For some reason the english/British enjoy attacking in the dead of night. I realised this the other day and have the feeling nobody else dose this as mutch. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.
Red is actually fairly decent at blending with foliage, and you want to stand out when a battlefield immediately turns into a cloud of fog and smoke; it’s less about not being seen by the enemy, and more about not not being seen by your allies
Britain didn't colonize the world for spice. Famously the only spice rich part of the world they did occupy, that occupied for the industries. Britain was attracted by Bengali textiles and Deccan and Hindustani gunpowder, along with the vast tracts of fertile taxable lands. Every battle after Buxar and Seringapatanam was fought to preserve that or expand more.
Eh, I think the term “trying to conquer continental Europe” is a bit misleading.
The Hundred Years War was fought over claims to the French throne and other disagreements over royal land and titles. It wasn’t really England wanting to conquer a majority of Europe, like the meme indicates.
Wasn't even that, it was a much more recent royal marriage that gave the Kings of England their claims. When King Charles IV of France died, his closest living male relative was King Edward III of England, but the French nobles argued that his claim was invalid as it came via his mother, the sister of the late King, and under French succession laws, since women couldn't inherrit the crown, they argued that they couldn't be the source of claims either. Edward thought this was bullshit (under English succession laws, and laws used in many European countries, he would have inherrited the French throne) and pressed his claim by force, as did his successors.
Still, i feel like the ties with the French wouldn’t be as strong if the Kings weren’t descendant from Norman Blood at the very least if not the same dynasty as William.
It only had an effect in that english royalty was more likely to marry into french nobility. They were (mostly) patrilineally descended from william but edward 3's claim was entirely matrilineal
Even still. That should only support the claim that the Normans taking England more or less pushed England and France into future conflicts one way or another.
At that point, most of Normandy had been lost after someone spent all their money crusading and left their brother to take the historical stick for the repercussions. The French lands were largely those of Henry II’s father and wife, IIRC.
Oh the Norman blood was definitely the source of conflict with the French throne, in particular the fact that the Kings of England also held duchies in France (initially Normandy, but this eventually expanded to others like Gascony and Aquitaine via marriage), making them both their own sovereigns, but also vassals of the King of France. There were various conflicts throughout the centuries before the 100 years war as a result of this for various reasons, but the 100 years war is what settled those kinds of questions for good, since it wouldn't have mattered if the Kings of England held French territory if they were also the Kings of France themselves.
There's a reason the aptly named "100 years war" (it was actually longer) was one of many wars/conflicts between France and England from the Norman conquest all the way up until like the Napoleonic wars.
Well put, and saved me the effort. The English Crown of this era was not remotely the same as The English.
Until Henry IV (reign 1399–1413), the kings of England didn't even speak English. And it wasn't until 1483 that the House of Lords officially switched to English.
The Hundred Years War was a continuation of centuries of squabbling, between French speaking monarchs and aristocrats, about who legitimately held which lands (continental or insular).
Just to be pedantic, Richard II was a native English speaker, so it did happen slightly earlier than Henry IV. For most of the war, the Kings of England spoke better English than French. By the later periods, sources find it notable when an English leader speaks good French.
I don't think it's entirely fair to discount the nationalistic elements of the war fully. While the conflict began as a feudal dynastic struggle, it became more a national struggle as it went on, especially for certain factions among the French.
Had it been purely a dynastic struggle without perceived national elements, the English would've won. They won battle after battle after battle over the course of decades, dominated huge swaths of the country, and captured the capital.
The fact they were never able to stabilize control is in part (nowhere close to fully) due to large segments of France being extremely reluctant to submit to what they perceived as an alien king.
It's funny you should mention "speaking good French" actually. I was just wondering earlier (different topic, related to the Barons War in the 13thC) how different the dialects of the two kings were. English Kings came from Norman stock, whereas I'm guessing the French kings of the era had a more Ile de France dialect? Do sources remark on difficulties or ridiculing of dialects?
I mean you can harp on the court language all you want but leaning in to a specifically English identity was Edward’s whole thing. This is WAY past the time period when England is a bunch of Saxons ruled over by French expats. The English crown has been without the great majority of its continental holdings for around a century at this point and have a uniquely English state.
No it’s not. The English crown is the kingdom of England, no different than any other feudal kingdom. We are way past the point where the Plantagenet power base was in France.
I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that feudal rights over the Duchy of Aquitaine, and Edward III's claim to the French Throne, were something that the average English peasant remotely cared about? I'd say that's the very definition of a war started by a monarchy whose roots are elsewhere.
If your argument is “this war is about the interest of the rulers, not the common people” then you’re describing like 95% of wars. There’s noting particularly unique about England as a kingdom in this case.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at. Nothing more profound than that.
