Agincoirt and I know that is true but I'm confused because I thought early on in the 100 years war at the battle of Crecey the longbows were used in the same way to defeat the french knights?
Actually, Edward's tactic of avoiding pitched battle wasn't that unique, it was fairly commonplace during the Middle Ages. Sieges and skirmishes are a lot safer than a pitched battle where you put all your cards on the table at once. The thing about decisive, pitched battles is that while it was certainly a high-risk, high-reward scenario, it was just that: HIGH RISK. Much safer to rely on skirmishes and sieges, which is exactly what most people did in the Middle Ages. Pitched battles only really happened when one side had a much greater advantage, they were forced into the battle or the leader of one side was really, REALLY incompetent. That's not to say that these pitched battles were especially UNCOMMON, it's just good commanders preferred to avoid them unless they had no choice.
The myth is equally that people wore plate mail regularly. It was actually rare. But the point is not that one weapon solved the war like the proverbial silver bullet. But denying the myth is not the same as treating the longbow as an irrelevancy in the war. It had an impact in certain battles.
Hello, Nice video. There are, however, some very important facts explaining the success of the kings of England in the first part of the war that are missing in this video, such as the fact that France was going through a civil war between the Armagnac and the Bourguignons. The whole conflict was not simply a conflict between France and England but a conflict between those who supported the claim of the Valois and those who supported the claim of the Plantagenet. Furthermore, the very idea of nation (and France as nation) didn't exist at the time.
Why were you even involved with England? Anglo-Saxon England had no involvement or problem with France. France started the whole show with the Norman invasion of 1066. If that had not happened, England would have remained a northern/nordic focused country. The 100 years war and ALL subsequent wars were a direct involvement of France and the Normans in England (for no reason but lies) since 1066. Never mind, the 'colony' fought you for 800 years and gave you a second-rate empire based around Senegal. What were the gains, in France? Yeah well done.
“100 Years War” by Ryan Reeves is a reasonable source of information about the Hundred Years War. He goes into to detail in all the events with factful detail and lots of pictures. Each slide in the video has words and a picture while he talks. The video is created by Ryan Reeves, a trusted online teacher. Ryan has a lot of knowledge on the topic and has over 2,000 views. He gives true educated information, and explains clearly, but bores you a little with his slow pace talking and long slides. I wouldn't recommend it to people who like a fast pace recommend this video but it is a good source of information.
The map of Flanders is incorrect, since it's a modern one, Flanders in the middle ages had very different borders and consisted of modern West-Vlaanderen, Oost-Vlaanderen, Frans-Vlaanderen en Zeeuws-Vlaanderen. The English longbow couldn't penetrate the armour of the French knights, they did however kill the horses which immobilised the knights and rendered them useless since it was very difficult for them to get up. If the horse din't get killed it would get spooked by the rain of arrows comming down, throwing off its rider and having the same effect. Agincourt for example was fought on a muddy farm land with a steep desent on both sides, so not only did the French get bottlenecked but they also got stuck in the mud.
_"English Longbows couldn't penetrate the armour of the French knights"_ Educate yourself please: markstretton.blogspot.com/ English Warbows can penetrate armour in the right circumstances: The poundage of the bow, the type of arrowhead used, the distance and angle of the arrow when it hits armour, and the type and quality of said armour.
l am amazed and impressed the way l am able to perceive and spiritually feel through the technology of internet the strong andtrue annoyntment of the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD in your lectures, voice and the answers of some comments, but can not feel in many other channels that sometimes l find an interesting lecture, but none presence of the HOLY SPIRIT, so l do not listen for more than 5 minutes - l just can not stand with it -l also feel the HOLY SPIRIT in Bruce Gore . - it´s fantastic to feel HIS PRESENCE during all youur lectures -means life and strenght to my faith.
the english might have used all kinds of woods for their bows, but they preferred the wood of the yew tree. which has desirable attributes for bows, the best at least in the eu area. interestingly, the yew tree is considered holy by jews (its the jehova tree) and you very often see them next to anglican churches.
I really enjoy your lectures. Great job. Thanks. I learned a lot from this. It is funny how you said Henry always the baby went of and sulked in his tent.
Yeah I suppose it can sound as if I'm making it the equivalent of the nuclear bomb or something. I meant it to sound much more muted. Some make it sound too much, and it did have a massive effect, just not so much as to it needs to be overplayed. Great point!
Ryan Reeves Of course! Entire armies of longbowmen have significant advantages but these advantages lay insofar as the opposing army would be mostly constituted of lightly armoured soldiers (which they are). Well-made--I say "well-made" because there were people armoured with either low-quality steel or just iron--plate armour is impenetrable by either longbows or crossbows. On the other hand, whilst longbows _are_ simply long, thick sticks that are then just bent to produce immense tension, you cannot make out of any wood. You need wood that has a certain springiness to it so that it would want to bend back into shape and not take a set. Great video anyway. Thank you.
I disagree. The English Warbow is in-fact one of the major factors in English victories in the Hundred Years War, and that was due to its very high draw weight and bodkin arrowheads. Shortbows, like those used by the Normans in 1066 were not very powerful. The Shortbow had limited effective range and could not penetrate mail armour. The English Warbow changed that: being able to kill at 300 yards and penetrate both mail and plate armour within 100 yards. It is true though that English Warbows were not cheap. The ideal Longbow needed yew wood, and the best yew came from mainland Europe. They had to import yew staves, and needed skilled bowyers to craft them. Making a proper warbow took at least a year.
zombieteenager007 Just watch "Weapons that made Britain: Longbow". The presenter used a cannon that fired a bodkin arrow with the equivalent force of a English Warbow with 150 lbs draw weight. He found out that at 20 metres or 65 feet, the bodkin arrow could fully penetrate a munitions grade breast plate and the gambeson underneath.
