Alternate History: Post Battle of Pavia (1525)

[Elizabeth I Gloriana]

So I'm aware that the Battle of Pavia (1525) and some particular counterfactual scenarios have been aired on this alternatehistory.com forum before, however, in this I aim to ask a different question about which I hope to generate some enlightened (and civilised) discussion.

For those who would like some additional information on the military tactics deployed during the Battle of Pavia itself, I would recommend

as one starter-friendly source of information.

Anyway, time to dive into the crux of this thread. We all know that the outcome of Pavia was a crushing defeat for the French forces at the hands of the Habsburg forces (predominantly Spanish). An entire generation of French nobility was considerably dented, if not almost wiped out. Moreover, King Francis I endured the humiliation of being captured and sent to Madrid. In military terms, the scale of the defeat was crushing: French forces suffered in the range of 13,500 casualties (injured and killed) while the Habsburg forces only recorded 1,500.

So... what if the Habsburg forces had killed both Francis I and King Henry II of Navarre during the Battle of Pavia? The precedent exists for killing the enemy King should he be engaged in the battle at hand: one can look to Battle of Flodden and the death of King James IV of Scotland to the English forces as a case in point. The most obvious immediate outcome would be that the eldest son, 7 year old Francis, would succeed his late father as King Francis II of France, with his mother Louise of Savoy acting as regent (as she did IOTL after the capture of Francis I). As for Navarre, the sister of Henry II would likely become Queen Isabella I, which may present the Spanish with an opportunity to claim the Kingdom of Navarre through the maternal great grandfather of Charles V & I (King John II of Aragon and Navarre)

What if immediately post Pavia, Emperor Charles V & I forged a coalition to invade and carve up the Kingdoms of France and Navarre, consisting of the Habsburg domains, England and possibly Brittany. I can see ample scope for agreement between Henry VIII and Charles V & I as to the division of territories betwixt them in roughly the following manner:

1. Henry VIII of England shall become Henry II of France, bringing about a personal union between England and France. The Crown of France is to be inherited by his heirs in line with the rules of succession to the Crown of England.
2. Certain lands that formed part of France as at February 1525 shall be separated from the Crown of France and instead form part of the Habsburg realm. This could include:
   • Duchy of Milan;
   • South East and East France, specifically:
     • Provence;
     • Montpellier;
     • Narbonne;
     • Forcalquier;
     • Viviers;
     • Lyonnais;
     • Dauphiné;
     • Charolais;
     • Dijonnais;
     • Auxerrois; and
     • Barrois.
3. The Duchy of Brittany would become a semi-autonomous duchy, though ultimately a vassal of Henry VIII & II. Since the Duchy of Brittany had become inherited by the Kings of France through personal union, a new duke/duchess would have to be found ITTL. Outside of the house of Dreux-Montfort or the house of Valois, I would suggest that the next best alternative is Renée de Rieux (La Belle Châteauneuf), daughter of the prominent Breton nobleman, martial and regent John (Jean) IV de Rieux.

Of course, practically-speaking Henry VIII would not be King Henry II of France until the Valois have been deposed and France has been conquered by the Tudor-Habsburg-Breton coalition force. In many ways, this proposed invasion of France would mirror the conflicts fought between England and France throughout the Hundred Years War (HYW), with the Battle of Pavia assuming a similar position to the Battle of Agincourt in terms of its significance and consequences. The one notable difference between the HYW and TTL would be the decisive backing of the Habsburg powers (Spain, Austria and large parts of the HRE including the Habsburg Netherlands). As far as I can see, the fundamental reason for the failure of the English to triumph in the HYW was not due to their lack of military competence (indeed, they had many capable generals and achieved many decisive victories despite often having numerical inferiority). Rather, it is attributable to the overwhelmingly superior resources (manpower, taxation revenues, other resources) that the French could muster against the English.

To address this final point further, the situation ITTL has changed considerably from the situation of Henry V of England in 1420 when he achieved the Treaty of Troyes and became recognised as the heir to the Kingdom of France and succeeded in bringing large swathes of Anjou, Normandy, Picardie and Aquitaine under English control. Roughly, the populations of the countries concerned in 1525 have been calculated as follows:

• Kingdom of France: ~15 million (excluding Duchy of Milan)
• Anti-French Coalition: ~16.6 million
  • Spanish Empire: ~8.6 million (excluding the New World colonies)
  • Habsburg Netherlands: ~1 million
  • Archduchy of Austria: ~1.5 million
  • Kingdom of Bohemia: ~1.5 million
  • Kingdom of Hungary: ~1.2 million
  • English Crown: ~2.8 million (including Wales, Calais, and Lordship of Ireland)

The above numbers are quite generous to France, as I would expect a number of other states in the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) to side with the Anti-French Coalition, especially the Habsburg-affiliated Italian states and those HRE states around the Rhine river who would have spent the last 50 or so years nervously eyeing an increasingly aggressive and expansionist France.

Another factor weighing against France is that the majority of its standing army has just been destroyed and routed at the Pavia, plus a King and an entire generation of noblemen wiped out and hostile forces would be bearing down on France from all sides (English from Calais pushing south towards Paris, Spanish pushing west from Italy to Provence then up towards Burgundy, Bretons pushing east towards Le Mans and Tours and the Habsburg Netherlands pushing south towards Reims and Troyes). Logistically, the Anti-French Coalition will no-doubt find it difficult to coordinate their attacks, however, these would pale in comparison to the utter breakdown of the French state brought about for the aforementioned reasons. Assuming best case scenario for France ITTL, she would only find sympathy from the Papal States (IOTL), the Ottoman Empire (IOTL) and possibly Savoy since Duke Charles III is the brother of Louise.

If one were to take the above counterfactual as the most likely, the Ottomans IOTL took a full 6 months to initiate an offensive into Hungary, at the Battle of Mohács. I expect ITTL that France could be brought to its knees by the end of July 1525. The warming weather would facilitate the quick progress of the Anti-French coalition forces across France from all the different sides. Mean march speed for an army in 1500s as far as I know is ~22 miles per day. French forces would likely be too disorganised to launch any counteroffensive of note until well into April. By this time, I expect Spanish forces to be near Lyon, English forces to have taken Amiens, Reims to have fallen to the Habsburg Netherlands and the Bretons to have captured Le Mans and Tours.

