Who won the hundred-years war?

more like a dozen "French" families but its a good point, the national identities hadn't really solidified yet.

France was the most powerful country in Europe before the Hundred Years War, if you go by that the HYW rekt France hard.

Which is to be expected for a century long civil war.

nice
good for you

French national identity had, English did in the course of the war. The point is England was not directly involved in the war, and the Angevins weren't fighting it as kings of England but as (claimant) kings of France.

You can always count on somebody getting triggered like this, to the point where people like pussyfoot with "the future nation of France" and still get whined at.

The Plantaganets ruled the kingdom of England, the house of Valois ruled the kingdom of France. The war was over who would emerge as king of France, and Valois, the sitting French royal family before the war, won. Even if the king of England was a Frenchman, the distinction is valid, because he was still the king of England. So saying it was a war between the king (and therefore kingdom) of England and France is valid. Yes, family dynamics, inheritance laws, the language spoken by both rulers, the disdain the English kings had for England, and the fact they both framed themselves as the legitimate French king muddies the waters, but not to the point where we need this autistic hairsplitting every damn time.

Wasn't the war started by England to gain control of France or a good amount of the north?

If so England failed and France won.

cept that the French militarily won the 100 Years War...

Not him, but that's some more terrible logic. The war of Spanish Succession in the 18th century was fought as claimant kings of Spain. Does that mean France and Austria didn't exist as coherent political entities? What about the various Italian wars where everyone seemed to be jumping in to claim this or that Italian City-State? Did they all become Italians? Were William's Normans, Bretons, and Belgians actually English because they tried to help him get the English crown? What about Harald Hardrada's men? They English too?

Ok, then SAY that. Don't say "Well, they were a major power on the European continent for the next 200 years, so I guess dey won."

The U.S. was and is a major power, Vietnam isn't. America won the Vietnam war guise!

Except the Angevins were literal French-speaking French people from France whose primary possessions were in France.

They got more revenue out of their possessions in England than they did from their possessions in France. As for language

sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/language.htm

>The situation was changing in Chaucer's lifetime -- or rather, changes that had been operating since the thirteenth century were beginning to have an obvious effect. The aristocracy used French but most used English as well. King Edward I knew English and even enjoyed English poetry. However, French continued its cultural dominance: The court of King Edward III was French in culture and cultivated French poetry, with French poets such as Jean Froissart and Otho de Graunson, whom Chaucer knew, helping to set the tone. Furthermore the court began speaking Parisian French, an acquired skill, rather than Anglo-Norman, the variety of French used in England, to which earlier nobles had been born. By the time Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales the form of speech brought over by the Normans was still spoken only in the provinces, a source of gentle satire in the portrait of the Prioress

>And Frenssh she spak ful faire and fetisly,
After the scole of Stratford atte Bowe,
For Frenssh of Parys was to hire unknowe.
(General Prologue, I.124-26)

>By this time, English had replaced French as the language of instruction in the elementary schools. John of Trevisa, who translated Higden's Polychronicon, quoted above, says that now, at the time of his writing (1385), the situation has greatly changed:
1/2

2/2

>This manner [of instruction in French in elementary schools] was much used before the first plague [1348] and is since somewhat changed. For John Cornwal. a master of grammar, changed the teaching in grammar school and the construing of Latin into French into English; amd Richard Pencrych learned that manner of teaching from him, and other men from Pencrych. so that now, the year of our lord one thousand three hundred four score and five, of the second King Richard after the Conquest nine, in the grammar schools of England children leave French and construe and learn in English, and they have advantage on one side and disadvantage on another. Their advantage is that they learn their grammar in less time than they were accustomed to do. The disadvantage is that now children of grammar school know no more French than their left heel, and that is harmful for them if they should pass the sea and work in strange lands, and in many other cases. Also gentlemen have now much left off teaching their children French.

>English was also becoming the language of government; in 1362 Parliament was opened with a speech by the Chief Justice in English (and by the Chancellor in the next two parliaments), the first time since the Conquest the native language was so used. Also in the Parliament of 1362 the Statute of Pleading was enacted. It provided that

>All pleas which shall be pleaded in his [the King's] courts whatsoever, before any of his justices whatsoever . . . shall be pleaded, shewed, defended, answered, debated, and judged in the English tongue.

Fuck off.

they won politically and militarily.