Jethro the Peasant didn't lean on his plough one day and say "You know what winds me up, Amis? That bloody Duchy of Aquitaine should belong to the Plantagenet household. 'Ere, you reckon we could convince the King to let us go and die in a field near Agincourt so we can get it back for him?".
Realistically, it's not until we got universal suffrage that the common man was allowed to make stupid decisions of his own (viz Brexit etc.).
The hundred years wars makes a lot more sense in the context of the Norman conquest. When William the Conqueror took the English throne he and his nobles did not resign their French titles. In fact their newly acquired land allowed them to expand their French holdings. You can therefore think of the hundred years wars as more of a French civil war rather then wars between England and France. Depending on how you count the Normans had more land in France then in England at the start of the century. It was only later on when the Normans lost the hundred years wars that they ended up with most of their holdings in England, and even a few centuries more that they started adopting the British culture including the English language.
Two rulers being of French origin doesn't make the war civil.
Russia had a bunch of monarchs with German origin but we don't call a part of WW1 between Russia and Germany - German civil war.
Or when Swedes invaded Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1655 while Poland had Jan Kasimir as their king from Swedish Vasa dinasty, we don't call it "Swedish civil war".
Even though William replaced most of Anglo-Saxon nobility with French one, the common people were English. And while France relied heavily on French nobility during 100YW, English heavily relied on common people. English kingdom and French kingdom were two different systems and as the war went on, this separation only increased. English language adaption among English nobility started during Henry V, way before 100YW ended.
It really was 2 French houses fighting over who got to be the ruling house of France, with one of the two French houses also holding the throne in England.
It really wasn't England vs France as it is simplistically taught.
Initially yes, although since the war went on for so long (realistically it was a few wars lumped in together with some sizeable gaps) by the end of it a distinct English identity was beginning to develop amongst the nobility, in part because of the conflict against France. Henry IV was the first King since the Norman conquest to speak English, and his son Henry V was the first king to have English be the language of court.
Several British kings had the dream of "the Angevin empire" which was basically a giant singular union stretching from England and Spain, to the holy land and the east.
Sounds like a pipedream I know, but with France in the union, it may have been possible
No real intent to conquer and hold Spain, though through alliance the English crown did hold influence over Belgium and the Netherlands at various times. With the Dutch it was mostly a case of clashing trading empires and money. The Spanish was defensive from the English perspective and about religion and security (then becoming a means to get money through not-piracy.
John of Gaunt, one of the sons of Edward III of England and an ancestor of the House of Lancaster (and the House of Tudor), did attempt to seize the crown of Castile, claiming it through the rights of his second wife, Constance of Castile, even demanding to be call as King of Castile by nobles back in England.
He landed in Galicia, receiving the submission of some Galician nobles and establishing a "royal court," but in the end, after failing to achieve his objective of taking the crown for himself and suffering losses (this despite having allied himself with the King of Portugal for a joint invasion of Castile), he reached an agreement with King John I of Castile, whereby the monarch's son and heir, the future Henry III of Castile, would marry one of John of Gaunt and Constance's daughters, Catherine of Lancaster.
This entire "Castilian adventure" of Gaunt was indeed an important event during the second phase of the Hundred Years War and occurred in response to earlier events (English support for King Peter I of Castile against his half-brother Henry II, who was supported by France) and would give way to equally important future events (Catherine of Lancaster, the daughter of Jhon of Gaunt, and her husband Henry III are grandparents of Isabella "The Catholic" and therefore great-grandparents of Catherine of Aragon, future Queen of England, and who was in fact named after her great-grandmother Lancaster) so it clearly laid the foundations for future political relations between England and the crown of Castile.
Maybe if you jump ahead to the 1600s or later. Everyone else was too busy fighting each other or dealing with the growing influence and power of the Ottomans.
A lot of people jump on the England bad train and dont really know what theyre talking about. Having little kore education than the ocassional Youtube video compressed into 10.1 minutes of largely inaccurate conclusions.
I know this is a meme, but England never tried to conquer the whole of Europe.
England tried to conquer France, which was not uncommon practice at the time- states fought wars over land and ancient claims of families etc. that was just feudalism and arguably England did have a legal claim to the French throne or at the very least to some duchys within France eg. Aquitaine, Gascony and Normandy.
But France is not Europe.
And France had tried to conquer England back multiple times too.
