|
Post by guyverman1990 on Sept 24, 2018 12:54:28 GMT
Hey everyone, Guyverman is back after a long hiatus. For a while now I have been interested in the Plantagenet Dynasty of England, primarily due to it’s influence on fiction depicted in Game of Thrones and not to mention that I have ancestry involved in aforementioned history. Anyways on to the point.
As we all know both England and France fought a war over succession with one another staring in 1337 when King Edward III of England laid claim to the French throne as he was the grandson of Philip IV of France on his mother’s side. While he ultimately did not achieve his goal, his great-grandson Henry V arguably did in 1422, had it not been for an untimely death due to dysentery. I during the reign of Henry V’s son, Henry VI, all what was left of the once vast Plantagenet empire was lost to the French crown in 1453. This would soon pave way for the Wars of the Roses, a 30 year conflict in which the two offshoot branches of House Plantagenet, York and Lancaster waged for kingship of England.
There are two possible POD’s for an English victory in the Hundred Years‘ War. One is where Edward III is more successful and another in which Henry V does not contract dysentery. How would this affect European history in your opinion? I for one believe that we would eventually see an even bigger and more British Empire. Also, is there a possibility that The War of The Roses could’ve been butterflied away? I believe that would be the case.
Elaborate at will ladies and gentlemen. Guyverman out.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Sept 24, 2018 15:12:46 GMT
Hey everyone, Guyverman is back after a long hiatus. For a while now I have been interested in the Plantagenet Dynasty of England, primarily due to it’s influence on fiction depicted in Game of Thrones and not to mention that I have ancestry involved in aforementioned history. Anyways on to the point. As we all know both England and France fought a war over succession with one another staring in 1337 when King Edward III of England laid claim to the French throne as he was the grandson of the Philip IV of France on his mother’s side. While he ultimately did not achieve his goal, his great-grandson Henry V arguably did in 1422, had it not been for an untimely death due to dysentery. I during the reign of Henry V’s son, Henry VI, all what was left of the once vast Plantagenet empire was lost to the French crown in 1453. This would soon pave way for the Wars of the Roses, a 30 year conflict in which the two offshoot branches of House Plantagenet, York and Lancaster waged for kingship of England. There are two possible POD’s for an English victory in the Hundred Years‘ War. One is where Edward III is more successful and another in which Henry V does not contract dysentery. How would this affect European history in your opinion? I for one believe that we would eventually see an even bigger and more British Empire. Also, is there a possibility that The War of The Roses could’ve been butterflied away? I believe that would be the case. Elaborate at will ladies and gentlemen. Guyverman out.
I think the big problem with an 'English' victory that sees a Plantagenet monarch for France is that it would become a French centred state which would cause growing resentment in the outlaying areas, Which would almost certainly include England and could well include regions like Gascony, Brittany, Burgundy, Flanders and the Langdocu region of SE France as well as probably, Ireland, Wales and possibly Scotland as that's likely to be incorporated at some point. Depending on the result some of those areas are likely to regain their independence and others incorporated in a possibly more centralised France.
England under Edward III was finally re-establishing its national identity again after 1066 with English becoming the language of court and legislation again so a new 'French' domination as it would be seen is likely to be deeply unpopular in much of the country so I would expect resistance there if France becomes the dominant factor in the kingdom, which would be almost certain given its great wealth and population.
