Book Review: The Hundred Years' War

The Hundred Years' War, by Alfred H. Burne

Source:Amazon.com

From the book cover:

The Hundred Years War between England and France began in 1337 with Edward III's claim to the throne of France. The tumultuous years that followed witnessed some of the greatest battles in history: Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt. Although the English leaders - Edward III, the Black Prince and Henry V - fought valiantly, often achieving amazing victories against the odds, it was the French who won the war. Here, together for the first time, are A.H. Burne's books on this colourful period, "The Crecy War" and "The Agincourt War". Acclaimed as "one of the best military historians", Burne draws on original sources plus what he calls "I.M.P", the "inherent military probability" of an action, in his analysis of strategy. Alongside the vivid description of individual campaigns, he introduces some of England's most celebrated historical figures, including Harry the King, Warwick, Salisbury, Chandos and the peerless Talbot, as well as famous French warriors, such as Bertrand de Guesclin, La Hire and Joan of Arc.

The review:

Burne's The Hundred Years’ War is very biased toward the English perspective.  I for one found this humorous, as the author uses French turns of phrase often in his descriptions of what was going on.  This is understandable, as the period was one in which English was closely related to the French language (and if I recall my history right, French was the language of the English court at the time).  But Burne's continual dismissal of the French and their allies truly gets old.

I tried, but was unable to come up with a photo of Alfred Burne.  So here is another version of The Hundred Years War in a hardcover binding. / Source: eBay.com

On the other hand The Hundred Years’ War is an insightful book as regards the period.  I am not as familiar with this chunk of time as the twentieth century.  The details provided in this book make for interesting reading.  Though to be honest, the battles described usually made my mind feel kinda slow, as though it was taking in too much data that was not naturally easy to assimilate.  But the little insights given, such as how certain troops reacted in certain circumstances, and the way certain leaders handled particular situations, made the book tolerable.

The Battle of Agincourt especially was a fairly good read, as were the exploits of The Black Prince and Henry the Fifth of England.  On the other hand, big chunks of the text are nearly transparent in my memory, as they just didn't stick as they were read.  It's like reading a textbook in places.  Take that into account when deciding whether or not to read Burne's book.

A map of English/Burgundian possessions in 1339. Is it me, or does the lower Burgundy region look like the country of Switzerland, only upside down?  Coincidence?  Conspiracy?  You tell me. / Source: filebot.vt.edu

Also interesting was that Burne was really hung up on World War I, as he continually makes reference to it when describing battles and battlefields that the two conflicts shared. 

There was one thing I found especially fascinating, and obviously the author did too, as he saved it for his last comment.  Technically, the Hundred Years’ War never ended.  It was never given a peace treaty, nor have either side involved in the hostilities ever formally agreed on the results.  The issue became, if I can sum it up quickly and accurately, who was to rule the disputed holdings on the Continent.  An English claimant, or a French one.  The results of the Hundred Years’ War were that the English were ejected from the area of northern France.  Thus not being in possession of the territory, their claim was considered quit.  But things never really were settled between the two.  More like they just got tired of fighting and became involved in other things.  To me, a war that they just got tired of fighting, but was never truly won, nor ever truly stopped... well that is fascinating.

Can't talk Hundred Years War without bringing up Joan of Arc.  Then again, why is she called "of Arc" if she was "the maid or Orleans"?  Another conspiracy?  This subject is just dripping with old-timey intrigue, don't you think? / Source: Wikipedia.org

Then there was another point which I inferred from the text.  This was that, since the English forces maintained their martial superiority only so long as they remained the most well trained and disciplined force on the field of battle, a modern analog could be drawn between the United States and up-and-coming world actors, such as India and China.  This I inferred because the book makes clear to point out that as long as the French were an uncoordinated rabble, the English had them beat, despite being heavily out-numbered at almost every period of time in which the war lasted.  But with the advent of the maid of Orleans, Joan of Arc, things changed in a truly significant way.  Not to say she was the only reason for this change (far from it), but the change did happen coincidentally to her arrival on the scene, and the French did assert themselves and become a dominant power on their own sovereign territory.  Had they not, things may have been very different in modern Europe.

So in conclusion, if you really are interested in the period of the Hundred Years War (and who wouldn't be?) and want a fairly in-depth look at it, The Hundred Years’ War by Burne would be a good read.  But be warned: if you are not looking for a plethora of material on the subject, and would prefer a fairly light overview, this one will probably drag on terribly for you, I'd wager.

Learn more about The Hundred Years' War, by Alfred Burne, on Amazon.com

The parting comment:

Source: CNN.com

Sure, a war that lasts one hundred years sounds bad.  But try a 1,700 year long war.  With modern weapons, including nukes.  That's what one man, playing the game "Civilization II," managed to create over a ten year period of playing.

10-year-long video game creates 'hellish nightmare' world

Now you may say, that's only 1,700 years in video game time.  And also, who plays a video game for ten years or more without getting bored?.  Both are valid arguments.  The point of the article though is what could happen to our planet if mankind descended into perpetual conflict on a modern scale.  Still some would say that the state of the world in that game is one only science fiction writers and doomsday prophets could foresee... or is it? 

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a watchdog group of academics who have kept an eye on world events since the dawn of the atomic age in the mid 1940s, we are actually closer to the annihilation of everything we know than we have been since some of the tensest parts of the late Cold War period.

Doomsday approaching? Clock ticking closer to midnight

Here's hoping life doesn't imitate art.