Go Back   Alternate History Discussion Board > Discussion > Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 13th, 2011, 07:09 AM
Yanladman Yanladman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 19
What if Henry V of England lived longer?

Would he have been able to fully defeat the French and conquer France?

I'm not that familiar with Medieval history, but I am interested in hearing the consequences of this event.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old November 13th, 2011, 07:11 AM
SavoyTruffle SavoyTruffle is offline
The Natural
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Southeast Asia's Poland
Posts: 1000 or more
Once he does, the Burgundians turn against him (they only cooperated with him because they wanted a clearer shot at the crown) and he may be forced to deal with problems back across the channel.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche View Post
Is this really Eurocentrism or just someone being painfully stupid?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old November 13th, 2011, 12:19 PM
Arachnid Arachnid is offline
Arachnid once more.
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1000 or more
While on a terrible magazines website this what if is pretty plausible. What if Henry V lived?

Basically it points out that France would have been the dominant part of the Plantagenet Dual Monarchy and as the Plantagenets focus on the (richer, bigger) French part of their Empire grew and as they became increasingly estranged from their English holdings there would have been a split.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jape View Post
I would shudder at this but I can't get over Thande's insinuation there's a moderately popular Kinnock sex doll out there.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old November 13th, 2011, 12:23 PM
SavoyTruffle SavoyTruffle is offline
The Natural
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Southeast Asia's Poland
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aracnid View Post
While on a terrible magazines website this what if is pretty plausible. What if Henry V lived?

Basically it points out that France would have been the dominant part of the Plantagenet Dual Monarchy and as the Plantagenets focus on the (richer, bigger) French part of their Empire grew and as they became increasingly estranged from their English holdings there would have been a split.
Happens without fail in a Dual Monarchy scenario, really. Consider that Henry V was the first English king to use English as a formal government language as opposed to French.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nietzsche View Post
Is this really Eurocentrism or just someone being painfully stupid?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old November 13th, 2011, 02:18 PM
Faeelin Faeelin is online now
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via AIM to Faeelin
Quote:
Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle View Post
Happens without fail in a Dual Monarchy scenario, really. Consider that Henry V was the first English king to use English as a formal government language as opposed to French.
Much as Austria-Hungary remained inviable, no?

I don't know why people assume an English victory is in the cards, personally. Bedford was pretty competent, and he couldn't do much other than siege towns along the Loire.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iori View Post
Don't take this the wrong way, it's mean in a more neutral, observational manner, but you sort of have the general look of a young politician.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old November 13th, 2011, 02:24 PM
kasumigenx kasumigenx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Occupied Selurong
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via Yahoo to kasumigenx
I think both Edmund Labourde, the half brother of Henry V by Joan of Navarre and Martin, heir of Sicily, future king of Aragon surviving will affect the Hundred Years War which might result or defeat to either the Plantagenets or the Valois, I think that will affect the succession of Navarre, I imagine that the Valois will back Martin as King of Navarre while the Plantagenets back Edmund Labourde, the half brother of Joan of Navarre as the King of Navarre in the Hundred Years War.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=219659
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old November 13th, 2011, 02:39 PM
Faeelin Faeelin is online now
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via AIM to Faeelin
Quote:
Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle View Post
Once he does, the Burgundians turn against him (they only cooperated with him because they wanted a clearer shot at the crown) and he may be forced to deal with problems back across the channel.
I don't think this is accurate.Don't forget that John the fearless was asssassinated at a meeting by the Dauphin. There was a personal animus against the Dauphin afterwards, needless tos ay.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iori View Post
Don't take this the wrong way, it's mean in a more neutral, observational manner, but you sort of have the general look of a young politician.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old November 13th, 2011, 02:42 PM
Falastur Falastur is offline
Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hitchin, Herts
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle View Post
Once he does, the Burgundians turn against him (they only cooperated with him because they wanted a clearer shot at the crown) and he may be forced to deal with problems back across the channel.
Possibly. I agree that your premise is possible, though not so much for the reasoning. Well, that quite possibly could be the reasoning too, but by this stage, it wouldn't make sense for the Burgundians to up and turn on Henry unless they were willing to submit to the Dauphin in Bourges, because the other alternative would essentially be a three-way war with virtually equal-strength combatants, and that is a war they would be far from comfortable at their chances of winning. They historically did submit to the King of France, but they lost their shot at the throne that way, which is why I disagree with your reasoning. I think that they would have to wait for Henry to have decisively put down the Angevin faction before turning on Henry, and I far from convinced that Henry actually had the resources to complete his conquest of France.