The interesting question is...what would happen to Francis, Henry and Charles (the three sons Francis I had with Louise)? For legitimacy reasons, would Henry VIII need to be rid of them? Perhaps a creative solution could be found? E.g. since Henry VIII and his wife Katherine had yet to have a surviving son, maybe they could adopt the sons and bind the two houses to create a Tudor-Valois dynasty by having Francis (then Henry, after the death of Francis in 1536 per IOTL) betrothed to Mary (daughter of Henry VIII)? Henry VIII could reign as King of France, with Francis (then Henry post the death of Francis) as heir. There was precedent for adoption in the Roman times, Byzantium and sporadically in other European countries.

As for the Papal States, I suspect the Pope could be bought out by gold and land (perhaps by returning Avignon and granting some Italian lands). IOTL, Pope Clement VII became an ally of Charles V & I. Savoy would hardly put up a whimper, let alone a fight.

So ITTL, should all of the above occur, by early August 1525 a powerful allied bipolarity will exist in Western and Central Europe. The English Crown would dominate in the British Isles and France, while the Habsburgs would wield control Spain and the HRE. Both sides would have achieved their geopolitical and strategic aims:

• For England --- reclaiming lost lands in France and establishing a secure position for the continental holdings and the British isles that is free from the threat of a powerful and hostile enemy on the continent;
• For the Habsburgs --- removing the meddling, rivalry and thorn in the side that was Valois France and gaining a powerful ally to assist with the upcoming wars against the Ottomans.

As part of the quid pro quo of this agreement, I also anticipate that Charles V & I would request the assistance of Henry VIII against the Ottoman invasion into Hungary. Henry's wife Katherine had already demonstrated herself a very capable regent during her husband's campaigns in France in 1513, when she played a pivotal and leading role in the defence of England against the incursion by James IV and so utterly destroyed the Scottish forces that Scotland was isolated from European geopolitics for the rest of the 16th century. So I believe that Katherine would be capable of stabilising France and putting down any possible rebellions during Henry VIII's campaigns against the Ottomans.

So... thoughts anyone?

• How likely do you think this scenario could have been, had Charles V & I more actively sought to coordinate with Henry VIII? IOTL England ended up switching sides in 1526 to support France in the Italian Wars, however, with the potential to rule all of France and recreate the Angevin Empire I suspect Henry VIII (English then British monarchs were crowned King/Queen of France up until 1800) would hardly have turned this down.
• What would the potential consequential effects be? Would England have remained Catholic? Or would it still have undergone a Reformation and detached from the pope, but perhaps retained a Church of England that is more Catholic in its practices and substance?
• Would Henry VIII still have sought to annul the marriage with Katherine?
• Would the English have sought to expand into colonial empire, or simply have been satisfied with the newly acquired Kingdom of France?
• Would the Ottomans be pushed back much earlier ITTL when facing the alliance between England (in personal union with France), the Habsburg domains and the Pope?
• Would the dominance of the Habsburgs (both Austria and Spain) have greater longevity than IOTL?
• Would the people of France accept this settlement? Would it depend on how the English ruled France and managed the nobility (e.g. in an inclusive and cooperative way vs. in an exclusionary and oppressive way)
• Are there certain elements ITTL that are too far-fetched to be plausible?

Sorry for the long post...but the topic is quite all-inclusive...
Signing off.

 

[alexmilman]

IMO, the main problem with that grand schema is a combination of three assumptions: (a) that France as a military force had been completely whipped out after Pavia, (b) that a major invasion of France was technically feasible and (c) that Charles seriously intended to fulfill his promises to Henry. None of them is quite correct so the majestic schema is build upon the sand.

Yes, many French aristocrats had been killed at Pavia but French aristocracy and nobility was far from being whipped out by a simple reason: most of it did not participate in the campaign and a part of the French army simply did not participate in the battle. Some of the top leaders, like Montmorency, were captured and then released. What is more important, France was in a better financial position than Charles who could not pay his troops (hence the Sack of Rome) and in OTL in 1528 the French troops under Odet de Foix (Lautrec) besieged the Naples, which clearly indicates that France had both aristocrats and the troops. BTW, by that time the French army, while still being obsolete, moved from the “knightly” medieval army to a more modern model: at Pavia the cavalry amounted to less than 25% of the total and the army had a strong artillery. Even with the OTL defeats France was capable to maintain a military effort for the next 2+ decades and quite often acting aggressively.

As was demonstrated by the OTL experience, a strategic invasion deep into the French territory was practical impossibility for the armies of that period: they did not have the needed numbers and logistics. Charles did try in 1536 and could not even take Marseille. Even less practical would be a campaign of conquest needed for implementing partitioning of France. A little bit too late for the independent Brittany as well: it already had a Duke Franci III who also happened to be a Dauphin of France and in your scenario becomes Francis II of France.

In OTL when after Pavia Henry VIII applied for his share of the spoils he got a polite version of “screw you” as a response (and the same goes for a “mini-kingdom” promised to the Connetable of Bourbon): there was no reason for Charles to get a Franco-English kingdom threatening the Netherlands and potentially inheriting the old French ambitions. Needless to say that this was an end of the love affair between Henry and Charles with a resulting Anglo-French anti-Hapsburg treaty. Anyway, at that time as far as the continental affairs had been involved, England was a relatively small potato in a category “nice to have” but hardly a decisive strategic partner. For Charles it was convenient to have it as a factor which could provide some French distraction from the Italian front but that’s it. Not that Henry had realistic ideas about his real values, which doomed him to the disappointments and regular shifts of the alliances (out of which he was usually getting nothing or close to nothing).

 

[Brita]

The Duchy of Brittany would become a semi-autonomous duchy, though ultimately a vassal of Henry VIII & II. Since the Duchy of Brittany had become inherited by the Kings of France through personal union, a new duke/duchess would have to be found ITTL. Outside of the house of Dreux-Montfort or the house of Valois, I would suggest that the next best alternative is Renée de Rieux (La Belle Châteauneuf), daughter of the prominent Breton nobleman, martial and regent John (Jean) IV de Rieux.

Why not Renée of France? She was the rightful heiress after all and still unmarried at the time so her Breton relatives could try and find her a suitable husband (maybe a Rohan as they also had a claim to the duchy and it would unite their families).

what would happen to Francis, Henry and Charles (the three sons Francis I had with Louise)? For legitimacy reasons, would Henry VIII need to be rid of them? Perhaps a creative solution could be found? E.g. since Henry VIII and his wife Katherine had yet to have a surviving son, maybe they could adopt the sons and bind the two houses to create a Tudor-Valois dynasty by having Francis (then Henry, after the death of Francis in 1536 per IOTL) betrothed to Mary (daughter of Henry VIII)? Henry VIII could reign as King of France, with Francis (then Henry post the death of Francis) as heir.