The king of England could be Sudanese for all I care, he was king of England. Edward II was born in Windsor castle, and coronations of the king of England had happened in Westminster abbey for decades by that point. Even with that said, it doesn't matter, he could have been born in Paris and crowned with a baguette, but he was still the king of England. It is NOT a misnomer to say it was a war between the kingdom of England and the kingdom of France because the king of England was fighting the king of France for the throne of France. Even if the Angevins won, became king of France, and England became part of France, it would have still been a war between the kingdom of England and the kingdom of France by virtue of the fact the kings of those respective realms disputed.

Anyway I've had this exact same argument with nitpicking autists before and it's always people repeating "b-but they were French" so I'm probably wasting my time.

And by decades I meant centuries.

Pyrrhic French victory

You know why did you need to make such a jump from some dates to others?

100 years war wasn't continuous, there was like 4 temporary """"peace""" treaties between it

>posts a long quote about how the kings of England were French
>Fuck off
lol?

Right and the Falklands War was between Argentina and Jamaica since Elizabeth is queen of Jamaica. derp

Nice cherrypicking senpai
And I don't think you know what "pyrrhic victory" means

Key words here, "kings of England."

Kings.
Of England.

"French" who hadn't been teaching English for about 70 of the 120ish years of the HYW, who made all of their official government functions in English, and opened up their parliaments in English.

You do realize that the usual dates given for the Hundred Years War are 1337-1453, right?

So going by the Statute of Pleading (ACTUAL OFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL ACTION!) We have 25 years of "French" to 91 years of "English".

If you were talking about Elenor of Aquitaine's time, sure. But not 14th-15th century England.

I can only conclude you read the first line and then decided you "won", which is why I'll repeat it, fuck off.

Yes, the French Plantagenêt family, who were counts of Anjou, dukes of Aquitaine, and claimant kings of France, happened to also be kings of England. Your point?

In "King of ____", "___" is the place the king is ruling, not what the king is
Joseph Bonaparte was "King of Spain", but that doesnt make him a Spaniard

>French army gets wiped out multiple times
>French navy gets wiped out at sluys
>multiple uprisings due to the French kings incompetence
>French merceneries plunder countryside since the French can't play for them after being btfo
>French king gets captured
>large percent of French nobility wiped out during Agincourt
>black death
>English initially win, only to complicate things after Henry V randomly dies

Sounds Pyrrhic too me

awww you mad anglo fag?

They were French. Deal with it.

So, what matters is when the war started. I already said that English national identity emerged in the course of the war. Go take your childish tantrums somewhere else.

BTW Parliament still opened in French in 1377.

Yes, I'm mad that utter retards like you are allowed online to pollute discussion with their idiocy.

britannia.com/history/docs/froissrt.html

> Then user the air began to wax clear, and the sun to shine fair and bright, the which was right in the Frenchmen's eyes and on the Englishmen's backs.

>JEAN FROISSART
Chronicles of the Hundred Years War, (1337-1453)

>the eternal anglo is still this butthurt

CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP

You skiped the part where the son of the captured king reconquers his realm and backs the winning side in other kingdoms thus gaining relevant allies.

The Valois obviously? How does this even merit a thread?

>Chronicles of the Hundred Years War, (1337-1453)

You do realise that books written about the period between 1337 and 1453 don't count as primary sources right?

Just because some contemporary French historian calls them English it doesn't mean they fucking were. Moron.

Pyrrhic victory doesnt mean "lucky" victory (even though France's victory in the HYW was far from lucky. You only described the part of the war when the English were dominating and totally ommitted the end when they kept getting rekt in every battle)

A pyrrhic victory is an incomplete victory that comes before a defeat.
That doesnt describe France's situation at the end of the HYW in any way

>So, what matters is when the war started.

Why?

> I already said that English national identity emerged in the course of the war. Go take your childish tantrums somewhere else.

In the course of saying that 'England was not directly involved in the war' (Objectively wrong). And that the Angevins weren't fighting as kings of England (Objectively wrong) but as claimant kings of France (Which does not preclude them fighting as Kings of England)

>"English" kings

>Just because some contemporary French historian calls them English it doesn't mean they fucking were. Moron.

No, it just demonstrates that to contemporary figures, they understood a difference between "The French" and "The English". Sure, you can use whatever definitions you want, but in that case, you may as well state that the HYW was fought between Martians and Moon-men.

