So where are getting the idea English politics preceding Henry VI and the War of the Roses and the end of the Hundred Years War were in such turmoil?
Christopher Thomas Allmand retired professor of Medieval History from the University of Liverpool, England.
The Hundred Years War: England and France at War, c.1300-c.1450, Cambridge University Press, 1988
Braudel, Fernand
The Perspective of the World, Vol III of
Civilization and Capitalism 1984
And scores of other professional historians.
Where are you getting the idea that it wasn't?
Political and social instability was a prominent feature in both France and England at the time of the Hundred Years War and certainly in the era preceeding Henry VI and the War of the Roses to answer your question. Like the French peasant revolts of 1358, who carried the burden of the exorbitant taxes to help raise the ransom price of John II after Poitiers, the English peasant revolt thirty years later in 1381 was also aimed at the English aristocracy. Due to a population decrease, there was also labor shortage in England by the 1380s. In addition, the feudal aristocracy used their power to keep wages low. The English rebellion spread from Essex then in Kent and Canterbury. The target of their violence were the feudal lords and their properties.
In addition to the political turmoil going on in 14th century England and France, there was also the issue of plague, climate change, soil exhaustion, and agricultural decline. The agricultural production of the High Middle Ages began to exceed the limits of the agricultural economy and the onset of what is known as the Little Ice age cooled the climate which in turn shortened the growing season. Increase in rainfall also increased flooding hence agriculture was drastically affected especially in Northern Europe including England. The Hundred Years War only further excacerbated the agricultural decline.
Also, in terms of population, France was at 17 million, while England had 4 million at the beginning of the Hundred Years War. And despite the plague, and famine that took its toll on the population, France continued to have more population and thus more manpower than England. (Mc Evedy, Colin, and Richard Jones,
Atlas of World Population History. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1978, pp. 41–43, 55–58. )
So in terms of manpower alone, England was at a disadvantage.
Finally, you keep harping on about the English not being defeated had Henry V still been in charge. That I'm afraid is a value judgement that's difficult if not impossible to prove, given the external factors beyond anyone's control taking place in Europe. In this respect, English loss in the Hundred Years War can also in large part be attributed to the natural catastrophe taking place in Europe at the time, (which I'm afraid not even Henry V) could have controlled. This again should not detract from the fact that the French also had home court advantage, learned from the folly of its bullheaded tactics of brute force, by now engaging the English in more fabian tactics, (wearing them out further), professionalization of the French army from a feudal one, as well as the fact that the Hundred Years War turned the French army into the best army in Europe. If the French army learned anything from this war, it was the inneficiency of the old feudal levy. The old warrior nobles couldn't be relied on too much on long campaigns. Many of them turned mercenary and to downright banditry during peacetime because they refused to disband until the sovereign has paid them in full. The French ordinances established the professionalization of the army by enabling the French monarch raise permanent units of Gendarme companies of 15 each with one hunded lances. These men signed a contract which established the amount of time they were to be kept in service. By 1534 the composition of these companies change to 40 heavy gendarmes and sixty mounted archers. With the advances of firearms technology, 50 arquebusier light cavalry was added to the companies. Sixteenth century warfare is epitomized by these Gendarme companies who were reknowned for their elan and reckless courage which as I said previously if propery used could turn an enemy to route. In this respect, the French army can be compared to the earlier Roman army who's humiliating losses at the hands of Hannibal made it possible for them to adapt. The French may have taken over a hundred years to adapt, but when they did they turned France into the most dominant country on the continent for until atleast the Napoleonic defeat.