WI: The English monarchy was overthrown?

[Stolengood]

Wales stopped being a country at that point when Henry viii and parliament passed an act that merged Wales and England

Well, Scotland and Ireland weren't proper countries any more at that point, either, so, again, there were no civil wars in them if they weren't bloomin' self-determinin' states.

The Confederates Wars in Ireland started before the English Civil War. The Irish conflict was eventually entangled in the english one, but it was not a direct consequence of it.

...oh, wonderful; now the bloody CSA got ISOT'ed to 17th-century Ireland to wreak slave-owning havoc over there? Where the bloody fuck did that come from?

 

[Monter]

...oh, wonderful; now the bloody CSA got ISOT'ed to 17th-century Ireland to wreak slave-owning havoc over there? Where the bloody fuck did that come from?

You're joking right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Confederate_Wars

 

[Stolengood]

You're joking right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Confederate_Wars

It's honestly counterintuitive to give it a name nobody will goddamn recognize...

 

[desmirelle]

In the FOURTEENTH century, does anyone think England will be anything other than a monarchy?

 

[VVD0D95]

In the FOURTEENTH century, does anyone think England will be anything other than a monarchy?

Definitely not. They'd likely put someone with a claim on the throne. Not some damned peasant

 

[Avrorrange]

Definitely not. They'd likely put someone with a claim on the throne. Not some damned peasant

Given the end goal of the peasants would be one king and one bishop,with all the lands divided amongst the commoners,I would presume that in unlikely chance Richard is completely discredited and deposed,the existing English aristocracy along with their professional armies(the knights)would have to be destroyed before this could happen.If they are able to achieve that much,it is likely the peasants would have leadership and organization superior to otl.In which case it would not be unreasonable if the peasant leader just proclaims himself the new ruler like what happens in China or the recent example in Europe,Ivaylo.

 

[Bee]

Technically, Switzerland wasn't free of Hapsburg rule until the 17th century. And the hussites (15th century) lost and ended up scattering. Switzerland got special concessions probably because of location, location, location. They were a landlocked country in the Alps. Hard to live there, hard to fight there. The Vatican used them for guards. They sent out a lot mercenaries for quite a while, I believe.

Technicalities aside, the Hapsburgs were defeated in Switzerland by the 1300s (Battle of Sempach 1386 for those who are interested). You're right that Switzerland is difficult to fight in, but as Chornedsnorkack has already pointed out, longbowmen had been the key to defeating cavalry charges in the Hundred Years War.

The Hussites defeated all-comers for 15 years. The end only came after (i) they split into two factions, (ii) the moderate Utraquists defeated the more radical Taborites and (iii) the winners negotiated (from strength) a settlement with the papacy and Empire. They were not beaten in the field. It greatly helped their cause that in the early stages of the Hussite Wars, the Hussites were led by Zizka, a military genius. The English peasants might need one, too.

If the peasant side could find a sympathetic noble to be king, it would make their cause more acceptable to outsiders (like the pope) but they would have some leeway in the absence of a suitable English volunteer. They could import a foreigner (like the barons did in 1216), and there's always the possibility of an impostor claiming to be the heir of, say, Harold II.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

In the FOURTEENTH century, does anyone think England will be anything other than a monarchy?

The North could be a Papal State, large chunks were run by the Church as it was. County Durham isn't called the Land of the Prince Bishops for nothing, and the Borders had their own Royal Family, the Percy's.

Northumbria shall rise again.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Technically, Switzerland wasn't free of Hapsburg rule until the 17th century. And the hussites (15th century) lost and ended up scattering. Switzerland got special concessions probably because of location, location, location. They were a landlocked country in the Alps. Hard to live there, hard to fight there. The Vatican used them for guards. They sent out a lot mercenaries for quite a while, I believe.

In England, there was a lot of land to had, a lot of ambitious men who weren't interested in religious Reformation (not in the 14th century, anyway) but who were interested in power. So, someone will get to the top of the power "mountain" and get to be king. In England, there were no other real options if you retain the country. Otherwise, you have fiefdoms but no united kingdom.