More on this in my reply to Aracnid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle View Post
Happens without fail in a Dual Monarchy scenario, really. Consider that Henry V was the first English king to use English as a formal government language as opposed to French.
Just liked it has happened in the Anglo-Scottish dual monarchy? I don't think that Dual Monarchies are innately bound to disintegrate. The key issue in OTL was that an era of nationalism arose which put strains on the DMs - most notably the Austrian Empire. In the era of the HYW arguably England and France (and to a similar extent Scotland for similar reasons Scotland and the the Irish) were the only states to have developed proper nationalism, and they developed it from fighting each other. Had a union occurred it could very well have abated this still very fledgling sense of national independence and inter-country rivalry and given several centuries of butterflies, it's possible that the era of nationalism may never have arisen. Certainly I think if you even went back to 1700 then many European statesmen would have laughed in your face at the idea that countries made up of several ethnicities could not hold together because of rivalling social and political agendas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aracnid View Post
While on a terrible magazines website this what if is pretty plausible. What if Henry V lived?

Basically it points out that France would have been the dominant part of the Plantagenet Dual Monarchy and as the Plantagenets focus on the (richer, bigger) French part of their Empire grew and as they became increasingly estranged from their English holdings there would have been a split.
Hmm. That article is full of cliches, but otherwise I still disagree with its basic premise. I frequently advocate a "you know, England wouldn't necessarily fade into obscurity" line but that's not actually the point I want to raise here, which is good because I don't want to sound like a broken record (long story short: I think that England would be the Lancastrians' best way of financing their expanded kingdom, and the Kings would be so very required to suck up to Parliament in London in order to pay for keeping hold of France that by the time France could pay for itself and wasn't hostile, London would be established as a co-capital with Paris).

But my actual point here is that I honestly am not convinced that Henry could complete his conquest of France in his lifetime. He was running out of resources, the Angevins were about to bounce back (let's face it, Joan of Arc would not become Henry's mistress but would entirely possibly become prominent in TTL - the POD is too close to when she started making sounds) and the English were starting to lose Generals. In addition, England was running short of willingness to keep going and while I believe that Henry could keep them willing to pay for the war, the subsidies would reduce while the amount of men in the field would need to increase (from garrison duties as well as serving the King's army in the field). In the meantime, Burgundy and Brittany were becoming more unwilling to continue the fight too, and Humphrey Duke of Gloucester (Henry's brother, think that's his name) was bound to start causing trouble when he married Jacqueline of Hainaut, the besieged ruler of several territories the Burgundians desired - something I think he would still do, probably forcing Henry to take his side eventually. Far more likely that the end result is the war grinding to a halt with a few big victories for the English weakening the Dauphin's cause, to be put in check by a myriad of little successes when smaller French forces chipped away at the places Henry wasn't.

The likelihood in my eyes is that France eventually gets split in two, probably more de facto than de jure. What the Burgundians do next is unknown but they would probably turn on the English eventually. By this time I suspect Henry would have developed more of a French backing, with some French nobles at his side who could only remember times of English rule, and the Gascons an ever-present ally, but when Henry dies I see English rule being pushed back in the centre of the country. From there, it's unforeseeable - the English could either cement their control over Paris and the north, or eventually suffer the same defeat they suffered in 1453, just much later on. It's possible, if unlikely, that after another century (or multiple) that the English could drive south again and finally win the war by capturing the entire country, though I can't see that happening in anything under 100 years of Henry's death.

