Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is better to hear from different sources that debate live rather than reading those papers that are most of the time politically motivated.
So if you cannot help the debate, then zeep away !
This is History. You can open any book and read about it, the facts are verified and reverified by now... most conflicts, if not all, are of economic origin. It creates at least a context. This context was also reinforced by the crown succession for the French kingdom.
The king of England could be involved in this succession story because remember, he was also a lord in South West of France, the Guyenne, which is more or less the current Aquitaine. That makes him the vassal of the French king.
This was due to the fact that the duke of Anjou (and Normandie later) crossed the Channel to reign over England in the XIIth century. You can feel the French influence until now, with many words coming from french for the same meaning, e.g. freedom and liberty (liberte in French).
Well this war is long and cannot be explained with a few words. Enjoy the lecture of a History book!
In the age of monarchies, there were a lot of these long-lasting conflicts over which heir to the throne was entitled to which land. Kind of the way that family members can hold life-long grudges over the way a deceased relative's estate is divided.
They did not constantly fight during those 100 years. It was a cold war most of the time with periodic smaller wars. Its not like WW1 or WW2 where troops were battling daily and dieing by the thousands.
They did not constantly fight during those 100 years. It was a cold war most of the time with periodic smaller wars. Its not like WW1 or WW2 where troops were battling daily and dieing by the thousands.
Basically empire had a lot to do with it and that meant colonies you could basically soak to support the mother land. The end came when none could defend them financially really. Actually both wars shortened empire of even the French and English who where on supposed winning side in both. They ended up bankrupt really with much production destroyed. Many in US might be surprised now long rationing last into the 50's in England. Churchill quickly loss favor because of the of that reality.
They did not constantly fight during those 100 years. It was a cold war most of the time with periodic smaller wars. Its not like WW1 or WW2 where troops were battling daily and dieing by the thousands.
Warfare was also different. Battles were on open ground, and civilians would wait in town to see who won. Some soldiers came with their families and they stayed in town. The soldiers died but the infastructure was left alone. So the widows would remarry and life would go on. Modern warfare is so visious to civilians because its all about destroying the means to make war, the manufacturing and infastructure and sources of food and water, so in a way everyone is considered a soldier. Modern wars are far more destructive and in a hundred years we'd be living in caves again.
There is an incredible multi-part BBC documentary hosted by the lovely Dr Janina Ramirez that can be viewed on YouTube.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
