France’s Early Failures in the Hundred Years’ War
- 13 August 2026
- 0 Comment
- 21 Min Read
Overview
Talia Bega examines France’s early failures in the Hundred Years’ War, from the disputed succession of 1328 and the Breton War of Succession to the disastrous Crécy campaign, exploring how debt, poor coordination, shifting alliances and damaged morale weakened the French war effort.
Cite This Work
France and the Failures of Control: A Fight for Survival
France on the Eve of the Hundred Years’ War
To many, the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453) was perhaps a victorious power fuel for the English, but that was not always the case. Both France and England faced a vast number of casualties throughout the war, but France had its own spark for failure before their victory in 1453. Following the death of the last direct Capetian king of France, Charles IV, in 1328, Edward III of England became one of the claimants to the French throne through his mother, Isabella of France. Philip VI of Valois was instead recognised as king, while Edward formally assumed the title of King of France in 1340 (Mortimer, 2008, p. 68). French succession custom excluded women, and consequently claims transmitted through the female line, from the throne. Edward’s claim to the French throne was therefore at odds with the new House of Valois, whose first king, Philip VI, was a grandson of Philip III.
France knew what the English were doing that was right up their alley: to try and conquer what was theirs. The origins of the Hundred Years’ War can be traced back to the 12th century, under the reign of Henry II of England, and the rise of the Angevin Empire. Henry’s Empire covered large parts of France, but much of its French territory was later recovered by the French monarchy, particularly under Philip II, in the 13th century. Looking at what Henry was doing brought everlasting backlash between the two kingdoms as to who had more land or territory altogether. Under various monarchs, which included Louis IX and Philip II, France’s territories expanded, while England experienced its own period of political hostility, including baronial conflict and the development of Parliament in the 13th century. These monarchs wanted France to be a stronghold, but in what case does it take for it to stay that way?
In the early 14th century, France was at the height of her power, with Philip IV winning the Grand Charm for success. However, France’s peak did not last long. One problem after another occurred when, in 1307, Philip IV ordered the arrest of the Knights Templar in France; the order itself was formally suppressed in 1312. France also experienced wars with England and Flanders, and threats Philip faced from the papacy over his treatment of Pope Boniface VIII. These tensions preceded the beginning of the Avignon Papacy (1309–1377). That was not the end for France, as after he died in 1314, his three sons—Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV—ruled in succession, but each died without leaving a surviving male heir. How did this issue occur, and was France prepared for this to occur? There is not really a straight answer, as historians still debate this situation today, but it can be traced right to the start of the 14th century with the crisis that Philip had endured.
The Hundred Years’ War was perhaps that huge push for a question of whether France would stay in place after Edward’s claims and the Gascon campaign in the early half of the 1330s. Philip VI of France, as the first Valois king, sat and watched this all unfold and knew that his France was already under considerable political and financial pressure (Sumption, 1990, p. 98). Philip tried to keep peace with Edward but knew the risks of such a power-hungry monarch at the time. Philip, like his predecessors, had to deal with the increase in debt and wars on multiple fronts, which were extremely difficult to handle.
Many of the conflicts that occurred from the succession crisis faced a factor of the ill-prepared monarchy for France that needs to be highlighted enough. France needed leadership, which was lacking from its military setbacks in the first stage of the war, including the Crécy Campaign and a lack of morale that can wonder what changed from the years before. In order to understand France and its failures, England was perhaps prepared compared to the other side. The lessons learned from France in the first half of the Hundred Years’ War can be studied from Edward’s earlier campaigns, poor leadership, and the morale of the common people.
The Breton War of Succession
The Succession Crisis in BrittanyThe year 1337 was a shock to the world when Philip VI declared Edward’s lands in Aquitaine forfeit, while Edward renewed his challenge to Philip’s authority in France (Mortimer, 2008, p. 134). One situation that contributed to the growing conflict was the longstanding issue of homage. At the time, England held territories in France, and Edward was required to pay homage to the French king as his feudal overlord for these lands. Disputes over the nature of this homage repeatedly caused tension between the two monarchies. Philip’s confiscation of Aquitaine in 1337 helped bring those tensions into open war (Sumption, 1990, p. 225).
Philip was, in fact, trying to be smart, allowing him to avoid another conflict; however, he knew the English had the higher ground in terms of support. The first few years were back-and-forth victories for both sides. In 1341, a territory in western France, in other words, Brittany, faced a succession crisis known as the Breton War of Succession. John III, Duke of Brittany, passed away all of a sudden, without an heir. France and England quickly jumped into the conflict, hoping for a quick grab for influence over the duchy. Brittany was an important territory for France, particularly because of its strategic position and ports (Graham-Goering, 2021, p. 53).
