WI english won the hundred years war?

What could be the consequences of an english victory in the Hundred years war?
Would the english be more involved in continental affairs? How could this affect to the Reformation? To the Habsburg policies in Europe?

Ah, Jeanne the Maid, Jeanne Darc, for there was no such place as Arc and as a peasant girl she was never entitled to the D'(of) alteration.

Sweet Joan, saviour of the English, preserver of English custom and tradition and liberty, for had England triumphed, France would have dominated, Paris would be the capital, and England the colony.

Anyone want to take it from here?

Grimm Reaper said:

Ah, Jeanne the Maid, Jeanne Darc, for there was no such place as Arc and as a peasant girl she was never entitled to the D'(of) alteration.

Sweet Joan, saviour of the English, preserver of English custom and tradition and liberty, for had England triumphed, France would have dominated, Paris would be the capital, and England the colony.

Anyone want to take it from here?

Click to expand...

I think you would wind up with a mixture of French and English cultures with the English language and laws with French art and music.

When did Provence (and Languedoc ?) stop being principalities in theory of the HRE ? With the merger of England and France, might not the peripharies go their own way - Burgundy, Brittany, Provence ? I rather suspect England-France would make sure they held onto Aquitaine though

Grey Wolf

Its true that the french would have dominated the empire culturally and would probably have been the heart. Basically like Greece in the Roman Empire, only a bit worse.

Grey Wolf said:

When did Provence (and Languedoc ?) stop being principalities in theory of the HRE ? With the merger of England and France, might not the peripharies go their own way - Burgundy, Brittany, Provence ? I rather suspect England-France would make sure they held onto Aquitaine though

Grey Wolf

Click to expand...

I think this is quite a good point. OTL France had enough problems in staying coherent. Aswell the british island. So scotland would be a hard one to knock for a state whose center is so far away and of so different habitat.


But I believe it to be ineviteble, that england must go back over the channel. sooner or later. I am a geodeterminist.
If you think this is silly, I can understand.


The example of Jeanne d´Arc, one of the most thrilling figures in history in my eys, showes the dedication of the french people to be united and without the english.
Jeanne was not unique. Several virgins, claiming to be the girl from Lorraine to free france (as an old saga told), showed up before her!!!!
She was the only one to check all tests, which were ablulutly not the easiest.

If she would not have done it, another one would have occured, or something else would have happend-maybe even a male prophet-like person, denying the right of Philip to be the King of france and installing something else. Maybe something less feudal.

From 1032 to 1246 the county was part of the Holy Roman Empire. It became a fief of the French Crown from 1246, under the rule of the Angevin dynasty. It was definitively incorporated into the French royal domain in 1486 after the word missing of Charles of Maine. Significant enclaves existed within Provence for many years afterwards:

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provence

So, it looks like theres a sort of period where its absolute affinity remains uncertain, and that the period in question falls slapbang in the middle of this

Grey Wolf

The answer should be obvious. England and France are both the rightful property of Aquitaine.

Alayta said:

I think this is quite a good point. OTL France had enough problems in staying coherent.

Click to expand...

Yes, because of religious issues. for that matter, the low countries and germany had trouble staying coherent because of them, so I don't see why France's size makes it unique.

Aswell the british island. So scotland would be a hard one to knock for a state whose center is so far away and of so different habitat.

Click to expand...

Because it's there, and because it's annoying.

I'd go with Charles VII falling to his death when a floor breaks; almost happened OTL in 1422.

Faeelin said:

Yes, because of religious issues. for that matter, the low countries and germany had trouble staying coherent because of them, so I don't see why France's size makes it unique.



Because it's there, and because it's annoying.

I'd go with Charles VII falling to his death when a floor breaks; almost happened OTL in 1422.

Click to expand...

Scot, when you comment what you say usually seems erudite and correct, but you are so brief and short that it almost seems like an insult sometimes. I realise you are more used to Usenet and its weird ways, but sometimes when you respond to a post here and give a good insight wouldf you mind providing the background info that backs up what you say as well ?

Grey Wolf

Of course; sorry if it came off jackassish, i was in a hurry.

it's just that England has a history of meddling in Scotland; there was a frothing hatred between the two countries at times, and Scotland had a traditional alliance with France.

Now France is part of the dynasty that has spent a few decades trying to conquer Scotland. Err, that's not good.

Of course, the French half would be more interested in the low countries and so forth, but there's no reason that the Plantagenets in Paris couldn't focus on both. The Valois dynasty could focus on different places, of course.

Of course, I don't think an english conquest of France for decades is particularly plausible. The duke of bedford, who was regent in France after Henry V's death, was very competent and a damn good general. Even he had trouble; there weren't enough Englishmen to go around. The high tide that England reached was largley do to the Burgundian rift with the Valois. Once the Burgundians switched sides in 1435, the English position collapsed.

A more succcessful England is possible, of course. If charles VII dies in 1422, the French cause is shot. I can't see any potential claimants after him, so Bedford wins by default.

But... the king of England is insane. Once that happens, things in France are going to get messy, as especially as southern Frane is never likely to be particularly loyal. We might see the house of Savoy lead a resurgence in the Kingdom of the Arelate, or perhaps the Swiss take Lyons.

With an insane Henry VI, and the English position in France being chaotic, Phillip the Bold might exploit the rift there. Why fight for the crown of Lotharingia when he could be King of the Franks?

So we may have another conflict: the english king, who is insane, has to deal with Phillip "the bold" and the aspirations of the Occitanian people. But I don't think they'll look in Savoy for a crowned head as less than one century before they were vasals of the king of Aragon (not to mention they are culturally closer).

So we have three powers involved:

England who won the war but seems to be unable to secure the whole kingdom,
Burgundy is the rising power in France,
Aragon that could try to take back the french mediterranean lands that were lost during the reign of Peter III.

Maybe we could have France partitioned?

I would certainly ask how much Henry VI was the product of his upbringing. An English victory in this war could well mean the survival of Henry V, may in fact require it. If so, then the infant Henry will probably be brought up in Paris, have his father in his life and probably be rather less scarily pious, though his basic personality may not change. If he doesn't ascend the throne until adulthood he is likely to be more stable, less affected by the ebb and flow of favourites around him.

One thing I have wondered is why Henry V's brothers had no children ? I assume they tried for some, but failed. It just seems really rather odd

Grey Wolf