The best option for the Plantagenet's for a prolonged greater power might be a result that means negotiations that I believe were discussed in ~1360 for Edward to drop his claim for the French throne but France in turn recognises Aquitaine, preferably also including Brittany as a fully separate kingdom under Edward's rule. Say John II of France wasn't captured at Poitiers, hence the war continues at full force for a little while and after a couple of more bloody victories for the English both sides decide on such a compromise. This could see a lasting balance between the British and continental parts of the Plantagenet kingdom, especially since the latter would still see threats from France and probably at some stage from a Spanish/Iberian state.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 15, 2018 20:03:55 GMT
Hey everyone, Guyverman is back after a long hiatus. For a while now I have been interested in the Plantagenet Dynasty of England, primarily due to it’s influence on fiction depicted in Game of Thrones and not to mention that I have ancestry involved in aforementioned history. Anyways on to the point. As we all know both England and France fought a war over succession with one another staring in 1337 when King Edward III of England laid claim to the French throne as he was the grandson of the Philip IV of France on his mother’s side. While he ultimately did not achieve his goal, his great-grandson Henry V arguably did in 1422, had it not been for an untimely death due to dysentery. I during the reign of Henry V’s son, Henry VI, all what was left of the once vast Plantagenet empire was lost to the French crown in 1453. This would soon pave way for the Wars of the Roses, a 30 year conflict in which the two offshoot branches of House Plantagenet, York and Lancaster waged for kingship of England. There are two possible POD’s for an English victory in the Hundred Years‘ War. One is where Edward III is more successful and another in which Henry V does not contract dysentery. How would this affect European history in your opinion? I for one believe that we would eventually see an even bigger and more British Empire. Also, is there a possibility that The War of The Roses could’ve been butterflied away? I believe that would be the case. Elaborate at will ladies and gentlemen. Guyverman out.
I think the big problem with an 'English' victory that sees a Plantagenet monarch for France is that it would become a French centred state which would cause growing resentment in the outlaying areas, Which would almost certainly include England and could well include regions like Gascony, Brittany, Burgundy, Flanders and the Langdocu region of SE France as well as probably, Ireland, Wales and possibly Scotland as that's likely to be incorporated at some point. Depending on the result some of those areas are likely to regain their independence and others incorporated in a possibly more centralised France.
England under Edward III was finally re-establishing its national identity again after 1066 with English becoming the language of court and legislation again so a new 'French' domination as it would be seen is likely to be deeply unpopular in much of the country so I would expect resistance there if France becomes the dominant factor in the kingdom, which would be almost certain given its great wealth and population.
The best option for the Plantagenet's for a prolonged greater power might be a result that means negotiations that I believe were discussed in ~1360 for Edward to drop his claim for the French throne but France in turn recognises Aquitaine, preferably also including Brittany as a fully separate kingdom under Edward's rule. Say John II of France wasn't captured at Poitiers, hence the war continues at full force for a little while and after a couple of more bloody victories for the English both sides decide on such a compromise. This could see a lasting balance between the British and continental parts of the Plantagenet kingdom, especially since the latter would still see threats from France and probably at some stage from a Spanish/Iberian state.
I agree with everything that you wrote here, Steve. That said, though, having England control both Aquitaine and Brittany might significantly anger France in the long(er)-run since France would have its access to the Atlantic Ocean either completely cut off or severely restricted. Of course, England could try offering support for France to expand eastward instead, but I don't know that France would have been willing to view eastern expansion as a substitute for good access to the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, France could try to both expand to the east and fight England in Aquitaine and Brittany.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 15, 2018 22:29:14 GMT
I think the big problem with an 'English' victory that sees a Plantagenet monarch for France is that it would become a French centred state which would cause growing resentment in the outlaying areas, Which would almost certainly include England and could well include regions like Gascony, Brittany, Burgundy, Flanders and the Langdocu region of SE France as well as probably, Ireland, Wales and possibly Scotland as that's likely to be incorporated at some point. Depending on the result some of those areas are likely to regain their independence and others incorporated in a possibly more centralised France.
England under Edward III was finally re-establishing its national identity again after 1066 with English becoming the language of court and legislation again so a new 'French' domination as it would be seen is likely to be deeply unpopular in much of the country so I would expect resistance there if France becomes the dominant factor in the kingdom, which would be almost certain given its great wealth and population.
The best option for the Plantagenet's for a prolonged greater power might be a result that means negotiations that I believe were discussed in ~1360 for Edward to drop his claim for the French throne but France in turn recognises Aquitaine, preferably also including Brittany as a fully separate kingdom under Edward's rule. Say John II of France wasn't captured at Poitiers, hence the war continues at full force for a little while and after a couple of more bloody victories for the English both sides decide on such a compromise. This could see a lasting balance between the British and continental parts of the Plantagenet kingdom, especially since the latter would still see threats from France and probably at some stage from a Spanish/Iberian state.