The people actually around then clearly had notions of French identity and English identity, and that these were distinct. Claiming that it was a French Civil war means that you're substituting your notions about what forms an identity over contemporary ones, which is pretty ridiculous to characterize any conflict.

>One century of peace(except in france) where one of the biggest Europe bully ever did not try to invade the rest of the world
Everyone win.

>this cherrypicking

>A pyrrhic victory is an incomplete victory that comes before a defeat.

Not him, and I definitely recognize the see-sawing nature of the HYW, but that's not the usual definition of a pyrrhic victory; there's not usually a formulated requirement for a later defeat (Think Russian actions against Finland in the Winter War), just that the cost of obtaining the victory is higher than the value of the victory, even if you do hold your ultimate objective.

>just that the cost of obtaining the victory is higher than the value of the victory, even if you do hold your ultimate objective.

Definitly wasnt the case in the HYW though

>Why?
Because the start of the war is when the sides are defined and what they're fighting for.

>In the course of saying that 'England was not directly involved in the war' (Objectively wrong). And that the Angevins weren't fighting as kings of England (Objectively wrong)
It's objectively right. England played no direct part in the war at all. It was a civil dynastic war between two French families which both owned large parts of France and claimed succession to the throne of France. That one of those families happened to own an island outside of France as well changes absolutely nothing to the principle of the war. England might as well not have existed and nothing would have been changed other than the Angevins having less cannon fodder available.

>mfw UK won the rivalry
>UK won the colonial game
>UK became the first global super power
>UK is more relevant in modern times
>mfw we still have the channel islands

The French.

I'm a Bong, and this seems obvious to me, can there be any other interpretation of the war(s)?

There were "Hessians" in the British army during the American War of Independence, that doesn't make that a war between America and Hesse.

Fine, after Henry V dies and his mentally retarded son becomes king the French swarm the outnumbered and financially troubled English, winning the HYW.

That's retarded, civil wars never have any value from the national perspective, so any civil war would be pyrrhic by definition.

Oh yeah, definitely agree there. I was just being pedantic.

>Because the start of the war is when the sides are defined and what they're fighting for.

Counterexamples: War of the League of Cambrai. World War 1. World War 2. War of Spanish Succession. Thirty Years War. Si Ren Fa war.

Sides change all the time. Objectives change all the time. "What we're fighting for" can easily shift over the course of over a century.

> England played no direct part in the war at all.

Except for all those English troops fighting it and the revenues the English kings raised in England.

>It was a civil dynastic war between two French families which both owned large parts of France and claimed succession to the throne of France.

Which doesn't preclude one of those families also being Kings of England, or drawing the bulk of their ability to project force from England.

>That one of those families happened to own an island outside of France as well changes absolutely nothing to the principle of the war. England might as well not have existed and nothing would have been changed other than the Angevins having less cannon fodder available.

Then again, the War of Spanish Succession wasn't a war between France and Austria (and others). The Battle of Blenheim featured Spanish soldiers fighting in Spain. Do you see how stupid that logic is?

... That they happened to also be kings of England.

People shit themselves when somebody says it's a war between the kingdom of England and the kingdom of France when it -literally- is. The fact that they were also dukes of French realms and spoke French does not make this not a reality.

No, but if Joseph Bonaparte, as king of Spain, got into a war with I don't know, England, that would still be a war between the Kingdom of Spain and England. Because he's the sovereign ruler of Spain and styles himself as such. If, as king of Spain, he declared a war that Spain got involved in, yes it's a Spanish war. Which is also why this Jamaica example is kind of silly, for one because neither side formally declared war and two because even if Elizabeth II as monarch of Great Britain signed off on a war against Argentina that doesn't mean Elizabeth II as monarch of Jamaica has signed off on a war against Argentina. If it was like it was earlier in the empire then yes, the kingdom of Jamaica would have been at war with Argentinia because the monarch of Jamaica, in their right as sovereign, declared war on behalf of that kingdom.

In the hundred years war, there was no such distinction. England was part of the Angevin realm, England was at war with France, and the duke of Anjou was king of England.

People need to understand that saying "It was a war between the kingdom of England and the kingdom of France" which it -factually- was does not magically mean 'The king of England has to be an Englishman who loves England.'

>Its cool to bully French when they have a mentally ill king.
>Its so disgusting when the French bully us when why have a mentally ill king.

