WI. Henry V lives longer.

OK, tinwise time.
Lets say Henry V of England does not die of dysentery in 1422 and lives as king of France as well as England.
If he lives for another 30 years, quite possible as he was only 35 when he pegged it. So this could mean not only there are 30 years under Henry V, Henry VI is not only a matter of months old when he becomes king and will have his own mind and not regents making it for him.
I can see him not only taking back the duchies back from France, in the first place, without all the blood shed. But being a real king, not just in name.
The HRE were supportive of Henry. so not need to look to fight them.
Now for the questions

What war, if any could there be againist Scotland?
What happens in Ireland?
Spain?
A new european crusade to the Holy Land?
Any help to whats left of the Eastern Roman Empire?
No War of the Roses?

Over to you.

tallthinkev said:

OK, tinwise time.
Lets say Henry V of England does not die of dysentery in 1422 and lives as king of France as well as England.
If he lives for another 30 years, quite possible as he was only 35 when he pegged it. So this could mean not only there are 30 years under Henry V, Henry VI is not only a matter of months old when he becomes king and will have his own mind and not regents making it for him.
I can see him not only taking back the duchies back from France, in the first place, without all the blood shed. But being a real king, not just in name.
The HRE were supportive of Henry. so not need to look to fight them.
Now for the questions

What war, if any could there be againist Scotland?
What happens in Ireland?
Spain?
A new european crusade to the Holy Land?
Any help to whats left of the Eastern Roman Empire?
No War of the Roses?

Over to you.

Click to expand...

1) How busy is Henry V with France? Because as of his death, while a good sized chunk has been taken, not nearly even "most" has.

2) Ditto.

3) Why would anything different happen in Spain?

4) Probably not. Maybe a crusade by Henry V if he can, almost certainly not one by Henry VI.

5) See above.

6) Henry VI's incompetence is probably going to have some political consequences, but what exactly those are depend. And the situation with France is unclear - his father is very unlikely to be able to take it all even if he lives another thirty years (shortage of resources, Burgundian reluctance to support England/the House of Lancaster so much as this) and Henry VI certainly is not going to be half the warrior his father was - he had teachers as good as anyone could asked for and it didn't help, why would that change because he's not nominally king?

Why would thing happen in Spain?
My thinking is England was far enough away to not worry each other. But, being now, nextdoor, could they have anything to fear?

With Henry V living for a good 20-30 years longer, then he will no doubt have more children. So perhaps his next son is more competent then his brother. The future Henry VI could always die in infancy/childhood, leaving the way for a more stable, for lack of a better word, brother.

tallthinkev said:

Why would thing happen in Spain?
My thinking is England was far enough away to not worry each other. But, being now, nextdoor, could they have anything to fear?

Click to expand...

No, because England-France is going to be very busy with its own affairs for the next while.

There will be consequences down the road - whether that union holds together or no - but not immediately, beyond butterflies.

Emperor Constantine: That feels like a too convenient "out", especially as Henry VI was apparently a healthy child.

It's certainly possible, but it feels like "Well, what if X was prevented? And Y? And Z? And anything else that would handicap the House of Lancaster in any way!"

Elfwine said:

No, because England-France is going to be very busy with its own affairs for the next while.

There will be consequences down the road - whether that union holds together or no - but not immediately, beyond butterflies.

Emperor Constantine: That feels like a too convenient "out", especially as Henry VI was apparently a healthy child.

It's certainly possible, but it feels like "Well, what if X was prevented? And Y? And Z? And anything else that would handicap the House of Lancaster in any way!"

Click to expand...

True it would be convenient. However, stranger things have happened in OTL. Also, if Henry VI does live, perhaps he receives better training or a different education. I'll admit I don't know much about how he was educated but I do remember reading he was extremely religious, like Sebastian of Portugal religious. I don't know it that effected how he governed but with a surviving Henry V directing his education that part, at least, could be avoided. Also, I guarantee he would have a different wife. Maybe a Spanish or Portuguese match or perhaps a bride from the Empire, I'm not sure which house had available princesses.

Emperor Constantine said:

True it would be convenient. However, stranger things have happened in OTL. Also, if Henry VI does live, perhaps he receives better training or a different education. I'll admit I don't know much about how he was educated but I do remember reading he was extremely religious, like Sebastian of Portugal religious. I don't know it that effected how he governed but with a surviving Henry V directing his education that part, at least, could be avoided. Also, I guarantee he would have a different wife. Maybe a Spanish or Portuguese match or perhaps a bride from the Empire, I'm not sure which house had available princesses.

Click to expand...

Why would he? Henry VI received the kind of education Henry V would have wanted for his son, at the hands of the kind of people Henry V would have appointed, such as the Earl of Warwick. And if it failed, it wasn't for inability on their part.