I like the idea of adoption. There hadn't been any female ruler in England at the time (except Matilda of course) but since succession through women was possible I can see Henry marrying his daughter to one of the boys. If they have at least one son, the succession should be secured.

Would the people of France accept this settlement? Would it depend on how the English ruled France and managed the nobility (e.g. in an inclusive and cooperative way vs. in an exclusionary and oppressive way)

I don't think the French would accept it easily. As @alexmilman says, even though Pavia was an important defeat, the nobility wasn't wiped out. They hadn't wanted to have an English king as king of France in 1328, so I don't think they'll agree to have one two centuries later. Henry VIII might eventually succeed but I think he'll have a lot to do (maybe buy support from important French noblemen?

An idea that suddenly popped up: what if Henry has Francis's son crowned King of France with himself as regent? The French will grumble of course but Francis II (and after his death his brother Henry II) remains the rightful heir. Then Henry arranges the marriage of his daughter with Henry II their son inherits both thrones.

Also, I think the laws of the conquered provinces should be respected. If the instituions remain the same, maybe the nobility and the people might be less reluctant than if they're imposed English laws.

• What would the potential consequential effects be? Would England have remained Catholic? Or would it still have undergone a Reformation and detached from the pope, but perhaps retained a Church of England that is more Catholic in its practices and substance?

• Would Henry VIII still have sought to annul the marriage with Katherine?

If Henry decides to marry his daughter to one of Francis's sons in order to unite the crowns, he won't want to have a son so badly and will make his daughter his heiress to secure the personal union of both kingdoms, so I don't think he'll seek to have his marriage annulled - unless he's afraid Mary might die. If there's no annulation, England will probably remain Catholic. Then there's the question of the policy the Kingdom will folow concerning Protestantism: tolerant or repressive?

 

[Brita]

ITTL, the current claimant to the throne of France besides Francis I's sons is Charles III of Bourbon (1490-1527). If he dies childless as per OTL, the next claimant will be his distant cousin Charles IV of Bourbon-Vendôme (1495-1537).

 

[alexmilman]

ITTL, the current claimant to the throne of France besides Francis I's sons is Charles III of Bourbon (1490-1527). If he dies childless as per OTL, the next claimant will be his distant cousin Charles IV of Bourbon-Vendôme (1495-1537).

The problem with Connetable was that after he switched sides he was despised both by the French and the Spaniards. When Charles the Duke of Medina Sidonia (IIRC) to allow Bourbon to stay in his palace during visit to Spain the answer was that as the loyal subject the duke can refuse his sovereign but after the visit is over he would have to burn palace to the ground as defouled by the presence of a traitor. Charles dropped any ideas regarding awarding him with a quasi Kingdom after Pavia and he reminded just a mercenary general.

Now, as far as Henry’s regency is involved (you mentioned this in another post), why would anybody even propose such a thing if there were quite capable Valois females available? Louis of Savoy was acting as aregent of France in the absence of FI so why would anybody even consider the English option?

 

[Brita]

The problem with Connetable was that after he switched sides he was despised both by the French and the Spaniards. When Charles the Duke of Medina Sidonia (IIRC) to allow Bourbon to stay in his palace during visit to Spain the answer was that as the loyal subject the duke can refuse his sovereign but after the visit is over he would have to burn palace to the ground as defouled by the presence of a traitor. Charles dropped any ideas regarding awarding him with a quasi Kingdom after Pavia and he reminded just a mercenary general.

Now, as far as Henry’s regency is involved (you mentioned this in another post), why would anybody even propose such a thing if there were quite capable Valois females available? Louis of Savoy was acting as aregent of France in the absence of FI so why would anybody even consider the English option?

True, in this case and since the Connetable's childless in 1525, the French may well decide to acknowledge Charles IV of Bourbon-Vendôme directly.

You're right. I didn't think of them. But if Henry wants to get France, he'd probably push for a pro-English regent. Louise of Savoy or even her daughter Marguerite would do as regents but then Henry's going to have a lot of trouble taking France.

 

[alexmilman]

You're right. I didn't think of them. But if Henry wants to get France, he'd probably push for a pro-English regent. Louise of Savoy or even her daughter Marguerite would do as regents but then Henry's going to have a lot of trouble taking France.

But the problem with that idea is that he has neither diplomatic nor military tools for pushing for such a candidacy. More than that, if he (with the halo of the friendly ASBs ) achieved some success in that area, most probably Charles would join his resources with France to guarantee that nothing would happen because this would be against his interests.

Henry’s chances to end with the crown of France on his head never were more than a delusion: Charles was ready to maintain it only for as long as it was suiting his interests. Think objectively, why (*) would Charles want Franko-English Union in any form or shape? Just for the fun of fighting more wars against a stronger opponent?

OTOH, as you already noticed, there was no enthusiasm in France for the English monarch and, as I keep saying, even allied (forget just English) conquest of France was unrealistic.

__________
(*) outside of “wank England” universe

 

[isabella]

So I'm aware that the Battle of Pavia (1525) and some particular counterfactual scenarios have been aired on this alternatehistory.com forum before, however, in this I aim to ask a different question about which I hope to generate some enlightened (and civilised) discussion.

For those who would like some additional information on the military tactics deployed during the Battle of Pavia itself, I would recommend

as one starter-friendly source of information.

Anyway, time to dive into the crux of this thread. We all know that the outcome of Pavia was a crushing defeat for the French forces at the hands of the Habsburg forces (predominantly Spanish). An entire generation of French nobility was considerably dented, if not almost wiped out. Moreover, King Francis I endured the humiliation of being captured and sent to Madrid. In military terms, the scale of the defeat was crushing: French forces suffered in the range of 13,500 casualties (injured and killed) while the Habsburg forces only recorded 1,500.

