Is anyone else angry that the Hundred Years War lasted more than one hundred years?

Question

It needs a better name, in my opinion.

Answer 1

you have right! I agree with you

Answer 2

You might think that there was 100 years of fighting but that wasn't the case. Sometimes, there was no fighting for decades. From 1389 to 1415 was practically a time of peace, with lots of diplomatic activity going on. So even in the 116 years, there was nowhere near 100 years of actual fighting.

During the period 1349-52 at the start of the war, the bubonic plague (aka Black Death) ravaged Europe so that maybe one quarter of the population died, including the armies. But still the fightting went on. In March 1351, at the height of the death rate in Europe, the French and English armies couldn't stop fighting and organised a sort of show-down exhibition battle with about thirty men on either side (Combat of the Thirty). In fact, the English fielded 32. The French won the battle with a total of twelve dead and all prisoners ransomed at the end of the day. It says something about the human condition, and the about the military mind, that a battle had to take place because..............well, just because it did, so there.

That seemed to typify the mentality of the Hundred Years War. It became a part of national pride, the main purpose of the aristocracy, the reason to have children, pressure to increase farm output and so on.

The number of years was and is immaterial. It lasted for about 4 generations of French and English families.

Answer 3

Not really, but their used to be a lot of people who were really angry for the things that went on during that more than a Hundred Years... and just as many people who were angry about the things hapenning to them during the Thirty Years War.

I am a angry that it was a series of wars called the Hundred Years War instead of the Hundred Years Wars. It does need a better name... maybe... The First Great European Massacre of Many People Both Militant and Civilian Since Rome... but that gets to be too long

Answer 4

The Hundred Years War did last a hundred years. One hundred thirteen years means that it lasted a hundred years and then some. The name is not wrong. The fact that it is not exact is not important to me.

Answer 5

Yes. Sometimes it keeps me awake at night. This is precisely the kind of sloppy thinking that is undermining British society. On the other hand, The Hundred and Sixteen Years War doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. Maybe it's just a trap designed for unwary history students.
Have a star for caring!

Answer 6

Perhaps you could take to calling it the "One Hundred and Sixteen Years War" if it makes you feel better :)

It wasn't a continuous war anyhow but a series of conflicts between the two countries.

Answer 7

La Guerre Anglais

Answer 8

I'm not angry about it.i just think that some historian named it that because he or she put the dates of the war between a century

Answer 9

Yeah, I'm sure that the guys that signed on for the 100 years war were a bit P****ed off that the contract over-ran

Answer 10

If you're going to get mad about that, how about the fact that it wasn't a war, it was an on again, off again series of military campaigns. I personally favor:
"The one hundred and sixteen years of sporadic military activity interspersed with frequent breaks to abuse the peasants and succumb to the plague"
So, do you think it will catch on?

Answer 11

I can barely sleep at night since I am choking with outrage at this foul and misleading nomenclature. And, Thirty Years War? Yeah, I'm looking at you--I got the same beef with you.

Now, the War of Jenkins' Ear is as nicely descriptive and accurate as you could hope to get. We could certainly learn from the folks that named that one.