Either way, I just can't see all of France being under English rule, and in this scenario I definitely can't see Paris and France at large usurping England for prestige and forcing England into the status of French appendage. Indeed, if the English somehow can retain control of the north of France (and presumably Gascony) which I am by no means convinced is impossible, then I can see London overstepping Paris within a century, though I can't see Paris ever entirely fading - it would always be a prestigious, rich and influential city, and would probably retain a court of some sort for the more minor French nobles, even if the King ultimately settled permanently in London.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old November 13th, 2011, 02:49 PM
Tyr Tyr is offline
cobras everywhere
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ださいたま
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via MSN to Tyr
Burgundy wouldn't just suddenly decide to turn on England- competing with Henry for the greater part of the French carcace certainly, but outright changing side? Nah.

I would indeed see France emerging as the more powerful of the two with the English parliament getting ever more annoyed as French interests are put before those of England and the king only really cares for England when he needs to collect some taxes.
In particular the major point of contention I'd see between England and France would be over Burgundy- England wants peace with Burgundy, its main trade is with the Low countries. French interests however....Burgundy is the chief rival.
One point where there could probally be a war is once the Franco-English king decides to centralise a bit- Burgundy on the other hand will be wanting to setup the kingdom of Lorraine. Considering how much of France Burgundy owns...something will snap there.

In my TL on this I had England eventually rising up into a republic Netherlands style in the 16th century.

Burgundy in particular I could see as quite interesting in this TL assuming it does survive and goes off in an independant direction. Trapped between Germany and France, split between an increasingly rich Dutch nobility and a French arristocracy...lots of interesting potential.

Quote:
While on a terrible magazines website this what if is pretty plausible. What if Henry V lived?

Basically it points out that France would have been the dominant part of the Plantagenet Dual Monarchy and as the Plantagenets focus on the (richer, bigger) French part of their Empire grew and as they became increasingly estranged from their English holdings there would have been a split.
Wow, a proper site doing AH....and copying my TL (0.0001% chance of this actually being the case what with this being the agreed outcome but )

Annoying they have a butterfly in place and just plain assume the reformation will happen as per otl. Given the changes we are making it is likely the reformation might not come along at all.
__________________
████████████
████████████
████████████

Last edited by Tyr; November 13th, 2011 at 02:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old November 13th, 2011, 02:57 PM
Scipio Africanus Scipio Africanus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 436
This is actually a centerpiece of the Valois-Burgundy timeline I am planning. I am not going to give any spoilers (still and the research and planning stage) but I am definitely in the "He could successfully create a dual monarchy" camp.

Consider this- only one French province (Quercy) resisted being turned over the the Plantagenet Duchy of Aquitaine in 1360. The vast majority of people simply accepted English rule under the Black Prince. When we look back, we see a grand struggle for the French identity between England and France, but in my opinion the Hundred Years War was really a dynastic struggle between princes jockeying for power. Yes -- if anyone is wondering, I am using the English administration of Aquitaine as a model for how they would rule all of France.

English monarchs ruled a significant (although often in flux) part of France from the mid 12th to the mid 15th century with its own institutions and government. It seems totally plausible that this type of administration could be mirrored in the rest of France without either part of the dual monarchy becoming dominant -- because the two kingdoms would retain their own institutions and autonomy, which was far more important than any inkling of nationality in the middle ages.

However, the real question to ask here is how Henry V would administer France. Most importantly, given that he had already made a deal with the Burgundians by his death in 1422 (which let's say would remain, there is no reason it would not) which princes would Henry seek to be recognized as King of France by, and which would he have to destroy to win his kingdom? I say: Foix, Albret, Armagnac would accept his kingship in the end, but the unknown here is which Capetian princes would accept his rule. A could see the Bourbon accepting Henry as king for some concessions given how far removed they were at this time from the line of succession. I would think the Valois-Orleans branch would fight his kingship tooth and nail because they are next in line for the throne. But how would the Valois-Anjou respond?

