What do you think?
Rate this book
Hundred Years War the English In France
An illustrated history of the Hundred Years War covering the period of 1337-1453, which describes how English troops exploited the financial rewards of raiding and plundering French property, with discussion of England's hold over the region of Guyenne until 1453.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1978
97 people are currently reading
1938 people want to read
About the author
Desmond Seward
57 books61 followersDesmond Seward was an Anglo-Irish popular historian and the author of over two dozen books. He was educated at Ampleforth and St, Catherine's College, Cambridge. He was a specialist in England and France in the Middle Ages and the author of some thirty books, including biographies of Eleanor of Aquitane, Henry V, Richard III, Marie Antoinette and Metternich.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews
November 19, 2022
I found this short history of the Hundred Years war to be well written and highly informative. True to its imperial self, England invaded France over and over again in order to gain possession of it and control it. They won at Agincourt which is still considered one of Britain's great victories but only won because France was split and had serious budget problems. Still, to give them their credit, they did win. They had the idea that they were entitled to lordship over France and invaded until England was nearly bankrupt. It all seems to pointless; it was a waste of human life and by the end, accomplished nothing.
July 25, 2023
The full title of this book is "A Brief History of The Hundred Years War".
As you can see from the title, the war lasted 116 years but towards the end the English were a defeated army and perhaps should have withdrawn after 100 years to save themselves further bloodshed and embarrassment.
As it was, in 1453 the English armies went home, had a bit of a rest in 1454, and then started fighting amongst themselves in 1455 in what history calls 'The Wars of the Roses'. I suppose once you have a taste for battle, it's difficult to stop!
How did the Hundred Years War come about?
The Capetian dynasty seemed secure during the reign of King Philip IV, who left three surviving sons (Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV) and a daughter (Isabella). Each son became king in turn, but died without surviving male heirs, leaving only daughters who could not inherit the throne. When Charles IV died in 1328 three candidates had a plausible claim to the French throne:
1) Philip, Count of Valois, son of Charles of Valois, who was a nephew of Philip IV and the cousin of his three sons who each died without a male heir.
2) Joan of Navarre, daughter of Louis X. Although Philip V had used his position relative to his niece to take the throne in 1316, Joan nevertheless had a strong claim as the heir-general of Philip IV.
3) Edward III of England, son of Isabella of France, the daughter and only surviving child of Philip IV. Edward claimed the French throne as a grandson of Philip IV. In England, Isabella of France claimed the throne on behalf of her 15-year-old son. In contrast to France, English precedent allowed succession through the female line (as exemplified by Henry II of England, son of Matilda).
The French rejected Isabella's claim, arguing that since she herself, as a woman, could not succeed, then she could not transmit any such right to her son. Instead, they chose as their new monarch, option 1) Philip of Valois, who became King Philip VI of France.
The throne of Navarre went to Joan of France option 2), daughter of Louis X, who became Joan II of Navarre.
Edward III option 3) didn't receive anything. He tried diplomacy and negotiation, but when that didn't have an effect, Edward III became a very unhappy bunny and realised he would have to back his claims with force to obtain the French throne.
This is how wars start.
All the battles are here, Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Formigny, Castillon and the characters, The Black Prince, Joan of Arc, Charles the Wise, Henry V.
As you can see from the title, the war lasted 116 years but towards the end the English were a defeated army and perhaps should have withdrawn after 100 years to save themselves further bloodshed and embarrassment.
As it was, in 1453 the English armies went home, had a bit of a rest in 1454, and then started fighting amongst themselves in 1455 in what history calls 'The Wars of the Roses'. I suppose once you have a taste for battle, it's difficult to stop!
How did the Hundred Years War come about?
The Capetian dynasty seemed secure during the reign of King Philip IV, who left three surviving sons (Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV) and a daughter (Isabella). Each son became king in turn, but died without surviving male heirs, leaving only daughters who could not inherit the throne. When Charles IV died in 1328 three candidates had a plausible claim to the French throne:
1) Philip, Count of Valois, son of Charles of Valois, who was a nephew of Philip IV and the cousin of his three sons who each died without a male heir.
2) Joan of Navarre, daughter of Louis X. Although Philip V had used his position relative to his niece to take the throne in 1316, Joan nevertheless had a strong claim as the heir-general of Philip IV.
3) Edward III of England, son of Isabella of France, the daughter and only surviving child of Philip IV. Edward claimed the French throne as a grandson of Philip IV. In England, Isabella of France claimed the throne on behalf of her 15-year-old son. In contrast to France, English precedent allowed succession through the female line (as exemplified by Henry II of England, son of Matilda).
The French rejected Isabella's claim, arguing that since she herself, as a woman, could not succeed, then she could not transmit any such right to her son. Instead, they chose as their new monarch, option 1) Philip of Valois, who became King Philip VI of France.
