another seems to be a natural question....
Because they wanted goods.

[Footnote 97: Jean Chartier, _Chronique de Charles VII_, vol. i, p.
121.]

This perpetual warfare was not sanguinary. During what was described
as Jeanne d'Arc's mission, that is from Orleans to Compiegne, the
French lost barely a few hundred men. The English suffered much more
heavily, because they were the fugitives, and in a rout it was the
custom for the conquerors to kill all those who were not worth holding
to ransom. But battles were rare, and so consequently were defeats,
and the number of the combatants was small. There were but a handful
of English in France. And they may be said to have fought only for
plunder. Those who suffered from the war were those who did not fight,
burghers, priests, and peasants. The peasants endured terrible
hardships, and it is quite conceivable that a peasant girl should have
displayed a firmness in war, a persistence and an ardour unknown
throughout the whole of chivalry.

It was not Jeanne who drove the English from France. If she
contributed to the deliverance of Orleans, she retarded the ultimate
salvation of France by causing the opportunity of conquering Normandy
to be lost through the coronation campaign. The misfortunes of the
English after 1428 are easily explained. While in peaceful Guyenne
they engaged in agriculture, in commerce, in navigation, and set the
finances in good order, the country which they had rendered prosperous
was strongly attached to them. On the banks of the Seine and the Loire
it was very different; there they had never taken root; in numbers
they were always too few, and they had never obtained any hold on the
country. Shut up in fortresses and chateaux, they did not cultivate
the country enough to conquer it, for one must work on the land if one
would take possession of it. They left it waste and abandoned it to
the soldiers of fortune by whom it was ravaged and exhausted. Their
garrisons, absurdly small, were prisoners in the country they had
conquered. The English had long teeth, but a pike cannot swallow an
ox. That they were too few and that France was too big had been
plainly seen after Crecy and after Poitiers. Then, after Verneuil,
during the troubled reign of a child, weakened by civil discord,
lacking men and money, and bound to keep in subjection the countries
of Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, were they likely to succeed better?
In 1428, they were but a handful in F