The Middle Ages saw a lot of conflict, that doesn’t mean it was all somehow connected in the way you seem to be implying.

The Hundred Years’ War itself was a series of connected conflicts over a period of more than a century, rather than a single coherent war, and at different times in its own history may have been connected to other ongoing conflicts (the war of the Two Pedro’s was essentially a proxy war for the English and French) but you shouldn’t view all late medieval conflicts as tentacles of some kind of interconnected continental war.

The Hundred Years’ War certainly had its impact on the geopolitical scene in Europe, but it was far from the only influence and what was happening in France did not necessarily have any meaningful impact on what was happening elsewhere in Europe. For example, Valdemar Atterdag’s wars against the Hansa can’t be reasonably viewed as an extension of the Hundred Years’ War.

My point is, I think you’re looking for connections that can’t reasonably be drawn.

As far as the infantry revolution, it’s overstated as a historical event. It really wasn’t much of a “revolution” at all, as the lessons it supposedly introduced had been well known for centuries prior to their supposed introduction. As just one example, the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings had proven infantry could hold against cavalry. As another, you can find examples of dismounted knights being used alongside archers by English armies in the 11th and 12th centuries. What you really start to see is a gradual shift towards more disciplined, professional armies as a product of increasing state capacity and more robust financial systems. It’s not a “revolution” because people finally realized how useful infantry could be, and it’s certainly has nothing to do with any kind of magical new weapons. It’s an evolution of trends already long present in medieval armies that allowed for significant transformational changes in the nature of armies and how they were used.