England In the HYW

Literally read the OP or fuck off.

>By Henry IV, England had it's own deep rooted identity

Henry IV was actually the first English king to speak English natively, so "deep rooted" his quite an exaggeration
It was a very recent thing

superior tactics meant that the english won most of the important battles

>A civil war only implies that both sides share culture and ethnicity
An even more ludicrous definition.

A civil war implies war within a single civic polity.

In the case of fighting over a throne, dynasties do not consider each other belonging to a same polity. They're not even polities: they're what it says on the tin: dynasties. The other dynasty is totally different than they are since they are different dynasty. Who gives a shit if the other guy belongs to the same culture/ethnicity? It's not their family's butt on the throne.

In fact: they see the other side as illegitimate in its claims to a throne to begin with. Further reinforcing the fact that they are not the same.

Which is why absolutely barely any internal wars within medieval states are called civil wars. The only time a war in a feudal/dynastic setting resembles civil wars are when people of the same immediate family start fighting

Yes the autism is valid because there's a big reason why historians don't go around labelling pre-nation-state conflicts as civil wars, especially in the medieval European period.

>China
Ah yes, which is why the only Chinese civil war in history was 1911-1949, while the label isnt applied to earlier dynastic squabbles.

>the english

Stop applying modern nationalism to medieval era
There were no "English" or "French", only the Plantagenets and the Valois

The french and yanks on this board need to be range banned

Why do people like you always have to ruin these threads.
There were the English under Edward III, etc. And the French under Philip IV etc

Don't forget the krauts, the poles, spaniards, potatoes...basically anyone who criticizes Britain

are you actually autistic? the troops were english because they were troops under the kingdom of england you autistic retard

>A civil war only implies that both sides share culture and ethnicity
No it doesn't. If you go with that "definition" then the Peloponesian war, the Didochoi wars, whatever war you want to call the one that centered around the battle of Magetobriga, the war between Ombos and Nekhen to unify predynastic Egypt, the conquest of Babylon by the Assyrians, the Mercenary war, all those three way wars between Epiros, the Koinon Hellenon, and the Antigonids, the wars between Muscovy and Novgorod in the 15th century, the various Irish clan-wars before unification, and the Flower wars of the Mesoamericans are all "civil wars".

But Edward III was from a French dynasty and spoke French natively
This shit is too much complicated when you try to apply nationalities, so it's better to just go with dynasties instead

>Germans
>Civil Wars
>In this period.
>When it wasn't even a singular country and people identified with their local statelets/fiefs/princedoms.
The brainlet levels are off the charts.

Civil war , paysan revolt ( jacquerrie ) , city revolt ( etienne marcel) , religious war ( 2 pope ) , back stabbing from all side , vassal revolt , black pest , French Arrogance Knight , Mad King and i surely forgot many thing you ask the bad question it's more how the french managing to emerge victorious

>you ask the bad question it's more how the french managing to emerge victorious

Divine intervention (Joan of Arc)

You're the retard here if you think that because there were many German states it means there wasn't a shared German identity
Same goes for Italy

Stop confusing political borders and nations, brainlets
There were no nation-states back then, but there were nations

No it's not complicated.
Born in England and lived there/fought in the English army: English
Born in France and lived there/fought in the French army: French
Literally everyone except revisionist Veeky Forumstorians call them French or English. What the fuck is wrong with you all?

it's really just the yanks and frogs that do it in such a cancerous way

The same troops wouldn’t have thought of themselves as ‘English’ in any kind of nationalistic way you troglodyte.

And it's called a "Civil war", not a "nation war". I.e. a war between the same "Civitas". If you knew what that was (hint, it has nothing to do with nationality), you'd realize that your entire argument is nonsense.

Why do you care?

Yeah i know , it's when you take all that into account that she truely are marevellous . Funny how the Anglo fap about that war and their 3 big victory while in the same time forgetting the 3 big victory of the french castillon , formigny and the fucking patay but since the french like to fap about Napoleon ( who lost in the end ) it's part of their love-story

Anglos BTFO

Because God was on the English side and only the direct intervention of Satan in the form of a witch saved the French from becoming actually civilised.

based

>These posts are tiring, and basically the end result of when you take nationalistic retards are try to get them to understand medieval history.
this

>literally hoi4-tier naval invaded in 1066
ANGLO RAPE GANG

That map is wrong/shit

France has considerable internal political issues going on throughout the early and middle stages of the war. As to why they did not perform up to what their resources provided it was a combination of incompetence, dysfunction, and poor timing. There were plenty of times when France was armed and prepared to take back lands in Aquitaine or Normandy. Some times armies were even raised and prepared to go to battle, but political complications like Burgundy getting uppity again consistently distracted France as a state from dealing with England.