22:04 i don't understand why the French King didnt ransom back Joan of Arc. You say here that ransoming Joan back would weaken the English King so the French king doesnt ransom her back???
+Anna Nimus // Good eye. Yep. Either the artist was bad at perspective or another idea is that horses were bruisers and would trample those who feel on the ground. Could be either.
I don't understand why the French king didn't pay for Joan of Arc's ransom. You said it was because it would weaken the English King. Why would that be a problem for the French king?
Wales was conquered by the english under the reign of Edward I, Edward III's grandfather. Scotland fought against the english at times, but it rarely went well.
aaron paul+ you are quite correct, King Edward I conqured much of wales de jure, de facto many regions of wales like in ireland were "outside of english law,juristriction, personal fiefs of the marcher lords" it is widely documented in poiters,argincourt and other battles, that welsh,scottish and irish were on both sides, prehaps ignored or even forgotten, as were "the profund welsh long bow men" also in 1400 was the biggest rebelion, King Charles "the mad of france" actually provided assitance and the "welsh prince was recognised offically by the kingdom of castille... so the offical "english crown claiming ireland,scotland,france and wales de jure, may not be de facto actuall history, especially concerning the welsh,irish,scottish and of course several riots,rebellions and various historic documents and non english crown history, often the french crown were intrested in any anti english sentiment..., bretons,burgandians complicate the mix....
jardon Jones Individual soldiers fought all over the place all the time. The King of Bohemia fought with the french at crecy. Robert d'Atrois fought for the english and helped spur on the conflict after he was denied his inheritance. Mercenaries and exiles fought all over the place all of the time. The kingdom of scotland did fight with the french a few times, which is what i was referring to. Bretons were extra complicated because they had their own war of succession, as did castile. Burgundy started off vying for influence at the french court, before become independent after the treaty of arras and then divided between the hapsburgs and valois after the battle of nancy. You are quite correct overall though, and thanks for the details.
Google the Battle of Baugé. Pope Martin V passed comment by reiterating a common medieval saying, that "Verily, the Scots are well-known as an antidote to the English."
+TheShart1234 // Hey there. I can't say that I know of one. Most of these things for historians would be in expensive databases you get through your university, but I am unaware of a hardcopy myself. Maybe someone else will know!
There seems to be a lot of confussion about what Joan of Arc actually did during the 100 year war, the myths sorrounding her muddy the truth even more. I'd like for someone who is more knowledgable than me to tell me: Was she actually in charge of her army? Did she actually plan and managed the sieges in Reims and Orleans?
There is literally 0 evidence that a longbow can actually puncture steel armor....actually right here on YT you can see attempts at piercing actual forged armor and it just bounces right off. So they never countered knights and knights only made up a small portion of your army back then. What did they counter was what most of both armies were made of, which is to say lightly to medium armored troops. The bows have a better chance at piercing chain and padded armor and that's not even a guarantee. Also there is basically irrefutable evidence that they used the long bows at close range rather that out at distance and there are dozens of videos explaining why that is. Right down to the way the bones of an archer should look, and it doesn't match up with an upward arch but rather a more straightened shot.
Lost in terms of the final nail in the coffin after a season of recovery. Historians talk about a loss of Calais under Henry in terms of influence. It certainly threw Henry's court into a twirl to determine if they should go to war over it. As with so much diplomacy in this age, there is always the 'early' date and the 'later' date. Throughout a lot of history there are declarations of gain and loss that may not be fully realized until later. Great question to raise, though! :)
"After I die, you will find "Calais" written on my heart." - Mary Tudor. I think you should at least mention that her reign was recognised as the one that lost Calais for good, at least as the English considered it.
We have a Calais, Maine. Colonized by the French, it is pronounced "Calus". If you pronounce it wrongly, people will instantly know you are from "away".
the norman french replaced the saxon english monarchy with french rulers , the french deserved every second of the hundred years wars, want to live in peace then leave your neighbours alone.
Nobody is crying about the 100 years war. It was basically a civil war between French rulers in France and French rulers of England. That's why many French were divided between both rulers (Burgundy was even an ally of the English...)
Saying that the 100 years war was a war between France and England is historicly false, it was mostly a war between two houses to take the French throne because French culture was so far superior to the English one that England was more or less part of France. So this war wasn't really a war between two countries, but more like a Civil War. Thus if "England had won", then the country that would have born would have been more like a great and unified France than an English Empire
That depends on the period - The later part of the war (such as when Henry V "won" the war) and English culture and Identity had formed and thus an English Empire would be more likely however in the earlier periods it was more like a hotpot of cultures and identities with the nobility being "French".
As you say. France, being imperialistic scum, allowed the Norman invasion of England in 1066 (due to William the Bastards lies). Destroying Anglo-Saxon Atheling, a country that had NO problems or issues with Frankland, and directly involved England into French affairs for the next 400 years, hell even 800 years time. Constant warfare. At least you got an empire based around Senegal and Algeria...
What were the English doing while all this French recapturing of their lands was taking place? Did they not try a serious counter-offensive? Or did they simply not have the power anymore?
honestly the English should of made it impossible for another war in the first peace treaty they should of threatened the French with the kings death march into Paris and crown the English king the king of France under a personal union and left it in integurum, crushing france would of meant a Norman English king on the French throne who also speaks French chances are he won't be considered a outsider
Just found this channel now. :o The intro was really interesting. Though you should mentioned the death of Chivalry because of English fighting dirty in Agincourt. And well, there are a few more, but Mystic is just a history enthusiast. Just some extra to give out to anyone interested ;P .