>all these pathetic excuses
>not mentioning that the Angevins were only winning while the king of France was literally insane

abloobloo

>mfw Henry V married the French king's daughter and impregnated her in front of him after the marriage

Sorry, count of Anjou* before the inevitable nitpicking.

>this thread

The HYW was obviously a french victory. A french victory, not anything else.
The HYW is an incredible conflict to study. It starts off as a simple dynastic war, of a Valois demesne having to do a lot of complex politics to mobilise an army, against an english King, who, for the first time since the angevins, was really an english king with a huge project to build back a great nation.

The HYW is incredible to study for many reasons. It was the time of a military revolution (The French army started out as almost feudal in nature, to a military power relying on heavy artillery and a permanent army to crush the castles who used to be of great importance for the defense strategies of Charles V). It was the time of social changes (Étienne Marcel the commoner who has as much power as the lords, the commonner parliament of England who manages to gain a lot of power in England...), of religious turmoil (The Avignon schism), of economical differences... Basically, through a hundred years of conflict, and crisis, you witness what is the definitive step out of the middle ages and into a more modern world.

France wins at the end of the day, because the french King Charles VII managed to build a state, and even more, to link up all of the french territory against him ; The normands supported his army against Talbot, while the people of Aquitaine were really sad to no longer be english subjects, but were forced to bow before the french crown anyway.
It is also funny to note how, at the end of the war, the english parliament refused to give more credits to the King of England to go back to fight the french ; Because they decided that it wasn't worth spending the Crown's money just so that the King of England can rule France, since in this case, the french would probably take over their business.

And neither does their use preclude the notion that King George III was Duke-Elector of Hannover, nor does it mean that those troops themselves were actually British, English, or any variation that indicates their being from England.

Why are you using a national perspective? From the prospective of the individual claimants, you come to a completely different conclusion.

>Except for all those English troops fighting it and the revenues the English kings raised in England.
Already mentioned cannon fodder. Might as well say it was India and not Britain fighting in WW1.

>Then again, the War of Spanish Succession wasn't a war between France and Austria (and others).
How is that in any way related? The king of France was French, not Spanish.

>People shit themselves when somebody says it's a war between the kingdom of England and the kingdom of France when it -literally- is.
As much as Falklands were Argentina vs Jamaica, or India fought in WW1 instead of Britain.

Its called a royal marriage you dumb georgie.

Richard Coeur de Lion was born in France, lived in France, and didn't speak a word of english.

However, by Edward I, the english kings resided in England, and were crowned in England. By 1361, english was the language of the court. Yes they were from the House of Plantagenêt ; But they were english. And throughout the HYW, they slowly and slowly built their own nation, like the french built their own under the leadership of a strong king. The HYW is the birth of modern France and modern England.

>mfw buttmad french cucks in denial that they got their arse handed to them by English kings all those years

The English kings didn't claim the """"Angevin Empire"""", Edward III Claimed France through his mother and Henry V claimed France through Edward III

He was born in England actually, and while he may not have known much English, if at all,
"During his captivity, English prejudice against foreigners was used in a calculated way by his brother John to help destroy the authority of Richard's chancellor, William Longchamp, who was a Norman. One of the specific charges laid against Longchamp, by John's supporter Hugh, Bishop of Coventry, was that he could not speak English. This indicates that by the late 12th century a knowledge of English was expected of those in positions of authority in England.[17][18]"

btw I'm, not trying to argue with you, but add info

French national identity already existed, since around 1200. In fact Edward III, who was extremely French in spirit, imitated for England what his ancestors the French kings had done for France.

Please answer this question:
Do they english nation, currently posses any territory between the english channel french shore and the mediterranean? and, Do they posses any territory between the Rhine river and the atlantic ocean?

>Already mentioned cannon fodder. Might as well say it was India and not Britain fighting in WW1.

Except that people DO usually mention the various Commonwealth dominions as separate from "England proper" when discussing the World Wars.

>How is that in any way related? The king of France was French, not Spanish.

Nope. The war (from the French perspective) was to secure the inheritance of Phillip who was heir to the Spanish crown. He's Spanish. The war was Spanish vs Spanish. Blenheim is in Spain.

Edward III's mother was French you complete idiot. And the Angevins lost.

