Dan Jones

So you have this French civil war with the Burgundians, followers of John the Fearless on the one hand, and the Armagnacs on the other. And they're constantly at each other's throats. So this provides a perfect opportunity, if you like, for the English to try and insert themselves as a third party in the civil war for their own advantage.

So you have this French civil war with the Burgundians, followers of John the Fearless on the one hand, and the Armagnacs on the other. And they're constantly at each other's throats. So this provides a perfect opportunity, if you like, for the English to try and insert themselves as a third party in the civil war for their own advantage.

Throughout Henry IV's reign, there's always this question of, do you side with the Burgundians? Do you side with the Armagnacs? They go back and forth. Henry V always prefers the Burgundians. He teams up with John the Fearless periodically once he becomes king. But his overriding goal is always to leverage this French civil war to get as much out of it for the English as possible.

Throughout Henry IV's reign, there's always this question of, do you side with the Burgundians? Do you side with the Armagnacs? They go back and forth. Henry V always prefers the Burgundians. He teams up with John the Fearless periodically once he becomes king. But his overriding goal is always to leverage this French civil war to get as much out of it for the English as possible.

Throughout Henry IV's reign, there's always this question of, do you side with the Burgundians? Do you side with the Armagnacs? They go back and forth. Henry V always prefers the Burgundians. He teams up with John the Fearless periodically once he becomes king. But his overriding goal is always to leverage this French civil war to get as much out of it for the English as possible.

So at all moments, he's trying to play the two sides off against one another for his own military, political, territorial advantage.

So at all moments, he's trying to play the two sides off against one another for his own military, political, territorial advantage.

So at all moments, he's trying to play the two sides off against one another for his own military, political, territorial advantage.

Yeah. It's not a disease of our time, although it is a disease that is particularly severe in our time, of casting moral judgments over past ages, which happen to work to a completely different standard of behavior. You mentioned Andrew Roberts. Andrew is a brilliant scholar. I like him a lot. He's a great man. and a brilliant historian.

Yeah. It's not a disease of our time, although it is a disease that is particularly severe in our time, of casting moral judgments over past ages, which happen to work to a completely different standard of behavior. You mentioned Andrew Roberts. Andrew is a brilliant scholar. I like him a lot. He's a great man. and a brilliant historian.

Yeah. It's not a disease of our time, although it is a disease that is particularly severe in our time, of casting moral judgments over past ages, which happen to work to a completely different standard of behavior. You mentioned Andrew Roberts. Andrew is a brilliant scholar. I like him a lot. He's a great man. and a brilliant historian.

In the book of his, I suppose, that springs to mind as you're speaking is not just his Napoleon, but his Churchill as well.

In the book of his, I suppose, that springs to mind as you're speaking is not just his Napoleon, but his Churchill as well.

In the book of his, I suppose, that springs to mind as you're speaking is not just his Napoleon, but his Churchill as well.

And Andrew is a great fan of Churchill and read a very favorable biography to Churchill, an excellent biography, which attracted a degree of criticism because it's fashionable now to say of Churchill, he was a warmonger, he was a racist, he was an imperialist, he was really saying, he's just a sort of mildly old-fashioned guy in his own day.

And Andrew is a great fan of Churchill and read a very favorable biography to Churchill, an excellent biography, which attracted a degree of criticism because it's fashionable now to say of Churchill, he was a warmonger, he was a racist, he was an imperialist, he was really saying, he's just a sort of mildly old-fashioned guy in his own day.

And Andrew is a great fan of Churchill and read a very favorable biography to Churchill, an excellent biography, which attracted a degree of criticism because it's fashionable now to say of Churchill, he was a warmonger, he was a racist, he was an imperialist, he was really saying, he's just a sort of mildly old-fashioned guy in his own day.

To call Henry V a warmonger is simply to say that he was a medieval king. Those medieval kings who shied away from pursuing warfare, like Richard II, were very, very, very seldom successful. Warfare was, per Clausewitz, politics pursued by other means. I mean, in fact, in the Middle Ages, it was one of the principal means of politics. Warfare was just part of the job.

To call Henry V a warmonger is simply to say that he was a medieval king. Those medieval kings who shied away from pursuing warfare, like Richard II, were very, very, very seldom successful. Warfare was, per Clausewitz, politics pursued by other means. I mean, in fact, in the Middle Ages, it was one of the principal means of politics. Warfare was just part of the job.

To call Henry V a warmonger is simply to say that he was a medieval king. Those medieval kings who shied away from pursuing warfare, like Richard II, were very, very, very seldom successful. Warfare was, per Clausewitz, politics pursued by other means. I mean, in fact, in the Middle Ages, it was one of the principal means of politics. Warfare was just part of the job.