Hello there ! Sorry for being that late to dig up this question, but I'll try and answer it the best I can.

First thing first, as you may have guessed, I'm French myself, and that is my experience I'll use to give you an idea of the narrative we developed on this subject. Also, I will rely mainly on my personal experience (which I know is a flaw), but I'll still give you a list of "good" French books on the period, so that you can make your own mind on this (being able to read French is, alas, required).

In order to give you the most complete answer, I'll divide my post in two parts : before university and in university. Once again, I'd like you to note that because this part of history has been my specialty in the university, I have both a precise and overly-narrow view on the question. Also, this reflects my experience of French history at school in the 2000's (I entered university in 2011).

Now let's begin with this.

The Hundred Years War is considered an important part of the history of France, especially because it fueled (and go on fueling) our rivalry with the damn Brits. It is a major part of what used to be called the "Roman national" (National novel), a concept of the XIXth century that tried to demonstrate and teach that France has been here for a long time and only evolved through time in a generally glorious history. This kind of history was especially concerned about battles, great leaders, kings, revolutions, and political turmoil (which, let's be honest, we did not lack). One famous sentence we have all heard (although it's not necessarily taught anymore, it's more part of popular culture) is "Nos ancêtres les Gaulois" : our ancestors the Gauls. It is a great example of the idea of an immortal France, that have existed for centuries. This explains why Vercingétorix, for example, is considered as a major part of the nation's history.

This ideas were also carried in the context of the late XIXth century, in which the IIIrd Republic was only just born, and born out of a defeat against Prussia. It meant to build a national spirit and gather people around a common and glorious history.

Nowadays, however, things do have evolved a little. A effort has been made to focus on economical, social, artistic points of view too. Still, history in school, as I remember it, was mainly axed on politics, wars and kings.

Now the Hundred Years War had to fit in this narrative. It was also influenced by English sources, Shakespeare's Henry V, for example, but we will come to that later. Therefore, the war generally is divided in two periods, which do not totally fit the two parts of the war that did exist. There is before Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc) and after Jeanne d'Arc.

Before Jeanne d'Arc is generally treated as a succession of disasters and terrible battles. One central idea is that French knights were kinda stupid/blinded by there lust for glory. The battles of Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Azincourt (Agincourt, 1415) are viewed as three time the exact same battle, with little differences in outcomes. The defeat generally is attributed to the failure of French knights who supposedly charged in disorder and without permission (I only exaggerate a little). The major differences in forces, configuration, military strategies and reasons for failure are totally overlooked for understandable reasons (not every kid is interested in in-depth medieval military strategy and the subject is quite tough and long to learn not for much result).

The comes Jeanne d'Arc, and she saves the kingdom. She rallies the party of the Dauphin (to-be Charles VII), lead captains into battle, fight valiantly for "bouter les Anglois hors de France" (kick the English out of France), is finally captured and executed after a show trial. Yet her courage and sacrifice rekindled the French spirit and the English only start loosing after that, until the final battle of Castillon (1453).

The question of the civil war between the Armagnacs and Bourguignons is generally overlooked, or taught very quickly (once again, tough topic, hard to understand, ...). We generally not hear about the Bourguignons before 1419 and their alliance with the English, and not much after the 1430-1440's and Jeanne d'Arc death and them switching side. They are seen as the "bad guys" and traitors when they are mentioned.

A part that has been developed too is the one of the "suffering of the people", so to speak. Great companies, plundering, revolts, marching armies and their impact on the people are mentioned too.

Of all that, some "characters" emerge : Charles VI le Fol, Charles VII, Jean II le Bon, sometimes Bertrand du Guesclin and, obviously, Jeanne d'Arc. She is herself the single most important person of the war for the average French, and one of the most important people of the history of the country. I cannot count the number of places, streets or avenues Jeanne d'Arc in France. There are plenty.

She is only seen on the bright side, of course, the innocent and pure little girl that rose to arms, convinced everyone in a male world and made Charles VII king. No notice is made of her sometimes dubious military skills and decisions. She is remembered for fighting in the frontline in at least two occasions : the sieges of Orléans and Paris (were she is wounded both times).

After her death, things go really fast : France is reunited quickly, the English are driven back (except for Calais) and the King is rightfully restored. We do not go into details.

​

Now for the second part : university.

Things, obviously, go much more in depth. They also deconstruct the pre-made ideas we learnt at school and give us a better point of view on things, more precise and fair (ie : the English aren't the bad guys anymore).

Funnily enough, they also deconstruct our vision of medieval societies and especially of French knights. As I said, they are seen are rather stubborn and thirsty for glory, which is partly true. Partly only. This is were I learnt for the first time about Shakespeare (in?)famous Henry V, and the damage it has done in our perception of French knights. His depiction of the French camps before Agincourt showing them as drunkards, bragging, so sure of victory and all, which does not really reflect reality.

There isn't much more to say about the way the Hundred Years War in French university, since it is taught the same way as other subjects are, yet I thought it was important to talk about it a bit, for you not to leave with a biased idea of how it is taught in France. The pity (in a way), being that you must wait until university to have a more neutral and realist idea of the Hundred Years War.

​

To specifically answer your question , the main battles are : Crécy, Poitiers, Agincourt, Castillon (you will notice that with the exception of "last battle of the war", all are English victories, French ones are overlooked).

​

Now if you're interested in the subject and want to learn it from a French point of view, I shall recommend :

- AUTRAND, Françoise, Charles VI : la folie du roi, Paris, Fayard, 1986.

- CONTAMINE, Philippe, La guerre de Cent ans, Paris, PUF, coll. « Que sais-je ? histoire-géographie » (no 1309), 2010, 9th ed. (1st ed. 1968).

- CONTAMINE, Philippe, La Vie quotidienne pendant la guerre de Cent ans : France et Angleterre (XIVe siècle), Paris, Hachette, coll. « La Vie quotidienne », 1976.

- PERROY, Edouard, La Guerre de Cent Ans, Paris, 1976 (1st ed. 1945). This one is a bit old, but it still is an excellent one, I recommend it twice !

- SCHNERB, Bertrand, Armagnacs et Bourguignons : la maudite guerre, Paris, Perrin, coll. « Tempus » (no 282), 2009.