It’s a point of general agreement among medieval military historians that it was sieges and not battles that were the dominant form of warfare. This is generally contrary to the popular depiction of the period, where battles draw far more attention than sieges. Arguably no historical topic has been as dominated by narratives of great victories in the field of battle as the Hundred Years War. The stories of Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt overshadow the sieges of Calais, Harfleur, or Orleans, among others. I am definitely in the camp who believe that sieges have often been neglected in favour of the dramatic battles so I was very excited to pick up a copy of Peter Hoskin’s book which examines the Hundred Years War through its sieges rather than its battles.
This is unsurprisingly a purely military history - you will not get much on dynastic politics and nothing on culture or religion during this period. What Hoskins does is craft a narrative of the Hundred Years War but framed through its many sieges rather than its set piece battles. Agincourt recieves but a scant few lines while Harfleur is a multi-page event, which I’m fully in favour of honestly. Not every siege is included, that would make for a monumental and probably unreadable book, but a sufficient sample is here that all the famous ones are included as well as several less famous but still interesting examples.
Each siege has its own little section which almost makes the book into a series of vignettes covering dozens of individual sieges, but Hoskins also does a good job linking the narratives into a coherent whole. This creates a nice balance where each siege is given its own attention but they are also placed within their broader context. It also means that you don’t need significant pre--existing knowledge of the Hundred Years War to follow the narrative as Hoskins presents it. I would probably still recommend a more general history of the Hundred Years War as your first book on the subject, something like David Green’s The Hundred Years War: A People’s History, because it is such a pure military history so you are missing out on a lot of the key dynamics underpinning the conflict if you just read Hoskins. That said, for people looking for a more military history of the conflict, Hoskins’ book is a great place to start.
The book doesn’t go into very great detail about the general practice of sieges at the time. Instead it focuses more on the specific narratives of the many different sieges that took place over the century long conflict. People interested in more discussion of medieval siege tactics will probably be happier with the books by Peter Purton, which are a more academic treatment of medieval siege warfare as a whole. That said, I think there’s a lot to recommend taking a more focused and specific look at the development of the sieges at the time. Each siege is a distinct event with its own factors to consider beyond just the general tactics of the era. By spending so long on individual sieges rather than picking a few as representative of the whole era Hoskins highlights the differences that made each siege unique but also manages to show the similarities as well. That said, if what you want is a detailed examination of how mining worked during medieval sieges you would be better off with Peter Purton’s The Medieval Siege Engineer.
If I had a problem with Hoskins’ work it would be with the referencing. I think Hoskins has done his research and the bibliography includes some great information, but there are no notes of any kind and often references to chroniclers do not name which chronicler is being referenced. This means that as a starting point for future research the book is not particularly useful. I understand that there is a perception that foot/endnotes are off putting to general readers but I find it very frustrating when I come across an interesting anecdote but have no recourse to finding out more about it! I really wish there were even basic notes included.
I think the thing I liked most about Siege Warfare During the Hundred Years War was the emphasis put on the periods of French dominance. Far too often in English the narrative of the Hundred Years War focuses on the periods of great English victories, mostly during the reigns of Edward III and Henry V, and covers the other periods only in brief. Hoskins doesn’t do this and instead we get some great information on the careers of Bertrand du Guesclin and Jean de Dunois specifically. This creates a much more holistic view of the conflict which is something of an antidote to most popular narratives of the conflict.
Overall, I really enjoyed Peter Hoskins Siege Warfare During the Hundred Years War and I think its an excellent addition to the military history of the Hundred Years War.