The throne of Navarre went to Joan of France option 2), daughter of Louis X, who became Joan II of Navarre.
Edward III option 3) didn't receive anything. He tried diplomacy and negotiation, but when that didn't have an effect, Edward III became a very unhappy bunny and realised he would have to back his claims with force to obtain the French throne.
This is how wars start.
All the battles are here, Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Formigny, Castillon and the characters, The Black Prince, Joan of Arc, Charles the Wise, Henry V.
January 20, 2021
A concise and straightforward overview of the war.
Seward focuses a lot on the kings, major figures, and battles. He does a good job describing the relationships between the English and French royal families, and his discussion of the various claims to the throne of France is clear. The accounts of the major battles are detailed, and Seward clearly explains how they affected the course of events. He does a good job discussing how the war often enriched England through plunder while bringing so much destruction to French territories.The maps are clear.
The narrative is lively. There’s not a lot of coverage of the era’s societies or technology, though. Also, when telling the story of Agincourt, Seward repeats the story of Henry V forcing the most noble French prisoners to serve him dinner, even though that story was written almost a quarter of a century after the battle and doesn’t show in eyewitness or contemporary accounts (it was made popular by Tudor historians) Most of the prisoners were wounded, anyway. Still, Seward does a good job packing so much detail into such a concise work.
A readable and engaging work.
Seward focuses a lot on the kings, major figures, and battles. He does a good job describing the relationships between the English and French royal families, and his discussion of the various claims to the throne of France is clear. The accounts of the major battles are detailed, and Seward clearly explains how they affected the course of events. He does a good job discussing how the war often enriched England through plunder while bringing so much destruction to French territories.The maps are clear.
The narrative is lively. There’s not a lot of coverage of the era’s societies or technology, though. Also, when telling the story of Agincourt, Seward repeats the story of Henry V forcing the most noble French prisoners to serve him dinner, even though that story was written almost a quarter of a century after the battle and doesn’t show in eyewitness or contemporary accounts (it was made popular by Tudor historians) Most of the prisoners were wounded, anyway. Still, Seward does a good job packing so much detail into such a concise work.
A readable and engaging work.
November 4, 2020
Seward's book provides a good introductory history of the 100 Years War for the reader who seldom reads history. In particular it covers very well the actions of Henry IV and Henry V, two kings that Shakespeare wrote plays about. Seward's book however will disappoint the reader who specializes in English history.
Seward's style is lively and his text is never boring. His choice of maps is excellent while his selection of art illustrations is dreadful. He chooses to tell the story from the English perspective which is a legitimate choice but one which will leave any reader wishing to understand the French objectives or strategies very frustrated.
Seward's style is lively and his text is never boring. His choice of maps is excellent while his selection of art illustrations is dreadful. He chooses to tell the story from the English perspective which is a legitimate choice but one which will leave any reader wishing to understand the French objectives or strategies very frustrated.
October 18, 2013
Thought about giving this book four stars just because it didn't blow me away, but I really can't think of how this book could be better as an introduction to and an overview of the Hundred Years War. While it didn't knock my socks off per se, it was exactly what it claimed to be and exactly what I wanted.
October 27, 2010
After reading this brisk and enlightening book, I kept asking myself "just how many people died in the Hundred Years War??"
Overall, Seward provides a tour de force of this much forgotten and incredibly brutal period of warfare between England and France. Invasion after invasion, usually ending in a "chevauchee" -- essentially a rolling holocaust of men-at-arms and other troops that stole, burned, raped, and destroyed every town, every village, every farm, every church and monastary in their path and which, as to my earlier reference, thousands and thousands of peasants would be slaughtered. But, according to Seward, served as the primary means of enriching greater England bringing it to the majesty of Great Britain.
What this book also essentially does is puncture the romantic historical lore of a brave and honorable King Henry V (who, without the aid of Shakespeare, might be seen correctly as one of the more brutal and sadistic English kings), the life of brave knights and the emergence of England as a great power in Europe and eventually the rest of the world. Seward's book is, in the end, a smart intial primer to studying and understanding this much misunderstood period of history.
Overall, Seward provides a tour de force of this much forgotten and incredibly brutal period of warfare between England and France. Invasion after invasion, usually ending in a "chevauchee" -- essentially a rolling holocaust of men-at-arms and other troops that stole, burned, raped, and destroyed every town, every village, every farm, every church and monastary in their path and which, as to my earlier reference, thousands and thousands of peasants would be slaughtered. But, according to Seward, served as the primary means of enriching greater England bringing it to the majesty of Great Britain.
What this book also essentially does is puncture the romantic historical lore of a brave and honorable King Henry V (who, without the aid of Shakespeare, might be seen correctly as one of the more brutal and sadistic English kings), the life of brave knights and the emergence of England as a great power in Europe and eventually the rest of the world. Seward's book is, in the end, a smart intial primer to studying and understanding this much misunderstood period of history.