I agree with everything that you wrote here, Steve. That said, though, having England control both Aquitaine and Brittany might significantly anger France in the long(er)-run since France would have its access to the Atlantic Ocean either completely cut off or severely restricted. Of course, England could try offering support for France to expand eastward instead, but I don't know that France would have been willing to view eastern expansion as a substitute for good access to the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, France could try to both expand to the east and fight England in Aquitaine and Brittany.
I'm working on the basis that Aquitaine, including Brittany may well over time identify themselves clearly as non-French and as such bitterly hostile to French attempts to control them. Coupled with French distractions on other fronts and support from 'England' - since that will probably include Wales and Ireland to a greater or lesser degree - that should be strong enough to beat off French pressure and hence generate a stability between the two nations that while they may often go to war the borders don't change much either way. [Its also about the largest Plantagenet state/kingdom that isn't likely to split up due to differences between the main parts. Basically Aquitaine needs England to help protect against France and England doesn't feel overwhelmed by the dynasties French possessions as it would if they ruled pretty much all of France. Of course there is the likelihood of conflict at times, possibly due to a monarch being see as too favourable to one region over another, possibly a split between two claimants to the throne or if/when a reformation begins as different parts of the greater kingdom could well end up on different sides of the religious divide.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 15, 2018 22:38:12 GMT
I agree with everything that you wrote here, Steve. That said, though, having England control both Aquitaine and Brittany might significantly anger France in the long(er)-run since France would have its access to the Atlantic Ocean either completely cut off or severely restricted. Of course, England could try offering support for France to expand eastward instead, but I don't know that France would have been willing to view eastern expansion as a substitute for good access to the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, France could try to both expand to the east and fight England in Aquitaine and Brittany.
1. I'm working on the basis that Aquitaine, including Brittany may well over time identify themselves clearly as non-French and as such bitterly hostile to French attempts to control them. Coupled with French distractions on other fronts and support from 'England' - since that will probably include Wales and Ireland to a greater or lesser degree - that should be strong enough to beat off French pressure and hence generate a stability between the two nations that while they may often go to war the borders don't change much either way. [Its also about the largest Plantagenet state/kingdom that isn't likely to split up due to differences between the main parts. Basically Aquitaine needs England to help protect against France and England doesn't feel overwhelmed by the dynasties French possessions as it would if they ruled pretty much all of France. Of course there is the likelihood of conflict at times, possibly due to a monarch being see as too favourable to one region over another, possibly a split between two claimants to the throne or if/when a reformation begins as different parts of the greater kingdom could well end up on different sides of the religious divide.
1. That's a good point, but what is their population during this time? If France's population is much larger, they will be able to rule Aquitaine and Brittany through brute force if they are ever able to conquer these regions from England. Of course, you are correct that England's military muscle could make it hard for France to conquer these territories--in which case France's only option really would be expansion to the east. Agreed that an England which only controls Aquitaine and Brittany would be more likely to remain English in the long(er)-run. Also, if there are any civil wars in England in this TL, I would eagerly expect French Kings to exploit them in an attempt to split England into two parts and make Brittany and Aquitaine French vassal states. In regards to the Reformation, one would think that if England wanted to impose the Church of England (if it is still formed in this TL, which certainly isn't guaranteed) throughout all of its territories, it would have been capable of doing this. However, given that Ireland mostly remained Catholic in spite of being under English rule, I could very well be wrong in regards to this. Also, I wonder if an England which controls Aquitaine and Brittany would eventually be interested in conquering Basque Country and perhaps additional territory in what is now northern Spain? After all, if England wants to have an Atlantic Empire, it might as well go all the way in regards to this.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 16, 2018 10:30:57 GMT
1. I'm working on the basis that Aquitaine, including Brittany may well over time identify themselves clearly as non-French and as such bitterly hostile to French attempts to control them. Coupled with French distractions on other fronts and support from 'England' - since that will probably include Wales and Ireland to a greater or lesser degree - that should be strong enough to beat off French pressure and hence generate a stability between the two nations that while they may often go to war the borders don't change much either way. [Its also about the largest Plantagenet state/kingdom that isn't likely to split up due to differences between the main parts. Basically Aquitaine needs England to help protect against France and England doesn't feel overwhelmed by the dynasties French possessions as it would if they ruled pretty much all of France. Of course there is the likelihood of conflict at times, possibly due to a monarch being see as too favourable to one region over another, possibly a split between two claimants to the throne or if/when a reformation begins as different parts of the greater kingdom could well end up on different sides of the religious divide.