Spain tried France and vice versa. Scotland tried England and vice versa, Denmark, Sweden and Norway had a carousel of trying it with each other, Austra didn't outright conquer (usually) but did marry strategically to get what they wanted and probably came the closest, effectively running Spain, the Netherlands, Bohemia, Hungary and the HRE and don't get the started on the Poland, Lithuania, Russia and the Ottomans who all conquered their neighbours too.
sure france is not europe - but a united england+france would have been the premier power in europe for a long time if they had actually managed to win and consolidate it
No way Austria ruled Spain. The closest thing was Charles, who was more spanish/flemish than austrian and ended up being more spanish than anything else. The only way they could have ruled Spain would have been if they had won the War of the Spanish Succession
Habsburgs ruled Spain for almost 2 centuries, during which time they were the most powerful kingdom in Western Europe, practically unrivaled by anyone but the Ottomans.
The Habsburgs are a family, not a country. Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire and I of Spain was born in Flanders and spent half his life in Spain, which he bequeathed to his children. If anything, we can argue the opposite, since the one who would rule Austria was Ferdinand I, who was born and raised in Spain
I mean, you have to admit that it's pretty impressive that an island as small as England managed to colonise most of the globe. Just a shame about what we did to those nations.
Honestly, this is closer to the truth than most nationalist cope. England tried to brute-force Europe, got bogged down, then pivoted to overseas empire where naval power, finance, and divide-and-rule actually worked.
If by Europe you mean France then sure. I'm not aware of any ambitions *to conquer Europe and it would be a pretty ridiculous aim, it wouldn't really make sense since it was a dynastic claim over the throne of France.
Edit: Improving phasing. Assumed it would be clear from the context of meme but I guess not.
Tbf, France was not only their eternal rival but has been one of if not THE biggest powers of its time, rivalled only by the HRE before the British colonized shit and the Revolution happened.
France isn’t called the height of Feudalism for no reason.
Well there's that and having literal tons of gold, silver, gems and other valuables being transported from the New World to make them the wealthiest nation by a mile
France was the main focus, absolutely. But it wasn’t happening in a vacuum. England’s continental wars were tied into Scotland, Burgundy, and the Low Countries through alliances, trade, and strategy. It wasn’t a casual dynastic disagreement, it was a sustained attempt to secure continental power via France, with real armies, occupations, and long-term commitments.
And when that approach repeatedly hit limits, England increasingly leaned into naval power and overseas expansion, where those constraints didn’t apply.
There was the time Henry VIII tried to make himself emperor of the holy Roman emperor. He tried to position himself as a compromise candidate between the Austrians and the North germans
That wasn’t conquering, the HRE was elective and he tried to get voted into the position, he didn’t like rock up to Germany with an army and try to seize the throne or something
Fair point on wording. I don’t mean England had some plan to conquer all of Europe. Medieval states didn’t operate like that.
The point is that France was the route to continental power. England repeatedly tried to secure lasting control there by force, fought century-long wars, occupied territory, and built alliances around it. That’s more than a tidy dynastic dispute, even if it was framed as one.
When that project repeatedly failed, England increasingly leaned into naval power and overseas expansion instead, where those limits didn’t apply. That strategic shift is well established.
So yes, France specifically, but France as the gateway, not some narrow legal squabble divorced from wider power politics.
It's not really right to describe it as 'England' at that point in history, there wasn't really a well established system of states to look at things like that in my view.
The kings at the time wanted the French throne, but the English nobility wasn't always as enthusiastic. John of Gaunt said it was basically impossible to achieve about 70 years before the 100 years War ended. The King always had a tough ask to persuade parliament to raise the funds for continuing the war.
Which is all fair, and more aligned to taking France and failing, whereas the context is the claim England tried to conquer Europe.
No one claimed it was 'tidy', they very rarely are. But the point is it was a dynastic claim for the throne of France, which yes would make their dynasty the pre-eminent power in Europe, but was not a war to conquer Europe.
John of Gaunt almost managed to make himself King of Castille, in which case his family would have wound up with claims to the three most powerful crowns west of the HRE.
They had a German emperor during the Interregnum, though he had virtually no power. Still he was present in the empire, contrary to his anti-king from Castile.
Edward III. was also briefly considered to become the successor of Ludwig of Bavaria in the HRE.
To be honest, there are no country that successfully conquered Europe. At least for a long time. With greeeeeeeat reservations we can only name Roman Empire and the USSR
The dates just don't really add though at all? Hundred years war ended in 1453, about 40 years before Columbus' voyage ...
Where I would give this some credit is in the late Tudor era and Jacobean era over century later where England was isolated from most of Europe because of the break with Roman Catholicism. Additionally to distract from the loss of the last possessions in Europe (Calais in 1558) Elizabeth 1st started talking about an "English Empire" in the New World. From that era (1580s) onwards you had more colonisation in the Caribbean and North America. But we're really skipping over 200 years of history here - it would be like saying the war of 1812 was still influencing British policy making today.