Not only were you cucked by French people, but the French people who cucked you were themselves losers who got cucked by the true kings of France. You're like double cucks.

you're the butthurt ones sweeping under the rug the later years of the war where you got rekt

who gives a fuck anyway this thread is childish

In what way was Philip Spanish?

You still don't understand the difference between being king of something and being from there? Was Victoria Indian? This is getting too stupid for me.

meant for

There was no Angevin "Empire". Anyone who dubs the loose connection of some duchies and counties in Kingdom of France that was owned by the King of Kingdom of England as an "Empire" should just off themselves. It wasn't ruled by an emperor and it wasn't a centralised state, it was just literally King of England owning territory (which he answered King of France as liege in) in Kingdom of France.

It was one French family ruling Kingdom of England using English manpower and resources to try to solidify their claims in Kingdom of France and failing at the end, allowing King of France to centralise and solidify his own position instead, while the French family in Kingdom of England got consumed by the feuds of two French families. Anyone who thinks England somehow benefited from HYW is delusional at best.

Edward III supported the use of the English language, Henry V even more so and he made English the official language in government then IIRC. Also

>King Edward I, when issuing writs for summoning Parliament in 1295, claimed that the King of France planned to invade England and extinguish the English language, "a truly detestable plan which may God avert

>Do they english nation, currently posses any territory between the english channel french shore and the mediterranean?

What? Be more clear. Do you mean between England and France? Surely between the English Channel and Med includes the french shore?

Literally not an argument

>In what way was Philip Spanish?

Missing the point. If the mere fact that the claim of the throne of France makes the English kings (born and raised in England by the time of the war) French, then the claim of a Spanish crown makes Phillip Spanish.

>You still don't understand the difference between being king of something and being from there?

Of course I do. The problem is that your logic is equally stupid. "King of So and So doesn't identify himself as from the country he rules. THEREFORE THE COUNTRY HE RULES IS THE KING'S NATIONALITY!"

The Hundred Years War was definitely a war or series of wars between "England" and "France". The fact that the English kings had French ancestry and enormous French cultural influence doesn't make England part of France, it doesn't mean that the principal soldiers pushing the Plantagenet claim weren't English, and it doesn't mean that English funds weren't prosecuting the war, which means that England as a political unit was involved. To say that there was no war between England and France is simply wrong, and retarded.

>King Edward I, when issuing writs for summoning Parliament in 1295, claimed that the King of France planned to invade England and extinguish the English language, "a truly detestable plan which may God avert

He probably said himself in French. Which French Kings had no intention of, by the way. He was saying that to rally England behind him so he could follow through his own personal ambitions in Kingdom of France. It's classic propaganda.

And it's propaganda that could only work if there's an English identity in England that people cared enough to defend. Otherwise, who would give a shit?

India did fight in WWI as subjects of the British empire, the monarch of which was also Emperor of India at the time.

I don't believe the Angevins made any effort to claim that England was part of the county of Anjou, and as far as primary sources go the distinction between "king of England" and "king of France" is evident.

The fact that Froissart, a contemporary Frenchman, names him as "the king of England" and not "the count of Anjou" should tell you something about how the king of England was being styled during the war. Whether the king liked Anjou more or not, when someone spoke about the war, they spoke about the contending kings of England and France. You will not hear anybody talk about Elizabeth as "Queen of Jamaica" except in specific circumstances related specifically to her role as Jamaican monarch.

The band of the hawk.

No, the fact that the kings of England were French is what makes them French.

Btw Philip was not the king of France, the kingdom of France was engaged separately.

>implying it wasn't Plantagenets and Lancasters saying WE ENGLISH NAO after losing all their claims in France in a sheer flood of butthurtness during the course of HYW

Daily reminder the "English" knights decorated themselves in French Fleur-De-Lys and the symbol of Richard the Lionheart which only spent 6 months in England and spoke no word of English.

He was only referred to as king of England because that title is ranked higher than duke. He himself referred to himself as king of France. Calling him English instead of French is meant as an insult and denial of his claim.

>No, the fact that the kings of England were French is what makes them French.

The fact that the English kings had French ancestry and enormous French cultural influence doesn't make England part of France, it doesn't mean that the principal soldiers pushing the Plantagenet claim weren't English, and it doesn't mean that English funds weren't prosecuting the war, which means that England as a political unit was involved.

>Btw Philip was not the king of France, the kingdom of France was engaged separately.