When the duke’s death occurred, France really needed a gain in lands and offered Charles of Blois, who married Joan of Penthièvre, the niece of John III, as the next heir (Graham-Goering, 2021, p. 33). However, the English had other plans and placed John of Montfort, who was the half-brother of the late duke and the son of Arthur II of Brittany and Yolande of Dreux. Both claims were strengthened as the kings of France and England supported rival sides in the dispute.
This is perhaps where the nickname for the War of the Two Joans got its name, referring to Joan of Penthièvre and Joanna of Flanders, the wife of John of Montfort. When thinking of this conflict, it does not ring a bell, especially in the war itself, as it was actually a huge conflict in the Hundred Years’ War. In September of 1341, Philip VI’s court ruled in favour of Charles of Blois and Joan of Penthièvre. Charles was officially recognised by the French crown as Duke of Brittany (Graham-Goering, 2021, p. 197). The duchy itself, however, remained divided in its loyalties. John, with the help of Edward, started to wage war, hoping for a new change. For France, this was almost a risk, as Philip really had to play all the cards he had in store right in front of him to make sure everything went well.
France needed the duchy more than ever, but Edward’s ambitions made it much harder to grant the territory than ever before (Mortimer, 2008, p. 200). John was pushing hard on Charles, especially for the eastern part of the duchy. John soon was getting support, as the morale of the people was in shock. They saw how much pressure France was putting and requested peace as their lands faced the issues of conflict. Philip’s son, John, the Duke of Normandy, was involved for quite some time helping Charles (Graham-Goering, 2021, p. 110). He was also a key player in the role of Montfort’s capture that led to England sending in more forces with the help of his wife, Joanna of Flanders.
English Intervention and the Truce of Malestroit
In 1340, the Truce of Espléchin was signed before the Breton succession conflict began, temporarily suspending fighting between England and France (Sumption, 1990, p. 359). When John was captured in 1341, France had to think about Charles’ game plan to make sure Edward did not get his way again. Meanwhile, Joanna of Flanders took a leading role in maintaining the Montfortist cause and securing English assistance. Amaury de Clisson was among those who supported the Montfort faction.
What allowed for a Montfort victory was that Charles was trying to give financial terms that not everyone could agree upon, and some of his Italian mercenaries left as well. This can also be a low for Charles’ tactics, as a few weeks later at Brest, there was another failed siege.
A few weeks later, the French were defeated at Morlaix, embarrassing the French once more. The French used as many of the Italian mercenaries as they had, but were blown away by the English. Edward was not done and had various victories at Vannes, and with the help of Pope Clement VI, the Truce of Malestroit was agreed on January 19, 1343, pausing the war temporarily (Sumption, 1990, p. 413). Now this treaty is a great example of the English favour and the problem of morale for the French, as this was all for the English cause. John was eventually released, and Edward gained some strategic advantages while the French had to sit and watch.
Philip did not really try to be as ambitious as Edward. He almost just sat and watched the Gascon campaign a few years prior and allowed France to be defeated. He also tried to stop them by sending in too many men, but with the help of poor commanders, all were defeated, with a similar story at Crécy. How does Philip want to win now, especially if God was on the side of a king who had a dream vs a shattered realm? With the treaty now in hand, France had to figure out what to do, as three years later tragedy struck with the Crécy campaign. Does it need to be a better strategy or rallying of the people? Or how do we save France? These are two questions that need to be considered for France as the clock is ticking, especially if a king needs to fight for his land.
Enjoyed this Article?
Join The Medieval Chronicle on Substack for weekly medieval discoveries, book notes, and behind-the-scenes commentary from HistoryMedieval.
Crécy Campaign: The First Half of Mistakes
Edward’s Invasion of Normandy
The Crécy Campaign for France was just an embarrassing low for all the points covered on poor military strategy. After the Treaty of Malestroit in 1343, Edward, with the help of Parliament after some pressure, planned a campaign into Normandy that would shake France into even more chaos (Mortimer, 2008, p. 210). Philip knew of such a plan, and since France was already in so much debt, had to borrow money from anyone he knew, which included the papacy.
France had no choice, as Edward was fighting for his life during his young years while France was slowly losing support, as many of the French commanders soon came to England, with a great example being Robert of Artois, a few years earlier.
The French utilised the Italian mercenaries once more, especially from Genoa, as the English had earlier received support from the Flemish and several princes of the Holy Roman Empire, who were also some of the enemies that France had endured. England was also trying to lure many people against France to apply pressure on them. One great tactic that Philip had used was making sure the supplies were hidden from the enemy, which almost made Edward quit, as they were running out of food.
Philip also assembled a very large army, although the precise numbers recorded for medieval armies remain disputed. When Edward arrived at Saint-Vaast-la-Hougue on July 12, 1346, he was greeted by a strong French force commanded by Robert Bertrand but soon led multiple large-scale raids often known as a chevauchée to bring Philip even closer (Mortimer, 2008, p. 289). Edward’s campaign deliberately devastated towns, property and supplies in an attempt to weaken French authority and force Philip into battle. Eventually, some of his men broke the knightly protocols and burned everything that they saw, even taking over 100 ships from the French.
