Iraq War & 100 Years War

[Erik]

I found an article I found interesting. It draws some parallels with the 100 Years War between France and England ca. 1350-1450.

It can be found here: http://www.sftt.org/dt030.html

I hope this doesn't start a flame-war. I just found it interesting and figured that some of you would find it worth reading, especially those of us who like history.

Here's the text:

Crib Sheet for Mr. Cheney: The First Hundred Years’ War

12 December 2002

Whatever it is we are doing… making war on terrorism, seeking dominant control of Mideast and Central Asian oil reserves, or conducting a get-even vendetta against folks like Saddam whom we helped to power only a few decades ago … word is out it’s going to take a long time.

The Vice President is reported to have referred to this adventure in the sand as a Hundred Years’ War. Last June, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon used the phrase; Robert Novak and others mention it, and it seems to have legs in the political arena, especially in “let’s reshape the Middle East in our image” circles.

As a product of the public schools, I don’t know much about history, so I had to study up on the first Hundred Years’ War, running from 1337 to 1453. Well, that’s actually more like 116 years, but if we can’t fudge numbers, we shouldn’t be working at the Pentagon.

I have to say, those smart guys leading us to war picked a good analogy, that’s for sure!

To start out with, it was both economic and personal. The first HYW, I mean. England drank a whole lot of French wine, partly because they liked it and partly because England couldn’t grow enough grapes to meet domestic consumption. This import dependency was tolerable, but then in 1340 after a lot of threats, Edward III, King of England, claimed that through his mother’s lineage, he was the rightful heir to the French throne (and vineyards).

Edward III was only 18, but had Texas-sized ideas on who should rule the world. Naturally, France didn’t really see all the finer points of Edward’s claim, and invoked the Salic Law (circa 480 A.D.) that prohibited inheritance through female lines. Kind of like an early version of international law and about as effective.

We too have a boyish king, er…, I mean, President, energetic and hungry for war. He’s not afraid to open up some cans of whup ***, and he can talk the talk (if not the actual English language). Just yesterday, the administration said we’ll pre-empt anyone we want with WMD, like nukes, if we feel like it.

In early battles at Crecy (1345) and at Poiters (1356), the English took lots of French territory, and made the French cry like babies. By 1360, prostrate France had to accept a very harsh treaty dictated by England.

Now, as then, the strong, as represented by President, er…, Vice-President Cheney, and his elderly cohorts in the Pentagon, and their elderly cohorts in Tel Aviv, all know how to dictate terms and lay down the law. And when you are implementing Biblical prophesy, holy righteousness, and the American Way of Life, who in their right mind would have it any other way?

But as the first HYW progressed, things started to unravel.

It started with little things. Turns out, more and more English warfighting was done by mercenaries. And with all the budget problems the war was causing, these guys weren’t getting paid enough, and started fundraising directly through back channels with English politicians, and through abuse and confiscation of French assets.

Then the French got their religious fervor up with inspired charismatic soldiers like Joan of Arc. This helped them in battle, as did improved tactics and methods. Those who lose time after time sometimes learn more about winning than those who win, over and over.

And domestic problems in England started to get worse. In 1381, not even 50 years into the HYW, the English peasants revolted! This revolution was especially powerful because merchants and industrial classes made an unusual alliance with the peasants against an increasingly rapacious government.

Mercenaries and military-congressional-industrial entities profiting from all angles in continual war, domestic economies squeezed to pay for military adventurism while domestic security suffers sclerosis, near-sightedness and dry rot, and the “enemy” taking long deep draws on the pipe of religio-righteous nationalism. Mr. Cheney, please read this part twice, it will be on the test.

You know the rest of the story. The impact of the English war eventually galvanized the French, setting the stage for a radical and new concept of French nationhood. It didn’t happen immediately, but when the HYW was over, the French were back in place, stronger than ever, with a new and badder attitude. Heck, the French attitude still annoys us, 600 years later.

To make war a national way of life, you must have ambitious political myth-makers, strategists behind the scene with murky and constantly changing objectives, and lots and lots of the precious treasure of peasants and merchants, er… taxpayers. People might be surprised to find that war as a way of life is not a new concept at all.

Even more surprising – and scarier – is when you discover that the end result is so terribly predictable.

[Skye]

The difference is that England left France having lost the war, the US will hopefully leave Iraq having won.

[DragonMind]

The difference is that England left France having lost the war, the US will hopefully leave Iraq having won.

Does anyone ever really win at war? At best, you have a temporary peace.

[Gene Williams]

100 Years War: 1337-1453. It would be hard to say England actually lost. France was dealt two of their worst defeats in history at Crecy and Agincourt, not to mention the decades of English plundering. The decision to call it quits was largely political. France has never been known for its military prowess. Even Napolean wasn't French, and when he finally met a serious British field commander, he lost. Yet, the French continue to "mock the air" with their banners and the political stage with their posturing.

[AllanJGAnderson]

I think I can represent all 'Good' Americans by respectfully saying 'France sucks'

[Erik]

I never understood it - what do Americans have against the French?

I am familiar with all the stereotypes but I have never experienced them - and I lived in France for a short while.

[The Nephilim]

I never understood it - what do Americans have against the French?

I am familiar with all the stereotypes but I have never experienced them - and I lived in France for a short while.

It is just a paranoid thing regarding the French hating America. After all, France does not want the catalytic converters from America, as it would save far too much money ETC.

But may I ask, which 100 years war is the actual article referring to? The one that did last 100 years, or the one that did not?

[Erik]

But may I ask, which 100 years war is the actual article referring to? The one that did last 100 years, or the one that did not?

I'm not sure I understand your question. The article was about the one from ca. 1350 to ca. 1450.

Which other one? Gosh, now you've gotten me confused.

[The Nephilim]

Well there was a 100 years war that lasted 20 odd years and a 100 years war that did last 100 years, well it was slightly over, but who is counting. And yet, England is still having a war in it's own borders for over 500 years.

[nosh276]

Does anyone ever really win at war? At best, you have a temporary peace.

It was coined a "negative peace" about a century ago by Montessori. The world has never known such a thing as a "positive peace"--just the same dodged bullet of an immediate war--while people still fear or hate other countries for some inappropriate reason.

[Skye]

Does anyone ever really win at war? At best, you have a temporary peace.

Well it's a matter of perception, weighing up horrendous costs against sometimes intangible benefits. People can argue whether a war was worth the cost and come to different conclusions. Perhaps some people feel that the Hundred Years War was won by England, however I've never heard the argument. On the other hand, in the event that the US pulls out of Iraq, it seems quite likely that people will argue that the war was won.

[DragonMind]

Well it's a matter of perception, weighing up horrendous costs against sometimes intangible benefits. People can argue whether a war was worth the cost and come to different conclusions. Perhaps some people feel that the Hundred Years War was won by England, however I've never heard the argument. On the other hand, in the event that the US pulls out of Iraq, it seems quite likely that people will argue that the war was won.

And as many to argue that all we did was stir up a tempest by invading and trying to shove democracy down their throats without understanding their culture. Sounds a lot like the Crusades...

End of discussion from me as I have no desire to get into a political debate.