Also England only really became known for naval power and finance in the late 16th, 17th century. English Naval power before then was a bit of a joke compared to contemporaries, finance maybe due to the centralised nature of English monarchy but just not how we'd know it today.
It's interesting how much vikings traumatized great Britain, ever since they've had to be the best navy out of survival, they understood that their strength has always lied in not having to share land borders with the European powers.
It's something the US has learned well
There's about 150 years between the 100 years war ending and the early colonial period
And England did conquer most of France, then lost it thanks to the new King being developmentally disabled and the whole political system being based on someone sitting at the top making decisions.
It was pretty much a cival war, our kings at that time spoke French all the rich people did and they have rights to French land. It wasn't really England vs France war.
I'm educated enough to know that after the 100 years war England took part in at least dozen wars in continental Europe, but uneducated enough to list them in order.
if Richard the Lionheart wasn't gay then John never would have become king and lost all of the Angevin continental holdings.
Richard was probably gay look it up he never got married, very strange for the time, and also never had any mistresses and his only illegitimate kid may not even have been his, the mother is totally unknown to history as well.
Gotta saw, it’s crazy how well England did against france despite it all. Alliances with Scotland and France being larger, richer, more populace and an impressive cultural memory to draw upon. It’s like a minnow taking down a shark.
Spain and France spent an enormous amount of blood and treasure trying to conquer continental Europe to very little gain. I think England learned a valuable lesson.
I don't understand your comment, as if England wasn't involved in many European conflicts throughout the modern age, or as if the Spanish and French didn't have control over massive territories and populations across the world
A fringe conflict nobody cares about which basically had nothing to do with England. They weren't even the main belligerent and Egypt had about 10x more causalities than Israel, France and Uk combined
To be fair, they needed a place where the sun was actually shining
The sun never sets on the british empire...
And never rise over England
Ah, yes... because Scotland, Wales, and Ireland were all sunny paradises.
“Citizens concerned over giant orange ball of fire appearing in sky over Scotland”
"Citizens concerned about big Orange ball of fire with baby face in The sky over The British island"
those dont exist
-Some English bloke circa 1600s
Actually, it was some Scottish bloke.
but they dont exist, thus making him an Englishman
So Willy was right... it was Scots who ruined Scotland.
indeed
"The weather in Scotland was so shit we decided to not invade" -Probably a Roman dude
Maybe not be we don't have an historic rivalry with them
Like God would trust English in the dark
For some reason the english/British enjoy attacking in the dead of night. I realised this the other day and have the feeling nobody else dose this as mutch. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.
Minimizes casualties while wearing bright red coats.
Red is actually fairly decent at blending with foliage, and you want to stand out when a battlefield immediately turns into a cloud of fog and smoke; it’s less about not being seen by the enemy, and more about not not being seen by your allies
But also after we got rid of the red I mean el alemain was at night.
You don’t get to use those complaints! Only we get to use those complaints!
[deleted]
Britain didn't colonize the world for spice. Famously the only spice rich part of the world they did occupy, that occupied for the industries. Britain was attracted by Bengali textiles and Deccan and Hindustani gunpowder, along with the vast tracts of fertile taxable lands. Every battle after Buxar and Seringapatanam was fought to preserve that or expand more.
Edit: ignore this comment, I thought I was on r/history and not r/historymemes
I mean….the strategy worked, to great effect I might add.
Certainly worked out better than the Scots trying to colonise the Darien Gap
I can't think of a place more hostile to a 17th century Scotsman
Both rainy. How bad can it be?
Ah but you forgot the most crucial part. It's hot and humid. Scots only thrive in cold wether.
Wild how England and Scotland stopped fighting for a second and it immediately catapulted them to global dominance.
A large island nation that unifies during the age of sail.
A recipe for success, really.
If anything, the continental powers really fumbled by allowing the nations of Britain to unify.
21st century Glasgow?
Hostile to speccy bams.
The Scottish, ruining everything for...the Scottish.
Tbf 17th century Scotsmen were also hostile to most things
Eh, I think the term “trying to conquer continental Europe” is a bit misleading.
The Hundred Years War was fought over claims to the French throne and other disagreements over royal land and titles. It wasn’t really England wanting to conquer a majority of Europe, like the meme indicates.
The consequences of a Bastard French Norman Duke wanting the English Throne:
The consequences of Robert the Magnificent tapping a hot peasant girl:
The consequences of Banging Bob bagging a Breton bint?
The consequences of Rollo the Walker besieging Paris and then later converting to Christianity for some land:
The consequences of Clovis conquering the Gallias:
The consequences of dinosaurs not surviving the Ice Age
The consequences of Caesar building a couple of walls at Alesia.