So... what if the Habsburg forces had killed both Francis I and King Henry II of Navarre during the Battle of Pavia? The precedent exists for killing the enemy King should he be engaged in the battle at hand: one can look to Battle of Flodden and the death of King James IV of Scotland to the English forces as a case in point. The most obvious immediate outcome would be that the eldest son, 7 year old Francis, would succeed his late father as King Francis II of France, with his mother Louise of Savoy acting as regent (as she did IOTL after the capture of Francis I). As for Navarre, the sister of Henry II would likely become Queen Isabella I, which may present the Spanish with an opportunity to claim the Kingdom of Navarre through the maternal great grandfather of Charles V & I (King John II of Aragon and Navarre)

What if immediately post Pavia, Emperor Charles V & I forged a coalition to invade and carve up the Kingdoms of France and Navarre, consisting of the Habsburg domains, England and possibly Brittany. I can see ample scope for agreement between Henry VIII and Charles V & I as to the division of territories betwixt them in roughly the following manner:

1. Henry VIII of England shall become Henry II of France, bringing about a personal union between England and France. The Crown of France is to be inherited by his heirs in line with the rules of succession to the Crown of England.
2. Certain lands that formed part of France as at February 1525 shall be separated from the Crown of France and instead form part of the Habsburg realm. This could include:
   • Duchy of Milan;
   • South East and East France, specifically:
     • Provence;
     • Montpellier;
     • Narbonne;
     • Forcalquier;
     • Viviers;
     • Lyonnais;
     • Dauphiné;
     • Charolais;
     • Dijonnais;
     • Auxerrois; and
     • Barrois.
3. The Duchy of Brittany would become a semi-autonomous duchy, though ultimately a vassal of Henry VIII & II. Since the Duchy of Brittany had become inherited by the Kings of France through personal union, a new duke/duchess would have to be found ITTL. Outside of the house of Dreux-Montfort or the house of Valois, I would suggest that the next best alternative is Renée de Rieux (La Belle Châteauneuf), daughter of the prominent Breton nobleman, martial and regent John (Jean) IV de Rieux.

Of course, practically-speaking Henry VIII would not be King Henry II of France until the Valois have been deposed and France has been conquered by the Tudor-Habsburg-Breton coalition force. In many ways, this proposed invasion of France would mirror the conflicts fought between England and France throughout the Hundred Years War (HYW), with the Battle of Pavia assuming a similar position to the Battle of Agincourt in terms of its significance and consequences. The one notable difference between the HYW and TTL would be the decisive backing of the Habsburg powers (Spain, Austria and large parts of the HRE including the Habsburg Netherlands). As far as I can see, the fundamental reason for the failure of the English to triumph in the HYW was not due to their lack of military competence (indeed, they had many capable generals and achieved many decisive victories despite often having numerical inferiority). Rather, it is attributable to the overwhelmingly superior resources (manpower, taxation revenues, other resources) that the French could muster against the English.

To address this final point further, the situation ITTL has changed considerably from the situation of Henry V of England in 1420 when he achieved the Treaty of Troyes and became recognised as the heir to the Kingdom of France and succeeded in bringing large swathes of Anjou, Normandy, Picardie and Aquitaine under English control. Roughly, the populations of the countries concerned in 1525 have been calculated as follows:

• Kingdom of France: ~15 million (excluding Duchy of Milan)
• Anti-French Coalition: ~16.6 million
  • Spanish Empire: ~8.6 million (excluding the New World colonies)
  • Habsburg Netherlands: ~1 million
  • Archduchy of Austria: ~1.5 million
  • Kingdom of Bohemia: ~1.5 million
  • Kingdom of Hungary: ~1.2 million
  • English Crown: ~2.8 million (including Wales, Calais, and Lordship of Ireland)

The above numbers are quite generous to France, as I would expect a number of other states in the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) to side with the Anti-French Coalition, especially the Habsburg-affiliated Italian states and those HRE states around the Rhine river who would have spent the last 50 or so years nervously eyeing an increasingly aggressive and expansionist France.

Another factor weighing against France is that the majority of its standing army has just been destroyed and routed at the Pavia, plus a King and an entire generation of noblemen wiped out and hostile forces would be bearing down on France from all sides (English from Calais pushing south towards Paris, Spanish pushing west from Italy to Provence then up towards Burgundy, Bretons pushing east towards Le Mans and Tours and the Habsburg Netherlands pushing south towards Reims and Troyes). Logistically, the Anti-French Coalition will no-doubt find it difficult to coordinate their attacks, however, these would pale in comparison to the utter breakdown of the French state brought about for the aforementioned reasons. Assuming best case scenario for France ITTL, she would only find sympathy from the Papal States (IOTL), the Ottoman Empire (IOTL) and possibly Savoy since Duke Charles III is the brother of Louise.

If one were to take the above counterfactual as the most likely, the Ottomans IOTL took a full 6 months to initiate an offensive into Hungary, at the Battle of Mohács. I expect ITTL that France could be brought to its knees by the end of July 1525. The warming weather would facilitate the quick progress of the Anti-French coalition forces across France from all the different sides. Mean march speed for an army in 1500s as far as I know is ~22 miles per day. French forces would likely be too disorganised to launch any counteroffensive of note until well into April. By this time, I expect Spanish forces to be near Lyon, English forces to have taken Amiens, Reims to have fallen to the Habsburg Netherlands and the Bretons to have captured Le Mans and Tours.

The interesting question is...what would happen to Francis, Henry and Charles (the three sons Francis I had with Louise)? For legitimacy reasons, would Henry VIII need to be rid of them? Perhaps a creative solution could be found? E.g. since Henry VIII and his wife Katherine had yet to have a surviving son, maybe they could adopt the sons and bind the two houses to create a Tudor-Valois dynasty by having Francis (then Henry, after the death of Francis in 1536 per IOTL) betrothed to Mary (daughter of Henry VIII)? Henry VIII could reign as King of France, with Francis (then Henry post the death of Francis) as heir. There was precedent for adoption in the Roman times, Byzantium and sporadically in other European countries.

As for the Papal States, I suspect the Pope could be bought out by gold and land (perhaps by returning Avignon and granting some Italian lands). IOTL, Pope Clement VII became an ally of Charles V & I. Savoy would hardly put up a whimper, let alone a fight.

So ITTL, should all of the above occur, by early August 1525 a powerful allied bipolarity will exist in Western and Central Europe. The English Crown would dominate in the British Isles and France, while the Habsburgs would wield control Spain and the HRE. Both sides would have achieved their geopolitical and strategic aims:

• For England --- reclaiming lost lands in France and establishing a secure position for the continental holdings and the British isles that is free from the threat of a powerful and hostile enemy on the continent;
• For the Habsburgs --- removing the meddling, rivalry and thorn in the side that was Valois France and gaining a powerful ally to assist with the upcoming wars against the Ottomans.