1. That's a good point, but what is their population during this time? If France's population is much larger, they will be able to rule Aquitaine and Brittany through brute force if they are ever able to conquer these regions from England. Of course, you are correct that England's military muscle could make it hard for France to conquer these territories--in which case France's only option really would be expansion to the east. Agreed that an England which only controls Aquitaine and Brittany would be more likely to remain English in the long(er)-run. Also, if there are any civil wars in England in this TL, I would eagerly expect French Kings to exploit them in an attempt to split England into two parts and make Brittany and Aquitaine French vassal states. In regards to the Reformation, one would think that if England wanted to impose the Church of England (if it is still formed in this TL, which certainly isn't guaranteed) throughout all of its territories, it would have been capable of doing this. However, given that Ireland mostly remained Catholic in spite of being under English rule, I could very well be wrong in regards to this. Also, I wonder if an England which controls Aquitaine and Brittany would eventually be interested in conquering Basque Country and perhaps additional territory in what is now northern Spain? After all, if England wants to have an Atlantic Empire, it might as well go all the way in regards to this.
Not sure on the population. Think the western areas of modern France were somewhat smaller than the east or even the south but could be wrong. Historically the centres of power has generally been in the NE regions and especially around Paris. However it depends on how the various forces interact as even a smaller state in terms of overall population can hold its own against a larger one if fighting for its independence, especially if the larger state has potential threats on its other borders. Plus the proposed kingdom while it might have less prime agricultural land is going to have a lot of wealth from the sea, both in terms of fisheries and potential trade which could help counter this imbalance. Also a defeated France might suffer other centripetal pressures, with a significantly different culture in the south for instance and the OTL separation of what became a powerful Burgundy state for the best part of a century.
Basically I was trying to think of a way where an English 'victory' has a stable outcome for the medium term, say for a century or so. After that things might collapse for various reasons or the resultant 'state' might have a strong enough sense of identity to endure. Do have a loose TL on this scenario with an additional complication relating to Flanders and internal dissent inside the rump France which leads to the Plantagenet empire becoming the largest and most important state in western Europe - including some lands in the Levant due to a crusading king - before overstretch and the reformation breaks it up.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 18, 2018 0:18:42 GMT
1. That's a good point, but what is their population during this time? If France's population is much larger, they will be able to rule Aquitaine and Brittany through brute force if they are ever able to conquer these regions from England. Of course, you are correct that England's military muscle could make it hard for France to conquer these territories--in which case France's only option really would be expansion to the east. Agreed that an England which only controls Aquitaine and Brittany would be more likely to remain English in the long(er)-run. Also, if there are any civil wars in England in this TL, I would eagerly expect French Kings to exploit them in an attempt to split England into two parts and make Brittany and Aquitaine French vassal states. In regards to the Reformation, one would think that if England wanted to impose the Church of England (if it is still formed in this TL, which certainly isn't guaranteed) throughout all of its territories, it would have been capable of doing this. However, given that Ireland mostly remained Catholic in spite of being under English rule, I could very well be wrong in regards to this. Also, I wonder if an England which controls Aquitaine and Brittany would eventually be interested in conquering Basque Country and perhaps additional territory in what is now northern Spain? After all, if England wants to have an Atlantic Empire, it might as well go all the way in regards to this.
