I would like a general understanding of diplomacy in England and France during the hundred years war.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 6:10 am ad1c9bdddf
See the attachment.
Let me give you the bullet points on this topic. Consider this a rough outline with some sources to give you a general idea of the nature of diplomacy at the time:
There was no specialized department of diplomatic relations among any of the combatants. This came later. However, there was a huge increase in diplomatic (ad hoc) contacts throughout the war itself. England came the closest to a professional staff, and even had people who specialized in specific areas. The French did not. However, there is an argument that the papacy had a fully trained diplomatic staff in the form of nuncios found the capital of every European country.
Truces, such as those negotiated at Malestroit, were only negotiated so the two sides can rest and prepare for war. In other words, diplomacy was mostly about duplicity. At the negotiations at Troyes, the English continued to reject the French using French, since they could not understand it. They would not agree on translators, and there is some reason to believe that they could speak French, since many of them had estates there.
Significantly, diplomats in this war were the first to receive extensive legal training. But this might well be to create conflicts over technicalities that would delay the proceedings, permitting their home government to increase war preparations. In many cases, diplomats were seen as spies and treated harshly.
Diplomatic negotiations, once settled, had a tendency to be put in ritual and dramatic form. They were acted out in ceremonies that were almost liturgical. This gave ...
The solution discusses diplomacy in the Hundred Years War.