Hundred Years' War, Final Phase (1422-1453)

September 22, 2007 4:44 PM

Hundred Years' War, Final Phase (1422-1453) is an old school website focusing on, you guessed it, the last decades of the somewhat accurately named Hundred Years' War. The site has an extensive timeline, a map, summaries of major battles (which include battlefield maps), short bios of major characters and their genealogies, information about the weapons of the time and a list of controversial issues concerning the Hundred Years' War.

14 maps of France at various points during the Hundred Years' War.

posted by Kattullus (15 comments total)

It seems to focus on the biographies of great men and battles and weapons. Does it discuss the impact of the rise of regular taxation, peasant uprisings, the ongoing Papal Schism, the effects of the recurring plague, the Italian Renaissance and other concurrent changes that were peculating together like a tomato and fish stew in the early 15th century.
posted by stbalbach at 5:02 PM on September 22, 2007

Ooh, I'm so gonna love this. Great find, Katallus! Cheers.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:05 PM on September 22, 2007

Leaving the Hundred Years War aside, the home site of the Xenophon group from which this is taken looks like it could become an interesting resource.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:08 PM on September 22, 2007

In 1492, Henry VIII invaded France, and won a 'second battle of the spurs' (1513). Er, no. He was one year old. Perhaps his dad (Henry VII) did, he lived till 1509. I will send a note!
posted by dash_slot- at 5:27 PM on September 22, 2007

That sentence just sucks in many ways, dash_slot. Henry VIII was, indeed, at the second battle of the spurs in 1513 but I have no idea what that 1492 is doing there.
posted by Justinian at 5:58 PM on September 22, 2007

Whew, 100 years old web design!
posted by mecran01 at 6:22 PM on September 22, 2007

Since Katrina, the Comte de Dunois has had to cede place in the "Bastard of Orleans" stakes to contemporary pretenders.
posted by Abiezer at 3:03 AM on September 23, 2007

It seems to focus on the biographies of great men and battles and weapons. Does it discuss [blah blah blah]

Dude, it's the product of an "association of military historians who are interested in researching and presenting knowledge on the progress of warfare." Not everything has to be about everything. And I'd say for what it is, it's pretty damn nifty. Nice find, Kattullus!
posted by languagehat at 5:24 AM on September 23, 2007

I didn't see who sponsored it, and now I'm a little suspicious, it says "The Société de l'Oriflamme sponsors the development of web pages and publications that examine European medieval warfare with a broader perspective than that generally found in English language sources." - what does that mean, English sources are biased and the French sources are not? It may be true, or just the opposite may be true. Or it may be taken at face value that English historians don't have a "broad perspective" (unlikely). My experience is that history web sites, in particular European medieval history, is often written by non-professionals who have some sort of "position" that is not mainstream and usually can be traced back to ethnic or nationalist concerns. If these are published academics with peer reviews in scholarly journals, all the better.
posted by stbalbach at 6:30 AM on September 23, 2007

L'Oriflamme was a standard that fell into the hands of the English; after the Hundred Years' War it was no longer borne on the battlefield.
stbalbach : - check out the bibliography.
posted by adamvasco at 7:00 AM on September 23, 2007

kattullus - congratulations on your 100th post.
posted by adamvasco at 7:04 AM on September 23, 2007

Er, no. He was one year old. Perhaps his dad (Henry VII) did, he lived till 1509. I will send a note!

Maybe he was just unusually precocious.
posted by Andrew Brinton at 9:42 AM on September 23, 2007

I didn't see who sponsored it, and now I'm a little suspicious, it says "The Société de l'Oriflamme sponsors the development of web pages and publications that examine European medieval warfare with a broader perspective than that generally found in English language sources." - what does that mean, English sources are biased and the French sources are not?

It may simply mean that English language sources are biased, and so are the French, but it may be interesting to see things from more than just one POV.

I had the great luck of learning history in school following the official curricula of different countries. And it was hilarious.
For instance, I discovered that the fall of the Roman Empire, which in Spanish history texbooks was called the "Barbarian Invasions", in German history textbooks got the name of the "Peoples' Migrations". The differences between Spanish and English textbooks regarding such subjects as the Invincible Armada and the great sailor/bloody pirate Sir Francis Drake were also something to behold...
posted by Skeptic at 2:31 PM on September 23, 2007

Just received this:
John,
Thank you. Appreciate you catching my carelessness. Of course the 1491 should read 1513.

Albert McJoynt
Page author/ monitor

Which was nice.

Though I don't know if that is a nom de plume, or not. Certainly doesn't sound very french. Or 'academic'.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:10 PM on September 23, 2007

Skeptic, the historiography of the "barbarian invasions" is pretty interesting, discussed in more detail here if your interested why different countries use different names for the same era.
posted by stbalbach at 8:09 PM on September 23, 2007