Why did the English position in France collapse during the reign of Henry VI?
Upon the death of Henry V in 1422, the English were in the strongest position they had been in France since the Treaty of Brétigny of 1360. In five short years, from 1417-1422, Henry V had amassed many territories in France, including Paris, and was the first and last English king to conquer Frances capital. However, less than forty years after his death the English had lost all they possessed in France, with the only exception of Calais. This was caused by a multitude of different factors, including, in the long term, structural and financial issues within the governmental systems of both England and France, and also short-term catalysts, such as the ascendance of Joan of Arc, and the loss of Philip of Burgundy as an ally.
There were many fundamental flaws in the governmental structure of England, which led to serious long-term issues within our territories in France, ultimately leading to their loss. The most important long-term reason for the English defeat in France was a lack of revenue to finance the garrisons. Insolvency and debt had been rife among English kings since the reign of Edward III, and it was only the timely death of Henry V that prevented the kingdom slipping into serious debt, as with the death of Henry V we concentrated on maintaining our holding at the size they were at, not conquering more, which would have proved prohibitively expensive. England simply did not have the economic capacity to sustain campaigns long-term in France. For example, as Maurice Keen states, this was a “colony collapsing under the weight of its own defence.” The defence of Normandy commanded huge sums of money – money that England did not have. Keen also says, “The successes of 1441 showed how well the English could have done if it was not for the financial situation”, which including retaking Pontoise from the French and threatening Paris, however this run of victory ended when reinforcements were not forthcoming, as they couldn’t be financed and that the “crowns credit was no longer good.” This shows that the crown was so indebted that its loyal nobles were no longer willing to give any money to the Crown, for fear that they wouldn’t get it back. During the years 1442-43, only an exceptionally large loan from Cardinal Beaufort, the King’s uncle, enabled them to raise a single expeditionary force. Therefore, we see that, in the long term, the issue was not the capability of our soldiers, but the financing of them.
The Term Paper on Legalized Marijuana Long Term
Marijuana Controversy: America is the land of the free and the foundation of democracy. This countries foundation is based on the fact that an individual can enjoy freedom from oppression and the minority's opinions can be heard along with the majority's. Our government is designed to be fair and open minded, to be a servant to the people it governs. Unfortunately once an opinion is placed into ...
Another extremely influential factor in the fall of England in France was the increasingly potent authority and appeal of the Dauphin Charles to the masses. During the reign of his father, Charles VI, he had acted like a sulky teenager, presenting no real threat to Henry V. With the emergence of Joan of Arc, her subsequent successes and his coronation at Reims, the ecclesiastical capital of France, in 1429, Charles VII was given legitimacy in the eyes of many French people, and gaining more and more support. Furthermore, his position in France strengthened from 1435 onwards, when his ordinance of that year, in organizing a standing military force, something that the English lacked, and regular channelling of taxation to his war exchequer, meant that Charles was much better organized and financed than the English were, as well as having talented advisors, a change from the self-interested men who squabbled among themselves that he had had previously. This was demonstrated first at Orleans, where “for the first time the English had to face a field army that was superior to theirs not only in numbers, but in determination and morale as well.” Again in 1436 his newfound power was shown, when Richemont retook Paris from the English, and again in 1438, when Charles resumed the offensive in the Southwest. The French kept the initiative throughout most of the war, using their superior financial situation and organization to their advantage. So, we can see that Charles was continually strengthening and becoming a more and more formidable opponent in the years leading up to England’s defeat in France, undoubtedly one of the key reasons that led to their defeat.
The Essay on France and England: A comparison of Governments
... the two different government styles of France and England – one keeping with the ... giving them no power over the English subjects. John Locke’s writing, Second ... their system of government forever. The French government was ruled by King ... England needed a new leader and invited Charles II back from exile to rule over England. Charles ... that would consist of several men creating laws for the common ...
Another significant factor was that the French, over whom England now ruled, were simply not loyal to the English. They did not want to be ruled by English invaders, who had different customs and traditions. Henry V realized this, and tried to compensate for it, especially in Normandy where he kept the old administrative system of sénechaux, however, this alone was not enough to win true loyalty from his new subjects. Furthermore, English settlers in France had not had enough time to become truly naturalized citizens, so they were not strongly motivated enough to fight to stay in France. This was demonstrated when French disloyalty caused the loss of England’s last stronghold in Normandy, the town of Rouen, where, upon being approached by the army of Charles VII, the citizens of Rouen threw open the city gates and welcomed the soldiers in. Therefore, we can see that without true support and the motivation and desire of the people for the French campaign to be a success, as the English had felt during the reign of Henry V, England’s future in France looked bleak.
Geographically, England’s French holdings were extremely hard to defend. The only way they could stop being attacked by Charles’ men was to go out and attack them themselves. There was no natural barrier between English and French lands in France, and so this exacerbated the financial problem greatly, as defence of this new Empire required huge sums of money, which the English did not have. Their borders were extremely exposed, which made it a lot easier for Charles VII’s men to carry out raids into English lands. Ultimately though, the single most difficult factor that the English had to deal with was the unbelievable scale of Henry V’s ambition. If he had not specified in his will that his descendants could never give up their claim to the crown of France, the English could have made peace with France, and held onto their lands, without the need for this costly and perpetual warfare. Undoubtedly, the English downfall was orchestrated, in the long term, by an unrealistically huge ambition that we simply did not have the resources to support.
The Term Paper on American Colonies British England French
... September 1760, the French lost their last foothold in Canada. Soon, Spain joined France against England, and for the ... which is issued by the King of England, forbids any English settlers in the area west of the ... 7 the issue came to a head. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia stood and put a resolution ... maximize the nation's wealth. Wealth was defined in terms of gold Which is the nation's ability to ...
In the short term, the collapse of England in France was catalysed by the style of warfare in France, which exacerbated hugely the difficulty the already strained financial system was under. The French avoided pitched battles, fearing a repeat of Agincourt, and instead forced the English to besiege town after town, which was an extremely costly, both in terms of man and money and drawn-out process. These effects were so severe that between 1444 and 1448, the English garrison in Normandy shrank from 3,500 to 2,100 men, as their wages could not be paid. Neither could they produce a permanent standing field army, which was something that the Dauphin possessed, which further undermined English power in France. As Keen says, the English had problems “maintaining a credible military presence”, which in itself undermined confidence in England from her allies, such as the Duke of Burgundy, and increased the confidence of Charles VII to demand more from England at negotiations, which led to more tensions, and the possibility of peace becoming more and more distant.
The most important short-term factor in the loss of England’s French possessions was the loss of the alliance with the Duke of Burgundy. The influence of Yolande of Aragon, who was extremely influential in the Dauphin’s circle and Humphrey of Gloucester, who married Jacqueline, Countess of Hainault and Holland and tried to claim her territories for himself, which would otherwise have gone to the Duke of Burgundy, increased tensions between Burgundy and England. The Treaty of Arras, in 1435, officially allied Charles VII and Philip of Burgundy together, while Cardinals Albergati and Hugh de Lusignan present at the conferences declared the 1420 Treaty of Troyes invalid, as no man was able to disinherit his son. This was the death knell for England in France. They had lost their only significant ally in France, and with it their only hope of ever retaking Paris, or properly conquering any more lands, as now they were unable to call upon any allies with significant military strength, which they so desperately needed, and this also legitimized, if any other Frenchmen had ever been in doubt, the right of the Dauphin to take the crown of France. Undoubtedly, this was the worst thing that could have happened to the English at this time.
The Term Paper on Elizabeth I England English Queen
Elizabeth was born September 7, 1533 and died on March 24, 1603. She was the monarch of England from 1558 to her death. In her lifetime she made herself a powerful image of female authority, regal magnificence and national pride. This image has endured down to the present day. Elizabeth both created her image through embellishment and through the concrete policies that she urged her nation to ...
Moreover, the military vacuum that was left upon the death of Henry V was never truly filled. The lack of authority of Henry VI and the infighting and squabbling between his nobles ultimately led to the loss of English power in France. Both Sir John Talbot and the Duke of Bedford proved to be capable leaders, but the better-supplied and better-paid French armies continually outclassed them. Upon Bedford’s death in 1435, during the Conference of Arras, the continual power struggle between the Duke of York and the Earls of Suffolk and Somerset destabilised the regime, especially upon the death of Humphrey of Gloucester, in 1447. The immaturity of Henry VI was also an important factor in the downfall of England in France, as he was proved to be incapable of exercising control over his nobles, and relied too heavily upon his favourites, including Suffolk and Somerset. His naïve trust in Somerset and the Beaufort family resulted in Somerset’s disastrous 1444 campaign to Maine, which achieved nothing, and Somerset died shortly after his return to England. If England’s nobility had been united under a capable and authoritative King, like Henry V had been, the future might have been very different. As Gerald Harris says “The absence of an effective commander between York and Somerset, and of financial support from England, the defence structure of Normandy fell apart.” However, as it stood, the renegade Suffolk took matters into his own hands at the Treaty of Tours, ceding Maine to the French, and then, in 1448, Suffolk’s risk in listing the Duke of Brittany among those allied to England at the renewal of the treaty, and insisting upon this point later in the negotiation did not pay off. Single-handedly, Suffolk had managed to both infuriate Charles VII and the English government and population, and when three months of negotiations had led to nothing, Charles’ forces began to enter Normandy on the 31st July 1448.
Therefore, while there were many different factors that led to the downfall of the Lancastrian empire in France, I believe that the long-term factors were more significant, including the lack of financial solvency in the government, and the loyalty of the French people to their King, as they led an edge of inevitability to the struggle in France. While the short-term causes were significant, I believe that they only catalysed the collapse of English power in France, rather than caused it outright. The English simply did not have the resources or the economic infrastructure to sustain such a campaign for any length of time, and I believe that the death of Henry V, England’s last great medieval military leader, together with other long-term issues within our governmental system and our power base in France, spelt the beginning of the end for English prospects in France.
The Essay on England Henry Church Jesus
Shakespeare's Religion During Shakespeare's time, the majority of the people in England were Protestants. They believed in the Church of England, which was started by King Henry VIII. In 1534, Henry broke away from the pope through the Act of Supremacy. This act declared, ' The King's majesty... to be... the only supreme head in the earth of the Church of England. Henry had a plan to gain power, ...