At the time, Prince John was facing a siege at Aiguillon, as much of the main army was there but had to march up north to face the powerful English forces. Caen soon fell to the English after a quick siege, with heavy casualties for the French, although the exact number is uncertain. Caen can prove that the English were everywhere, as there was not a scattered army but rather reinforcements, which can lead to poor strategy that messed up the whole Crécy Campaign for France (Sumption, 1990, p. 503). Philip still fell for the trap of sending too many men over, as each of the large battles occurred, leading to a large-scale defeat.
When the Battle of Crécy occurred, France also faced a large defeat two days earlier at Blanchetaque when trying to trap the English from taking food, ending up a victory for the English.
Battle of Crécy from Froissart’s Chronicles
The Battle of Crécy
To their advantage were the skilful longbowmen. These were foot soldiers known for their longbows that indeed helped with the wiping out of the French forces that brought them to victory. The French faced multiple retreats as fear arose when everything was going for the English, with French defeats coming from everywhere.
On August 26, 1346, a huge failure was there for the French with a major defeat at Crécy. One of the most famous battles was at Crécy, where the English had already taken up a strong defensive position and waited for the French army to attack. It was therefore not a surprise English attack. The French prepared with the support of the Italian mercenaries and a substantially larger army than the English, although exact numbers remain disputed. The English had an important advantage from the longbowmen (Sumption, 1990, p. 517).
The battle was, in fact, an archery duel at its opening, but became hand-to-hand after the Genoese crossbowmen retreated with multiple cavalry charges at hand. The French forces still had the most men and kept on launching repeated charges, leading to multiple disputes.
Philip almost died, as an arrow hit his jaw, and later ran from the field, which was a huge mistake. Edward III, however, remained on the battlefield and retained overall command. His son, Edward the Black Prince, commanded one of the main English divisions rather than taking command of the entire army.
This is also the battle where Edward the Black Prince won his first major military success at the age of 16. The battle was exhausting, as both sides fought hard before the French eventually withdrew. Casualties were high, with the French losing far more men than the English. Medieval estimates of more than 15,000 French deaths are generally regarded as uncertain, although French losses, particularly among the nobility, were extremely heavy. English losses were considerably smaller.
This was humiliating for the French because they had the most men but lost, and it raises the question of leadership. In 1347, after an almost year-long siege, Calais fell into the hands of the English and remained under English control until 1558, after the brutal siege of Calais.
Everything was falling apart around them, and even the French had to ask for support from Scotland, England’s enemy. Scotland was a longstanding French ally, and David II invaded northern England in 1346 partly in response to French appeals for assistance. It failed as the Scottish king was captured at Neville’s Cross by the English.
France yet tried to get Scotland to assist, which was long an enemy to England, especially in the 14th century. The Scots played many roles against the two, but the capture of a Scottish king was a large blow at the stake. France was running out of time and money, especially after Normandy had been heavily devastated by Edward’s campaign. It had not, however, largely fallen into English hands at this stage.
On September 28, 1347, the Truce of Calais granted peace for the time, proving that the English had the advantage of the lands that were gained. Both sides paused the fighting as it was extended for a few years, due to the rise of the Black Death in 1348. This truce really set France back, asking what went wrong, especially if they had the most men and land advantages (Sumption, 1990, p. 583).
For the French, this was perhaps the most embarrassing event in history, to be defeated from such a well-prepared campaign to losing it all. What was going through Philip’s mind, especially seeing Edward’s strategy to dive all in on France? To Philip, this was not just a mistake but perhaps one of the most embarrassing moments in history that needs to be studied much more deeply, shattering morale.
A Lesson Learned
Isabella of France, 15th-century depiction from Froissart’s Chronicles
Succession, Alliances and French Weaknesses
In 1337, after Edward III renewed his claim to France, he saw his campaign as very successful in the Edwardian phase, or the first half of the war. Edward saw the chance that came from his mother, Isabella of France, or in other words the She-Wolf. Isabella was the daughter of Philip IV, and after all his sons died, Edward believed he had a legitimate claim to the throne through his mother. He was not, however, automatically the “true heir”, since French succession practice rejected inheritance of the crown through the female line. Philip VI was recognised as king in 1328, beginning the Valois dynasty.
That succession crisis was the tip of the iceberg for France, as ever since 1328, nothing went their way (Sumption, 1990, p. 50). It was like that Edward had a better game plan and France just watched it fall rather than come together and fix it. Edward grew his own realm into a naval front, dropping France right down, as they relied much on Pisans and Genoese for the naval fronts.