Definitely a different wife, since he'll be marrying when his father is still alive.

The Best Bride for Henry VI is Blanche of Navarre the OTL wife of the Henry the Impotent of Castile this will create an alliance between Navarre, Aragon and Anglo-France and also strengthen the claim of Henry VI to the throne.

Medieval England had four great Kings; William I, Edward I, Edward III, Henry V. All left heirs who weren't anywhere near as good. It's not just a question of reversion to the mean but also the reality that having a father who everyone regards as amazing is going to have some pretty noticeable psychological effects. It's no coincidence that the heirs of the four most warlike English Kings were also some of the least warlike English Kings. Having an impossible standard to live up to generally makes people give up and concentrate on other things, like piety or founding schools or whatever. So I think whatever happens Henry V's successor isn't going to be a patch on him.

Separately if Henry V had lived he almost certainly would have secured his authority over most if not all of France. Burgundy hated the Dauphin/Charles VII and if Henry V had outlasted Charles VI in the eyes of most of Europe he would have been the legitimate King and his record of victory and his skills at arms would have secured him de facto as well as de jure authority.

Thoresby said:

Separately if Henry V had lived he almost certainly would have secured his authority over most if not all of France. Burgundy hated the Dauphin/Charles VII and if Henry V had outlasted Charles VI in the eyes of most of Europe he would have been the legitimate King and his record of victory and his skills at arms would have secured him de facto as well as de jure authority.

Click to expand...

With what resources? The Crown is in debt up to its ears, and Burgundy's hatred for the Dauphin didn't stop the Treaty of Arras OTL.

Elfwine said:

Why would he? Henry VI received the kind of education Henry V would have wanted for his son, at the hands of the kind of people Henry V would have appointed, such as the Earl of Warwick. And if it failed, it wasn't for inability on their part.

Definitely a different wife, since he'll be marrying when his father is still alive.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't know much about his education but when you look at his reign it seems someone dropped the ball. I mean even ignoring his bouts of insanity and the War of the Roses, his reign was still pretty bad. I mean peasant rebellions, power concentrated on seemingly incompetent favorites and the complete and total defeat in the Hundred Year's war. Henry VI's reign was a mess.

kasumigenx said:

The Best Bride for Henry VI is Blanche of Navarre the OTL wife of the Henry the Impotent of Castile this will create an alliance between Navarre, Aragon and Anglo-France and also strengthen the claim of Henry VI to the throne.

Click to expand...

I always forget about Navarre. But would it be a good marriage? I mean such a marriage would have the potential to give Navarre to the Anglo-French Union, which would lead to an inevitable disagreement with Aragon, since in OTL John II imprisoned her after her marriage was annulled. Also, would Aragon even want such a match? Sure they would now share a common border but France is bound to be in semi-chaos for a good while, so would such a marriage really help Aragon compared to a marriage with Castile?

Why not a French match? Perhaps Charles VII could be killed or captured in battle and forced to marry his daughter to Henry VI? I know it sounds unlilely but French Kings have been captured before so its not impossible. It's a shame the House of Burgundy had no Princesses because that would be a perfect way to cement the Anglo-Burgundian Alliance.

Also I had a thought. Is there any way one son could succeed in England and another in France? This would be the smart idea but is it even possible or no?

Emperor Constantine said:

I honestly don't know much about his education but when you look at his reign it seems someone dropped the ball. I mean even ignoring his bouts of insanity and the War of the Roses, his reign was still pretty bad. I mean peasant rebellions, power concentrated on seemingly incompetent favorites and the complete and total defeat in the Hundred Year's war. Henry VI's reign was a mess.

Click to expand...

Oh yes. But this is because he was terrible, not because of a failing on the part of his tutors. Some people just aren't very smart or very martial or very much anything else kingly - and I don't think we can just say it was inevitably a result of his father's shadow based on past examples.

Edward III's eldest son certainly didn't suffer from it, for instance.

Why not a French match? Perhaps Charles VII could be killed or captured in battle and forced to marry his daughter to Henry VI? I know it sounds unlilely but French Kings have been captured before so its not impossible. It's a shame the House of Burgundy had no Princesses because that would be a perfect way to cement the Anglo-Burgundian Alliance.

Click to expand...

YAY INBREEDING!

Henry is the son of Charles VII's (older) sister. Marrying him to Henry VI is not going to accomplish diddly on the political front when Henry V's marriage to Catherine is supposed to have covered that.

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/CAPET.htm#_Toc154137016

Also I had a thought. Is there any way one son could succeed in England and another in France? This would be the smart idea but is it even possible or no?

Click to expand...

It's theoretically possible, I think, but I'm not sure how it would be arranged. Or who gets which throne.

