There aren’t a lot of books in English that focus on the end of the Hundred Years War. I suppose there has generally been little interest in revisiting the collapse of English rule in France when there are more glorious times to focus on. Most histories tend to skip forward abruptly after the arrival of Joan of Arc directly to the end of the war, skipping over many important developments in the process. Thankfully there are a few historians that have decided to make a closer study of the period from 1417-1453. Conquest by Juliet Barker focuses just on the war in Normandy, covering the period from Henry V’s conquests starting in 1417 until the collapse of English rule in the Duchy and it’s total reconquest by the French monarchy in 1450. It is well researched and is a much-needed study of this period, but I have mixed feelings on the book as a whole.
Let’s start with the good stuff. Conquest is very thoroughly researched. Barker has made an extensive study of the period and provides an in-depth and detailed narrative of both the major and minor events across over three decades of Anglo-French history. If you wanted a thorough breakdown of what happened – how did the English take control of Normandy and several of its neighbouring counties and then lose it all – Conquest absolutely delivers on that. It was very useful in helping me clarify the timeline on several key events and in identifying some of the less famous figures involved in both conquests of Normandy.
It's also well written – the narrative is clear and easy to follow. While I’m not new to this subject and therefore not necessarily the best judge, I still think that most people could pick up this book and follow it without needing much background in the Hundred Years War as a whole. Having that background is always better and I wouldn’t recommend this as a first book on the subject, but if you already have a copy, you could read it without having that broader context. Writing narrative history is challenging, especially narratives with as many moving parts as the Hundred Years War, so Barker must be praised for how well she manages it. The narrower focus on Normandy helps, there’s no effort to include events in Gascony, which reduces the cognitive load in terms of participants and events.
All that having been said, I would have some reservations about recommending Conquest to general readers. The first and, to me personally anyway, most frustrating issue with the book is the very English nationalist perspective that runs throughout the narrative. This may be the most nationalist history of the Hundred Years War I’ve yet read. What’s particularly odd is that the book is still thoroughly researched and many of the core facts are presented in an even-handed manner, it’s just the interpretation that has a strong English bias. This can create odd moments of cognitive dissonance where the interpretation seems to be strongly at odds with the evidence presented by the same book. Let me use an example.
One of Barker’s more interesting points is the way she shows how the Treaty of Troyes, far from securing a long-term peace actually undermined any effort to resolve the Hundred Years War in its later years. For those who may not know, the Treaty of Troyes was signed in 1420 and in it the future Charles VII, then Dauphin or crown prince of France, was disinherited and Henry V was made King Charles VI’s heir in his place. The treaty also cemented the alliance between the Duke of Burgundy and the English and outlined several principles restricting peace negotiations with the disinherited Dauphin. Famously, Henry V died before Charles VI and passed the claim to the inheritance of the French throne to his son Henry VI. What Barker does an excellent job of showing is how the terms of the Treaty of Troyes, along with the later crowning of Henry VI as King of France in Paris – an act orchestrated by Henry’s brother the Duke of Bedford in his capacity as regent but largely in line with Henry’s original wishes – completely undermined any attempt to make peace in the 1430s and 1440s. The English regency, and then later Henry VI when he came of age, couldn’t make peace without conceding that the terms of the Treaty of Troyes were illegitimate. These acts had locked in their claim to the title of King of France and that claim had been used to justify all the conquest and war that had followed – to make peace with the Dauphin would be to declare all those actions illegal and immoral. This created significant stumbling blocks in peace negotiations and created an environment where the only real option was war, a war the English eventually lost.
All of that analysis is fascinating and provides a great perspective on what is often seen as Henry V’s greatest diplomatic triumph. However, Barker also doesn’t take the logical next step and question whether Troyes really was all that good of a treaty. Was it a diplomatic coup achieved by Henry V in his prime or was it an ill-conceived power grab that burdened his kingdom and his son and would eventually lead to social collapse and Civil War? Much of the evidence in the book seems to argue the latter but Barker cannot help but argue an aggressively pro-Henry V line in which he can have done no wrong. The failures are all in how the successors failed to overcome the flaws in the Treaty of Troyes, not in Henry’s original plan.
A similar problem can be seen in how Barker wants to blame both sides for the breaking of the Truce of Tours and the resumption of the war in 1449. The evidence as documented in the book is damning for the English and shows a French monarchy presented with the perfect opportunity to win the war and choosing to take it. The need to paint the English in a good light at times results in criticising the French for making sound decisions that benefit them because they don’t fit the author’s seemingly arbitrary concept of what was or was not chivalrous. This serves to undercut the book and made it a frustrating read.
Conquest also suffers from many of the issues that I have with narrative history more generally. Narrative history can be very engaging and it’s a useful type of history to have, but it can also be done in a fashion that is far too narrow. I found Conquest to be long in narrative and short in broader analysis. It did a lot to tell me what happened but didn’t do nearly enough to tell me why it happened. This to me is the flaw in narrow narrative history. Answering the why is an important part of historical analysis and I just didn’t feel there was enough of it in Conquest. I could have done with a little less in terms of detailed descriptions of minor border skirmishes and instead some explanation of what these border skirmishes meant and what they tell us more broadly about Anglo-French conflict during this period.
My other criticisms are much more minor. I appreciate that Barker is just focusing on Normandy and that the book is long enough as is, but it really would have benefited from providing some context for what was going on in Gascony as well. French campaigns in Gascony only appear in the narrative very rarely, and the end of the book pretty strongly implies that the war ended in 1450 with the fall of Cherbourg – completely ignoring the fact that fighting in Gascony continued until 1453. It’s not a damning flaw, but it is somewhat misleading particularly if you’re not already familiar with the subject.
I also have mixed feelings about her analysis of the financing of the war. This is more an issue of presentation rather than research. Barker has clearly done a lot of work researching how much the various campaigns cost and presents very detailed information on it throughout the book. What I think is missing is context and, in a few places, analysis. I couldn’t help but contrast this with Jonathan Sumption’s Trial by Battle (see my review here: https://www.stuartellisgorman.com/blog/trial-by-battle-by-jonathan-sumption). I think Sumption did a much better job at contextualising the immense financial burden of the campaigns of the 1340s. Barker presents you with the evidence showing how expensive campaigning was and the increasing difficulties the English faced in meeting those demands but she never seems to take a moment to explain that these costs were unsustainable. I think this feeds back a bit into the nationalist perspective of the book – to admit that the English couldn’t afford to wage the war would be to admit that the war was unwinnable, something she cannot bring herself to do. As a result, it feels like a layer of analysis is missing from the book. The research has been done and readers can draw their own conclusion, but it would have benefited from a more explicit exploration of the topic.
Overall, while Juliet Barker’s Conquest is a very valuable history covering an important part of the Hundred Years War that doesn’t receive enough attention, I’m not sure if I would recommend it to most readers. Only die hard Hundred Years War enthusiasts or those with a special interest in the war during the fifteenth century should really read it. For most readers I would recommend A.J. Pollard’s John Talbot and the War in France instead (my review here: https://www.stuartellisgorman.com/blog/john-talbot-and-the-war-in-france-by-aj-pollard).