Philip faced a large problem from the Flemish tracing to the end of the 13th century with the Franco-Flemish War. The Flemish wanted freedom, but France kept on pushing through. The Flemish defeated the French at the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302, but the conflict continued until the Treaty of Athis-sur-Orge in 1305; Flanders did not simply gain its independence in 1302. However, many years of conflict saw them join Edward’s side. The Flemish used their advantages to come from the eastern front and knew some of France’s tactics. Edward wanted to bring everyone against France, while the French had to seek support primarily from Scotland.
Debt, Morale and Military Planning
The three main problems of France’s issues in the first ten years came from a large debt crisis going back to Philip III, how the French felt with constant wars, and poor planning. As discussed at the start, France waged much of the first half of the 14th century fighting wars. They were forced into war with Flanders and England, while Scotland was an ally rather than an enemy, to protect the western front from expansion.
France had no choice but to ask for money from the papacy, which was an important source of support due to the Avignon Papacy in France at the time. With the papacy, it allowed them to get mercenaries to help support France at sea and to provide arms.
If your realm was going into constant war, many of the people would be upset. The French faced a large challenge, especially at the start with the Breton War of Succession, as to how many men-at-arms were needed. When the English started to raid Normandy, there was surrender occurring at every part, as everyone had lost hope. The people saw the state as a failure, as all the knights were like a puppet on a string, not ready to fight.
This led to the third reason for poor military planning. At Crécy, the main problem was not simply that France had too many men or that they should have been more spread out. The French army was difficult to coordinate, and repeated attacks were launched without sufficient organisation against a well-prepared English defensive position. It was highly noticeable that France had so many men on the field and still faced heavy defeats.
This lack of coordination was low, as when Edward launched the Gascon and Crécy Campaigns, it was like an easy victory, as there were not as many men or an easy surrender. The French indeed were trying to protect as much as they could, but the morale was not the greatest for the people, especially at Crécy when Philip eventually left the battlefield after being wounded.
France also relied much on knighthood but did not focus on smart fighting, as they had everyone at arms, but repeated cavalry attacks against the English defensive position proved extremely costly. Another great question is whether the French had less debt and possibly the Flemish on their side; it would have made it easier. France also had pressure from the Breton War of Succession that Philip focused on keeping Charles as the rightful duke.
Historians like Jonathan Sumption have seen much of this disaster at stake with much more of an inclusion that France should not have rushed and planned properly. After Crécy, it was a larger shock to the western front for France, but all that was needed was morale; but did France have one?
Further Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did France and England enter the Hundred Years’ War?
Why was France vulnerable during the early Hundred Years’ War?
Why was the Breton War of Succession important?
Why did France suffer such a serious defeat at Crécy?
What happened to France after the Battle of Crécy?
What lessons does the article draw from France’s early failures?
![The Hospitallers found a “third life” on Malta. [1680 painting by L.A. Castro]](https://historymedieval.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/The-Hospitallers-found-a-third-life-on-Malta.-1680-painting-by-L.A.-Castro-150x150.webp)
Sources
- Graham-Goering, E. (2021). Princely Power in Late Medieval France: Jeanne de Penthièvre and the War for Brittany. Cambridge University Press.
- Mortimer, I. (2008). The Perfect King: The Life of Edward III, Father of the English Nation. London: Vintage.
- Sumption, J. (1990). The Hundred Years’ War. London: Faber & Faber Limited.
Copyright, Licensing and Disclosure
© HistoryMedieval. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, republished, adapted, commercially exploited or used for AI training or content generation without prior written permission. Brief quotations are permitted with proper attribution and a link to the original article.
Third-party images and materials may be subject to separate copyright terms. This article may contain affiliate links or clearly identified sponsored content.
If you believe that any text, artwork, photograph, video or other material published in this article infringes your copyright, please contact info@historymedieval.com, identifying the material concerned and the relevant article URL. We will investigate the matter and, where appropriate, take prompt corrective action.
Talia Bega
Talia Bega is a historian, writer, and content creator specialising in medieval and art history. A self-taught historian with a long-standing passion for the humanities, she focuses particularly on the Plantagenets, Capetians, the Hundred Years’ War, and the cultural world of medieval Europe. She is currently studying at the American University of Rome while also developing independent historical research and writing projects.
Through her platform, History With Talia, she publishes articles, reflections, and historical commentary exploring medieval politics, royal courts, warfare, and art history. Her work combines narrative storytelling with accessible historical analysis aimed at engaging modern audiences with the medieval past. She has also hosted history-focused podcast discussions and is currently working on her first book, centred on Isabeau of Bavaria and the political world of late medieval France during the reign of Charles VI of France.
Inspired by historians such as Dan Jones and Tracy Borman, Talia’s work reflects a strong interest in bringing medieval history to wider audiences through digital media, independent scholarship, and public history writing.