+Andrew Coggins // Not wanky at all. :) It's a bit like dating the fall of Rome: when did it start falling and when did it officially fall, etc. You are right that sovereignty changed hands under Mary I (which made her enemies howl), but England was increasingly losing its grip on the city back under Henry, so I am referencing the more 'soft' ways England was losing power. You must study this either at university or on your own, though, to spot that detail. Nice work. :)
American historians only seem to read the British sources, that's why their view of French history tend to be one-sided, always insisting on the english victories and not even mentionning the french ones...That's how it is sadly. Then you have some douchebags saying the French are losers...yada yada yada...They just had the second biggest empire of the 19th-20th century...not bad for "losers".
History is all about sources any source can be a source of information, do France and England truly exist before the hundred year's war. The Angevin kingdom and Valois monarchs shared a same sphere of culture and even sometimes language. Feudal people considered people from a different fief to be a different group or nationality Aquitaine, Lorraine, Cornwall, Brittany, Normandy ... were in themselves tiny "countries". Nation States in the modern period needed legitimacy it's in no way fortuitous that Shakespeare for example wrote so many plays on this period of split modernization and differentiation !!
Joan of Arc, didn't actually fight, she was just a figurehead. You mentioned this but I am just making it clear for anyone who didn't understand. Just think about it, guys. If your army's morale is high because of that person, if that person dies, then the army is fucked, and there's no reason to keep on trying anymore
Thumbs up but you failed to mention the huge significance of the Black Death on English foreign policy. The English used French territory for plunder due to the fact that their tax base disappeared almost overnight due to the epidemic and France was relatively wealthy compared to, let's say, Scotland or Ireland at this time.
Belem, if you listened to the lecture, you'll recall that England and France fought, off and on, for a bit more than 100 years with England winning the three biggest battles (Crecy, Poitier, and Agincourt), but ultimately losing the war, thanks in part to Joan of Arc, the early death of English King Henry V, and infancy of Henry VI; and in the end the English got kicked off the continent a century later from its last possession in France, viz., Calais, in 1558 when Bloody Mary Tudor had other fish (and heretics) to fry as well as coping with her ovarian cancer, which killed her before the year was over.
That saved me a 100 years of reading.
Henry V wasn't the first one to use the long bow. Edward III used them at Crecy. And it was actually the battle of Bonnackburn that foot soldiers first defeated a mounted cavalry charge of knights.
The longbow wasn't invented in a response to plate armor. ötzi the iceman had a longbow. The problems with longbows is that you need to learn and train with the longbow from a very early age in order to use it. So if you didn't excercise everyday since the age of seven, chances are you were never able to pull the 300 pounds necessary to pierce through armor in your teens when you were conscripted to fight against the french. So the English shire reeves simply made a law that everybody was requieredto train at least two hours a day with a longbow.It puzzles me how historians view a simply yewrod from the sap and a string of hemp and sinew to be the culmination of warfaretechnology in the 14th century.330 pounds is pretty much the maximum a human being can achieve, but the windlass operated heavy crossbows had a force of 1200-2500 pounds and could not only pierce through lines of armored horsemen, but also through wagons, parapets and oakshields. The advantage of the longbow however, is that it can be mass produced and fired in a rapid succession. It may not kill a heavy armored knight, but when the knight arrives alone at the enemy front because everone of his unarmored footman has been shot down he's gonna find himself in a bit of a hassle.
I want to thank you for your work! I just discovered it and look forward to hours of educational, well-spoken and pictured videos. Much better than reading on wikipedia. You deserve more attention and views :)
More relevant than Joan of Arc in defeating the English was the adoption of gunpowder and cannon by the French.
The map of Flanders you are showing is present day Flanders. This is very different from the region of Flanders in the Middle Ages.
Hopefully I got the right medieval Ned Flanders, though...
Wait a sec, the French king didn't want to ransom Joan because it would weaken the English king, so he didn't? THAT requires an explanation. I thought the whole purpose of the French was to weaken the English?
longbows were made from yew.... not from 'all kinds of pieces of wood'
great video. dr. Ryan Reeves it helped me understand the hundreds years war way better than just reading a packet. i will continue watching your videos for my AP euro class.
Great video. Though I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but the Longbow was used at both Crecy and Poitiers and was well established far before Agincourt. It was probably used in the opening stages of the battle, but the English and Welsh ran out of Arrows very early in the battle and took on hand to hand combat. Most seem to agree that mud won the day for the English.
Excellent, really clear and well explained. Thank you
The outcome of the Hundred years war was determined by the Burgundians (who controlled Flanders). I believe around 1435 they switched sides, from being allies with the English to being allies with the French. I don't know for sure, but I suspect this has to do with economics. As soon as the Burgundians switched sides, things started going bad for the English and never really reversed.
Flanders was one of the wealthiest places in Europe because it was the center of cloth production in the middle ages. The Flemish got their raw material for the cloth, raw wool, from England, especially the northern Midlands and Yorkshire which was great for raising sheep and had short easy access to Flemish ports. The production of cloth takes skill and infrastructure and a developed network of skilled people and supply chain, etc... In essence, in the manner of cloth production England was the colony supplying raw material to the more advanced and richer manufacturing country and the bulk of the wealth in the creation of cloth going to the manufacturer not the colonial raw material supplier. This economic relationship made them natural allies at the beginning of the Hundred Years war.
In the 16th century England begins to implement a proto-form of industrial policy. They are no longer satisfied being just a cloth provider. They have the wool - which they can control if they want to; now they aspire to be the cloth manufacturers too, because that's where the value is really added and where the big wealth is. So they begin to prop up trade barriers, both for the import of finished cloth from Europe as well as the export of raw wool to Flanders. This economic history can be picked up in "Bad Samaratans" by Ha Choong Chan (Korean scholar at Cambridge) and if memory serves, also in "Global Economic History: A very short introduction" by Oxford Economic Historian Richard Allen (This is a very very good book and yet incredibly brief and accessible, not just to read but to buy). The (industrial) policy for the development of cloth manufacturing took a very long time (centuries, perhaps hampered by English civil wars) before it became successful.
As I recall from my reading, i.e. if memory serves, England's policy was not just tariff's against imported cloth, but tax and/or (perhaps at times) embargoes of raw wool to Flanders and other parts of the continent. This was a dagger aimed at the heart of Burgundian wealth in the Netherlands/Flanders.
I'm quite sure that the emergence of English industrial policy regarding cloth production and the Burgundians deciding to switch sides in the 100 years war is not a coincidence.
(The Duke's of Burgundy almost successfully achieved the creation of a major state between Germany and France, from from Burgundy (including Franche Compte) north to the Netherlands and was relying on England to help them do this. Imagine a state from the alps, north, consisting of Burgundy, Loraine, Belgium and the Netherlands, perhaps with an eastern border on the Rhine. Had they succeeded, how might history have been different? Anyway, they would have had problems with identity because there are 3 different languages involved: French German and Flemish/Dutch. The nations of Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg might be seen as legacies of this failed attempt).
I don't have to tell anyone that the English ultimately prove successful in their industrial policy (but it took a long time). It is the cloth trade that is first revolutionized in the English industrial revolution in the 18th century - this would not have happened if the English had not developed a strong establishment in cloth production but it took centuries for them to become successful.
I think this is an episode of change in history. England basically chooses to lose lands in France in order to succeed in becoming a major manufacturer of cloth. This is a shift in what is viewed as a source of wealth away from land ownership in favor of manufacturing and trade. In the middle ages, the source of wealth was land. And France had the best land for growing things. The population of France, even when its eastern border was the Rhone-Meuse line, was never less than 3 times more than Englands.
By the time of the Napoleonic wars, thanks to the industrial revolution, England's industrial production exceeds that of the entire continent combined in a host of areas. But at this time things are again changing. Napoleonic Code will create a legal system that brings the continent up to proximity of that of England's common law for purposes of trade and individual status (eliminating vestiges of fuedalism and making everyone equal before the law) and Hamilton's Report to Congress on Manufacturers laying out the industrial policy that will industrialize the rest of the world outside Britain, and the widespread diffusion of the Prussian education system making it possible for societies to absorb technology and technological change necessary for industrialism to take place.
I thought it was under Mary 1st (Bloody Mary) that Calais was lost.
Bows weren't really used as it is presented in the movies. If you shoot the the arrow in to the air and then let it fall down on the enemy it looses it's power and won't pierce anything. Simple physics.
i love how you explain. its very easy to digest
Thank you, this was the best video of the 100 years war, the time was right, I needed something useful but not more than 40 minutes, this was perfect.
Quick question, you said twice that Calais was lost under the reign of Henry VIII, but from what I know it was under his daughter Mary, so you sure about that ?
"If you open my heart, you'll find the name of Calais engraved in it" - Queen Mary Tudor upon hearing the loss of Calais in 1558
That's interesting and correct but it's a really quick summary, the story is much more complicated than that.
French population was divided between 2 factions. One standed for the English as they believed the English king had the strongest legitimacy to take the French throne. The other one standed with the French Dauphin. Actually the 100 years war was a deep civil war, most fights opposed the French factions. It was French opposed to French, and the situation favored the English.
Of course at first the English won important pitch battles and managed to hold vast lands in France, but the French population supported them. It's all about royal dinasties history, at that time the nationalist sentiment isn't prominent.
After Joan of Arc's arrival the French won most of other battles, the 1 century's conflict involved a war in Spain, and a lot of other local conflicts where the French supported a faction against another one supported by the English. Joan of Arc was an important figure, maybe the most important of the war, she raised the French morale and showed nothing was lost yet but she didn't won the war. After her many other important figures won the most decisive battles and used never seen before tactics. For exemple Bertrand Du Guesclin, or Olivier De Clisson. Du Gueslin could defeat the English in pitched battles, but he could use cunning tricks like entering cities disguised in English soldiers, and slauther the garnisons while it was asleep. This war is very interesting from the beginning to the end, there's not only Crécy, Poitiers and Joan of Arc.
+Beoulve Guildion // Yep, just a survey lecture on it (overview) as part of a survey course. It's a great and complicated story, as you mention.
+Ryan Reeves I would have thought Du Guesclin the more important figure.Was it not he who whittled away at the English until only Calais remained in their possession.
Pure nonsense, nothing to do with the 100 years war.
Probably true, but entering a city disguised was not new. The ancient greeks did that at Troje with a horse.
Ronald de Rooij
Of course yes.
Not new, unconventional :)
Thank you. Intelligent without being condescending. I enjoyed it. And I loved the visuals.
"We'll see how British Longbows fare against French Cannon."
Great channel for an old history buff like me! I subscribed and am learning so much from you. Thnx.