I've been trying to find out how the Duchy of Main and County of Anjou acted and were treated by both during the 1420-1430 period of English rule since even before I started planning my timeline. If anyone could tell me, it would be invaluable to my planning process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyr
One point where there could probally be a war is once the Franco-English king decides to centralise a bit- Burgundy on the other hand will be wanting to setup the kingdom of Lorraine. Considering how much of France Burgundy owns...something will snap there.

In my TL on this I had England eventually rising up into a republic Netherlands style in the 16th century.

Burgundy in particular I could see as quite interesting in this TL assuming it does survive and goes off in an independant direction. Trapped between Germany and France, split between an increasingly rich Dutch nobility and a French arristocracy...lots of interesting potential.
Yeah, I am going to deal with all of this in my timeline. I feel pretty confident that after losing a few wars, Plantagenet France would accept Burgundy as an independent Great Power. Would the two Kingdoms still go to war often? -- of course but in a manner that is only natural for European states in the 15th and 16th centuries .

Scipio

Last edited by Scipio Africanus; November 13th, 2011 at 03:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old November 13th, 2011, 07:10 PM
Falastur Falastur is offline
Fighting Swiss-wank since 1291
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hitchin, Herts
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scipio Africanus View Post
Yes -- if anyone is wondering, I am using the English administration of Aquitaine as a model for how they would rule all of France.
I'm not sure of the wisdom of that tactic. Aquitaine was always a one-off in France, whether under English or French rule. It was a uniquely rebellious province that was so fiercely autonomous in its baronies and lordships that many Dukes simply couldn't exert any control over their vassals whatsoever.

It was further not helped by the way that the Dukes were pressed back into an absolutely tiny holding of territory, only controlling three cities on the coast and little to no hinterland - they probably had less than 5% of the duchy under personal control. This meant that when vassals rose up against their Duke they had little ability to raise troops to combat them and thus more often than not the vassals ran roughshod over the Duke and basically got their way. When the Dukes tried to suppress the land, the sheer quantity of castles in the area made it impossible to make any headway at all - not only were vassals rebellious against their Duke but sub-vassals sometimes did the same to their own liege lords, and not only this but generations-long blood feuds between rival families were common as the Dukes had no capacity to step in to prevent them.

Finally, all this meant that the Dukes of Aquitaine virtually never managed to raise any taxation as the vassals simply refused to pay it and tax collectors tended to...go missing when they were sent out. This had the weird effect of making the merchant class the most important and influential class in Aquitaine, as the Duke had few loyal vassals and his control was centred on the cities. The middle class made an absolute killing off the sea trade with England, as opposed to the very unpopular (and dangerous, viz those vassals) land trade that the Kings of France tended to compel them to follow, so they were almost unanimously pro-English and constantly funded pro-English mercenary armies during the HYW. All-in-all it meant English administration of Aquitaine was far different to their administration of anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old November 13th, 2011, 08:33 PM
Baruch Baruch is offline
Ally of Justice
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: On a Volcano
Posts: 181
I would sort of posit Henry V as very rational, so I would assume after such a huge conquest all at once he would settle back to digest and consolidate. He would have cherry picked the easiest conquest, so any other adventures would be harder, he would be pressed for cash, so any other adventures would be problematic.

If he lives till Henry VI is 20 we eliminate the regency. That in itself is a major step forward.

As for butterflies... I have the impression that British administration is less stupid than French. Areas under English control are a great deal wealthier.

As for other matters.... No Regency means no wars of the roses. Henry VI may be a lame king, but England has suffered many of those with no real problem.

I think the coast of France was the most protestant area. Any future king after Calvin and Luther would still have the problem of the Huguenots.