January 10, 2011
This was a great overview of one of the strangest wars in the Western world. It is a bit dry so most will be turned off by all the background on lineage and who is to inherit what. But for history buffs it is a good choice, covering all the major events.
March 4, 2008
So two years after I graduate I find the right topic for my thesis. Sweet.
April 13, 2015
Read this for a research paper on the battle of Agincourt, but read the entire thing so that I had a background of the entire war. It's very readable and fairly quick. I felt it was lacking something, though, perhaps because it's mostly a military history and does not at all delve into the social implications of the war (besides mentioning that there were some). It definitely gave me a very good sense of why the conflict arose and the series of battles that ensued. If, like me, you get a bit mixed up about who's who, I'd write names down on a separate piece of paper to keep them straight. Otherwise, it's written clearly and Seward is obviously full of enthusiam. I'm looking forward to reading some of Seward's biographies, especially on Eleanor of Aquitaine.
July 9, 2010
I'm being a little mean to Desmond Seward with only three stars. I read 1066 by David Howarth around the same time and Howarth's writing makes Seward's serile and dry.
That said, Seward gives a well sourced account of the wars that made up the Hundred Years War. He keeps accounts concise and includes enough personal information about the players to explain their behavior, but doesn't get too long-winded.
A European Medieval History class would help in getting more out of this book and, unless you're trying to learn about this war, there isn't much reason to read this book. If you are, though, it's a good read.
Okay, I'm bumping him up to four stars.
That said, Seward gives a well sourced account of the wars that made up the Hundred Years War. He keeps accounts concise and includes enough personal information about the players to explain their behavior, but doesn't get too long-winded.
A European Medieval History class would help in getting more out of this book and, unless you're trying to learn about this war, there isn't much reason to read this book. If you are, though, it's a good read.
Okay, I'm bumping him up to four stars.
March 9, 2017
A very straightforward, linear account of the Hundred Years' War from a decidedly English-as-protagonists-leaning point of view. This isn't a recently written book; I believe the first publishing was 1978. As a result, some of the writing comes off as a little dated or discordant to today's reader - for example, the author describing Charles VI's queen Isabeau of Bavaria as "sluttish".
June 27, 2014
To understand the Wars of the Roses and Henry VIII's obsession with France, we must look back at the Hundred Years War. At least that is what Desmond Seward believes and he is right. The source of the conflict he points out doesn't stem out merely from Edward III's claim to the French throne on account of his mother being the daughter of one of the most famous (and ruthless) Capetian monarchs -Philip IV "the Fair" but also from the times of Henry II. More than a claim, it was a question of sovereignty. The treaty of Bretigny wasn't meant to last and as soon as the French saw an opportunity, they took advantage of it to take the territories they had previously agreed on the English. Henry V's conquest was rapacious and brutal, but no less brutal than his predecessors or his rivals, and yet his death did not mean the end of the English France. Had his brother John, Duke of Bedford lived, or had his wife, Anne of Burgundy not died and he did not marry Jacquetta, France wouldn't have been lost and England would've maintained Burgundy's friendship. Yet amidst all this chaos, new men rose. From all walks of life, war provided them an escape from their daily routine, and many of them (including already established wealthy magnates) enriched themselves and some rose to become Knights and even Barons as is the case of a John Stourton or Sir John Falstaff (who became a Baron as well). I enjoyed the maps and the details that Seward provided about the battles, and was not surprised to see the rapaciousness that all sides of the conflict inflicted on one another, but I was very shocked on some examples he drew. Clearly war broke all moral boundaries. Even the Duke of Bedford (Henry V's brother) as popular as he was in Paris and as much as he was fond of the French people, he was no more ruthless than his predecessors and rivals. The level of violence inflicted by the English and French is just appalling.
The only thing I found confusing and this is my only critique is that he lent credibility to some popular myths such as Edward II dying by a hot poker which has been discounted by many modern historians and saying he was a known homosexual -which is another myth. And also his rednering of Henry V as one of the greatest military geniuses but the worst king in terms of savagery and comparing him to Hitler. If I am not mistaken, the way he described (and from what has been said of the other monarchs that went before and after him in this conflict) he was no less fanatic. In fact Edward III's were just as palling such as killing denizens of women and children and and the Black Prince's merciless pursuit of his enemies or destroying towns based on the actions of one and what he did to traitors, burning them, cutting them to pieces, etc. Marguerite of Anjou's appearance is another thing he got wrong but I passed this one since one description of her described her as blond but "somewhat dark" so that may have lent to the confusion of Seward describing her as dark.
Regardless, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about the Plantagenets and Valois. I started reading on the Plantagenets a while back and I am glad that I've started again, this was a great companion to the other Plantagenet books in my shelf. I am eager to see what his opinion is on all the Plantagenets in his upcoming book.