One thing I don't understand. Why would the French King pass on ransoming Jeanne, if by him doing so the English king would be weakened. Why would the French King care about the English king being weakened?
the longbow as apposed to other bows was not cheap and rather than being 'carved out of any wood long enough', very specifically required yew or at a push elm or ash. Again very specifically, this weapon was a laminate of two types of wood, the young sap wood on the outside able to curve and spring back and then heartwood on the inside able to withstand great pressure without breaking. In this way a draw weight of up to 140lbs was achieve which along with the bodkin arrow gave the archer its armour piercing ability. Also far from being a cheap option, arrows were hugely expensive and very labour intensive to make.
Massed ranks of longbowmen were employed at Crecy also, with great effect.
you have a deep booming voice. my neighbor came by to complain about it vibrating through the floor.
Mr Reeves,
Why are all the kings you discuss are "coronated" rather than "crowned?" In the 40+ years I've been working in history in the US and Europe, I have never heard of this usage in English.
I do appreciate your clear and concise discussions of history; I've recommended my daughter to listen to them, as schools in Australia don't teach much world history.
Thank you for your readily understandable lectures.
the only thing tighter than (the things) Joanne D'arc (did) was the ending of that video. Thanks for making it, very enjoyable :)
Ryan,
I am a traditional minded practicing Catholic and I truly appreciate your
your inoffensive approach to history. God bless you
+Dan Messenger ; He can't, every side was Catholic.
Inoffensive? Wot?
Yes, i agree with Dan Messenger's sentiment. I am a practicing skiier and i appreciate your inoffensive approach to history.
As a practicing dentistry student (literally), I also support this inoffensive history lesson.
Johnnyc drums I have seen a lot of proof of god and Jesus on UA-cam
Hi Ryan. I'm confused at 22:00, when you explain Joan of Arc's randsom to the English. You mention that Charles 7 refuses to randsom her back because it would weaken the king. First, I don't understand how this would weaken the English king. Second, wouldn't he WANT to weaken the English king? I've read a few web sources which mention that he was either self-centered or by the time it came to "rescue" her it was too late. Could you elaborate please? Thanks,
J
By the way there is an interesting coincidence at Compiegne: Joan of Arc was captured by the Burgundians, allies (actually closer to frienemies than allies) of the English, at Compiegne, France. WWI ended in 1918 with the signing of the Armistice at Compiegne, and in WWII, France surrendered to the Germans in 1940 at Compiegne in the same railway carriage brought to Compiegne for the surrender ceremony. A lot of history took place at Compiegne.
He didnt care about joan of arc because her impact on the war was extremely exaggerated by legend. She was a glorified cheerleader who played her part, but outlived her usefulness.
Jonny Miller Yes, I didn't get that point either, about weakening the English King.
It may have been that the Charles simply did not want to incite another English offensive. Since the Burgundians were allied more to the English than the French, it makes sense that the English were aware of her capture; even as a figurehead she'd be a big prize, after all it had been by her influence that the French had begun to take back so much land. The French king's ransoming of her might have signaled another wave of French expansion and reclaiming of territories, or at least might have seemed that way to the English; perhaps appearing that the French were investing in her as an asset for future campaigns. Charles may have simply have been trying to let the English feel that they had the victory by giving them a scapegoat in Joan, a conciliatory prize, instead of pressing another campaign to reconquer French lands. Considering how much the English had been "wiping the floor with France", it strikes me that Charles would have been more content to protect what they had taken rather than incite another wave of English fury, considering this is the man who needed a peasant girl who heard voices in her head to spur him to commit armies to battle. Just my opinion. Take it as you will.
Christopher Preyer Alot of narrative and story there. Little of it is supported by history. The story of Joan of Arc is fun, but I would wager that the french turn around had more to do with increased centralization efforts, improved powers of the monarchy to levy taxes (making the taille permanent) and the creation of a permanent standing army. Tactically, artillery shortened sieges, and destroyed the English ability to defend her french holdings. That and the death of Henry V and his weak son plus the war of the roses helped. All of this should have been mentioned in the video, but this guy is more interested in story than in history. Charles VII was no where near as weak as the stories make him out to be. Just ask Machiavelli.
Ryan Reeves is excellent, but he ought to know that "coronated" is not a word. "Crowned" is what he means.
Excellent. I will subscribe you. You made these very interesting. Beautiful use of art. I look forward to watching others.
There is an excellent graphic novel called Crécy. It is a short read and should be an instant favorite to anyone interested in the hundred years war.
Wow that sounds cool!! Thanks.
"I can kill you at 300 yards with these."
~ An English Longbowman pointing his index and middle fingers, palm inward.
ReonMagnum Wow so cool. much great. Let me roll down the hill in a barrel
How about a video on the 30 years war?
It took several days to get through this as I am a genealogist. Everyone was related until we get to Joan of Arc.
I went to see the Field of the Cloth of Gold today. I am currently staying in the village of Guines. There is no Cloth of Gold there anymore just a ploughed field. I filmed it so I shall publish that once I get a decent internet connection!
You said that Henry 5th used longbow men to defeat the french in Agincoirt and I know that is true but I'm confused because I thought early on in the 100 years war at the battle of Crecey the longbows were used in the same way to defeat the french knights?
Great lesson, my compliment.
Nice work, subbed.
Just saying, the longbow's arrows can't pierce plate armor. It works very well against most armor though
Actually, Edward's tactic of avoiding pitched battle wasn't that unique, it was fairly commonplace during the Middle Ages. Sieges and skirmishes are a lot safer than a pitched battle where you put all your cards on the table at once. The thing about decisive, pitched battles is that while it was certainly a high-risk, high-reward scenario, it was just that: HIGH RISK. Much safer to rely on skirmishes and sieges, which is exactly what most people did in the Middle Ages. Pitched battles only really happened when one side had a much greater advantage, they were forced into the battle or the leader of one side was really, REALLY incompetent.
