Did France Lose Hope?

The 14th century proved challenging for France in terms of how the kingdom could withstand the pressures of war and political instability. France faced challenges that included the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) and the change of dynasties.

France at the start of the century appeared powerful under the reign of Philip IV (r. 1285–1314). Philip challenged the Church after a series of political disputes and helped create the circumstances that led to a new chapter for the papacy, known as the Avignon Papacy (1309–1377). Philip also pressed French claims over Gascony, which was one of the causes of the Hundred Years’ War. After his death, his three sons ruled, but none left a surviving male heir to the French throne.

The change in dynasties contributed to the upcoming problems, especially the weaknesses displayed during the leadership of Philip VI (r. 1328–1350). His reign can help answer the question of why France lost hope; as events started to unfold, France began to suffer. For instance, there was once again the problem of paying homage. England held lands in France, including Gascony, and the English king needed to pay homage to the French king, who was his feudal overlord for those territories. Both England and France experienced delays and disputes over homage. The young king Edward III performed homage to Philip VI in 1329 and formally acknowledged his obligations in 1331 (Sumption, 1990, p. 156).

The homage crisis continued until the start of the war in 1337, but tensions lingered as Philip tried to understand the ambitions of the English king. Philip and Edward repeatedly disagreed over the obligations associated with Gascony, bringing France to the brink of war. The first major phase of the conflict, often known as the Edwardian phase, brought France to the brink of collapse.

In 1341, the Breton War of Succession began after the death of John III, Duke of Brittany (Sumption, 1990, p. 370). His death sparked a prolonged war over who would become the next duke of such an important territory. France and England supported rival claimants to the duchy: Charles of Blois and John of Montfort. The conflict drew both kingdoms more deeply into crisis.

However, the problems did not stop there, as the Hundred Years’ War continued with the events of the Crécy campaign in 1346, which proved a significant embarrassment for the French. When examining the campaign, it is important to consider what military achievements were needed and for what purpose. France lost many men, and morale declined, but this was neither the end nor the beginning of the war.

Crécy became a major test of French morale and of whether France could recover. The campaign began in 1346, and the English besieged and captured Calais in 1347. For the following years, France faced the challenge of recovering from these events.

After Crécy, French morale fell dramatically because of weak leadership, the deaths of many nobles, and instability within the kingdom. How could this situation change over the next ten years? France remained vulnerable, and some nobles changed sides according to their political interests. The period was the era of chivalry, but chivalric ideals sometimes created problems for France, particularly when commanders pursued honour and personal courage at the expense of coordination and discipline.

As the mid-14th century arrived, France’s hope was increasingly under threat. The problems leading up to Poitiers and the various rebellions that followed lowered morale among the French people and weakened confidence in the monarchy. To understand whether hope remained alive, it is necessary to discuss the weaknesses of King John II, the problems within the military, and the failures of political communication.

Portrait of John II, c. 1350, tempera and gold on panel, Louvre.

Who Was King John II?

The second Valois king was known as John the Good, or Jean le Bon (r. 1350–1364). John’s reign came at a time when France was facing a serious crisis after Crécy, but he tried to maintain French control and power throughout the kingdom. His reign is important to the question of French morale because, within a few years, much of his authority would collapse while English power continued to rise.

John was born in 1319, and several years later his father became king of France after the direct Capetian male line ended, changing the ruling house.

In 1332, John became Duke of Normandy and also received titles connected with Anjou and Maine. As the war developed, the English presented a serious challenge for the young duke. Being Duke of Normandy at such a time required patience and careful communication because it was a large territory containing powerful nobles, some of whom maintained connections with England.

Normandy experienced an internal political struggle involving the rival houses of Tancarville and Harcourt, which competed for influence (Sumption, 1990, p. 258). This rivalry continued as the young duke attempted to strengthen his authority but struggled to control the competing noble factions.

One of the many internal conflicts that France needed to address concerned the territories and interests contested by France and England. These disputes created continuing divisions. Similar divisions also appeared in Normandy, where conflicts among the nobility produced long-running feuds and weakened French unity.

John recognised this problem and tried to suppress the rivalries; however, he needed the king’s assistance to contain the conflict. In 1346, John faced the danger created by Edward III’s campaign through Normandy and the resulting expansion of English influence (Sumption, 1999, p. 30). Support among some nobles shifted closer to England, placing John under growing pressure.