The only thing I found confusing and this is my only critique is that he lent credibility to some popular myths such as Edward II dying by a hot poker which has been discounted by many modern historians and saying he was a known homosexual -which is another myth. And also his rednering of Henry V as one of the greatest military geniuses but the worst king in terms of savagery and comparing him to Hitler. If I am not mistaken, the way he described (and from what has been said of the other monarchs that went before and after him in this conflict) he was no less fanatic. In fact Edward III's were just as palling such as killing denizens of women and children and and the Black Prince's merciless pursuit of his enemies or destroying towns based on the actions of one and what he did to traitors, burning them, cutting them to pieces, etc. Marguerite of Anjou's appearance is another thing he got wrong but I passed this one since one description of her described her as blond but "somewhat dark" so that may have lent to the confusion of Seward describing her as dark.
Regardless, I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning more about the Plantagenets and Valois. I started reading on the Plantagenets a while back and I am glad that I've started again, this was a great companion to the other Plantagenet books in my shelf. I am eager to see what his opinion is on all the Plantagenets in his upcoming book.
April 12, 2015
This is another of those books I really hoped to like - and I did, to a point. It's a fairly readable (if more than a tad academic and for the most part accurate rendering of this epic conflict.
But it's a thoroughly British account. He presents brief and for the most part clear portraits of the English commanders, very few of the French. He seems unable to stop his enthusiasm for the battles one by the British, and begrudges nearly every victory by the French. His dismissal of Joan of Arc marks the high point of his Anglo-prejudice - he assures us that while she had her uses she did not save France, and seems puzzled at all of the writers who have focused on her of all people in this time. Two brief responses - first, she may not have won the war for the French (and they DID ultimately win the war) but without her the disillusion in the French, from the king down to peasants, may well have continued, leading to an entirely different outcome. Second, why wouldn't writers and indeed all those the author mentions (he cannot understand why Americans as well as British seem to remain fascinated - Desmond, she was interesting! The story of Joan is more dramatic than any other aspect of those 100 years, even of the greatest battles such as Crecy and Agincourt! His lack of acceptance of these two points and more is almost laughable. But then he is pro-British. At times in his remarks about the maid he sounds almost like the Brisith in Shakespeare's Henry VI plays.
Ah well. I had hoped for more balance, but I am now more aware of the entirety of those 100 years than I was before, so it was not an un-useful read - just somewhat disappointing.
But it's a thoroughly British account. He presents brief and for the most part clear portraits of the English commanders, very few of the French. He seems unable to stop his enthusiasm for the battles one by the British, and begrudges nearly every victory by the French. His dismissal of Joan of Arc marks the high point of his Anglo-prejudice - he assures us that while she had her uses she did not save France, and seems puzzled at all of the writers who have focused on her of all people in this time. Two brief responses - first, she may not have won the war for the French (and they DID ultimately win the war) but without her the disillusion in the French, from the king down to peasants, may well have continued, leading to an entirely different outcome. Second, why wouldn't writers and indeed all those the author mentions (he cannot understand why Americans as well as British seem to remain fascinated - Desmond, she was interesting! The story of Joan is more dramatic than any other aspect of those 100 years, even of the greatest battles such as Crecy and Agincourt! His lack of acceptance of these two points and more is almost laughable. But then he is pro-British. At times in his remarks about the maid he sounds almost like the Brisith in Shakespeare's Henry VI plays.
Ah well. I had hoped for more balance, but I am now more aware of the entirety of those 100 years than I was before, so it was not an un-useful read - just somewhat disappointing.
February 8, 2010
If you like the French, don't read it. Go read Perroy. This wonderful summary of the great war of medieval Europe is unashamedly pro-England and proud of it. A great introduction to Dark Ages life and warfare.
July 28, 2015
Very well-written and researched history book. Interesting perspectives on Henry V and the other kings.
November 22, 2021
Some other reviewers think this book is too Anglocentric. I disagree. The book is dedicated to the author’s aristocratic French cousins, and in the foreword he sets out his belief that “England did France a great wrong.” I think it’s impossible for any objective historian to disagree with that (and I speak as an Englishman).
This is not an in depth treatment but it is a fluent narrative with a good feel for the sweep of events. I found it helpful to have some useful pen portraits of the French monarchs – Philip VI (“no match for Edward III, but left France bigger than he found it”), John III (“useless…blind rage, and a tendency to panic”), Charles V (“one of France’s greatest kings, he used guerrilla warfare to regain much territory”), and Charles VI (“pleasure loving, pugnacious, and unbalanced…he went mad”).
There are also some interesting descriptions of the non royal French such as Bertrand de Guesclin, “an obscure Breton hedge knight”, who was made Constable by Charles V. According to Seward, he was an ugly plebeian and a useless battlefield commander but also a good strategist.
There were some magnificent English victories against the odds but so often these were marred by the killing of prisoners – Agincourt being the most famous example. And the Black Prince may have been known as the “Flower of Chivalry” but he was also responsible for the murder of 3,000 civilians at the sack of Limoges. One of the most shameful episodes is of course the English burning to death of poor Joan of Arc. Seward downplays her a bit – I think mistakenly – and makes the point that lots of people, both French and English, assumed she must be a witch. I think his point is that burning someone at the stake because you are convinced she is a witch is marginally less evil than doing so because you have made a cynical political calculation to carry out a judicial murder, but either way, it was a shameful episode, painful for any Englishman to recollect.
I think the biggest disaster for France was not so much the English as the civil war between the Burgundians and the Armagnacs. The war ended, of course, in a French victory – though the Battle of Formigny, being a catastrophic English defeat, is almost unknown in England, whereas Agincourt and Crecy are household names.
The past, alas, was never as chivalric as romancers then or since have liked to imagine.
This is not an in depth treatment but it is a fluent narrative with a good feel for the sweep of events. I found it helpful to have some useful pen portraits of the French monarchs – Philip VI (“no match for Edward III, but left France bigger than he found it”), John III (“useless…blind rage, and a tendency to panic”), Charles V (“one of France’s greatest kings, he used guerrilla warfare to regain much territory”), and Charles VI (“pleasure loving, pugnacious, and unbalanced…he went mad”).
There are also some interesting descriptions of the non royal French such as Bertrand de Guesclin, “an obscure Breton hedge knight”, who was made Constable by Charles V. According to Seward, he was an ugly plebeian and a useless battlefield commander but also a good strategist.
There were some magnificent English victories against the odds but so often these were marred by the killing of prisoners – Agincourt being the most famous example. And the Black Prince may have been known as the “Flower of Chivalry” but he was also responsible for the murder of 3,000 civilians at the sack of Limoges. One of the most shameful episodes is of course the English burning to death of poor Joan of Arc. Seward downplays her a bit – I think mistakenly – and makes the point that lots of people, both French and English, assumed she must be a witch. I think his point is that burning someone at the stake because you are convinced she is a witch is marginally less evil than doing so because you have made a cynical political calculation to carry out a judicial murder, but either way, it was a shameful episode, painful for any Englishman to recollect.
I think the biggest disaster for France was not so much the English as the civil war between the Burgundians and the Armagnacs. The war ended, of course, in a French victory – though the Battle of Formigny, being a catastrophic English defeat, is almost unknown in England, whereas Agincourt and Crecy are household names.
The past, alas, was never as chivalric as romancers then or since have liked to imagine.
April 9, 2024
"There is ful many a man that crieth "Werre! Werre!" that wot ful litel what werre amounteth."
So THIS is why the French hate the English. I understand. This brief history of the despoiling of France made me weep. In particular, reading about the Siege of Rouen made me want to desecrate Henry V's grave. That wicked man let children-- infants! and mothers starve in a ditch outside the city walls rather than let them escape alive. And then he has the audacity to be oh-so-pious after every victory. I have news for you Hank..."Ye shall know them by their fruits", and the fruits of your warmongering are rotten. He deserved to die early, and England deserved the Wars of the Roses. Barbarians.
Any comments about "oh the French committed atrocities too" or "for the time that was normal" can just go stick a sock in it. This series of pirate raids was OBVIOUSLY wrong. The total war waged on the French peasantry was appalling. I don't care how "normal" it was, wrong is wrong. I get that human beings are miserable sinners and when whipped in a frenzy against other groups will commit any number of atrocities, no matter the time period. This was still horrifying.
In other news, my husband says I am banned from reading tragic histories right before bedtime and suggested I find some nice romances instead. I am taking suggestions.
So THIS is why the French hate the English. I understand. This brief history of the despoiling of France made me weep. In particular, reading about the Siege of Rouen made me want to desecrate Henry V's grave. That wicked man let children-- infants! and mothers starve in a ditch outside the city walls rather than let them escape alive. And then he has the audacity to be oh-so-pious after every victory. I have news for you Hank..."Ye shall know them by their fruits", and the fruits of your warmongering are rotten. He deserved to die early, and England deserved the Wars of the Roses. Barbarians.
Any comments about "oh the French committed atrocities too" or "for the time that was normal" can just go stick a sock in it. This series of pirate raids was OBVIOUSLY wrong. The total war waged on the French peasantry was appalling. I don't care how "normal" it was, wrong is wrong. I get that human beings are miserable sinners and when whipped in a frenzy against other groups will commit any number of atrocities, no matter the time period. This was still horrifying.
In other news, my husband says I am banned from reading tragic histories right before bedtime and suggested I find some nice romances instead. I am taking suggestions.