As part of the quid pro quo of this agreement, I also anticipate that Charles V & I would request the assistance of Henry VIII against the Ottoman invasion into Hungary. Henry's wife Katherine had already demonstrated herself a very capable regent during her husband's campaigns in France in 1513, when she played a pivotal and leading role in the defence of England against the incursion by James IV and so utterly destroyed the Scottish forces that Scotland was isolated from European geopolitics for the rest of the 16th century. So I believe that Katherine would be capable of stabilising France and putting down any possible rebellions during Henry VIII's campaigns against the Ottomans.

So... thoughts anyone?

• How likely do you think this scenario could have been, had Charles V & I more actively sought to coordinate with Henry VIII? IOTL England ended up switching sides in 1526 to support France in the Italian Wars, however, with the potential to rule all of France and recreate the Angevin Empire I suspect Henry VIII (English then British monarchs were crowned King/Queen of France up until 1800) would hardly have turned this down.
• What would the potential consequential effects be? Would England have remained Catholic? Or would it still have undergone a Reformation and detached from the pope, but perhaps retained a Church of England that is more Catholic in its practices and substance?
• Would Henry VIII still have sought to annul the marriage with Katherine?
• Would the English have sought to expand into colonial empire, or simply have been satisfied with the newly acquired Kingdom of France?
• Would the Ottomans be pushed back much earlier ITTL when facing the alliance between England (in personal union with France), the Habsburg domains and the Pope?
• Would the dominance of the Habsburgs (both Austria and Spain) have greater longevity than IOTL?
• Would the people of France accept this settlement? Would it depend on how the English ruled France and managed the nobility (e.g. in an inclusive and cooperative way vs. in an exclusionary and oppressive way)
• Are there certain elements ITTL that are too far-fetched to be plausible?

Sorry for the long post...but the topic is quite all-inclusive...
Signing off.

Totally ASB with a lot of inexact things:

1) Louise of Savoy was Francis I’s mother not his wife. Francis’s first wife, already dead at that point, was Claude of France, Duchess of Brittany, the eldest daughter of Louis XII and Anne of Brittany.
2) In no way Henry II of Navarre would be followed on the throne by his youngest sister Isabelle. His heir now would be his younger brother Charles, captured by Austria at Naples
3) In no way Charles V and Henry VIII would be able to split France between them; the Duke of Brittany right now is the new Francis II of France... in alternative can go to Francis’ maternal aunt Renee who claimed it...

Henry VIII need male heirs... If he can not have them by Catherine, he will divorce her under any scenario...

 

[Elizabeth I Gloriana]

Thank you all for the interesting replies. It has made for an enlightening read.

I thought I would share a few comments and differences in understanding that I have, to encourage further civil discussion on this topic...

Some of the top leaders, like Montmorency, were captured and then released

Sorry I didn't add this to my original post. The assumption ITTL is that the Habsburg forces take no POWs at Pavia, in a similar fashion to the English at Agincourt.

What is more important, France was in a better financial position than Charles who could not pay his troops (hence the Sack of Rome)

IOTL, yes this certainly was the case. ITTL, however, with the deaths of Francis I and numerous other important nobles and commanders, the leadership that France maintained IOTL (which went on to play an important role in the League of Cambrai and later conflicts against the Habsburgs) would be absent ITTL.

French coffers would bleed, possibly dry, by having to raise and fund a fresh army almost from scratch (out of the 17,000 infantry, 6,500 cavalry and 53 artillery that fought at Pavia, the French incurred 13,000 killed and wounded). As you rightly recognise, war is an expensive enterprise. By comparison, post Pavia the Habsburg force was largely in tact (a mere 1,500 casualties). Assuming the financial difficulties remain for the Habsburgs as IOTL, I don't see why France cannot be conquered well before 1528 when the Habsburg coffers hit the buffers IOTL so to say.

Even with the OTL defeats France was capable to maintain a military effort for the next 2+ decades and quite often acting aggressively.

I don't see how this would hold ITTL. The situation would alter quite dramatically, with a 7 year old as King of France and Anne Montmorency and Robert III de La Marcl having died in 1525 at Pavia. It takes time to train and recruit new soldiers and commanders - time the French would desperately lack with the Habsburgs, English and Bretons bearing down on all sides.

BTW, by that time the French army, while still being obsolete, moved from the “knightly” medieval army to a more modern model: at Pavia the cavalry amounted to less than 25% of the total and the army had a strong artillery.

Precisely. This French army, despite its 'modernisation' efforts, was utterly crushed by the Habsburgs at Pavia. Almost all of the elite knights were lost when surrounded and slaughtered towards the end of the battle. Most of the 53 artillery units that the French took to Pavia were captured or destroyed. Building artillery is costly due to the resources and metals involved. I doubt the French treasury could afford to completely rebuild such a large artillery force...

in OTL in 1528 the French troops under Odet de Foix (Lautrec) besieged the Naples, which clearly indicates that France had both aristocrats and the troops

You have to remember that 1528 was 3 years post Pavia (1525). 3 Years is a considerable time - time enough to rebuild and re-equip an army, as well as training new recruits (some of whom would still technically have been children in 1525). This is time that the French would not have ITTL, since the Habsburgs, English and Bretons would converge on the French from all sides throughout 1525. As I mentioned in my original post, I don't anticipate any French counter-offensives being possible until well into April 1525 at the earliest, as it will take at least this long to regather the remnants of the routed army from Pavia and reinforce it with additional units. By this time, the Anti-French Coalition would have made considerable inroads as I outlined in my original post.

As was demonstrated by the OTL experience, a strategic invasion deep into the French territory was practical impossibility for the armies of that period: they did not have the needed numbers and logistics. Charles did try in 1536 and could not even take Marseille. Even less practical would be a campaign of conquest needed for implementing partitioning of France.

I disagree with this assessment. The siege of Marseille in 1536 by Charles V & I IOTL was very different from ITTL.

First, in 1536 the English refused to partake in the League of Combrai and the Italian Wars 1536-38, so it was the Habsburgs alone against the French and the Ottomans. ITTL, by stark contrast, it would be the Habsburg, English and Breton Anti-French Coalition against the French. Indeed, in 1536 the Ottomans were quite instrumental in tipping the scale against the Habsburgs and in favour of the French. The Ottoman fleet and military assistance to France in 1536 tilted the odds far more in favour of the French than ITTL by providing vital logistical support and reinforcements to the French at sea and on land.

