Why France was England's Rightful Claim During the Hundred Year's War

The Hundred Years' War lasted from 1337 to 1453. Widely recognized as among the most important series of events in the Middle Ages, it helped usher in the end of the Medieval period and the being of the modern era. 

The war (or series of wars), of course, was primarily between England and France (though other countries did get involved as well). Many famous medievals, including Edward III, Edward, the Black Prince, Henry V, and Joan of Arc, were all involved in different stages of the long conflict that began during the Black Plague. 

But while the Hundred Years' War is important to students of history, there is one particular question that I hope to address in this post: who was right? Did England or France have the greater claims of righteousness in the struggle that lasted one hundred and sixteen years? 

There are many reasons to believe that England was in the right when it came to the Hundred Years' War. For one, one of the origins of the conflict was Philip VI of France ordering Scotland to have peace with England. When England refused, he made war upon its people. Thus, France was actually the aggressor---which is contrary to what many today would probably think. By seizing Aquitaine from the English, the French instigated the long brawl between the two countries simply because England would not make peace with Scotland, France's ally. 

Even so, England won the majority of the Hundred Years' War. Joan of Arc did play a hand in helping the French win the Siege of Orleans (1428-1429), but her inspiration for France was not enough to cause the defeat of the English. Rather, England's internal conflicts allowed the rise of Joan of Arc and other French leaders, who only began to win the war in its last stages---during which England was divided by itself. 

So, in short, France ushered in the war because England refused to make peace with Scotland. England won the majority of the war (including some of the most famous battles, such as Sluys, Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt). France only began to win during the last stages of the war, and this had little to do with Joan of Arc. The French had better supply lines to defend the castles near their armies, and their use of the canon continued to give them an advantage. Lastly, England came into conflict with itself, setting the stage for the Wars of the Roses. 

Considering these reasons, the conflict was simply hard for England to win. Though Henry V conquered France, his English successors to the crown could not keep it. 

And even strategy aside, England had controlled lands like those in Aquitaine before the war. Considering that France chose to seize them in their attempt to force England into peace with Scotland, England had the legitimate right to invade France with its forces. 

Another reason to solidify England's claims to authority over France is found in the Salic Law, mentioned in Shaskespeare's Henry V. 

As historical background, when Phillip IV of France died in 1314, he left a daughter, along with three sons. However, none of his sons had any heirs, which meant that the French throne passed through his daughter, Isabelle. Nevertheless, she married Edward II of England and had with him a child, Edward III. The English rightly considered Edward III as the legitimate heir not only because the English said so but because he was in direct lineage from Philip the Fair, king of France. 

However, the French dismissed Henry V, for instance, from being king of France according to the rules of the Salic Law, which the French used against him. Their interpretation of the document was that it barred any king from taking the throne whose line was only through the woman (in this case, Henry V's claim was through Isabelle). 

In the opening of Shakespeare's play of the same name, the archbishop of Canterbury persuades Henry Plantagenet to invade France. As they discuss with one another Henry's claims to power, they are persuaded that the document has no binding force against them as the land of Salic they recognize to be part of Germany (though France considers it to be its own). Perhaps more convincing, though, is that even though the French disregard Henry as the rightful heir to the French throne considering his lineage through the female line, Hugh Capet, a former king of the Franks, had done the same in the tenth century. 

And as further proof of Henry's claims for rightful reign, Louis X ensured his grandmother as having a legitimate bloodline to the monarchy (also demonstrating that Louix X recognized the female line as having power in itself). In general, there were cases of French monarchs long before Henry V who were regarded as rightful kings despite their claims to power coming through the female line, yet why did the French not question them as they now did the claims of the English? And since many of the French kings had descended in power through their female lines, the Archbishop of Canterbury concluded that the Salic Law had never been intended as a binding document on all of France but only on the lands claimed by France in the German region. 

But what about Joan of Arc's apparitions? Don't they prove the French were in the right? 

One of the interesting aspects of apparitions is who is recording what the saint is saying. Take, for example, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, who both believe in apparitions, but Eastern theologians are likely to question the authenticity of Our Lady of Fatima. In the same way, Joan of Arc claimed apparitions from God, but who is to say that her apparitions are more holy or true than any potentially given to the English side? Oftentimes, people who point to the apparitions of Joan start with the presumptions that she was given revelation from God to the exclusion of all else on the English side. 