Not sure on the population. Think the western areas of modern France were somewhat smaller than the east or even the south but could be wrong. Historically the centres of power has generally been in the NE regions and especially around Paris. However it depends on how the various forces interact as even a smaller state in terms of overall population can hold its own against a larger one if fighting for its independence, especially if the larger state has potential threats on its other borders. Plus the proposed kingdom while it might have less prime agricultural land is going to have a lot of wealth from the sea, both in terms of fisheries and potential trade which could help counter this imbalance. Also a defeated France might suffer other centripetal pressures, with a significantly different culture in the south for instance and the OTL separation of what became a powerful Burgundy state for the best part of a century.
Basically I was trying to think of a way where an English 'victory' has a stable outcome for the medium term, say for a century or so. After that things might collapse for various reasons or the resultant 'state' might have a strong enough sense of identity to endure. Do have a loose TL on this scenario with an additional complication relating to Flanders and internal dissent inside the rump France which leads to the Plantagenet empire becoming the largest and most important state in western Europe - including some lands in the Levant due to a crusading king - before overstretch and the reformation breaks it up. Good points, Steve! Also, where is this TL of yours, Steve? In addition to this, a weaker France combined with a lack of Atlantic coastline for France (or, at the very least, a much shorter Atlantic coastline for France) would probably mean that there would be less French exploration and colonization in this TL, no?
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 18, 2018 8:52:13 GMT
Not sure on the population. Think the western areas of modern France were somewhat smaller than the east or even the south but could be wrong. Historically the centres of power has generally been in the NE regions and especially around Paris. However it depends on how the various forces interact as even a smaller state in terms of overall population can hold its own against a larger one if fighting for its independence, especially if the larger state has potential threats on its other borders. Plus the proposed kingdom while it might have less prime agricultural land is going to have a lot of wealth from the sea, both in terms of fisheries and potential trade which could help counter this imbalance. Also a defeated France might suffer other centripetal pressures, with a significantly different culture in the south for instance and the OTL separation of what became a powerful Burgundy state for the best part of a century.
Basically I was trying to think of a way where an English 'victory' has a stable outcome for the medium term, say for a century or so. After that things might collapse for various reasons or the resultant 'state' might have a strong enough sense of identity to endure. Do have a loose TL on this scenario with an additional complication relating to Flanders and internal dissent inside the rump France which leads to the Plantagenet empire becoming the largest and most important state in western Europe - including some lands in the Levant due to a crusading king - before overstretch and the reformation breaks it up. Good points, Steve! Also, where is this TL of yours, Steve? In addition to this, a weaker France combined with a lack of Atlantic coastline for France (or, at the very least, a much shorter Atlantic coastline for France) would probably mean that there would be less French exploration and colonization in this TL, no?
a) Its one of the 100+ I have in my mind or occasionally with some brief notes that I have thought of during the decades and never got around to actually posting anywhere.
b) Very likely, as its probably going to be even more than OTL a continental power with a large army for defence/expansion. Although other relatively small states or ones with limited coastlines have had substantial overseas empires so not impossible. PLus it would depend on how long this Plantagenet colossus survives and what happens if/when it falters. However if it survives and there is continued tension with a rump France the latter is extremely unlikely to be able to build up much of an empire as that would be continually under threat, which apart from anything else would make it an economically risky project.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 27, 2018 0:00:33 GMT
Good points, Steve! Also, where is this TL of yours, Steve? In addition to this, a weaker France combined with a lack of Atlantic coastline for France (or, at the very least, a much shorter Atlantic coastline for France) would probably mean that there would be less French exploration and colonization in this TL, no?
a) Its one of the 100+ I have in my mind or occasionally with some brief notes that I have thought of during the decades and never got around to actually posting anywhere.
b) Very likely, as its probably going to be even more than OTL a continental power with a large army for defence/expansion. Although other relatively small states or ones with limited coastlines have had substantial overseas empires so not impossible. PLus it would depend on how long this Plantagenet colossus survives and what happens if/when it falters. However if it survives and there is continued tension with a rump France the latter is extremely unlikely to be able to build up much of an empire as that would be continually under threat, which apart from anything else would make it an economically risky project.
A. Well, if you'll ever post it anywhere, please let me know. B. All of this appears to make sense.
|
|