Switzerland became independent at the Treaty of Westphalia. Fact.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Obviously what happens is one of the king's daughters goes around Europe, lives with some steppe people, finds some dragons, bans tries to bring a bunch southwest Asia slaves back to claim her throne. Meanwhile Northumbria revolts. And Scotland invades because they are getting overrun by zombies. I swear I read this all once before...

 

[desmirelle]

Winter is coming....

 

[chornedsnorkack]

The Hussites defeated all-comers for 15 years. The end only came after (i) they split into two factions, (ii) the moderate Utraquists defeated the more radical Taborites and (iii) the winners negotiated (from strength) a settlement with the papacy and Empire. They were not beaten in the field. It greatly helped their cause that in the early stages of the Hussite Wars, the Hussites were led by Zizka, a military genius. The English peasants might need one, too.

Zizka did not crown himself King. Did the Hussites over their 15 years of victories have any plans for political organization?

 

[Tripledot]

"War of the Three Kingdoms", they call it now -- because apparently Great Britain is an island in the middle of China, now.

But, the English Commonwealth was no kingdom? :x

 

[VVD0D95]

But, the English Commonwealth was no kingdom? :x

The English commonwealth was an abomination run by an idiot madman

 

[Derek Pullem]

Well, Scotland and Ireland weren't proper countries any more at that point, either, so, again, there were no civil wars in them if they weren't bloomin' self-determinin' states.

...oh, wonderful; now the bloody CSA got ISOT'ed to 17th-century Ireland to wreak slave-owning havoc over there? Where the bloody fuck did that come from?

It's honestly counterintuitive to give it a name nobody will goddamn recognize...

Scotland was very much a "proper country" as was Ireland (since 1542). They had their own Parliaments - the King was the same in all three states but that was technically a personal union which could have been undone.

The fact that a few rebel states in USA hijacked the example of the Irish Confederate rebels and declared themselves a Confederacy two hundred years later is not the fault of the Irish Confederacy but the lack of imagination from the American rebels.

All three countries were involved in their own civil wars which were interlinked - Confederates against the Irish Crown (and later Parliament), Covananters against the Scottish Crown (and later Parliament), English Crown against Parliament.

History didn't begin in 1776 you know.

 

[Avrorrange]

Scotland was very much a "proper country" as was Ireland (since 1542). They had their own Parliaments - the King was the same in all three states but that was technically a personal union which could have been undone.

The fact that a few rebel states in USA hijacked the example of the Irish Confederate rebels and declared themselves a Confederacy two hundred years later is not the fault of the Irish Confederacy but the lack of imagination from the American rebels.

All three countries were involved in their own civil wars which were interlinked - Confederates against the Irish Crown (and later Parliament), Covananters against the Scottish Crown (and later Parliament), English Crown against Parliament.

History didn't begin in 1776 you know.

No it wasn't actually.Poynings' law made Ireland de jure subordinate to the Kingdom of England.

 

[Derek Pullem]

No it wasn't actually.Poynings' law made Ireland de jure subordinate to the Kingdom of England.

Well it was more a proper country than the CSA ever was! And the issue of Poynings Law was a major factor in the Irish Confederate revolt - it was a tad more complicated than just being subordinate to Crown as was the English Parliament until the Civil War)

 

[Stolengood]

Scotland was very much a "proper country" as was Ireland (since 1542). They had their own Parliaments - the King was the same in all three states but that was technically a personal union which could have been undone.

The fact that a few rebel states in USA hijacked the example of the Irish Confederate rebels and declared themselves a Confederacy two hundred years later is not the fault of the Irish Confederacy but the lack of imagination from the American rebels.

All three countries were involved in their own civil wars which were interlinked - Confederates against the Irish Crown (and later Parliament), Covananters against the Scottish Crown (and later Parliament), English Crown against Parliament.

History didn't begin in 1776 you know.

...I see somebody doesn't have a sense of humor, 1066 And All That.