And let me add that as a side note, while the English and French at this time agreed that a woman could not rule on her own as queen, they disagreed over whether or not she could pass such lineage to her children. However, for reasons already demonstrated, the French had many times considered their movements legitimate even when they succeeded only through the female line. 

In conclusion, the French contradicted themselves about their legal claims to possess territories such as Aquitaine (and other places in Northern France). The English did not instigate the war, though the French did. Invading Aquitaine (at that time, England's territory) provoked England to begin a massive war on the Kingdom of France. Though England won more substantial victories over the French than the reverse, England had to pull out its troops for the reasons already mentioned. 

The Hundred Years' War remains one of the most important events in the Middle Ages. Separating it from fiction is important along with any event in history. 

An Update on my Academic Pursuit

 Over the last several years, I have blogged about Medieval Studies. Indeed, I began this blog back in 2019. Since that time, many people online have been exposed to many of my writings. 

When beginning this blog, I said that I wish to get a Bachelor of Science in History and a Master's in English. I also wanted to get an MA in Medieval Studies. However, I later switched to majoring in English and am now about to graduate with a Bachelor of Science in English and Writing. 

There were many reasons that I switched to English. Among them was because I wanted to learn more about literature, writing, and publishing. Since enrolling at Liberty University four years ago, I have done that. However, now, I wish to return to historical and theological studies. Majoring in English has prepared me to pursue a career as a novelist, which I will be doing as I also pursue seminary. As I also no longer have any interest in being a secondary teacher, I wish to become a college or university professor. 

I'm in the last semester of my degree. Soon, I will be done with my undergrad in English. I am grateful for this. I am ready to move on. I no longer desire to be an English professor or teacher. I now wish to become a professor of either history or theology. Back in 2015, when I graduated from high school, I struggled to decide between majoring in religion or history. In 2019, though, a year before I enrolled at Liberty, I decided to switch out to English. With my Bachelor's degree essentially now done, I am ready to return to my academic pursuit of religion. 

Finally, I originally desired to major in history or religion. While my Bachelor's degree is in English, my Master's degree will be in a seminary field. From there, I will pursue a doctorate, either in history or a theological field. 

An Update on My Religious Views

The study of ancient Christianity has always been inspirational to me. I love to learn about Early Christianity. Yet the more I learn of Early Christianity, the weaker I see the theology of Baptists, Presbyterians, and Pentecostals. Not only was the early church very liturgical, but its beliefs about free will, salvation, baptism, and the Eucharist were far from much of contemporary Evangelicalism in America. 

To make matters more clear, I no longer consider myself a Protestant. There are many reasons for this. I find Peter Leithart's Reformation Catholicism more attractive than what many today think of Protestantism*1. For example, Leithart says Protestants believe whatever is opposite of the Catholic Church, which is an area where he disagrees with them. On the contrary, he affirms the Reformation and sees himself as a Reformation Catholic. 

Leithart's opinion is not alone, however. Some Lutherans don't consider themselves ''Protestant'' as the word originally had political implications about protesting the Holy Roman Emperor rather than that of the Catholic Church's theology. Perhaps more complicated still, Protestantism has lost theological meaning, with Kenneth Copeland, Baptists, and Lutherans all classified by Catholics as Protestants. And even if the term ''Protestant'' is used only to describe those denominations that were born in the Reformation, this too changes its original meaning as the word was historically used to describe German Lutherans who dissented from the emperor's condemnation of Luther (and did not refer to Lutherans in Noway or Anglicans in England). Luther himself preferred the term ''Evangelical.'' Unfortunately, in the present day, the meaning of the word, ''Protestant'' is often deployed by people who disregard everything about the Catholic Church. 

As discussed in one article written by a Lutheran*2, ''Protestants'' referred either specifically only to German Lutherans or, perhaps even more specifically, to those Holy Roman princes who objected to the emperor's condemnation of Luther. Certainly, over time, Anglicans and others would eventually grasp the term, but the meaning of Protestantism has changed over time. 

Furthermore, the history of the term is full of so many complications, often depending on one's theology. While the Catholics considered all other Western Christians to be ''Protestant,'' Anglicans disregarded Baptists and others from being considered ''Protestants.'' And as already mentioned, Luther did not prefer this word to describe his followers and associates. Instead, the early Lutherans wished to be called ''Evangelical,'' as they saw themselves as being Gospel-centered. 

Moreover, the early Anglicans, during Henry VIII's reign, accepted many Catholic practices and beliefs. While there is debate about whether Anglican should be considered ''Protestant,'' it's important to recall that Charles II, before his beheading by the Puritans, professed loyalty to the Protestant faith. The Episcopal Church, likewise, was historically titled ''The Protestant Episcopal Church,'' yet both of these were not at the origins of the Anglican Church. When one looks at the Church of England before the reign of Edward VI, for instance, the church itself was very Catholic. 

Still, some may argue that Edward VI, not Henry VIII, founded the Anglican Church. Regardless of one's view on the origins of the Anglican Church, however, Anglo-Catholics were always present in the Church of England—long before the Oxford movement of the mid- and late nineteenth century. 

How else can the term be defined? Some Catholics now list Mormons as ''Protestants.'' Likewise, some Reformed Baptists would consider themselves ''Protestants,'' though others would reject their legitimacy as Reformed Baptists were not born out of the Reformation. And if being simply a daughter church or a grandaughter church of a Reformation Church makes one ''Protestant,'' who has the authority to declare Kenneth Copeland or Joel Osteen from not being ''Protestant?'' Reformed Baptists? Why do they think that they get to define who is ''Protestant'' and who is not? 

And even if we say that ''Protestant'' only refers to those Christians who dissented from Rome in the sixteenth century (as I once argued in the past), then can most Christians in even the Lutheran or Anglican denominations of today even claim to be Protestant, when most Anglican and Lutheran communions originated even later. Look at dictionaries to see how they define ''Protestant.'' You get various definitions. That's because it is more or less dead, with Catholics mostly keeping alive as they often generalize all other Western Christians (including KJennth Copeland) as Protestants. But whether it be TV Evangelists like John Macarthur, Ray Comfort, or Kenneth Copeland, none of these men have much in common with the early Lutheran Reformation. In fact, if the reader takes the time to study Luther's writings, in many ways, he is far closer to Rome than he is to these men. 

Those who today consider themselves ''Protestant'' have essentially nothing in common with all those who have aligned themselves under this label. There is no confession, no creed, and no church council that they all agree with. To many Evangelicals, icons and images are in themselves breaking the Second Commandment, yet these were never the views of mainstream Lutherans before or after the Reformation. 

In general, I think it's unfair how many Evangelicals disregard everything about Catholicism. I also think it's unfair, however, that many Catholic Apologists lump Joel Osteen, ELCA Lutherans, Southern Baptists, and the Church of England all into the fold of being Protestants. Mainstream American Evangelicalism has almost nothing to do with the Reformation, either in theology or history. 

Previously, I used the term ''Moderate Protestant'' to distinguish myself from extreme Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. More recently, though, I would rather identify with the Reformation movements following the Book of Concord or The Thirty-Nine Articles than with those often classified as ''Protestants.'' Part of my change of view is learning more about the origin of the word ''Protestant'' and how it was originally only about a very specific group of people (which also concerned their political differences from their emperor). 

Now, I no longer identify as a ''Moderate Protestant. I feel closer to both Confessional and High Church Lutheranism, along with Anglo-Catholicism, than I do with mainstream American Protestant Christianity. I also align closer with Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, than I do with Fundamentalism. In many ways, Luther and the early Lutherans looked far more Catholic than today's Baptists or Presbyterians. 

Finally, I appreciate the definition of ''Protestant'' by Brittinnicca: ''Throughout the eighteenth century the word Protestant was still defined in relation to the 16th-century Reformation*3.'' This certainly would exclude Baptists from being true Protestants, as the Baptists were a separatist movement out of the Church of England in the seventeenth century. 

For more information, I urge the reader to read the articles listed below. 

*1-https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/11/the-end-of-protestantism

*2-https://katolikken.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/why-i-am-not-and-will-never-call-myself-a-protestant/

*3-https://www.britannica.com/topic/Protestantism

A Recent Update on Plans

For the past several years, I have majored in English. Finally, I'm grateful to say that my English degree is nearly finished. I am in the last semester of my bachelor of science. 

Majoring in English has prepared me for post-graduate studies in either history or theology, both of which greatly interest me. Learning about English literature and writing are not only particular passions that I have, but have also prepared me for skills in other fields, such as Biblical Studies, where it is important to analyze and interpret the meaning of Scripture. 

Now, I'm about to finish my bachelor's in English and Writing. Once finished with my current program, I will be pursuing an MA in Biblical Studies, with a focus on the New Testament. After that, I will be pursuing some sort of PhD, though I am not sure which one I wish to do yet. Of course, Medieval history and Early Christianity remain top interests on my part. 

Whether I pursue a PhD in Medieval history or in a theological discipline, I hope to connect my academic studies to Medieval Studies. In the case of theology, for example, the study of the New Testament and Early Christians can aid the medievalist as the individual tries to learn more about Medieval Christianity. 

For the past five years, I have used this blog to reach others about Medieval history and propel myself to becoming a professional medievalist. 

I appreciate all my prayers for my journey. Thanks to all who have followed this blog. 

The Cause of the Great Schism According to an Eastern Christian Perspective

 

The so-called ''Great Schidsm of 1054'' played an important role in the history of the post-Classical world. In the Middle Ages, there were various attempts to reunify the Latin and Greek Churches, though none of them were long-lasting. 

Below, I have decided to quote Mark of Ephesus, the only Eastern bishop at the Council of Florence who objected to the union of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Traditionally, Catholics regarded him as a heretic for his theology. 

It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism— the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God." "The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics*1. 

-Mark of Ephesus 

*1-http://constans_wright.tripod.com/romans.html

A Brief Review of Two Works Concerning the Eucharist

 

The study of Medieval Christianity is one of my favorite topics and the doctrines Eucharist are some of the most important doctrines of Christianity to me. 

Recently, I finished one of the volumes in The Fathers of the Church: Medieval Continuations. Pictured above, this book includes two works by Medieval theologians who defended an early understanding of what we now call ''Transubstantiation.'' I must say that reading the works of Lanfranc of Canterbury and Guitmund of Aversa has led me to agree with the Catholic position. In fact, I now have more knowledge of Scripture, philosophy, and church history as they pertain to this doctrine than I have ever had. I encourage everyone reading this to also read this volume. Both Medieval theologians defend their views on the subject from their extensive knowledge of Scripture, philosophy, and church history. As far as I am aware. It is by far the best defense of Transubstantiation. Ultimately, I would consider it among the top ten books of theology that I've read. It is a true gem, even as it remains a highly underrated one. 

For those interested in why most Christians throughout church history believed that the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ, I highly recommend this work. The two pieces contained in the volume extensively use Scripture to justify belief in Transubstantiation. But as with any topic in theology, the reader must be open to Biblical truth before considering the arguments presented. 

Thankfully, this volume has been published with extensive notes. The Catholic University of America continues to foster the careful study of the Middle Ages, for which every medievalist should be grateful. The notes further illuminate the modern reader in understanding the text itself. 

As a work of Medieval literature, it also can be a good source for those aspiring to learn more about the theological background of works such as Quest of the Holy Grail and Pearl. Indeed, one cannot understand the literature of the Middle Ages without understanding its theology. 

Books that I have Read from Early Modern/Renaissance Literature

Books of literature: Hamlet by William Shakespeare, Henry V by William Shakespeare, Richard III by William Shakespeare, Macebeth by William Shakespeare, Julies Caesar by William Shakespeare, Othello by William Shakespeare, King John by William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare, Richard II by William Shakespeare, The Divine Comedy by Dante. I have yet to finish A Midsummer Night's Dream and Romeo and Juliet. 

Books of Religion: On War Against the Turk by Martin Luther, The Ninety-Five Thesis by Martin Luther, The Douay Catechism, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio by Pope Pius V, The Westminster Standards. I have yet to finish The Book of Common Prayer. 

Although I'm more read in Medieval literature and history than that of the Early Modern and Renaissance periods, some knowledge of Early Modern literature is helpful for medievalists. As a big Shakespeare fan, I also believe that this era produced many great works of art.