Wasn't even that, it was a much more recent royal marriage that gave the Kings of England their claims. When King Charles IV of France died, his closest living male relative was King Edward III of England, but the French nobles argued that his claim was invalid as it came via his mother, the sister of the late King, and under French succession laws, since women couldn't inherrit the crown, they argued that they couldn't be the source of claims either. Edward thought this was bullshit (under English succession laws, and laws used in many European countries, he would have inherrited the French throne) and pressed his claim by force, as did his successors.
Still, i feel like the ties with the French wouldn’t be as strong if the Kings weren’t descendant from Norman Blood at the very least if not the same dynasty as William.
It only had an effect in that english royalty was more likely to marry into french nobility. They were (mostly) patrilineally descended from william but edward 3's claim was entirely matrilineal
Even still. That should only support the claim that the Normans taking England more or less pushed England and France into future conflicts one way or another.
At that point, most of Normandy had been lost after someone spent all their money crusading and left their brother to take the historical stick for the repercussions. The French lands were largely those of Henry II’s father and wife, IIRC.
Oh the Norman blood was definitely the source of conflict with the French throne, in particular the fact that the Kings of England also held duchies in France (initially Normandy, but this eventually expanded to others like Gascony and Aquitaine via marriage), making them both their own sovereigns, but also vassals of the King of France. There were various conflicts throughout the centuries before the 100 years war as a result of this for various reasons, but the 100 years war is what settled those kinds of questions for good, since it wouldn't have mattered if the Kings of England held French territory if they were also the Kings of France themselves.
I see. The English and French Lore ran really deep huh.
There's a reason the aptly named "100 years war" (it was actually longer) was one of many wars/conflicts between France and England from the Norman conquest all the way up until like the Napoleonic wars.
And he was an illegitimate child too!
Well put, and saved me the effort. The English Crown of this era was not remotely the same as The English.
Until Henry IV (reign 1399–1413), the kings of England didn't even speak English. And it wasn't until 1483 that the House of Lords officially switched to English.
The Hundred Years War was a continuation of centuries of squabbling, between French speaking monarchs and aristocrats, about who legitimately held which lands (continental or insular).
Just to be pedantic, Richard II was a native English speaker, so it did happen slightly earlier than Henry IV. For most of the war, the Kings of England spoke better English than French. By the later periods, sources find it notable when an English leader speaks good French.
I don't think it's entirely fair to discount the nationalistic elements of the war fully. While the conflict began as a feudal dynastic struggle, it became more a national struggle as it went on, especially for certain factions among the French.
Had it been purely a dynastic struggle without perceived national elements, the English would've won. They won battle after battle after battle over the course of decades, dominated huge swaths of the country, and captured the capital.
The fact they were never able to stabilize control is in part (nowhere close to fully) due to large segments of France being extremely reluctant to submit to what they perceived as an alien king.
It's funny you should mention "speaking good French" actually. I was just wondering earlier (different topic, related to the Barons War in the 13thC) how different the dialects of the two kings were. English Kings came from Norman stock, whereas I'm guessing the French kings of the era had a more Ile de France dialect? Do sources remark on difficulties or ridiculing of dialects?
I mean you can harp on the court language all you want but leaning in to a specifically English identity was Edward’s whole thing. This is WAY past the time period when England is a bunch of Saxons ruled over by French expats. The English crown has been without the great majority of its continental holdings for around a century at this point and have a uniquely English state.
"The English crown has been without...." - that's the point Im making.
No it’s not. The English crown is the kingdom of England, no different than any other feudal kingdom. We are way past the point where the Plantagenet power base was in France.
I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that feudal rights over the Duchy of Aquitaine, and Edward III's claim to the French Throne, were something that the average English peasant remotely cared about? I'd say that's the very definition of a war started by a monarchy whose roots are elsewhere.
If your argument is “this war is about the interest of the rulers, not the common people” then you’re describing like 95% of wars. There’s noting particularly unique about England as a kingdom in this case.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at. Nothing more profound than that.
Jethro the Peasant didn't lean on his plough one day and say "You know what winds me up, Amis? That bloody Duchy of Aquitaine should belong to the Plantagenet household. 'Ere, you reckon we could convince the King to let us go and die in a field near Agincourt so we can get it back for him?".
Realistically, it's not until we got universal suffrage that the common man was allowed to make stupid decisions of his own (viz Brexit etc.).
So then you’re saying “it wasn’t England, it was the government of England. Which is pretty much saying nothing.
And the squabblings continued for several centuries after Hundred Years War.