October 24, 2024
A nice, concise history of the war and the figures involved in it. Seward focuses on the material aspect of the Hundred Years War, specifically, the enormous cost of waging such a war, particularly on the English side. The war significantly influenced taxation in both Kingdoms and the English people saw a rather drastic expansion of their tax system as was required by the Crown in its ongoing efforts in France. Parliament approved of these tax reforms and it could be argued that a more modern taxation system, as we know it today, was born from this conflict. As is this case throughout history, there is a direct correlation between an increase in taxation with a centralization of power and the development of a more robust bureaucracy. This period was no exception. Both the Crown and Parliament saw an increase of power because of the war, and this took place in the earliest stages of the conflict.
Seward hits all the major battles and moments, from Sluys to Agincourt and Formigny. I always love reading about the naval battle at Sluys, fascinatingly brutal. Really good book and would recommend.
Seward hits all the major battles and moments, from Sluys to Agincourt and Formigny. I always love reading about the naval battle at Sluys, fascinatingly brutal. Really good book and would recommend.
August 30, 2019
Solid and accessible traditional history of the 100 Years War.
March 21, 2024
Solid introductory book to the era, can get a bit repetitive (as was the pattern of war it seems) and was losing interest towards the end. Would love a book on Henry Vs conquests in northern France. Richard III & Henry V 🐐.
April 7, 2025
Amazing for research purposes. Lots of detailed information. Also quite funny in parts too.
April 20, 2021
I really enjoyed the detail of the book, which got down to the battle plans and the characters of the various generals and nobles involved! He conveys so much information on a relatively short book
September 12, 2018
Concise, but a bit too concise at times.
April 26, 2016
This book was a delight and a quick read. It is not bogged down by excruciating detail, but the full picture is there. I finally understand (more or less) what the 100 Year War was about and certainly the sequence of events. Highly recommended for anyone wanting knowledge of the origins of the animosity between the English and the French or just a good read.
March 16, 2015
Clear, concise, and entertaining summary of a complicated conflict.
January 27, 2016
i found this to be a highly readable and very enjoyable book on a crucial period in European history.
February 4, 2016
A fascinating period of history. An excellent overview.
September 1, 2022
It may be damning with faint praise, but I expected Desmond Seward’s The Hundred Years War to be worse. Don’t misunderstand me, I didn’t think it would be terrible, but it was first published in 1978 which is a long time ago given how much has been written on the Hundred Years War since. On the whole I weas pleasantly surprised by my experience with Seward’s history. I probably still wouldn’t recommend it to most people, it has some glaring problems mostly derived from its age, but on the whole, it was a lot better than I expected!
The Hundred Years War is a classic narrative history of Anglo-French conflict from 1337 to 1453. It is clearly an antecedent to more recent books like Jonathan Sumption’s Trial by Battle as well as its sequels and Juliet Barker’s Conquest. I am a little surprised to say that I think I prefer Seward’s history to both of those books. While the latter examples include more up to date research and a finer grain of detail, Seward does in about 270 pages what Sumption does in 1800 (and counting). Seward also has none of Barker’s stark English nationalism. In fact, Seward’s account is impressively even handed for the most part. He is critical of Henry V, happy to highlight his flaws along with his triumphs, and praises Charles V’s competence (a rarity in English language popular histories). He is arguably a bit harsh on Joan of Arc and Charles VII but in the case of the former he seems to be pushing back against a prevailing view that Joan was indispensable to French victory and in the latter while harsh, it largely mirrors the portrayal in Shakespeare that has long been the popular image of the French king.
Seward’s writing is very readable and engaging, I breezed through the book and didn’t feel like I was bogged down in unnecessary detail or bizarre asides. He even spends a reasonable amount of time on the fall of Normandy and Gascony in the 1450s, a novelty in books like this. I can see how Seward’s history would have been a big deal upon release and why it has remained popular over the decades since.
That having been said, it is definitely showing its age. In areas of military history Seward is far out of step with modern historiography. At Agincourt he gives the French as having 40,000+ soldiers to approximately 8,000 English. Anne Curry’s research has made a very strong case for the position that the English were only slightly outnumbered, and even proponents of a larger French army wouldn’t consider figures as large as those Seward quotes. Seward includes pretty much no references, either, so unless he mentions a source in the text it is largely impossible to determine what he is using as a basis for figures like this. Agincourt is probably the most egregious example, but throughout the book it is easy to see how it is rooted in a much older military historiography. That is not Seward’s fault, he worked with what he had at the time of writing, but it is reason to be wary of reading his book uncritically in 2022. I am also made a little wary by the fact that if I can see glaring errors in my specialty there is a likelihood that other errors exist that didn’t jump out at me because I am not as familiar with the historiography. While I didn’t notice anything as problematic as his accounts of Crécy and Agincourt (the account of Poitiers was less troubling), especially in comparison to more recent histories I have read, I am still not an expert in all things Hundred Years War and could have missed other flaws.