I wonder if in such a scenario the Dauphin Charles would be more likely to go into exile as he apparently considered doing OTL? With him abroad Henry V can secure the rest of the country after being crowned at Rheims.

Emperor Constantine said:

I always forget about Navarre. But would it be a good marriage? I mean such a marriage would have the potential to give Navarre to the Anglo-French Union, which would lead to an inevitable disagreement with Aragon, since in OTL John II imprisoned her after her marriage was annulled. Also, would Aragon even want such a match? Sure they would now share a common border but France is bound to be in semi-chaos for a good while, so would such a marriage really help Aragon compared to a marriage with Castile?

Why not a French match? Perhaps Charles VII could be killed or captured in battle and forced to marry his daughter to Henry VI? I know it sounds unlilely but French Kings have been captured before so its not impossible. It's a shame the House of Burgundy had no Princesses because that would be a perfect way to cement the Anglo-Burgundian Alliance.

Also I had a thought. Is there any way one son could succeed in England and another in France? This would be the smart idea but is it even possible or no?

Click to expand...

Actually, John II of Aragon's wife is a claimant to the French throne and descendant of Joan of France, having Blanche of Navarre married to Henry VI will have his claim to the throne solidified and the claims of Joan of France and Edward III will be merged under Henry VI and the claim as solid as OTL Henry IV of France, I think Navarre could be partitioned as well later on if the male heir of Navarre still dies as in OTL.

Elfwine said:

With what resources? The Crown is in debt up to its ears, and Burgundy's hatred for the Dauphin didn't stop the Treaty of Arras OTL.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the English regents had been a bit of a dicks; the Duke of Gloucester's marriage to Jacqueline of Holland really, really pissed them off.

Thoresby said:

Medieval England had four great Kings; William I, Edward I, Edward III, Henry V.

Click to expand...

I would add Henry II to that list.

Athelstane said:

I would add Henry II to that list.

Click to expand...

I think I have to second this. Not a great warrior king (capable, but not necessarily great) - but one of the century's examples of what kind of men can make royal power effective despite all the issues raised on how difficult it is.

Elfwine said:

I think I have to second this. Not a great warrior king (capable, but not necessarily great) - but one of the century's examples of what kind of men can make royal power effective despite all the issues raised on how difficult it is.

Click to expand...

Thirded, if thats a word. It seems to me that a Henry II-type King would be a very good successor to Henry V.

I've mulled over this a fair few times before, and more and more the conclusions I start to draw are that the war will begin turning against Henry V before he can complete it. It's not so much the Joan of Arc factor - I like to believe that he would probably find a way of drawing her out and defeating her on the field of battle - but that the Dauphin's forces were shaken out of a stupor by the 1430s, and the Burgundians were starting to tire of their alliance with the English, which is particularly important since it was Burgundian troops who were garrisoning the majority of northern France.

I wonder if Philip the Good wouldn't end up quarrelling with Henry - possibly going so far as to demand a crown as King of Burgundy for his troubles, thus also effectively ending the question of whether he actually wanted to be Henry/Charles' vassal - and one way or another I see Henry losing his most important ally.

If Philip turns to the Dauphin's side, things could go very wrong very fast. If Philip simply pulls out of the war and decides to stay neutral while he waits to see who wins, I see Henry running out of troops and men and only being able to fight the Dauphin to a standstill. What happens next is something I would greatly like to explore, but don't feel qualified enough to answer.

The other problem Henry has is that he uniformly failed to get any of the French nobility on his side - and why should he have, I guess. While he filled some of these vacancies by stocking several of the larger estates with loyal English nobles, there frankly aren't enough English nobles to hand out every estate, and honestly it would probably be wisest not to create a situation where the majority of the English nobles have greater land holdings in France than England, anyway. He largely had the support of the burghers and the religious leaders, but this was partly power-play and largely fear. Without any noble French supporters he really is going to struggle to hold the land for large periods. To have a chance of creating a lasting Anglo-French Kingdom - even to the end of the century - he really needs at least a thick brush-stroke of complicit French nobles, both to fill every manor vacated by the fleeing French lordlings and to sooth the peasants when they start blaming the King for everything that goes wrong. Problem is, I'm not sure where he can get this support from. A century earlier, Edward III might have been able to get it because there was some genuine support for his claim - the King of France (can't be bothered to look up the name, sorry) actually had to exile or imprison the entire University of Paris, because the law students and teachers there debated the subject and decided that Edward had the better claim. By the reign of Henry V, the French nobles have been indoctrinated enough to the idea of French nationalism and anti-English sentiment that no-one really wanted to take the risk and swap sides.

Athelstane said:

I would add Henry II to that list.

Click to expand...

Henry I was a very good king.