The hundred years wars makes a lot more sense in the context of the Norman conquest. When William the Conqueror took the English throne he and his nobles did not resign their French titles. In fact their newly acquired land allowed them to expand their French holdings. You can therefore think of the hundred years wars as more of a French civil war rather then wars between England and France. Depending on how you count the Normans had more land in France then in England at the start of the century. It was only later on when the Normans lost the hundred years wars that they ended up with most of their holdings in England, and even a few centuries more that they started adopting the British culture including the English language.
No, it wasn’t a French civil war at all. By the time of the HYW the English have been out of Normandy and Aquatine for over a century.
This is just straight up inaccurate.
Two rulers being of French origin doesn't make the war civil.
Russia had a bunch of monarchs with German origin but we don't call a part of WW1 between Russia and Germany - German civil war.
Or when Swedes invaded Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1655 while Poland had Jan Kasimir as their king from Swedish Vasa dinasty, we don't call it "Swedish civil war".
Even though William replaced most of Anglo-Saxon nobility with French one, the common people were English. And while France relied heavily on French nobility during 100YW, English heavily relied on common people. English kingdom and French kingdom were two different systems and as the war went on, this separation only increased. English language adaption among English nobility started during Henry V, way before 100YW ended.
It really was 2 French houses fighting over who got to be the ruling house of France, with one of the two French houses also holding the throne in England.
It really wasn't England vs France as it is simplistically taught.
Initially yes, although since the war went on for so long (realistically it was a few wars lumped in together with some sizeable gaps) by the end of it a distinct English identity was beginning to develop amongst the nobility, in part because of the conflict against France. Henry IV was the first King since the Norman conquest to speak English, and his son Henry V was the first king to have English be the language of court.
Nah, this is just the contrarian take. No one thought of the Plantagenets as a French house at this point. The Angeivan era is long gone.
Several British kings had the dream of "the Angevin empire" which was basically a giant singular union stretching from England and Spain, to the holy land and the east.
Sounds like a pipedream I know, but with France in the union, it may have been possible
Wasn't it also stifled by the Plague?
briefly, then they got back to it once it was over.
There were a few gaps in the fighting, one of which was caused by the plague, yes.
-"continental Europe"
-looks inside
-France
they had some brawls with Spain and the Netherlands too
No real intent to conquer and hold Spain, though through alliance the English crown did hold influence over Belgium and the Netherlands at various times. With the Dutch it was mostly a case of clashing trading empires and money. The Spanish was defensive from the English perspective and about religion and security (then becoming a means to get money through not-piracy.
John of Gaunt, one of the sons of Edward III of England and an ancestor of the House of Lancaster (and the House of Tudor), did attempt to seize the crown of Castile, claiming it through the rights of his second wife, Constance of Castile, even demanding to be call as King of Castile by nobles back in England.
He landed in Galicia, receiving the submission of some Galician nobles and establishing a "royal court," but in the end, after failing to achieve his objective of taking the crown for himself and suffering losses (this despite having allied himself with the King of Portugal for a joint invasion of Castile), he reached an agreement with King John I of Castile, whereby the monarch's son and heir, the future Henry III of Castile, would marry one of John of Gaunt and Constance's daughters, Catherine of Lancaster.
This entire "Castilian adventure" of Gaunt was indeed an important event during the second phase of the Hundred Years War and occurred in response to earlier events (English support for King Peter I of Castile against his half-brother Henry II, who was supported by France) and would give way to equally important future events (Catherine of Lancaster, the daughter of Jhon of Gaunt, and her husband Henry III are grandparents of Isabella "The Catholic" and therefore great-grandparents of Catherine of Aragon, future Queen of England, and who was in fact named after her great-grandmother Lancaster) so it clearly laid the foundations for future political relations between England and the crown of Castile.
They never tried to annex them though, their brawls were naval.
France was the dominant power in continental Europe for most of its history so that’s not inaccurate
Yes, undeniably. BUT - probably - if England ever won, all neighbours would probably team-up and relentlessly beat this new empire up.
Doubtful. People had their own crap they were dealing with
Maybe if you jump ahead to the 1600s or later. Everyone else was too busy fighting each other or dealing with the growing influence and power of the Ottomans.
Fuck it, can't have Europe I'll just have everything else
"Well France was a write off...but what's this America I keep hearing about?"
America DLC
Can't have Europe but we'll be damned if anyone else has it either.
Scotland exists. It's not like England went on a colonising spree and Scotland sat there utterly uninvolved.
This meme is wrong on so many levels but I guess the details are lost on the average redditor
A lot of people jump on the England bad train and dont really know what theyre talking about. Having little kore education than the ocassional Youtube video compressed into 10.1 minutes of largely inaccurate conclusions.
losing?