For this reason, I wouldn’t recommend you seek out a copy of Seward to read. If you desperately have to have a narrative history of the Hundred Years War and no alternative to narrative will do then Seward is still a reasonably good option. However, I would strongly recommend reading something like David Green’s The Hundred Years War: A People’s History – it will give you plenty of narrative in addition to a lot more contextual information on the period and is based in much more recent historiography. However, if what is on your shelf or in your local library is Seward, you could do worse than reading him as an introduction to the topic.
If you liked this review, you can read more on my blog at: https://www.stuartellisgorman.com/blo...
The Hundred Years War is a classic narrative history of Anglo-French conflict from 1337 to 1453. It is clearly an antecedent to more recent books like Jonathan Sumption’s Trial by Battle as well as its sequels and Juliet Barker’s Conquest. I am a little surprised to say that I think I prefer Seward’s history to both of those books. While the latter examples include more up to date research and a finer grain of detail, Seward does in about 270 pages what Sumption does in 1800 (and counting). Seward also has none of Barker’s stark English nationalism. In fact, Seward’s account is impressively even handed for the most part. He is critical of Henry V, happy to highlight his flaws along with his triumphs, and praises Charles V’s competence (a rarity in English language popular histories). He is arguably a bit harsh on Joan of Arc and Charles VII but in the case of the former he seems to be pushing back against a prevailing view that Joan was indispensable to French victory and in the latter while harsh, it largely mirrors the portrayal in Shakespeare that has long been the popular image of the French king.
Seward’s writing is very readable and engaging, I breezed through the book and didn’t feel like I was bogged down in unnecessary detail or bizarre asides. He even spends a reasonable amount of time on the fall of Normandy and Gascony in the 1450s, a novelty in books like this. I can see how Seward’s history would have been a big deal upon release and why it has remained popular over the decades since.
That having been said, it is definitely showing its age. In areas of military history Seward is far out of step with modern historiography. At Agincourt he gives the French as having 40,000+ soldiers to approximately 8,000 English. Anne Curry’s research has made a very strong case for the position that the English were only slightly outnumbered, and even proponents of a larger French army wouldn’t consider figures as large as those Seward quotes. Seward includes pretty much no references, either, so unless he mentions a source in the text it is largely impossible to determine what he is using as a basis for figures like this. Agincourt is probably the most egregious example, but throughout the book it is easy to see how it is rooted in a much older military historiography. That is not Seward’s fault, he worked with what he had at the time of writing, but it is reason to be wary of reading his book uncritically in 2022. I am also made a little wary by the fact that if I can see glaring errors in my specialty there is a likelihood that other errors exist that didn’t jump out at me because I am not as familiar with the historiography. While I didn’t notice anything as problematic as his accounts of Crécy and Agincourt (the account of Poitiers was less troubling), especially in comparison to more recent histories I have read, I am still not an expert in all things Hundred Years War and could have missed other flaws.
For this reason, I wouldn’t recommend you seek out a copy of Seward to read. If you desperately have to have a narrative history of the Hundred Years War and no alternative to narrative will do then Seward is still a reasonably good option. However, I would strongly recommend reading something like David Green’s The Hundred Years War: A People’s History – it will give you plenty of narrative in addition to a lot more contextual information on the period and is based in much more recent historiography. However, if what is on your shelf or in your local library is Seward, you could do worse than reading him as an introduction to the topic.
If you liked this review, you can read more on my blog at: https://www.stuartellisgorman.com/blo...
October 31, 2021
A well-written survey of the “Hundred Years War” between England and France, primarily through the eyes of the nobility of the respective dominions, specifically focusing on the schism between the respective primary royal houses of each, the Valois and the Plantagenets. If the general reader is familiar at all about this conflict, it is likely through Shakesphere’s “Henry V”, the play or the films (or the film representation of the play by Kenneth Brannaugh). This book recounts the broader history that informs Henry’s invasion of France, and his famed victory at Agincourt, as well as extend the history to after Henry's victory there, and his untimely death in a later campaign in France, and to those that followed him, including the short campaigns of Joan of Arc, and the conclusion of the conflict.
The war itself is a mess, and less of a “war” as we’ve come to know it, but more of a series of small English invasions on France, where they often accomplish little but terrorize/brutalize the peasantry of those lands. France itself seems to have been much more developed than England, not only in wealth, but in infrastructure, though not all (or much) of it was well-defended, which provided an ample list of targets for the English armies to sack and hold ransom. Further, though we say “France” and “England” these conflicts are closer to mafia-like warfare, where the sovereign of England, raises an army of a few thousand (at most) men and commits civil crimes to extract concessions, or to uphold familial territories. Very little of “national interests” can be discerned by the actions of the various English kings.