Sometime, even in the ATL the english monarch would have financial difficulties. They always did. Raiding the monasteries and the abbeys seems to have been a good way for them to raise cash. Henry VII did it long before Henry VIII got the idea. I can see Any future English king deciding that reformation would be a good idea, as all that English money could be better spent in England than in Rome.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old November 13th, 2011, 08:45 PM
Scipio Africanus Scipio Africanus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 436
I guess I should have been more clear -- I was talking about the "Duchy of Aquitaine" under the Black Prince during the 1360s and 1370s. While certainly not the only or even main source of my research, the English did rule about a third of France during that period as a part of the enlarged Duchy of Aquitaine.

I am also going to of course look at how the English ruled northern France from 1420-1440s, but I haven't started any in-depth research into the later HYW yet, instead starting my research for my timeline (POD in 1419) with the middle period, from 1369-1388.

Anyway, what I am going for here is trying to see how the English ruled various parts of France from 1340-1450, as the majority of France was under English rule for some part of that period.

In summary, the "English administration of Aquitaine" referred only to the aforementioned period, and when I said "a model" I meant one out of several others. Thanks for the information of medieval Aquitaine though Falastur, I am always happy to learn about anything having to do with medieval France.

Now then, could someone tell me how the Valois-Anjou responded to Henry V's conquests?

Scipio
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old November 13th, 2011, 09:54 PM
Faeelin Faeelin is online now
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via AIM to Faeelin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baruch View Post

As for butterflies... I have the impression that British administration is less stupid than French. Areas under English control are a great deal wealthier.
Hrm. If you believe that the English are smarter and ruled the richer part of France, why did they lose?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iori View Post
Don't take this the wrong way, it's mean in a more neutral, observational manner, but you sort of have the general look of a young politician.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old November 13th, 2011, 09:56 PM
Arachnid Arachnid is offline
Arachnid once more.
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faeelin View Post
Hrm. If you believe that the English are smarter and ruled the richer part of France, why did they lose?
Because the Dauphin ruled the bigger part of France and had more popular support. Part of the reason the English part was richer was it was less taxed. That wasn't out of the goodness of English hearts, it was because they couldn't squeeze as hard as the French and get away with it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jape View Post
I would shudder at this but I can't get over Thande's insinuation there's a moderately popular Kinnock sex doll out there.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old November 13th, 2011, 11:05 PM
Baruch Baruch is offline
Ally of Justice
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: On a Volcano
Posts: 181
^^^^^^^^ what arachnid said.

The english didn't squeeze so hard. Not from want of desire.


In this time period, Henry has no honest claims to anything beyond what he had. He should have just consolidated and made the kingdom secure.


There would still have been a joan of arc, but I don't believe she would have had near the success she had in OTL. Henry survives, she is as revalvent to history as Perkin Warbeck or Jack Cade.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who don't
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old November 13th, 2011, 11:18 PM
Faeelin Faeelin is online now
Lord of Ten Thousand Years
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via AIM to Faeelin
I'm not sure how he could "hold" onto what he had. It's not like the French would let him do so, and if the Brits can't squeeze as well as the French, I'm not sure why or how you can say they ran things better.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iori View Post
Don't take this the wrong way, it's mean in a more neutral, observational manner, but you sort of have the general look of a young politician.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old November 14th, 2011, 07:55 AM
Tyr Tyr is offline
cobras everywhere
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ださいたま
Posts: 1000 or more
Send a message via MSN to Tyr
One thing I went with in my TL was Henry V going off on a crusade- one which goes very well and is succesful in a kind of ASB but cool way.
Even if you disagree that could be so I think the chances of him deciding to go off looking for even greater prizes are large, Philip of Burgundy was planning such a thing even IOTL and Henry certainly seems the type who would fancy it.