It's also worth noting that at the time prolonged sieges of fortified cities was ineffective. For the most part of the HYW both sides would not even bother trying to siege out holdings in enemy territory, because military technology of the time didn't really lend itself to storming cities. This meant that England had a better time periodically raiding through France and subsequently leaving than the French trying to retake Calais. This didn't really change until the later parts of the war and we see when siege technology had caught up that the French had a better time against English holdings on the continent.

It didn't help that French nobility were slow learners when it came to decisive battles. Nor did it help that the French crown was often in disarray and ruled over a divided Kingdom. Even times when France seemed to have momentum someone would fuck it all up and hopes of taking English holdings or invading England would go up in flames.

Harold Godwinson was busy dislodging Norway from his ass so when William landed he was unopposed, Harold had to rush to battle with the Normans, but was killed in battle through some bad luck.

Shit map, inaccurate
That "tiny ass swampy French duchy" was very large, wealthy and populated by Normans, a race who in this era reliably humiliated far greater Catholic, Orthodox and Islamic powers. Read Anna Comnena's description of Bohemond to understand.

Anglos had just (days prior to William landing) seen off the most feared man in Europe, varangian veteran Hadrada and his enormous viking contingent, many historians credit the Anglo victory here as ending the viking age so it's fair to say the campaign wasn't trivial and the anglos weren't at their best.

England wasn't too united as-well, Harold's brother Tostig had aided Hadrada. The men who fought the Normans would have mainly come from Wessex.

William told the pope that Harold, the anglo king had broken an oath made on a holy reliquary (almost defo a lie), this angered the pope and the church didn't like the anglos much anyway because they weren't very obedient so the pope sanctioned a sort of crusade on England, giving William a pallium. This meant skilled warriors from far beyond the bounds of Normandy flocked to the cause.

Anglos were literally outnumbered...

So it took pretty much all of Europe's best fighting men to hold (barely) England. If the men that vied to succeed the confessor had instead marched on Jerusalem, Catholics would still hold that city.

>Shit map, inaccurate
The limits of the duchy are accurate, that's what matter

>That "tiny ass swampy French duchy" was very large
Look at the map again

>wealthy
Maybe, but less than the Kangdom of England

>and populated by Normans, a race who in this era reliably humiliated far greater Catholic, Orthodox and Islamic powers
Pffftttt
The Normans were merely a bunch of Frechmen with some distant Danish ancestry
They were nothing in 1066, their later conquests happened AFTER they had conquered England, mainly thank to the wealth and power England earned them as a colony

You'll need better excuses

>this is what Anglos tell themselves to cope with the fact they got conquered by peasant ex-vikings from a French swamp in a matter of weeks

Lmao

Imagine jerking off to a historical event and claiming one side and their achievements as your own

>Look at the map again
I'd love to punch you in the face, just imagine what a smug faggot you are.
In the tapestry he's extending his borders into brittany, lord knows what that is a map of.
Anglos fought far better prepared and more numerous enemies and slew more than they lost, they don't need an excuse.
They were objectively better. A champion fighter will lose to two decent fighters, especially if he defended his title a few days before.

>I'd love to punch you in the face, just imagine what a smug faggot you are.
Lmao, the absolute state of the English people

Btw, the map is right about the Duchy's borders
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Normandy

>Anglos fought far better prepared and more numerous enemies and slew more than they lost, they don't need an excuse.
>They were objectively better.
Lindy pls

>retards are try to get

And they call Polacks butthurt.

Neutral observer here, you have no argument. You're still arguing though, it must be desperation. I'm inclined to think the other guy is completely right.

>in any kind of nationalistic way
you're the only person who brought that shit into it, they'd still consider themselves Englishmen from England fighting for their English king you fucking austist

btfo, anglos on suicide watch,

George Washington was the first American born leader of the 13 colonies, did they not have a deep rooted culture then?
These things start at the bottom not the top.

>did they not have a deep rooted culture then?

They definitly didn't
Washington lived like your average British aristocrat of the time
American culture started to exists long after the independence