That's not to say that these pitched battles were especially UNCOMMON, it's just good commanders preferred to avoid them unless they had no choice.
henry's son had multiple breakdowns and so england began precipitously loosing land. And that french king was truly a bastard giving the girl up
the myth that any projectile weapon of the time could "pierce" plate armor needs to die :/
The myth is equally that people wore plate mail regularly. It was actually rare. But the point is not that one weapon solved the war like the proverbial silver bullet. But denying the myth is not the same as treating the longbow as an irrelevancy in the war. It had an impact in certain battles.
Hello, Nice video. There are, however, some very important facts explaining the success of the kings of England in the first part of the war that are missing in this video, such as the fact that France was going through a civil war between the Armagnac and the Bourguignons. The whole conflict was not simply a conflict between France and England but a conflict between those who supported the claim of the Valois and those who supported the claim of the Plantagenet. Furthermore, the very idea of nation (and France as nation) didn't exist at the time.
You forgot to talk about events during 1370-1790.. there were a french offensives and gains over England during this period.
Not forgot....chose not to cover. It's a survey course so cannot be exhaustive yet.
Why were you even involved with England? Anglo-Saxon England had no involvement or problem with France.
France started the whole show with the Norman invasion of 1066. If that had not happened, England would have remained a northern/nordic focused country. The 100 years war and ALL subsequent wars were a direct involvement of France and the Normans in England (for no reason but lies) since 1066. Never mind, the 'colony' fought you for 800 years and gave you a second-rate empire based around Senegal. What were the gains, in France? Yeah well done.
“100 Years War” by Ryan Reeves is a reasonable source of information
about the Hundred Years War. He goes into to detail in all the events
with factful detail and lots of pictures. Each slide in the video has
words and a picture while he talks. The video is created by Ryan
Reeves, a trusted online teacher. Ryan has a lot of knowledge on the
topic and has over 2,000 views. He gives true educated information,
and explains clearly, but bores you a little with his slow pace
talking and long slides. I wouldn't recommend it to people who like a
fast pace recommend this video but it is a good source of information.
France and england are both of mortal hating each other in the world. Respect from indonesia.
Intro is awesome
The map of Flanders is incorrect, since it's a modern one, Flanders in the middle ages had very different borders and consisted of modern West-Vlaanderen, Oost-Vlaanderen, Frans-Vlaanderen en Zeeuws-Vlaanderen.
The English longbow couldn't penetrate the armour of the French knights, they did however kill the horses which immobilised the knights and rendered them useless since it was very difficult for them to get up.
If the horse din't get killed it would get spooked by the rain of arrows comming down, throwing off its rider and having the same effect.
Agincourt for example was fought on a muddy farm land with a steep desent on both sides, so not only did the French get bottlenecked but they also got stuck in the mud.
But what about the picture of Ned Flanders? Is that medieval or...? :)
_"English Longbows couldn't penetrate the armour of the French knights"_
Educate yourself please: markstretton.blogspot.com/
English Warbows can penetrate armour in the right circumstances: The poundage of the bow, the type of arrowhead used, the distance and angle of the arrow when it hits armour, and the type and quality of said armour.
I enjoyed this lecture.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
Great lecture , Thanks
l am amazed and impressed the way l am able to perceive and spiritually feel through the technology of internet the strong andtrue annoyntment of the HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD in your lectures, voice and the answers of some comments, but can not feel in many other channels that sometimes l find an interesting lecture, but none presence of the HOLY SPIRIT, so l do not listen for more than 5 minutes - l just can not stand with it -l also feel the HOLY SPIRIT in Bruce Gore . - it´s fantastic to feel HIS PRESENCE during all youur lectures -means life and strenght to my faith.
@6:35 should have said "1328", and not "328"?
the english might have used all kinds of woods for their bows, but they preferred the wood of the yew tree. which has desirable attributes for bows, the best at least in the eu area. interestingly, the yew tree is considered holy by jews (its the jehova tree) and you very often see them next to anglican churches.
I really enjoy your lectures. Great job. Thanks. I learned a lot from this. It is funny how you said Henry always the baby went of and sulked in his tent.
Glad you liked it. Henry VIII is my favorite historical baby, too. :)
You overestimate the power of the longbow and the ease of its construction but this was an excellent and very interesting video. Cheers.
Yeah I suppose it can sound as if I'm making it the equivalent of the nuclear bomb or something. I meant it to sound much more muted. Some make it sound too much, and it did have a massive effect, just not so much as to it needs to be overplayed. Great point!
Ryan Reeves Of course! Entire armies of longbowmen have significant advantages but these advantages lay insofar as the opposing army would be mostly constituted of lightly armoured soldiers (which they are). Well-made--I say "well-made" because there were people armoured with either low-quality steel or just iron--plate armour is impenetrable by either longbows or crossbows.
On the other hand, whilst longbows _are_ simply long, thick sticks that are then just bent to produce immense tension, you cannot make out of any wood. You need wood that has a certain springiness to it so that it would want to bend back into shape and not take a set.
Great video anyway. Thank you.
I disagree. The English Warbow is in-fact one of the major factors in English victories in the Hundred Years War, and that was due to its very high draw weight and bodkin arrowheads.
Shortbows, like those used by the Normans in 1066 were not very powerful. The Shortbow had limited effective range and could not penetrate mail armour. The English Warbow changed that: being able to kill at 300 yards and penetrate both mail and plate armour within 100 yards.