And there's no such thing as British here, its solidly England- though going after Scotland could well be on the future kings of England-France's hitlist.
__________________
████████████
████████████
████████████
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old November 14th, 2011, 10:19 AM
usertron2020 usertron2020 is online now
Tolstoyan
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1000 or more
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falastur View Post
Possibly. I agree that your premise is possible, though not so much for the reasoning. Well, that quite possibly could be the reasoning too, but by this stage, it wouldn't make sense for the Burgundians to up and turn on Henry unless they were willing to submit to the Dauphin in Bourges, because the other alternative would essentially be a three-way war with virtually equal-strength combatants, and that is a war they would be far from comfortable at their chances of winning. They historically did submit to the King of France, but they lost their shot at the throne that way, which is why I disagree with your reasoning. I think that they would have to wait for Henry to have decisively put down the Angevin faction before turning on Henry.
The reasons for Burgundy's submission to the King of France would not apply to TTL, unless Henry V were to be killed in a TTL battle. And John, Duke of Bedford, did not remarry.

Quote:
Just liked it has happened in the Anglo-Scottish dual monarchy?
Don't think the Scots were speaking Pictish in the HYW, much less at the establishment of the Stuart Dynasty in England. A common language helps to cement two peoples. Especially when the two countries are only separated by Hadrian's Wall, not the English Channel.

Quote:
But my actual point here is that I honestly am not convinced that Henry could complete his conquest of France in his lifetime. He was running out of resources, the Angevins were about to bounce back (let's face it, Joan of Arc would not become Henry's mistress but would entirely possibly become prominent in TTL - the POD is too close to when she started making sounds) and the English were starting to lose Generals.
Thank you for being one of the few not to see Joan as a mere mascot, and not to assume that Henry V would simply crush her under his heels. The fact was, Bedford himself never faced her in battle OTL. It was only Glasdale and Talbot who went up against her head to head.

It always seems to be assumed by ATL writers that a surviving Henry V would have a sudden flash of inspiration from the moment of first hearing of Joan's story, and bring the whole of the reserves of the English Army forward into battle and at DEFCON 1.

Personally, I can't see him as reacting any differently than Bedford. In short, seeing her as an amusing annoyance (a sign that Charles VII must truly be done for, to consider using a green peasant girl to lead his army), and a "law enforcement issue", by ordering her arrest (as OTL) before she could reach the Dauphin. NO ONE took seriously the idea that she could contribute martially on the battlefield. That is, until after the Fall of the Tourelle.

Quote:
In addition, England was running short of willingness to keep going and while I believe that Henry could keep them willing to pay for the war, the subsidies would reduce while the amount of men in the field would need to increase (from garrison duties as well as serving the King's army in the field). In the meantime, Burgundy and Brittany were becoming more unwilling to continue the fight too, and Humphrey Duke of Gloucester (Henry's brother, think that's his name) was bound to start causing trouble when he married Jacqueline of Hainaut, the besieged ruler of several territories the Burgundians desired - something I think he would still do, probably forcing Henry to take his side eventually. Far more likely that the end result is the war grinding to a halt with a few big victories for the English weakening the Dauphin's cause, to be put in check by a myriad of little successes when smaller French forces chipped away at the places Henry wasn't.
The evolution of French artillery was also about to change drastically the way war was fought. Castles and cities that had held out for months and years would fall within days of opening bombardments. Both sides of the HYW held the advantage at different times, but once heavy fortifications had become truly vulnerable for the first time since the introduction of the trebuchet, mobility was reintroduced into the war. That gave the advantage to the side with the better cavalry. The French. And once the French finally learned (for the second time, Charles the Wise learned it first) NOT to charge prepared English Army field fortifications, but to bypass them, they seized the initiative at last and never lost it.

These practical considerations of new military technology and tactics developed by the French (not unusual for the losing side to do this) tell me that Henry V might well have found himself in the situation of Napoleon in the closing days of the French Empire. Beating the enemy in the field wherever HE was, but losing everywhere else. As his enemies intended. And as you yourself suggest for Henry.

Quote:
The likelihood in my eyes is that France eventually gets split in two, probably more de facto than de jure. What the Burgundians do next is unknown but they would probably turn on the English eventually. By this time I suspect Henry would have developed more of a French backing, with some French nobles at his side who could only remember times of English rule, and the Gascons an ever-present ally, but when Henry dies I see English rule being pushed back in the centre of the country. From there, it's unforeseeable - the English could either cement their control over Paris and the north, or eventually suffer the same defeat they suffered in 1453, just much later on. It's possible, if unlikely, that after another century (or multiple) that the English could drive south again and finally win the war by capturing the entire country, though I can't see that happening in anything under 100 years of Henry's death.
Purely from a physical/geographical standpoint a "Burgundian" nation could never have survived. Squeezed between France and the Germanies, with its stomach in Flanders, its heart in Dijon, and its head in Paris(?), such an entity has no real center of gravity. Never mind military defensibility.

As to France? Unless Joan of Arc is captured, Charles VII is murdered, and Henry V outlives his own son (leaving his country open to a different kind of Wars of the Roses?), he won't be able to swallow up such an enormous mouthful of the whole of France in his lifetime.

Even if Henry V lives to a ripe old age, he'd be 67 in 1453. That's ancient by the standards of those times. And that is just about the time that the future Henry VI, described as a "lame" king, which he certainly was, became suddenly near-catatonic. This was a man who now couldn't even wipe himself, never mind rule a Dual-Monarchy. And there were powerful forces that wanted to keep him right where he was despite his newly acquired imbecility.

As to Henry V having more children? Neither of his brothers had surviving issue, and he himself had only the one boy Henry who grew up to become mindless at the age of 31. It looks like the Lancastrian line was thinning out.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old November 15th, 2011, 01:40 AM
Scipio Africanus Scipio Africanus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 436
usertron2020, I am impressed by your depth of knowledge. As I am doing a lot of research into this period myself, do have any suggestions for a good book to read on the 1415-1453 part of the HYW? I'm already reading Jonathan Sumption's "Hundred Years War III" (deals with 1369-1399) for background, which I find fantastic, but I can't get find a good book to deal with the aforementioned period, which is the central period of my research for my timeline.

As for this erroneous statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by usertron2020
Purely from a physical/geographical standpoint a "Burgundian" nation could never have survived. Squeezed between France and the Germanies, with its stomach in Flanders, its heart in Dijon, and its head in Paris(?), such an entity has no real center of gravity. Never mind military defensibility.
I must say despite agreeing with you on most everything else and getting the sense that you know a good deal more about Henry V than I do, here is where I disagree. Many states that have the aforementioned characteristics have survive. France itself is a testament to how one can draw lines on a map to create a "state" (or idea of one) with 3 language groups (Langue d'Oil, Langue d'Oc and Germanic on the northern fringes) and have that become a state through a succession of very strong rulers (with France's case, spread over about 1000 years). Also, having multiple economic regions and general economic diversification was in fact a boon to several great powers.

This is all leaving aside the fact the Burgundian State effectively functioned as an independent power for much of the 15th century, and its piecemeal absorption into the Habsburg Empire was certainly a decisive factor in their rise as a the strongest dynasty of the 16th century. During the later reign of Phillip the Good and during most of Charles the Bold's time the Burgundian territories were a serious threat to France. Louis XI was overjoyed when he heard of Charles the Bold's death, and practically delirious to watch his greater rival in continental western Europe dissolve, being able to reincorporate Ducal Burgundy and Picardy into the French state. (If only he had know that his dire mismanagement of the Mary the Rich and her marriage negotiations would create France's newest rival in Europe -- alas.)

The point I am trying to make here is that someone in 1470 would have trouble believing that by 1480 the line of Valois-Burgundy would be extinct their territory effectively partitioned between France and the Habsburgs.

Scipio
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.