What the fuck is wrong with these two?

Except the English actually did have a better claim to the French throne than the Valois did.

Well, Edward also thought he'd had his gibs through his French mother, but French claims aren't inherited matrilineally, which is why the council of the Estates general thought it better to crown the Valois cousin, Phillipe I, instead.

Combination of successive issues, proximity of threat theory, and the English concern of France establishing continental European dominance which could easily overwhelm the few Urban areas they possessed pre-industrial.

They influenced the hell out of each other and really set up a global order.

Succession*
ESL sorry

>Framing dynastic squabbles via race.
Pleb.

>tfw Amercan
>tfw no list of wars between you and you're rival

>tfw we're too strong for this world

Think again.

>In March 2003 France, along with Germany, China, and Russia, opposed the proposed UN resolution that would have authorized a U.S. invasion of Iraq.[54] During the run-up to the war, French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin emerged as a prominent critic of the George W. Bush administration's Iraq policies. Despite the recurring rifts, the often ambivalent relationship remained formally intact. A few days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Jacques Chirac—later known for his frosty relationship with Bush—had ordered the French secret services to collaborate closely with U.S. intelligence, and created Alliance Base in Paris, a joint-intelligence service center charged with enacting the Bush administration's War on Terror.

>Public attempts in 2003 to boycott French goods in retaliation for perceived French "active hostility toward America" ultimately fizzled out, having had no impact.[55] Nonetheless, the Iraq war, the attempted boycott, and anti-French sentiments routinely whipped up by American commentators and politicians bred increased suspicion of the United States among the French public in 2003, just as anti-war demonstrations, hostile treatment of American tourists in Europe,[56] and the actions of the French government bred a similar level of increased distrust of France in the United States. By 2006, only one American in six considered France an ally of the United States.[57]
>The ire of American popular opinion towards France during the run-up to the 2003 Iraq Invasion was primarily due to the fact that France decided not to intervene in Iraq (because the French did not believe the reasons given to go to war, such as the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, and the purported weapons of mass destruction to be legitimate).

More years at war and it doesn't include small skirmishes.

they are tsundere for each other

Even if we dislike France it doesn't compare to Russia you fucking retarded monkey

Reminder that the English had a minuscule population compared to France and even with this being the case the English typically won.

Even so, most of these French victories are horseshit, can we just call it the Revolutionary war followed by the Napoleonic war, Christ, there is a Hundred Years' war after-all - imagine how well the English could pad their stats if that was broken down.

>The Anglo-French War (1627-1629)
kek, what? This is the thirty years war right? England didn't lose that war.
>French Catholics want to slaughter French Protestants
>Anglos rescue some of them
>French Victory.

Also those Plantagenet civil wars shouldn't be described as French victories.

Are the only "French" victories over England, the *Norman* conquest and the *American* Revolutionary War?

>Reminder that the English had a minuscule population compared to France

Don't worry for them, they compensated for that by having half Europe as allies in most of their wars

>The Anglo-French War (1627-1629)
>kek, what? This is the thirty years war right? England didn't lose that war.

It's a war that consisted in two battles, that England lost
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Saint-Martin-de-Ré
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_La_Rochelle

After these two failures, England gave up (not enough allies to bail them out I guess)
>Following these defeats, England would end its involvement in continental European politics, by negotiating a peace treaty with France in 1629.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-French_War_(1627–1629)#Peace

But I guess that's a shinning English victory for you, ammirite Lindy?

>Christ, there is a Hundred Years' war after-all - imagine how well the English could pad their stats if that was broken down.

Not much actually
The HYW can reasonnably be broken down in four "mini-wars" (only three really, but let's break the Lancastrian one in two phases so Anglos can feel better lol)
The English won two of them and the French won the two others

>The rest of Europe doesn't like France and apparently that's England's fault.
>(not enough allies to bail them out I guess)
>tfw I have living relatives who remember France's Anglo allies bailing them out.
>A war that lasted 116 years will be one war because for most of it the English were winning.
>A war that lasted 12 years will be 6 or 7 wars because for most of it the French were winning.
...
>so Anglos can feel better lol
Anglos feel fine. It wouldn't be embarrassing for a nation several times larger and more numerous to best us, the reverse on the other hand...

England's fault lies not in their habit of ganging up in their wars against france, but in their habit of claiming afterwards that they won despite or lost because they were alone against a bigger opponent.

Wouldn't our rival be the Natives?
Most of our wars are against Native Americans, and not only that, they were responsible for the worst defeat in the history of the United States with St. Claire's Defeat.
We've had Native wars up 'til WW1.