It's not appropriate to state, as sweepingly as you did anyway, that Joan of Arc "won the war." One of the great injustices from this conflict has been how much Joan of Arc has been overemphasized at the expense of other French military and political figures. We have to keep in mind that the term "Hundred Years War" is a misnomer as the war lasted 116 years and was not continuous, historians often dividing it in four phases (others at three or five). Each of those phases was crucial in establishing some sort of trend or status quo and many figures participated in them besides Joan of Arc. Bertrand du Guesclin, for example, was a famous French military commander whose brilliant harrassing techniques successfully concluded the second phase of the war in the late 14th century. Charles VII, King of France during Joan's campaigns and for decades thereafter, was also a very key player (and I believe more so than Joan) because his implementations led to an ultimate French victory. Charles VII revolutionized warfare by instituting the first professional army, the Compagnies d'Ordonance, since Roman times. Paris fell in 1436 and the battles of Formigny (1451) and Castillon (1453) sealed the deal. Anyway, La Pucelle's strategy was....unstrategic really. Her sallies outside the walls of Orleans were inspired by either personal bravery or arcane voices, supposedly "god". What's more important than any grand strategy, at least in Orleans, was the way in which she inspired the French troops, who for the first time in a long time had success in ousting the English from well-defended positions. After that, her campaign in the Loire valley to capture bastions of English strength was designed the French breathing room against what for years had been encroaching English manouvers (and to crown the Dauphin as King on July 17, 1429). On a final note of inquiry, I don't quite understand what you mean when you ask "was the war worth winning?" I would hate to give the traditional reply (duh...yes) so I'll wait for clarification.