Just two sides with different agendas. Nations were not so important as the noble families who controlled land in both England and France. I'm sure they were as good and as bad as each other.

Just two sides with different agendas. Nations were not so important as the noble families who controlled land in both England and France. I'm sure they were as good and as bad as each other. __________________________________ The Late Middle Ages were a time when feudalism was slowly evolving into nationalism. Thus the political ramifications of the era are among the most complex in history. One might argue that the English had a better claim legally and the French morally. On the other hand the King of England only held French possesions as a vassal of the King of France, and he was arguably in "rebellion". At the very least he was unusually disrespectful. And of course a rebel forfeits his claim to hold the fief granted him unless otherwise stated in a treaty. Feudal law was as complicated as-modern law. It is condemned out of hand today For instance, "the Saudis have a feudal society"- no they certainly do not, for the Saudi Kingdom was founded on a network of favors owed between various tribes, not on land grants, for the land was meaningless until after Saudi Arabia was founded. But the Saudis have a dynastic society. Dynasticism is only one part of feudalism. It includes a fast network of relationships. It is best described as a pyrimid of land for service but the complexities and overlappings were labyrinthine. The disadvantage of feudalism was that it choked kingdoms in red tape(there is more red tape today but states have learned to process it). It's advantage is it provided check and balance and the beginning of Rule of Law. In any case Feudalism provided a way of paying soldiers without constant plundering expeditions.

You state very valid arguements but i would guess that after decades of fighting the original reasons for the war would become obscure to the combatants. The fact is that both sides gave reasonable arguements to fight, however, did the English commit any attrocity great enough to have them labelled 'evil', so much so that heaven itself is said to have given Joan of arc instructions to beat the English? or was it all propaganda? what do you think?

Henry V slaughtered French prisoners before Agincourt. He was afraid that they would rise up mid battle and defeat an already outnumbered, starved and in trouble army.

You state very valid arguements but i would guess that after decades of fighting the original reasons for the war would become obscure to the combatants. The fact is that both sides gave reasonable arguements to fight, however, did the English commit any attrocity great enough to have them labelled 'evil', so much so that heaven itself is said to have given Joan of arc instructions to beat the English? or was it all propaganda? what do you think? _______________________ The English seemed to behave in a manner typical for the time- which does not mean they didn't commit atrocities but that they weren't demonic. The massacare of the French knights took place at a time when Henry V had reason to fear that they would soon be freed. If I remember, even the French didn't make much of it. That is not meant as an excuse but an extenuation. However any medieval army was like a locust plague. To get an idea of what they were like, think of the stories you have heard of the Red Army marching through Poland and Germany. I doubt that the English were behaving so badly-according to the standards of the time-as to render them monstrous. I think God was more weeping at the foolishness of the rulers and the suffering of the ruled, rather then supporting one side or another. He was guiding the results of course, the way He guides the results of everything but I don't think he was taking the side of one group of avowed Christians against another in a quarrel in which it was not obvious who was in the right. As for Joan the Maid, it is hard to say what she was. It is rather unromantic to say she was a fake and presumptuous to make such assumptions in any case. However it is difficult to make a case that she was sent by God to kill other Christians. On the other hand, a good portion of the English army was composed of people who had signed on speciffically for the purpose of plundering those far away. But then you could say the same about the French. Plunder was a big attraction to recruitment-and a large part of the plunder came from the innocent rather then the opposeing army. This doesn't answer whether Joan the Maid was genuine. But it does give some thought about it.

I doubt that the English were behaving so badly-according to the standards of the time-as to render them monstrous. ________________________________ In fact if I remember, Henry V prefered to levy contributions then to give up the countryside to pillage. It was both more chivalrous and more productive. Guess which mattered most to him according to your own inclinations-I am rather indifferent. Levying contributions allowed for a solid logistical base and took away the possibility of having to retreat through a man-made desert. It also made for a peaceful population that was less likly to hang ill-behaving soldiers for there was a tacit agreement that Henry would do that himself. A more efficient and dignified arrangement all round.

however, did the English commit any attrocity great enough to have them labelled 'evil', Both sides committed 'atrocities' at Agincourt. Henry V ordered all French prisoners to be executed during the battle – this, it could be argued, was an act of necessity: the English did not have the manpower to guard them (the prisoners numbered more than the English army!). It was therefore necessary to prevent the French from rejoining the battle where they already had huge numerical advantage. The killing of prisoners only stopped when the threat had passed. This English atrocity was only alluded to in Shakespeare’s most patriotic play Henry V, however the French atrocity was clearly described. In fact, the French attack on the English camp (boys, camp followers etc), was used as an excuse for Henry’s execution order. Fluellen: Kill the boys and luggage! ‘Tis expressly against the law of arms . . . Gower: ‘Tis certain there’s not a boy alive . . . wherefore the king most worthily hath caused every soldier to cut his prisoner’s throat. O ‘tis a gallant king. Fluellen’s words are somewhat anachronistic. It may have been in revenge or it may have been a simple matter of practicality; either way, as jastayme3 mentioned, in the 15th century, it was nothing necessarily out of the ordinary.

I doubt that the English were behaving so badly-according to the standards of the time-as to render them monstrous. I think God was more weeping at the foolishness of the rulers and the suffering of the ruled, rather then supporting one side or another. He was guiding the results of course, the way He guides the results of everything but I don't think he was taking the side of one group of avowed Christians against another in a quarrel in which it was not obvious ________________________________________ This touches a delicate and long disscussed theological point about the exact relationship between God's intervention and man's free will. You will not wish to hear it again. I was only pointing out that the Hundred Years War, simply doesn't seem like the kind of war that would get a miraculous deliverer sent to one side or another.

I think God was more weeping at the foolishness of the rulers and the suffering of the ruled, rather then supporting one side or another. He was guiding the results of course, the way He guides the results of everything but I don't think he was taking the side of one group of avowed Christians against another in a quarrel in which it was not obvious I think it’s a very interesting subject. However, according to St Augustine, the HYW would not have passed his principles of ‘Just War’: ‘It must be proclaimed by legitimate authority’ (king, bishop etc) – Both French and English Kings gave the war legitimacy on this principle. ‘It must have a just cause’ (eg:defence against enemy attack or the recovery of lost property) – Again, both can justify the war on this principle. However: ‘It should be fought with the right intention’ (that is without excessive bloodshed) – Oh dear! Even as we have stated that by 15th century standards the bloodshed was par of the course, but in the eyes of St Augustine at least, the war would definitely not have had god’s blessing. What happens if we apply these principles to Iraq or Afghanistan? ‘It must be proclaimed by legitimate authority’ Afghanistan got UN backing. ‘It must have a just cause’ (eg:defence against enemy attack or the recovery of lost property). Clearly Afghanistan passes. ‘It should be fought with the right intention’ (that is without excessive bloodshed) What more could be done to keep bloodshed down in Afghanistan, passes third principle. Does the Iraq war pass St Augustine’s test for ‘Just War’? I think the jury’s still debating.

‘It should be fought with the right intention’ (that is without excessive bloodshed) – Oh dear! Even as we have stated that by 15th century standards the bloodshed was par of the course, but in the eyes of St Augustine at least, the war would definitely not have had god’s blessing. _______________________________ I think by "excessive", St. Augustine primarily meant, "disproportionate to the importance of the issue in contention" Which would also render the Hundred Years War illigetimate. One could argue that the French were less capable of avoiding it, though, and were therefore less unjust.