Secondly, the route between Marseille and Lyon is a well-travelled trade route. Indeed, it was one of only two major thoroughfares for trade and traffic passing from Italy to France (the other being St Bernard's pass). So I don't see logistically what impediments there would be to prevent or inhibit the Habsburg forces from advancing at a relatively modest 22 miles per day. With the months changing from March to April in 1525 as the Habsburgs push northward towards Lyon, mud will be replaced by warmer and dryer conditions that are more favourable to transport logistics and mobility.

Thirdly, the travel north from Marseille to Lyon follows the Rhône river valley, so there would be a water source and fertile lands in close proximity to the advancing Habsburg forces and march-friendly terrain.

Fourthly, as for the English and Breton forces advancing across the north and west of France, this terrain is largely flat and arable farmland. There is another well-travelled trade route from Calais down to Paris, so I don't see the logistical difficulties here. English forces demonstrated throughout the Hundred Years War that they were more than capable of moving around this part of France (which forms part of the Great European Plain) with great agility. Indeed, this has historically been the vulnerable point for France and it's why she has sought to aggressively expand her borders north and east towards the Rhine river - a more defensible frontier.

A little bit too late for the independent Brittany as well: it already had a Duke Franci III who also happened to be a Dauphin of France and in your scenario becomes Francis II of France.

I'm not entirely sure about this one. Just because the lands are held by directly Francis (now King Francis I of France), it doesn't necessarily follow that Bretons will suddenly fall head over heels in love with him. Indeed, history shows that the Celtic peoples have a strong independence streak. For example, Scotland and England were joined together in personal union in 1603, yet Scots rebelled repeatedly right up until 1745 (some 140 years later). Brittany has its own distinctive language and culture, which would be even more so after only 50 or so years of being in personal union with the French monarch.

Why not Renée of France? She was the rightful heiress after all and still unmarried at the time so her Breton relatives could try and find her a suitable husband (maybe a Rohan as they also had a claim to the duchy and it would unite their families).

As Brita aptly notes above, Renée of France was indeed the rightful heir to the Duchy of Brittany. So it's far more likely that the Bretons rally her as the true Duchess rather than to 7 year old Francis II who has no relation to the previous Dukes and Duchesses of Brittany. So in the face of advancing Habsburg and English forces, I expect Bretons to seize this chance to restore their autonomy.

In OTL when after Pavia Henry VIII applied for his share of the spoils he got a polite version of “screw you” as a response

You make a valid point here and I acknowledge that building and establishing trust and cooperation between Henry VIII and Charles V & I would be the most challenging part ITTL.

there was no reason for Charles to get a Franco-English kingdom threatening the Netherlands and potentially inheriting the old French ambitions.

Think objectively, why (*) would Charles want Franko-English Union in any form or shape? Just for the fun of fighting more wars against a stronger opponent?

I disagree with this prognostication. In 1525, the English and Habsburgs were in a quasi alliance against the French. They were on the same side in the Italian Wars. Henry VIII's wife, Katherine of Aragon, was the aunt of Charles V & I. If the Habsburgs stood for one principle, it was that family always comes first. More generally though, my view is that there isn't likely to be geopolitical conflict between the Habsburgs and the English ITTL since...

The English Crown would dominate in the British Isles and France, while the Habsburgs would wield control Spain and the HRE. Both sides would have achieved their geopolitical and strategic aims:

• For England --- reclaiming lost lands in France and establishing a secure position for the continental holdings and the British isles that is free from the threat of a powerful and hostile enemy on the continent;
• For the Habsburgs --- removing the meddling, rivalry and thorn in the side that was Valois France and gaining a powerful ally to assist with the upcoming wars against the Ottomans.

Then there's the question of the policy the Kingdom will folow concerning Protestantism: tolerant or repressive?

An interesting question. ITTL the English institutions would no influence some France institutions (just as Norman/French influences spread to England with the 1066 Norman Conquest). Henry VIII was a devout Catholic and he had little time for his more reform-minded advisers/ministers. I do expect, however, that there will be a more tolerant approach to be taken - if anything, out of pragmatism and especially so if ITTL the Protestant faith spread as widely in France as it did IOTL. As evidenced in the French Revolution some 250 years later, I do not believe the French were ever as attached to the Catholic faith (indeed religious belief more broadly) compared to the Spanish, Italians or Poles. Interestingly, in 1525 Thomas Cromwell had already commenced the dissolution of monasteries in order to acquire funds for the English Crown. I expect this to continue. Henry VIII couldn't resist increasing his wealth and power.

OTOH, as you already noticed, there was no enthusiasm in France for the English monarch and, as I keep saying, even allied (forget just English) conquest of France was unrealistic.

This may well be the case, but William I the Conqueror enjoyed no initial popularity upon taking the Kingdom of England. He knew not the local language nor the local customs. Yet he (largely) chose to respect them and leave them in place, though they were influenced by Norman/French customs and language (e.g. why we have different words for beef and cow today). Should Henry VIII follow a similar course, I expect hostility might initially be high but would quickly subside once people recognise this fact. Moreover, should Henry VIII's daughter Mary end up marrying a son of the late Francis I and have a child, the couple's child (having both Tudor and Valois blood) would become King of the combined England and France union.

My final point...

Anyway, at that time as far as the continental affairs had been involved, England was a relatively small potato in a category “nice to have” but hardly a decisive strategic partner

For any power attempting to invade France, England is almost an essential partner. Charles V & I realised this after spurning Henry VIII too late - in the Italian wars of 1536-38, as I briefly discussed above. He came to appreciate very quickly that a one-front war against France would enable the French to concentrate forces in southern France. By contrast, ITTL, the French forces would be divided, disoriented and ripped limb from limb as Bretons advance from the west, English from the north, Spanish from the south and the Habsburg Netherlands from the north east.

Thank you for indulging me with my ramblings. I congratulate those who have made it to the end. I look forward to reading the replies.

 

[Elizabeth I Gloriana]

Totally ASB with a lot of inexact things:

1) Louise of Savoy was Francis I’s mother not his wife. Francis’s first wife, already dead at that point, was Claude of France, Duchess of Brittany, the eldest daughter of Louis XII and Anne of Brittany.
2) In no way Henry II of Navarre would be followed on the throne by his youngest sister Isabelle. His heir now would be his younger brother Charles, captured by Austria at Naples
3) In no way Charles V and Henry VIII would be able to split France between them; the Duke of Brittany right now is the new Francis III of France... in alternative can go to Francis’ maternal aunt Renee who claimed it...