So fucking what? It was fought to pursue a claim to the Spanish throne, ergo, by your logic, it's a Spanish civil war aided by outside forces at best.

>because that title is ranked higher than duke.

Yes. Which is why people, even at the time, say it was a war between the King of England and the king of France, rather than the Count of Anjou and the king of France. At the time people still understood the significance of the titles.

>He himself referred to himself as king of France.

Because he was a pretender to the French throne. The English king was the crowned and anointed king of England, if some Anglo Saxon said "you're not king of England, you're French!" it'd probably be considered treason. The fact that he was French doesn't matter, the monarch doesn't need to be of the "nationality" of his subjects. Furthermore, you can be both king of England and France, and if he had won it could likely have been a similar scenario as we had with the United Kingdom where the monarch was king of England and Scotland, where France would assume the "primary title" as being more prestigious in the way England did over Scotland.

Nobody, in saying it was a war between the kingdom of England and the kingdom of France, is saying that the king of England had to be culturally English.

>make England part of France
Nobody claimed that.

>it doesn't mean that the principal soldiers pushing the Plantagenet claim weren't English, and it doesn't mean that English funds weren't prosecuting the war, which means that England as a political unit was involved.
No, it means the exact opposite, that the resources of England as an owned piece of territory were being exploited for purposes completely unrelated to England.

>So fucking what?
So your analogy completely falls apart.

>a war between the King of England and the king of France
Yes. And not a war between England and France.

>Nobody claimed that.

Well, except for the writer of who got this whole thing started.

>No, it means the exact opposite, that the resources of England as an owned piece of territory were being exploited for purposes completely unrelated to England.

Which means that it was ENGLAND prosecuting the war. Yes, the goal was not directly related to England, except insofar as to unify the crowns of England and France in one person. That doesn't mean it's not a war between England and France.

>So your analogy completely falls apart.

Not at all. In fact, it is exactly equivalent to what you just wrote in your post. It means the "exact opposite", as the resources of France as an owned piece of territory were being exploited for purposes completely unrelated to France.

>Yes. And not a war between England and France.

As I said, this is nonsensical nitpicking considering the king of England was England's sovereign, "the king of England" was how he was referred to by contemporaries, and a significant number of English soldiers were levied for the conflict sustained by English taxes. A lot of major battles in the war are basically prefaced with statements such as "The [King at the time] sailed from England with an army of x numbers of men." such as before Crecy and before Agincourt.

People make this distinction "IT WASN'T ENGLAND!" because they want to seem clever that they have a basic understanding of dynastic disputes, knew the kings of England were French, and the fact that "nations" hadn't come into their own. It's splitting hairs at its finest and it's always intolerable when people explicitly try to make a point of it and bitch and moan if someone says "England" or "France".

When you say "It was an English victory" you immediately understand it to mean "It was a victory won for the king of England" but when you say "It was a victory won by a mix of Frenchmen, Holy Roman mercenaries, some Welsh longbowmen, and some men at arms from the region of Essex, but we're not going to name any names because I don't want to trigger any pedants, oh and also the monarch in charge was French and held the duchy of Aquitaine and the county of Anjou. Just so you know. Yeah, they won that battle. By the way, it was against the reigning monarch of many continental regions in a dispute over the crown of that place, not going to name names, and his supporters from that area, supported by Italian mercenaries."

In a nutshell, England vs France is a simplified explanation of a complex conflict that is still technically correct anyway.

>being this butmad

Eternal Anglo pls go, we've already won this argument.

>we've already won this argument.

I disagree, and "u mad" is not an argument. I don't know why you think an "eternal anglo" would be insistent on saying the French beat the English in the war instead of agreeing that the French beat the French in a war.

>A pyrrhic victory is an incomplete victory that comes before a defeat.
NO it is not.

>A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years'_War#Significance

>The war stimulated nationalistic sentiment. It devastated France as a land, but it also awakened French nationalism. The Hundred Years' War accelerated the process of transforming France from a feudal monarchy to a centralised state

>The conflict developed such that it was not just between the Kings of England and France but also between their respective peoples. There were constant rumours in England that the French meant to invade and destroy the English language. National feeling that emerged from such rumours unified both France and England further. The Hundred Years' War basically confirmed the fall of the French language in England, which had served as the language of the ruling classes and commerce there from the time of the Norman conquest until 1362