WI James IV wins battle of Floden Field?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Don_Giorgio, May 22, 2008.

  1. Don_Giorgio Praefectus Praetorio Orientis

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Location:
    Athens Greece
    On September 9, 1513, an invading Scotd army under King James IV and an English army commanded by Thomas Howard Earl of Surrey clashed near Floden field in Northumberland. The battle ended in a bloody defeat for the Scots and was the largest battle (in terms of numbers) fought between the two nations.
    WI James IV (who had a much larger army) emerged victorious from this battle? Would this victory forced Henry VIII to withdraw troops from France where they fought against Louis XII? How is that changing History? Any thoughts?
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2008
  2. Anaxagoras 21st Century Jeffersonian

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Location:
    Manor, Texas
    I do not think that either Scotland or England were ever able to inflict a truly decisive defeat on the other- the pattern of raid and counter raid, invasion and counter invasion went on for centuries. A Scottish victory of Flodden would have had a significant impact and its share of butterflies, but I am not sure of how much it would have changed things in the long run.
     
  3. Don_Giorgio Praefectus Praetorio Orientis

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Location:
    Athens Greece
    Maybe... But a victory in Floden Field would have scared the English enough to withdraw troops from France... Maybe even a hasty peace treaty with Louis XII... Pope would have emerged stronger from this conflict and Henry VIII wouldnt dare to challenge him when he wanted a divorce...
     
  4. biffer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    One of the more important things is surely the fact that James IV would have survived? He was only 40 at the time of the battle and was viewed as one of the more competent kings of Scotland of that period. He was something of an internationalist; would that have increased trade links with Europe? Would James V been a different ruler if he hadn't assumed the throne as an infant? His father having an iternational outlook may have resulted in a different marriage and therefore no Mary Queen of Scots. A different line of monarchs may have meant no union of the crowns (or at least a different timing of it). A more different monarchy may not have pursued the Darien folly, so possibly no act of union.
     
  5. bard32 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    I don't know. If James IV had won, it would mean that he'd have forced Henry
    VIII to make some kind of mistake that he could have capitalized on.