Henry VIII need male heirs... If he can not have them by Catherine, he will divorce her under any scenario...

Thank you for the corrections.

With the death of Francis I, leaving behind 3 young sons (7 years old or under), might Henry VIII see it as enough to effectively 'adopt' them? As I outlined earlier, the eldest could marry his daughter Mary (they are both of a similar age) such that a true dynastic Tudor-Valois union would follow... Henry VIII was always concerned with legitimacy and wanting to ensure a strong successor would pick up the mantle going forward. If Henry VIII had the chance to raise the 3 Valois sons in his image, he could still achieve this while also solidifying the dynastic union between England and France. Wouldn't this satisfy him?

 

[isabella]

Thank you for the corrections.

With the death of Francis I, leaving behind 3 young sons (7 years old or under), might Henry VIII see it as enough to effectively 'adopt' them? As I outlined earlier, the eldest could marry his daughter Mary (they are both of a similar age) such that a true dynastic Tudor-Valois union would follow... Henry VIII was always concerned with legitimacy and wanting to ensure a strong successor would pick up the mantle going forward. If Henry VIII had the chance to raise the 3 Valois sons in his image, he could still achieve this while also solidifying the dynastic union between England and France. Wouldn't this satisfy him?

Henry want heirs with the Tudor surname, not a Tudor-Valois Union or something like that...

ATL Francis II of France was Duke of Brittany as Francis III being the eldest son of the previous Duchess (aka his mother Claude), eldest daughter of the precedent Duchess and last heiress of the Ducal house (Anne of Brittany). Renee was Claude’s younger sister and her claim came from the fact who Anne designated heiress her younger daughter if the eldest married their father’s heir on the French throne but in the end ATL Francis II’s claim is stronger than the one of Renee


Edit: remember who Henry VIII was allied more often with France than he was with Charles V...

 

[alexmilman]

Thank you all for the interesting replies. It has made for an enlightening read.
Sorry I didn't add this to my original post. The assumption ITTL is that the Habsburg forces take no POWs at Pavia, in a similar fashion to the English at Agincourt.

This is a legend which does not stand to even a superficial fact checking: "Altogether it has been possible so far to identify 320 prisoners taken alive and ransomed. Only the most prominent prisoners were taken back to England and held until their ransoms could be paid, which included Charles, duke of Orléans (a nephew of Charles VI); Jean de Clermont, duke of Bourbon; Louis de Bourbon, count of Vendôme; Charles of Artois, count of Eu (all three of royal descent); Arthur of Brittany, count of Richemont (brother of the duke of Brittany); and the marshal of France, Jean II le Meingre, called Boucicaut." https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/agincourt/0/steps/8864

IOTL, yes this certainly was the case. ITTL, however, with the deaths of Francis I and numerous other important nobles and commanders, the leadership that France maintained IOTL (which went on to play an important role in the League of Cambrai and later conflicts against the Habsburgs) would be absent ITTL.

Sorry, which part of the "financial situation" you did not understand and how the death of the members of nobility would impact it?

Now, as far as the "leading cadres" are involved, most of the French leaders killed at Pavia belonged just as Francis, to the old school sticking to the charges of the armored cavalry (which were patently useless against the columns of the pikemen) and a personal bravery (the same applies to Montmorency) and mostly known for the battles in which they were beaten. Your idea that France became completely leaderless assumes that somehow within less than 2 years after Pavia and brand new crop of the French aristocrats grew up from nothing (or from their childhood), which is interesting but hardly believable. Of course, it must be said that many of the post-Pavia leaders were not the great generals but this is not the point because neither were those killed at Pavia.

Now, back to the initial point: France was the richest state in Europe and, strange as it may sound, was in a much better financial shape than Charles V with all his possessions. It could and did keep hiring the mercenaries and raising the new armies. In 1526, with all these aristocrats killed at Pavia, France joined League of Cognac and became the leading force of it. BTW, the League had been formed while Francis was still POW. In your AH, France could join immediately.

French coffers would bleed, possibly dry, by having to raise and fund a fresh army almost from scratch (out of the 17,000 infantry, 6,500 cavalry and 53 artillery that fought at Pavia, the French incurred 13,000 killed and wounded).

Err... no offense but you are seemingly confused about the ways the contemporary armies had been raised and operated. They had been fighting for money and raising the new troops just meant that you have to pay the different people. Strictly speaking, if the troops had not been paid immediately before the battle, the money owned to them would be saved. So, France is not worse off than in OTL.

As you rightly recognise, war is an expensive enterprise. By comparison, post Pavia the Habsburg force was largely in tact (a mere 1,500 casualties). Assuming the financial difficulties remain for the Habsburgs as IOTL, I don't see why France cannot be conquered well before 1528 when the Habsburg coffers hit the buffers IOTL so to say.

Here we go again. The troops had to be paid and Charles was short of money. Invasion of France would require much more troops than he had thus costing much more money while Charles did not have enough to pay to the troops he already had: during siege of Pavia loyalty of both Spanish and German troops had been mostly due to the personal influence of Francesco d'Ávalos. AFAIK, after Pavia most of the German troops had been disbanded and in 1526 Frundsberg had to raise a new army for which Charles could not provide enough funding (only 36,000 German Thaler) forcing Frundsberg to sell off his silver table settings and his wife's jewelry so that he could raise 12,000 troops to which Charles could not pay (hence revolt of the Spanish and German troops in 1527).

Now, as far as your ideas regarding conquest of France are involved, they are pure fantasy: could not be done at that time both because the available armies were not big enough and because warfare of that time was concentrated on the sieges and even the greatest victories usually did not have "napoleonic" strategic impact.

I don't see how this would hold ITTL. The situation would alter quite dramatically, with a 7 year old as King of France and Anne Montmorency and Robert III de La Marcl having died in 1525 at Pavia. It takes time to train and recruit new soldiers and commanders - time the French would desperately lack with the Habsburgs, English and Bretons bearing down on all sides.

Death of Montmorency, just as the death of Francis I, would be a huge bonus to France but, anyway, he returned to France only in 1530 (by which time Francis managed to lose one more war) so, taking into an account that France got to war in 1526, this argument is irrelevant.

The Bretons as a hostile factor is funny: check to whom Francis I was married and what was the title of his 1st son. Brittany was in a personal union with France with the legitimate Duke (as in "descendant of the Dukes of Brittany") also being Dauphin of France. You are seemingly confused with the names: this was Francis III of Brittany, son of Francis I of France and Claude Duchess of Brittany. Under the circumstances, no candidate was "more Breton" than he.

The English "bearing", etc. hardly was a serious threat to the existence of France: Henry VIII simply did not have an army capable of doing more than a marginal damage. An idea that invasion of France was not possible without England because it would be a "single front" is silly: how about the "Hapsburg Encirclement"? France was surrounded by the Hapsburg possessions on 3 sides so, given availability of money, a Hapsburg ruler could attack from Italy, Franche-Comté, Netherlands or Spain. Practical help from Henry VIIIs England was extremely limited. In OTL he managed to take Boulogne and, IIRC, that was pretty much it. England of that time still was not a major European power (no offense to anybody's patriotic feelings ) and definitely not a major military power like Hapsburg Empire or France. An attempt to put King of England on the throne of France had been already made and failed (to the best of my knowledge, England lost the 100YW). Charles did not really plan conquest of France either: his main interest was in stopping the French invasions of Italy which he considered as his sphere of influence. Attack on the French soil was just a way to achieve that goal, not a design to conquer France.

Now, as far as training the army issue is involved, I'd strongly recommend to read something on the subject because your ideas are a little bit peculiar. There were plenty of mercenaries who were routinely hired as the military units with their own commanders. Not that France completely run out of the commanders. Lautrec, to name just one, was not even present at Pavia.

Precisely. This French army, despite its 'modernisation' efforts, was utterly crushed by the Habsburgs at Pavia. Almost all of the elite knights were lost when surrounded and slaughtered towards the end of the battle. Most of the 53 artillery units that the French took to Pavia were captured or destroyed. Building artillery is costly due to the resources and metals involved. I doubt the French treasury could afford to completely rebuild such a large artillery force...

To start with, France had more than 53 cannons so the loss of artillery at Pavia was not critical. Second, the "elite knights" you are talking about were an obsolete branch, powerless against the pike and shot formations, which was convincingly demonstrated at Pavia. Then, of course, the losses of the gendarmes at Pavia amounted to a tiny fraction of the French nobility, which was trained to do all these knightly thingies. So they could be and had been easily replaceable without a need of the multi-year training.

You have to remember that 1528 was 3 years post Pavia (1525). 3 Years is a considerable time - time enough to rebuild and re-equip an army, as well as training new recruits (some of whom would still technically have been children in 1525).

Here we go again. You are talking about the early XVI century. The armies had been made out of the professionals available for hire and nobody had problems with raising the ready troops as long as he could pay. The main French source of the infantry at that time had been Swiss and there never was a shortage of them. They had been coming with their own weapons and by the whole contingents with their own organization and commanders. Perhaps you should get yourself familiar with the subject about which you are arguing (no offense, but these are basics).

I disagree with this assessment. The siege of Marseille in 1536 by Charles V & I IOTL was very different from ITTL.

No offense, but that's why I recommended to get yourself more familiar with the subject (if I may recommend, Hans Delbruck is available in English and reasonably easy to read). The contemporary warfare was heavily based upon taking the fortified places and a siege of a reasonably well fortified big city was a prolonged affair with an unclear outcome: even if there was no relief coming, the besieging force usually had been suffering from the diseases caused by the awful sanitary conditions in the camp, shortage of supplies and other problems. Just marching deep into the enemy territory bypassing the fortified places in a way similar to the chevauchée of the 100YW was not practiced (and chevauchée proved to be a failed strategy in the 100YW). Not that, as I already mentioned, Charles had the necessary troops or the money to pay these troops. Besides, in OTL it was quite easy to deny an access into the country by implementing scorching earth policy in a border area. If Montmorency could figure this out, anybody with an IQ above single digit also could.

Sorry, but your ideas regarding the easy conquest of France are simply unrealistic and I'm not going to repeat myself. An idea of Henry VIII becoming the King of France belongs to the same category and I already explained why.

 

[Elizabeth I Gloriana]

Thank you for your comments and replies. Quite clearly you carry yourself in a way that appears to demonstrate wisdom concerning 16th century warfare. It has been great to be involved in this discussion of ideas and knowledge.

no offense to anybody's patriotic feelings

?? I'm a bit confused why you made this comment. As it so happens, I consider Henry VIII to be a voracious, conceited and murdering monster. If I had the opportunity, it would be straight to the gallows with him for his crimes against women, among his numerous other misdemeanors. The whole point of this thread has been to indulge an interest that I have in considering a counterfactual based on this time period. I do happen to regard Elizabeth I as a great monarch of her time, but beyond that I don't have any attachment, ancestral connection or 'patriotic feeling' to England... So it's a little unfair and unkind of you to make a personal assumption about me that is factually invalid. It really comes across as demeaning and condescending.

If you didn't direct this at me, then I apologise. Otherwise, my response stands and you would do well in future to avoid such lines when discussing topics with others. For me, it really has soured what otherwise has been an enjoyable experience.

 

[alexmilman]

Thank you for your comments and replies. Quite clearly you carry yourself in a way that appears to demonstrate wisdom concerning 16th century warfare. It has been great to be involved in this discussion of ideas and knowledge.



?? I'm a bit confused why you made this comment. As it so happens, I consider Henry VIII to be a voracious, conceited and murdering monster. If I had the opportunity, it would be straight to the gallows with him for his crimes against women, among his numerous other misdemeanors. The whole point of this thread has been to indulge an interest that I have in considering a counterfactual based on this time period. I do happen to regard Elizabeth I as a great monarch of her time, but beyond that I don't have any attachment, ancestral connection or 'patriotic feeling' to England... So it's a little unfair and unkind of you to make a personal assumption about me that is factually invalid. It really comes across as demeaning and condescending.

If you didn't direct this at me, then I apologise. Otherwise, my response stands and you would do well in future to avoid such lines when discussing topics with others. For me, it really has soured what otherwise has been an enjoyable experience.

Of course, it was not directed at you personally (it was “anybody’s” not “yours”) and it was intended as a joke, hence smiley because I found that the jokes do not always get through on the internet. I repeatb, no personal offense was intended.