The battle was another challenge to French hope, as the failures of the campaign affected the political structure and economy of John’s lands. Crécy was one of the war’s most humiliating blows for the French, especially due to the tactical and organisational mistakes involved. John did not personally witness the battle because he was engaged in military operations near Aiguillon, but its heavy casualties and consequences directly affected his position.

Crécy meant a great deal for John because the following years confirmed that he would become the next king of France. When he succeeded to the throne in 1350, the war had temporarily slowed following the Black Death and the Truce of Calais. John had also lost his first wife, Bonne of Luxembourg, in 1349 (Sumption, 1999, p. 49).

One of his first priorities as king was to address problems within the army. He issued ordinances in 1351 concerning military recruitment, discipline, and payment. These measures offered some improvements, but they were not sufficient to prevent the problems that followed.

John recognised France’s difficulties and had an opportunity to address them, from recovering after the defeat at Crécy to creating new institutions such as the Order of the Star and introducing military reforms (Sumption, 1999, p. 88). France, however, remained divided, which affected its campaigns and contributed to later losses.

Had France avoided some of its earlier territorial and political losses, events might have developed differently, particularly regarding divisions among the nobility. It is therefore important to examine John’s early life and experiences to understand what followed. France now faced a central question: how could it survive with so many crises surrounding it?

The Battle of Poitiers (1356)

Navarre and Poitiers

Navarre was a kingdom in the western Pyrenees, with territories connected to both France and the Iberian Peninsula. During the Middle Ages, it was an important kingdom. Under Philip IV, France and Navarre were united through his marriage to Joan I of Navarre.

After Joan died in 1305, the crowns remained united until 1328. Joan II, the daughter of the late French king Louis X (r. 1314–1316), had a claim to Navarre and was eventually recognised as its rightful queen. Her son, Charles the Bad, would later cause conflicts between France and Navarre over territory and political power.

Joan ruled jointly with her husband, Philip of Évreux, and maintained stability within the kingdom. Navarre nevertheless faced conflicts with neighbouring powers, including Castile. Contrary to the impression that she remained permanently in France, Joan travelled to Navarre and took part in governing the kingdom, although she also spent considerable time in her French territories.

Navarre is important to the first half of the Hundred Years’ War because its ruling family possessed extensive lands and political interests within France. Under Charles II, Navarre became increasingly involved in French affairs, while Charles’s ambitions created further instability.

Charles was raised largely within the political world of France and inherited the crown of Navarre in 1349. He married the French king’s daughter, Joan of Valois, and therefore became John II’s son-in-law. However, he was jealous of the influence enjoyed by the Constable of France, Charles de la Cerda, and ordered his murder after disputes over land and royal favour (Sumption, 1999, p. 123).

This murder further damaged France’s political stability. John prepared to act against Charles’s lands in Normandy, but the danger of Charles forming an alliance with Edward III forced the king to negotiate. The Treaty of Mantes was signed in February 1354, granting Charles concessions in exchange for reconciliation (Sumption, 1999, p. 127).

The agreement resembled an uneasy compromise rather than a lasting peace. John feared that Charles might reveal French plans to the English, although Charles was not the only noble who changed sides during the conflict. By exploiting low morale and political division, Charles increased the threat of a larger English intervention in France.

Edward and Charles cooperated when their interests aligned, particularly when both hoped to weaken John II. Charles’s conduct was less about simple jealousy and more about his desire to expand his territories and political influence. For France, this episode was another example of how internal rivalry strengthened the position of the English.

How could France respond to this situation? The monarchy attempted to restore control through military reforms and political settlements. Charles continued to move between the French and English sides until the signing of the Treaty of Valognes in September 1355.

The Dauphin Charles, the future Charles V, had been appointed Duke of Normandy and was placed in the difficult position of managing the region’s divided nobility. He was not attempting to replace his father as king, but his position brought him into contact with Charles of Navarre and other dissatisfied nobles (Sumption, 1999, p. 166).

Before Poitiers, Charles of Navarre was arrested because of his actions against the Crown. He remained imprisoned until November 1357, when his supporters released him during the political crisis that followed the king’s capture (Sumption, 1999, p. 208).