I think you mean tactical reposition of monarchic lines and continental assets.
and besides, fuck they corrected the wiki.
but seriously I miss the little black boy he was a good lad.
We didn't lose. We merely failed to win.
I know this is a meme, but England never tried to conquer the whole of Europe.
England tried to conquer France, which was not uncommon practice at the time- states fought wars over land and ancient claims of families etc. that was just feudalism and arguably England did have a legal claim to the French throne or at the very least to some duchys within France eg. Aquitaine, Gascony and Normandy.
But France is not Europe.
And France had tried to conquer England back multiple times too.
Spain tried France and vice versa. Scotland tried England and vice versa, Denmark, Sweden and Norway had a carousel of trying it with each other, Austra didn't outright conquer (usually) but did marry strategically to get what they wanted and probably came the closest, effectively running Spain, the Netherlands, Bohemia, Hungary and the HRE and don't get the started on the Poland, Lithuania, Russia and the Ottomans who all conquered their neighbours too.
sure france is not europe - but a united england+france would have been the premier power in europe for a long time if they had actually managed to win and consolidate it
Maybe, but at this time, was really before they became the superpowers we think of.
No way Austria ruled Spain. The closest thing was Charles, who was more spanish/flemish than austrian and ended up being more spanish than anything else. The only way they could have ruled Spain would have been if they had won the War of the Spanish Succession
Habsburgs ruled Spain for almost 2 centuries, during which time they were the most powerful kingdom in Western Europe, practically unrivaled by anyone but the Ottomans.
The Habsburgs are a family, not a country. Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire and I of Spain was born in Flanders and spent half his life in Spain, which he bequeathed to his children. If anything, we can argue the opposite, since the one who would rule Austria was Ferdinand I, who was born and raised in Spain
As was the fashion at the time
Not gonna lie, they probably did see colonies as "fashion"
England : "it's easier to conquer half the world than to rule the french"
This is the worst use of any meme, I have ever seen.
Completely irrelevant to the subject.
I mean, you have to admit that it's pretty impressive that an island as small as England managed to colonise most of the globe. Just a shame about what we did to those nations.
I mean, you could make the same meme about Fr*nce tbf just remove 100 year war and replace with Napoleonic war 1803-1815
It'd be a LOT more accurate.
Literally the first thing that crossed my mind. The meme in OP makes no sense as it wasn't the goal in the first place and it was feudal nonsense.
Honestly, this is closer to the truth than most nationalist cope. England tried to brute-force Europe, got bogged down, then pivoted to overseas empire where naval power, finance, and divide-and-rule actually worked.
If by Europe you mean France then sure. I'm not aware of any ambitions *to conquer Europe and it would be a pretty ridiculous aim, it wouldn't really make sense since it was a dynastic claim over the throne of France.
Edit: Improving phasing. Assumed it would be clear from the context of meme but I guess not.
Tbf, France was not only their eternal rival but has been one of if not THE biggest powers of its time, rivalled only by the HRE before the British colonized shit and the Revolution happened.
France isn’t called the height of Feudalism for no reason.
Spanish where the power for a long time, 1512 until the War of Spanish Succession basically.
Fair. Though given how long it took for them to drive the Muslims out, im not surprised that when they united they became stronger than ever.
Well there's that and having literal tons of gold, silver, gems and other valuables being transported from the New World to make them the wealthiest nation by a mile
They WERE the 1st powers to indulge in Colonialism afterall, and especially with the New World.
For a time, they even divided half the world amongst themselves (Iberian Union) at least before the Dutch and English decided enough was enough.
France was the main focus, absolutely. But it wasn’t happening in a vacuum. England’s continental wars were tied into Scotland, Burgundy, and the Low Countries through alliances, trade, and strategy. It wasn’t a casual dynastic disagreement, it was a sustained attempt to secure continental power via France, with real armies, occupations, and long-term commitments.
And when that approach repeatedly hit limits, England increasingly leaned into naval power and overseas expansion, where those constraints didn’t apply.
Every war has ties to surrounding territories, none of them happen in a vacuum. Any evidence that they had ambitions to 'conquer Europe'?
There was the time Henry VIII tried to make himself emperor of the holy Roman emperor. He tried to position himself as a compromise candidate between the Austrians and the North germans
Which is:
a) About 100 years after the period we are discussing
b) Not remotely a conquering, it is putting yourself forward in an election
That wasn’t conquering, the HRE was elective and he tried to get voted into the position, he didn’t like rock up to Germany with an army and try to seize the throne or something
Fair point on wording. I don’t mean England had some plan to conquer all of Europe. Medieval states didn’t operate like that.
The point is that France was the route to continental power. England repeatedly tried to secure lasting control there by force, fought century-long wars, occupied territory, and built alliances around it. That’s more than a tidy dynastic dispute, even if it was framed as one.
When that project repeatedly failed, England increasingly leaned into naval power and overseas expansion instead, where those limits didn’t apply. That strategic shift is well established.
So yes, France specifically, but France as the gateway, not some narrow legal squabble divorced from wider power politics.
It's not really right to describe it as 'England' at that point in history, there wasn't really a well established system of states to look at things like that in my view.
The kings at the time wanted the French throne, but the English nobility wasn't always as enthusiastic. John of Gaunt said it was basically impossible to achieve about 70 years before the 100 years War ended. The King always had a tough ask to persuade parliament to raise the funds for continuing the war.
Which is all fair, and more aligned to taking France and failing, whereas the context is the claim England tried to conquer Europe.
No one claimed it was 'tidy', they very rarely are. But the point is it was a dynastic claim for the throne of France, which yes would make their dynasty the pre-eminent power in Europe, but was not a war to conquer Europe.
John of Gaunt almost managed to make himself King of Castille, in which case his family would have wound up with claims to the three most powerful crowns west of the HRE.
They had a German emperor during the Interregnum, though he had virtually no power. Still he was present in the empire, contrary to his anti-king from Castile.
Edward III. was also briefly considered to become the successor of Ludwig of Bavaria in the HRE.
To be honest, there are no country that successfully conquered Europe. At least for a long time. With greeeeeeeat reservations we can only name Roman Empire and the USSR
The dates just don't really add though at all? Hundred years war ended in 1453, about 40 years before Columbus' voyage ...
Where I would give this some credit is in the late Tudor era and Jacobean era over century later where England was isolated from most of Europe because of the break with Roman Catholicism. Additionally to distract from the loss of the last possessions in Europe (Calais in 1558) Elizabeth 1st started talking about an "English Empire" in the New World. From that era (1580s) onwards you had more colonisation in the Caribbean and North America. But we're really skipping over 200 years of history here - it would be like saying the war of 1812 was still influencing British policy making today.
Also England only really became known for naval power and finance in the late 16th, 17th century. English Naval power before then was a bit of a joke compared to contemporaries, finance maybe due to the centralised nature of English monarchy but just not how we'd know it today.
It's interesting how much vikings traumatized great Britain, ever since they've had to be the best navy out of survival, they understood that their strength has always lied in not having to share land borders with the European powers. It's something the US has learned well
What a load of nonsense lol
There's about 150 years between the 100 years war ending and the early colonial period
And England did conquer most of France, then lost it thanks to the new King being developmentally disabled and the whole political system being based on someone sitting at the top making decisions.
if Richard just had a kid or if Arthur of Brittany succeeded him instead of John there's a chance England doesn't loose its French holdings
I know this a meme sub but for the less historically informed this ain't what actually happened 👍🏼
*loosing
(They had good archers)
They were close to losing it all in the seven years war though
It was pretty much a cival war, our kings at that time spoke French all the rich people did and they have rights to French land. It wasn't really England vs France war.
What were the political goals in the 100 years war?
Can’t argue with results, honestly.
Poor Queen Elizabeth she had to see disbandment of the whole commonwealth
Gibraltar: Am I a joke to you?!
I'm educated enough to know that after the 100 years war England took part in at least dozen wars in continental Europe, but uneducated enough to list them in order.
They did conquer Gibraltar.
if Richard the Lionheart wasn't gay then John never would have become king and lost all of the Angevin continental holdings.
Richard was probably gay look it up he never got married, very strange for the time, and also never had any mistresses and his only illegitimate kid may not even have been his, the mother is totally unknown to history as well.
What does that say about Napoleon?
Started playing in bot lobbies
Invade Europe
Start with France
Oh...
I don't think you are using the meme format correctly.
Gotta saw, it’s crazy how well England did against france despite it all. Alliances with Scotland and France being larger, richer, more populace and an impressive cultural memory to draw upon. It’s like a minnow taking down a shark.
We'll always have agincourt
Spain and France spent an enormous amount of blood and treasure trying to conquer continental Europe to very little gain. I think England learned a valuable lesson.
I don't understand your comment, as if England wasn't involved in many European conflicts throughout the modern age, or as if the Spanish and French didn't have control over massive territories and populations across the world
Basically the last L they ever took tho
The last L would be the Suez Crisis back in 20th century
A fringe conflict nobody cares about which basically had nothing to do with England. They weren't even the main belligerent and Egypt had about 10x more causalities than Israel, France and Uk combined
That's not even close to true
Yeah just look at a map and wonder where their empire went. Jingoistic nonsense.