In fact, as those who have read/watched Henry V know, much of these conflicts amount to the arcanum of inheritance, specifically whether this or that inheritor abides by the Salic law of the older Frankish/Germanic dominions. The war ultimately seems to end when the amount of resources spent by the Plantagenet house has become so great that it begins to threaten the sovereigns own grip on his domestic lands, incurring the risk of a parliament or other “lesser” stakeholders gaining a foothold on the decision making of the realm (this would actually occur a few hundred years later, although with the successor house to the Plantegnants, the Tudors.
Great book, quick intro text, that’ll get you started on the subject. Easy to read and remember broad strokes (and some detail) based on the organization of the text, with each chapter focusing more-or-less on the reign of a specific sovereign, capstonned in the beginning by an introductory chapter and a concluding chapter on the end of the conflict. Recommended.
The war itself is a mess, and less of a “war” as we’ve come to know it, but more of a series of small English invasions on France, where they often accomplish little but terrorize/brutalize the peasantry of those lands. France itself seems to have been much more developed than England, not only in wealth, but in infrastructure, though not all (or much) of it was well-defended, which provided an ample list of targets for the English armies to sack and hold ransom. Further, though we say “France” and “England” these conflicts are closer to mafia-like warfare, where the sovereign of England, raises an army of a few thousand (at most) men and commits civil crimes to extract concessions, or to uphold familial territories. Very little of “national interests” can be discerned by the actions of the various English kings.
In fact, as those who have read/watched Henry V know, much of these conflicts amount to the arcanum of inheritance, specifically whether this or that inheritor abides by the Salic law of the older Frankish/Germanic dominions. The war ultimately seems to end when the amount of resources spent by the Plantagenet house has become so great that it begins to threaten the sovereigns own grip on his domestic lands, incurring the risk of a parliament or other “lesser” stakeholders gaining a foothold on the decision making of the realm (this would actually occur a few hundred years later, although with the successor house to the Plantegnants, the Tudors.
Great book, quick intro text, that’ll get you started on the subject. Easy to read and remember broad strokes (and some detail) based on the organization of the text, with each chapter focusing more-or-less on the reign of a specific sovereign, capstonned in the beginning by an introductory chapter and a concluding chapter on the end of the conflict. Recommended.
January 27, 2022
I read this as a primer on the hundred years war in preparation for reading Shakespeare. It is written for laymen and I approached it as a layman, as such it was a fine introduction, not too heavy in the hand, and it provided a good overview of the conflict from an English perspective, with some nifty historical anecdotes thrown into the mix. The first half of the book dealing with the initial stages of the war under Edward III and his son The Black Prince was incredibly engaging, as were some parts detailing Henry V, but the second half suffers from a lack of narrative as England no longer drives events, and the author views the conflict through English eyes. Whereas the author repeatedly state that England owed much of her gains to the civil war raging in France we rarely get any insights into this side of the conflict. French armies from various factions appear on the field, are victorious or vanquished, and then disappear with little commentary. The later parts are also plagued by a myriad repetitions of "person X besieges location Y and captures person Z for ransom". I give it 4 stars because I know little about the topic with which to compare it, and this was an enjoyable read with lots of interesting quotes from contemporary sources, I suggest reading the review by Czarny Pies for an alternate perspective.
Pros:
-Plenty of snippets and quotes from contemporary diaries and written sources add a lot of historical flavour, like preparation for war entailing 6 feathers to be plucked from every goose, or how English control of Guyenne affected wine-consumption in England.
-Clear overview of the English side of the conflict and detailed description of a handful important battles.
-Analysis of English war aims, methods of war and how perception of the war changed throughout the conflict.
Cons:
-Scant treatment of the French side of the conflict.
-Pro-English bias (the French are more often than not described as treacherous/incompetent, whereas the English are not).
-No citations.
-Sometimes difficult to differentiate between factual characterization and gossip (was one of the henchmen of the french king *really* a satanist babymurderer, or is it merely propaganda included to spice things up?).
Pros:
-Plenty of snippets and quotes from contemporary diaries and written sources add a lot of historical flavour, like preparation for war entailing 6 feathers to be plucked from every goose, or how English control of Guyenne affected wine-consumption in England.
-Clear overview of the English side of the conflict and detailed description of a handful important battles.
-Analysis of English war aims, methods of war and how perception of the war changed throughout the conflict.
Cons:
-Scant treatment of the French side of the conflict.
-Pro-English bias (the French are more often than not described as treacherous/incompetent, whereas the English are not).
-No citations.
-Sometimes difficult to differentiate between factual characterization and gossip (was one of the henchmen of the french king *really* a satanist babymurderer, or is it merely propaganda included to spice things up?).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews