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.