It is true though that English Warbows were not cheap. The ideal Longbow needed yew wood, and the best yew came from mainland Europe. They had to import yew staves, and needed skilled bowyers to craft them. Making a proper warbow took at least a year.
ReonMagnum "penetrate both mail and plate armour within 100 yards."
Wrong.
zombieteenager007 Just watch "Weapons that made Britain: Longbow". The presenter used a cannon that fired a bodkin arrow with the equivalent force of a English Warbow with 150 lbs draw weight. He found out that at 20 metres or 65 feet, the bodkin arrow could fully penetrate a munitions grade breast plate and the gambeson underneath.
22:04 i don't understand why the French King didnt ransom back Joan of Arc. You say here that ransoming Joan back would weaken the English King so the French king doesnt ransom her back???
At 3:43 is that dark horse standing on the back of the man in the blue shirt?
+Anna Nimus // Good eye. Yep. Either the artist was bad at perspective or another idea is that horses were bruisers and would trample those who feel on the ground. Could be either.
Ryan Reeves interesting. The middle ages were brutal.
Why would the French King worry about the weakening of the English King?
I don't understand why the French king didn't pay for Joan of Arc's ransom. You said it was because it would weaken the English King. Why would that be a problem for the French king?
do a lecture on joan!!!
intresting side note,
was kingdom of ireland, wales or kingdom of scotland involved with the 100 years war, or was it just a english-french affair...
I heard somewhere that a small amount of Scots went down and fought with the French.
Wales was conquered by the english under the reign of Edward I, Edward III's grandfather. Scotland fought against the english at times, but it rarely went well.
aaron paul+ you are quite correct, King Edward I conqured much of wales de jure, de facto many regions of wales like in ireland were "outside of english law,juristriction, personal fiefs of the marcher lords"
it is widely documented in poiters,argincourt and other battles, that welsh,scottish and irish were on both sides, prehaps ignored or even forgotten, as were "the profund welsh long bow men"
also in 1400 was the biggest rebelion, King Charles "the mad of france" actually provided assitance and the "welsh prince was recognised offically by the kingdom of castille...
so the offical "english crown claiming ireland,scotland,france and wales de jure, may not be de facto actuall history, especially concerning the welsh,irish,scottish and of course several riots,rebellions and various historic documents and non english crown history, often the french crown were intrested in any anti english sentiment..., bretons,burgandians complicate the mix....
jardon Jones Individual soldiers fought all over the place all the time. The King of Bohemia fought with the french at crecy. Robert d'Atrois fought for the english and helped spur on the conflict after he was denied his inheritance. Mercenaries and exiles fought all over the place all of the time. The kingdom of scotland did fight with the french a few times, which is what i was referring to.
Bretons were extra complicated because they had their own war of succession, as did castile. Burgundy started off vying for influence at the french court, before become independent after the treaty of arras and then divided between the hapsburgs and valois after the battle of nancy.
You are quite correct overall though, and thanks for the details.
Google the Battle of Baugé.
Pope Martin V passed comment by reiterating a common medieval saying, that "Verily, the Scots are well-known as an antidote to the English."
were can I read or get a hard copy of john stevens chronicles of agincourt?
+TheShart1234 // Hey there. I can't say that I know of one. Most of these things for historians would be in expensive databases you get through your university, but I am unaware of a hardcopy myself. Maybe someone else will know!
Thanks!! it seems like only universities will have the manuscripts.
There seems to be a lot of confussion about what Joan of Arc actually did during the 100 year war, the myths sorrounding her muddy the truth even more.
I'd like for someone who is more knowledgable than me to tell me: Was she actually in charge of her army? Did she actually plan and managed the sieges in Reims and Orleans?
ColasTeam I would like to know as well
very intrsting video. it was a better way of explaining this war then my textbook. thx
Well I have the benefit of images and the Simpsons :)
There is literally 0 evidence that a longbow can actually puncture steel armor....actually right here on YT you can see attempts at piercing actual forged armor and it just bounces right off. So they never countered knights and knights only made up a small portion of your army back then. What did they counter was what most of both armies were made of, which is to say lightly to medium armored troops.
The bows have a better chance at piercing chain and padded armor and that's not even a guarantee. Also there is basically irrefutable evidence that they used the long bows at close range rather that out at distance and there are dozens of videos explaining why that is. Right down to the way the bones of an archer should look, and it doesn't match up with an upward arch but rather a more straightened shot.
I'm pretty sure it was under Mary Tudor that Calais was lost.
Lost in terms of the final nail in the coffin after a season of recovery. Historians talk about a loss of Calais under Henry in terms of influence. It certainly threw Henry's court into a twirl to determine if they should go to war over it. As with so much diplomacy in this age, there is always the 'early' date and the 'later' date. Throughout a lot of history there are declarations of gain and loss that may not be fully realized until later. Great question to raise, though! :)
"After I die, you will find "Calais" written on my heart." - Mary Tudor. I think you should at least mention that her reign was recognised as the one that lost Calais for good, at least as the English considered it.
We have a Calais, Maine. Colonized by the French, it is pronounced "Calus". If you pronounce it wrongly, people will instantly know you are from "away".
I highly recommend Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror if you want to know more about this fascinating time inWestern Europe.
Great book! One of my favorites. The audiobook version is great, too.
It's always "100 Year's War," perfessor!
the norman french replaced the saxon english monarchy with french rulers , the french deserved every second of the hundred years wars, want to live in peace then leave your neighbours alone.
