On the one hand, it had a smaller population than France or the HRE, was less urbanized, educated and pivotal to regional trade and culture than major centers like Italy or Flanders, and had a laughable military system than relied primarily on temporarily mobilized yeomanry and knights too poor to afford horses.
On the other hand, some authors claim that being a relatively large and agriculturally rich territory, politically unified, stable and less fractious than constant feudal challenges taking place on the continent, the English throne being seen as a relatively prestigious position, and isolation from major threats, were big advantages for England and meant that it was also well placed to influence European affairs.
Who is telling the truth? Who is lying?
England was a tremendous force, forget not the dominion of England over France. Nor its commanding presence in the Crusades.
>Nor its commanding presence in the Crusades.
What commanding presence?
The First Crusade was almost entirely French and so were the most famous knight orders (Templars are Hospitallers).
If anything it's surprising to find out how little the English were involved when you actually study the Crusades for the first time as a normie.
That same Venetian also said that the English were very beautiful and that the French were incredibly fearful of them. Based wop tbqh
obviously it punched above its weight and earnt itself more respect than mere population would've commanded
Before 1066 it was backward but comfy or at least before the mass viking rape
After that it was more relevant especially under the Plantagenet but it was also virtually a french dominion.
After John I death and the magna carta ypu could say that England became a proper european power
No black people or east asians.
Fewer israelites.
higher birth rate.
Lower life expectancy.
survival of the fittest keeping the population strong.
Far more small scale local government under barons.
Widespread barter and a precious metal based coinage.
Extremely cheap and plentiful bread.
Pork was the cheapest meat.
Chicken was very expensive.
etc etc.
The differences go on and on.
>Who is telling the truth? Who is lying?
There's nothing stopping any of these things from being true simultaneously.
The answer to your question was that England was obviously always a significant power in Europe, but nowhere near the strongest in the way it would become during the 19th Century. Any attempts to paint it as such are Bongs retroactively trying to justify their later dominance.
It also needs to be stated that this power was not derived solely from England's own merits, but rather as the largest and most secure holding of the Norman, Angevin/Plantagenet dominions, which is what pushed it into continental and (through the crusades) near eastern affairs. Ironically losing these mainland territories in the early modern period is when you start to see the inherent English advantages beginning to assert itself
England wasn't a major Kingdom. Unlike France and Germany they were far smaller. By the Later Middle Ages Castille was larger and the three largest Kingdoms in Europe were the three while England stayed behind.
Of course, English Kings liked to pump themselves up, Henry III had ambitions of an Empire across Sicily to Ireland and Henry VIII thought himself a great warrior and equal to the continential Kings. Both were nowhere near as important as the continental Kings but they liked to think of themselves as so.
>By the Later Middle Ages Castille was larger
By area, but England and Castille had a roughly similar population
England was certainly secondary to France and the Empire, but still in the top wrung of european powers. It's intresting you pick Henry III and Henry VIII as these kings ruled over England during it's nadirs and as others point out the fortunes of England went up and down. Yet even at this point Henry VIII's England had been able to bring together most of europe in a kind of proto-concert of Vienna in the treaty of London of 1518. Yes it did not last long at all, but the fact they weren't ignored at all shows they still had influence even at this low point
>regional trade
Not really, I mean the middle ages can be said to have lasted 1000 years so a person could point to a specific year and get whatever answer they want, but England at times did dominate regional trade. The wool trade for example, England started off purely as an exporter with Italians and Flemings handling the actual trade, but following reforms in the 14th century English traders had a more advantageous position and by the 15th had a monopoly on the wool and cloth trade thoughout europe
The wine trade was one in which the English held a strong position thoughout the entire period, with the bay of Biscay being so full of English merchant ships traveling to and from Bordeaux it was sometimes refered to as "the English sea"
>laughable military system than relied primarily on temporarily mobilized yeomanry and knights too poor to afford horses
This is basically all of Europe at this time, and England was one of the first states to move away from it. Adopting a new hired and paid for army helped it dominate the early part of the 100 years war
>stable
No, not England, it was more centralised than perhaps any other european kingdom, but also one that revolved against and deposed it's kings. England was kind of a byword for chaos in France throughout the middle ages
>By area, but England and Castille had a roughly similar population
After the 100Y war they were more politically relevant too
>By area, but England and Castille had a roughly similar population
The Crown of Castille had double the income of the English crown in the 14th century and this of course would only grow with the union with Aragon and gaining a colonial Empire.
i like that their timber framed houses have that distinct look.
i also like that they came up with their very own gothic style.
that's an achievement in my book.
Fun fact, the white parts of those buildings in Tudor times was whitewashed wattle and daub. That's an internal frame of freshly cut thin tree limbs wrapped around pegs and stacked high, the covered with a claylike mixture of mud and dung. Then painted white.
comfy
This architectural style comes from Germany and Francr, not England
>WE
Nice try, Hansel
England's fortunes waxed and waned. It may have retreated into itself at times, and experienced a degree of isolation at others, but it also established itself as a respectable power with its victories in - and over - France and the Low Countries (hence why it was considered a true nation in the ecumenical councils of the later Middle Ages, despite French objections)
So was Sweden and Denmark and they were nothing more than a smaller worse version of England
That's a comfy Tudor building behind them innit
England was a third world country after the Protestant Revolution
*Before
It was part of the wider cultural Francosphere like Flanders, Burgundy, Brittany, Lorraine etc. The only reason why it didn't become regular part of France in the age of centralized states is because it's an island.
strange then that the French themselves considered the English a Teutonic people related to the Germans
You think English knights fought on foot because they couldn't afford horses? Are you a genuine moron? Not trolling, do you have medical conditions that cause you to have significantly reduced intelligence?
England only really picked up steam under Big 'Enry and his daughter Liz
not really, no