Are We Still Fighting the Hundred Years War? Why Joan of Arc, Agincourt, and the Black Death Aren't Quite Dead

A couple of years ago, I asked the great military historian Richard Overy if World War Two had ended yet. Overy answered inconclusively, suggesting that wars were never really over. And such depressing wisdom is shared by Michael Livingston, a historian of another great war that shattered Europe - the Hundred Years War (1337–1453) between England and France. In his new book, Bloody Crowns, Livingston argues that Joan of Arc, Agincourt and the other now immortal iconography of the Hundred Years War shaped not just the histories of Britain and France but also the fate of the modern world. In fact, Livingston argues, the war was so consequential that it actually lasted two hundred years—and in some ways, still hasn’t ended.* Wars Never Really End—They Just Change Shape The rivalry between England and France didn’t stop in 1453—it went global, fueling centuries of colonial conflict across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Today’s geopolitical tensions (think Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine) are similarly rooted in unresolved historical conflicts that keep resurfacing in new forms.* National Identity Is Forged in Conflict, Not Peace France and England as we know them were literally created by this war. The labels “French” and “English” became meaningful identities only through centuries of fighting. This mirrors how modern nations—from Ukraine to Taiwan—often solidify their national consciousness when facing external threats.* Myths Matter More Than Facts Joan of Arc and Agincourt became more powerful as symbols than as historical events. Britain invoked Agincourt before D-Day because national myths inspire action. Today’s political movements similarly rely on mythologized pasts—whether America’s “founding fathers” or any nation’s “golden age”—to mobilize people in the present.* Rules of War Are Convenient Until They’re Not Medieval knights praised chivalry and honor—then massacred prisoners when it suited them (like Henry V at Agincourt). This pattern repeats throughout history: international law, Geneva Conventions, and “rules-based order” are respected when convenient and ignored when survival or victory is at stake.* The “Dark Ages” Weren’t Dark—We Just Can’t Agree on What They Were Historians can’t even agree when the Middle Ages began or ended, yet we use these labels to organize history. This matters today because how we periodize and label history shapes how we understand the present. Are we in a “new Cold War”? A “post-truth era”? These labels aren’t neutral—they’re arguments about what’s happening now.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe