What would be the repercussions of Owain Glyndŵr (the first Prince of Wales) kicking the English, (under Henry IV), out of Wales in an uprising in 1410 causing the Welsh nation to become independent to modern times?
Owain Glyndŵr
- Thread starter sciencestar
- Start date
Would be interesting if his daughter still married Edmund Mortimer. "In February 1405 Glyndwr, Mortimer and Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland entered into a tripartite indenture which proposed a threefold division of the kingdom in which Mortimer was to have most of the south of England".
Too true. After all, we kept hammering the Scots until they came round to the right way of thinking.
Admittedingly, we ran out of time on the Irish, but Wales? No chance.Perhaps if Percy's father arrived in time to the Battle of Shrewsbury and he not only survived, but defeated the King's forces. Have Henry Hotspur's charge succeed and King Henry IV killed, with the Prince of Wales captured or executed also.
Hotspur then enters into full league with Glendower and Mortimer. The Earl of Cambridge (who OTL built his relationship with Mortimer at this time, later marrying his sister) and his brother the Duke of York (who was contemplating mortgaging his property to pay for his troops to fight Glendower) come to terms with Mortimer. Mortimer had already declared his nephew the rightful King of England a year before (1402), and Hotspur, another uncle, would no doubt acquiesce. Young Edmund, Earl of March etc, becomes King of England with his uncles Mortimer and Hotspur leading the regency and Owen Glendower as independent prince of Wales. If the tripartite division which was agreed to goes through, Percy receives Westmoreland's lands in the north and sets up some sort of Palatinate of Northumbria á la Lancaster.
That would be an interesting scenario. Not sure how well it would work in the long run still, but that's for an author to flesh out.
And if England's kings are preoccupied trying to undo it, Wales can play its cards to maintain as much independence as Scotland.
I would imagine young King Edmund would try to crush the Welsh, the Scots and the Percys as soon as possible (as well as pursuing the historic claim to France perhaps?).
I suspect the Percies are in for an awkward position if Edmund proves to be a capable king (I doubt it given OTL, but . . .). Wales might be put off as merely "to do" for a while, but the Percies are a threat to royal authority existing in the south.
I guess they might make a nice buffer against Scotch aggression? If Percy is loyal to his nephew, and their heirs continue the good relationship for a generation or so, maybe Percy power is projected north and the King is free to focus his attention elsewhere while the Percy's hold it down in the north.
Yeah, but the Percies are disconcertingly powerful. And having them focused northward doesn't help.
But why should a King of England (even South England) accept the northern half of the Kingdom being independent, even if it acts as a nice buffer state? This is a kingdom which has been united for around 500 years by this point - the loss of the northern half would be seen as an unacceptable concession of a core territory which was every bit as much a part of England as London and the south.
There's also the aspect of the Percys themselves - why would they be happy being a buffer state when they could act as an independent power and start, say, conniving with the Scots (in the short term, obviously) using stories of English aggression to attack the south again and dismember the south rather than let it stand as a powerful future aggressor?
You just don't get situations where two states, one of which claims sovereignty over the other, are willing to simply live and let live with each other. That's not how international politics works - not in this period certainly - and any monarch who was willing to accept that situation would be considered a paper tiger or even a laughing stock by their continental peers.
A better question would be, how would he be able to do anything other than accept it?
Had Glyndwr won the last battle, we are looking at 4 English Armies having being comprehensively smashed to pieces. By the time of that battle 3 had been dealt with in such a way, and the King was facing bankruptcy. And remember England was still embroiled in war over in France.
From Mortimor's point of view, he could take the risk, sign the Indentiture and get half of something, and a nice Crown, or not sign, and get nothing. He had everything to gain from a split England, and absolutely nothing from a Welsh defeat.
A friend and I discussed it once, and we thought that maybe a Point of Departure from OTL that could "work" would be the assassination of "Davey Gam" as early as possible.
Another thing, the Percy's had an Army, post victory Mortimor would have to find loyal men, and would likely have been reliant on help from Welsh and Percy troops.
Glyndwr agreed to recognise the Avignon Pope in exchange for French help, so it is not hard to see the new Northumbria and what I call "Anglia" doing the same. I don't see any major reason why the 3 Kingdoms, including Wales would not prosper, any danger will likely come from a European power, maybe the French getting aspirations to adding a nice large divided island to their toy collection.
The AH me and a friend were working on wasn't quite ASB, but we were certainly working on a few ideas to ensure an extremely strong Welsh power post Glyndwr
We had the old legends of Prince Madog sailing to the New World and landing possibly in Alabama turning out to be true for example. Our Madog enters in a peaceful union with the local tribes, with cultures and know how mixing together. So, imagine for example Navajo Warrior Braves clad in Armour, marching underneath a Totem topped by a Welsh Dragon.
The Kingdom of Annwn would, eventually reestablish contact with Wales, giving it vast resources, trade and men. (A big part of our fun was going to be the Conquistadors having one HELL of a shock when they finally arrive in North America) stone fortifications, disciplined military formations and tactics, catapults etc being the beginning of their woes.A better question would be, how would he be able to do anything other than accept it?
Had Glyndwr won the last battle, we are looking at 4 English Armies having being comprehensively smashed to pieces. By the time of that battle 3 had been dealt with in such a way, and the King was facing bankruptcy. And remember England was still embroiled in war over in France.
From Mortimor's point of view, he could take the risk, sign the Indentiture and get half of something, and a nice Crown, or not sign, and get nothing. He had everything to gain from a split England, and absolutely nothing from a Welsh defeat.
A friend and I discussed it once, and we thought that maybe a Point of Departure from OTL that could "work" would be the assassination of "Davey Gam" as early as possible.
Another thing, the Percy's had an Army, post victory Mortimor would have to find loyal men, and would likely have been reliant on help from Welsh and Percy troops.
Glyndwr agreed to recognise the Avignon Pope in exchange for French help, so it is not hard to see the new Northumbria and what I call "Anglia" doing the same. I don't see any major reason why the 3 Kingdoms, including Wales would not prosper, any danger will likely come from a European power, maybe the French getting aspirations to adding a nice large divided island to their toy collection.
The AH me and a friend were working on wasn't quite ASB, but we were certainly working on a few ideas to ensure an extremely strong Welsh power post Glyndwr
We had the old legends of Prince Madog sailing to the New World and landing possibly in Alabama turning out to be true for example. Our Madog enters in a peaceful union with the local tribes, with cultures and know how mixing together. So, imagine for example Navajo Warrior Braves clad in Armour, marching underneath a Totem topped by a Welsh Dragon.
Yeah but you're missing out several important factors. For one, losing battles in Wales was not the same thing as losing battles in England. The armies that England sent to Wales were armies designed to siege castles, because Welsh campaigns frequently boiled down to the Welsh attacking English strongholds, doing damage and sacking the fortresses, then melting back into the shadows to avoid the English response. When the Welsh took to the field, it was usually because they had managed to cut off English supplies and had identified the perfect time to strike when their opponent was weak. These are not tactics that work in the rolling hills and lush grassy/foresty plains of England. Take for example the time one of the claimed Kings of Wales - I can't remember who, but I'm pretty sure it was before Glendower - tried translating success in Wales to success in England. He marched an army - perhaps as big as the English one that faced him, I'm thinking about 10,000 men - into England and found an English army facing him rapidly. He took defensive positions, but the English did the same. Then the English simply waited for his supplies to run out, at which point he had to wait for the dead of night to abandon his positions and run for the border. The Welsh rarely dared face the English in an even battle on open terrain, and when they did they usually lost quite badly. The English losing a string of battles in Wales means absolutely nothing about their ability to actually win the war, as the Battle of Shrewsbury (not the same battle as I was just thinking of) shows.
As for bankruptcy - medieval Kings spent most of their lives bankrupt. The thing is, if national security was at risk, they inevitably managed to raise the armies they needed anyway. I can't think of a single occasion where a country failed to put out an army in its defence because it had no money. Kings - and Parliaments - would rather go into hideous levels of debt than lose a war on home soil. Now fighting a war abroad is a different matter.
I'm not denying that Percy might find the opportunity to take his chance in the north to good to resist, by the way. What I'm rejecting is the idea that the Kings of the south - especially a Lancaster King who had defeated Mortimer - would just twiddle his thumbs and be content to accept the northern half of his Kingdom going rogue simply "because it stops the Scots beating us too". I think you'll find pride, arrogance and the necessity of maintaining a level of national prestige would oblige the Kings of the south to make constant war with the Kings of the north until one way or another the Kingdom was reunited. Can you honestly see France splitting in two, for example, and the King in Paris just going "oh well, at least Spain can't invade us now"?
For what it's worth, I'm not sure I can see a kingdom in the north being cohesive. I think it's going to disintegrate into rebellions demanding reunification with London in literal days. The only ones who would support the division of England are those who stand to gain from it - i.e. Percy and his retainers. The other English nobles in the north will be furious, and the average peasant is going to instantly realise that this means one of two things - his farm is either going to be burned by the Scots, who suddenly know they are at least as strong, if not stronger, than their southern neighbour, or by the King of the south marching to reclaim his land. But either way they're going to see the middle of England turning into one big stomping ground for armies, and where armies go they leave desolation and looted communities in their wakes.
There have been multiple variants of this in the past. The biggest problem is that welsh principalities split with every generation. So Owain makes an independendent principality of all Wales, possibly with asb help according to the above posts. The 50 years later his grandsons rule over four pocket principalities, and the English defeat them in detail.
. The 50 years later his grandsons rule over four pocket principalities, and the English defeat them in detail.