Nobody is crying about the 100 years war. It was basically a civil war between French rulers in France and French rulers of England. That's why many French were divided between both rulers (Burgundy was even an ally of the English...)
Saying that the 100 years war was a war between France and England is historicly false, it was mostly a war between two houses to take the French throne because French culture was so far superior to the English one that England was more or less part of France. So this war wasn't really a war between two countries, but more like a Civil War. Thus if "England had won", then the country that would have born would have been more like a great and unified France than an English Empire
That depends on the period - The later part of the war (such as when Henry V "won" the war) and English culture and Identity had formed and thus an English Empire would be more likely however in the earlier periods it was more like a hotpot of cultures and identities with the nobility being "French".
As you say. France, being imperialistic scum, allowed the Norman invasion of England in 1066 (due to William the Bastards lies). Destroying Anglo-Saxon Atheling, a country that had NO problems or issues with Frankland, and directly involved England into French affairs for the next 400 years, hell even 800 years time. Constant warfare. At least you got an empire based around Senegal and Algeria...
Very nice!
This was really fun, informative, and easy to follow
19:55 oh wait, that did happen :)
A little late in the game... but shouldn't it be `crowned' rather than `coronated', which sounds very awkward.
Yay Connecticut!
What were the English doing while all this French recapturing of their lands was taking place? Did they not try a serious counter-offensive? Or did they simply not have the power anymore?
18:06 Brugmansia trumpet flower being held by Joan. Very strong hallucinogen. Maybe they were indicating as to the source of 'the voices'??
nice video man
I'm glad I live in Michigan in the twenty-first century.
Fantastic lecture!
honestly the English should of made it impossible for another war in the first peace treaty they should of threatened the French with the kings death march into Paris and crown the English king the king of France under a personal union and left it in integurum, crushing france would of meant a Norman English king on the French throne who also speaks French chances are he won't be considered a outsider
What a patriotic narrative
most English longbows, were made from Ash wood...Ash wood from Wales... the longbow, is a Welsh weapon...
Great video
Just found this channel now. :o The intro was really interesting. Though you should mentioned the death of Chivalry because of English fighting dirty in Agincourt. And well, there are a few more, but Mystic is just a history enthusiast. Just some extra to give out to anyone interested ;P .
Great job
"Stupid Flanders". Could you specify this expression please?
At 22:16 you ment to say French King would be weakens as a result ******
Re 21mins: Sorry to be wanky but I think Calais was lost during Mary I (bloody Mary)'s reign. Great lecture otherwise
+Andrew Coggins // Not wanky at all. :) It's a bit like dating the fall of Rome: when did it start falling and when did it officially fall, etc. You are right that sovereignty changed hands under Mary I (which made her enemies howl), but England was increasingly losing its grip on the city back under Henry, so I am referencing the more 'soft' ways England was losing power.
You must study this either at university or on your own, though, to spot that detail. Nice work. :)
+Andrew Coggins - Calais is now lost again this time to invaders who menace the local French and seek to invade England.
Andrew Coggins extremely wanky
There is no such word as "coronated." The word you are looking for is crowned.
If we can say YOLO, can't we say corontated? :)
You should read Franck Collard or Goddard, French historians of the period!!
American historians only seem to read the British sources, that's why their view of French history tend to be one-sided, always insisting on the english victories and not even mentionning the french ones...That's how it is sadly.
Then you have some douchebags saying the French are losers...yada yada yada...They just had the second biggest empire of the 19th-20th century...not bad for "losers".
History is all about sources any source can be a source of information, do France and England truly exist before the hundred year's war. The Angevin kingdom and Valois monarchs shared a same sphere of culture and even sometimes language. Feudal people considered people from a different fief to be a different group or nationality Aquitaine, Lorraine, Cornwall, Brittany, Normandy ... were in themselves tiny "countries". Nation States in the modern period needed legitimacy it's in no way fortuitous that Shakespeare for example wrote so many plays on this period of split modernization and differentiation !!
England abd France never went to war against eachother after the battle of Waterloo 1815.
Joan of Arc, didn't actually fight, she was just a figurehead. You mentioned this but I am just making it clear for anyone who didn't understand. Just think about it, guys. If your army's morale is high because of that person, if that person dies, then the army is fucked, and there's no reason to keep on trying anymore
Thumbs up but you failed to mention the huge significance of the Black Death on English foreign policy. The English used French territory for plunder due to the fact that their tax base disappeared almost overnight due to the epidemic and France was relatively wealthy compared to, let's say, Scotland or Ireland at this time.
Given the outcome of Joan d'Arc's actions, it is clear that she did, in fact, hear from God.
She didn't kill anyone herself. Her army did, but accounts tell us that she rode to war without a sword, only holding her banner.
goo documentary thank you
Excellent lectures and artwork shown.
Monty Python wasn't that off it seems.
How do you know she's a witch?
what happened in the 100 year war
Belem, if you listened to the lecture, you'll recall that England and France fought, off and on, for a bit more than 100 years with England winning the three biggest battles (Crecy, Poitier, and Agincourt), but ultimately losing the war, thanks in part to Joan of Arc, the early death of English King Henry V, and infancy of Henry VI; and in the end the English got kicked off the continent a century later from its last possession in France, viz., Calais, in 1558 when Bloody Mary Tudor had other fish (and heretics) to fry as well as coping with her ovarian cancer, which killed her before the year was over.
very interesting and traditional way of telling history, I wouldn't say Modern World, the World was way ahead of this small Kingdoms
They called Joan of Arc "Old Hickory" for winning the Battle of New Orleans.
That's Michael Jackson at 10:41. . what's he doing in the pheasant revolt