John the Good ordering the arrest of Charles the Bad, from the Chroniques of Jean Froissart

The arrest became one of the most dramatic events of John’s reign. In April 1356, the king entered a banquet at Rouen attended by his son, Charles of Navarre, and several Norman nobles. John personally arrested the Navarrese king and ordered the execution of several of his supporters, including John, Count of Harcourt.

The decision proved politically damaging because it alienated members of the Norman nobility who might otherwise have supported the French Crown against England. John believed Charles posed a serious threat and took decisive action against him, but the consequences did not strengthen France for long.

Poitiers became another major crisis for France. After a temporary reduction in fighting, the Black Prince led a series of destructive attacks on French lands, beginning with a chevauchée in 1355 (Mortimer, 2008, p. 248). John now had to confront both the English threat and internal opposition associated with Charles of Navarre.

John assembled a large army and pursued the Black Prince’s forces. Negotiations took place before the battle, including discussions over prisoners, territory, and the terms under which the English army might withdraw. Neither side accepted the other’s demands, leading to the battle itself.

John attempted to protect his identity by having several knights wear royal insignia similar to his own. However, these efforts did not prevent the French defeat. English and Welsh longbowmen contributed significantly to French casualties, but the defensive position, disciplined English men-at-arms, difficult terrain, and a well-timed counterattack were also important.

John continued fighting after much of his army had been defeated. Realising that the battle was lost, he surrendered and was taken prisoner. The Black Prince treated him with the honour and respect expected for a captive monarch (Sumption, 1999, p. 246).

John continued to receive honourable treatment while in English custody. However, he remained a prisoner and became an important source of political leverage for Edward III. His ransom was fixed at an enormous amount, placing severe pressure on French finances.

In 1360, the Treaty of Brétigny was signed largely in favour of the English. Edward III gained sovereignty over extensive territories in France without owing homage for them while agreeing eventually to renounce his claim to the French throne. John’s ransom was set at three million gold écus, with an initial payment required before his release.

The treaty drove France further into debt and added to the political chaos created by rebellions, unpaid soldiers, and the continuing ambitions of Charles of Navarre.

John’s capture reflected many of the problems France had endured. Should John have arrested so many nobles? Could he have reformed the army more effectively? Could the tactical mistakes made at Poitiers have been avoided? These are among the concerns that arose during this period and that still require reflection.

John was called “the Good” partly because of his personal courage, chivalric reputation, and honourable conduct during captivity. Internally, however, he made several serious political and military mistakes, leading once again to the question: did France lose hope?

Lessons Learned

How could a king be taken captive at one of the worst moments in the kingdom’s history, and how could the mistakes seen in earlier battles occur once again? Poitiers was one of the most serious French failures of the Hundred Years’ War. Even though the king attempted to conceal his identity and many knights surrounded him, these measures did not help him win.

Hope was severely damaged that day and remained low throughout the final years of John’s reign. France suffered so greatly that parts of the kingdom descended into political disorder as different groups competed for power. The absence of the king weakened royal government, although the dauphin Charles continued to govern in his father’s name.

Examining John’s life and reign reveals much about the mistakes made during the early phase of the war. France placed large numbers of men on the battlefield, but it often lacked effective coordination and organisation. John tried to serve France as a prince and later as king, but several of his decisions failed.

Perhaps before Poitiers he should have planned more carefully and placed greater emphasis on coordination and defensive tactics. The mistakes made during the campaign were costly for France and seriously damaged the monarchy’s reputation.

At that moment, hope seemed lost. Edward III and the Black Prince seemed better prepared, while France was forced to endure military defeat and internal political division. At the same time, France faced so many overlapping crises that effective government would have been difficult for any ruler.

France needed to recover, but the conflicts did not end. The study of these battles reveals important lessons about morale, money, military organisation, and political communication in medieval France. After 1356, conditions deteriorated further before the monarchy began to recover under the future Charles V.

The idea of hope can therefore be understood as the ability to restore justice, stability, and effective government. France experienced panic, rebellion, and political weakness, but it did not permanently become a failed state. Although Poitiers brought the kingdom close to collapse, the later recovery demonstrated that French hope had been weakened rather than completely destroyed.