So this is fairly new, heh. This will be my second TL and it will be a duet TL with @eliamartin65. As per my rules in this TL we will only change one thing and one thing only, what if Philip IV or Philip the Fair did not die from a hunting accident?
LET'S FUCKING GO!So this is fairly new, heh. This will be my second TL and it will be a duet TL with @eliamartin65. As per my rules in this TL we will only change one thing and one thing only, what if Philip IV or Philip the Fair did not die from a hunting accident?
LET'S GO!So this is fairly new, heh. This will be my second TL and it will be a duet TL with @eliamartin65. As per my rules in this TL we will only change one thing and one thing only, what if Philip IV or Philip the Fair did not die from a hunting accident?
So this is fairly new, heh. This will be my second TL and it will be a duet TL with @eliamartin65. As per my rules in this TL we will only change one thing and one thing only, what if Philip IV or Philip the Fair did not die from a hunting accident?
I do not deny that I am very interested in reading what you come up with for this TL, given that defining Edward III as a new Charlemagne will be ( absurdly ) almost reductive, given that with the control of France's resources, he can really aspire to surpass him, becoming the one who reforms the ancient glory of Rome ( since I see almost no one capable of effectively opposing him, not even the current HRE Louis IV or Charles of Luxembourg or the Anjous ) therefore other than the coronation in Aachen, here the aim is to go directly to the Urbe ( which moreover is "free" from the control of the pontiff, therefore the Romans would be more than happy to acclaim the new Augustus from Britain in the Capitol Hill, provided he spent some time in the city )
Edward will definitely be hungrilly eyeing scotland and ireland, plus maybe his succesors will be more receptive to Manuel II (Byzantine emperor) calls for helpalthough I believe that the English name will most likely disappear in the long run, more likely it will be something along the lines of Norman, perhaps Frankish or Latin ( so as not to associate the royal/imperial dynasty with too specific a place ( England ) but rather to create a broader group to describe the entire population of the " kingdom "
Edward will definitely be hungrilly eyeing scotland and ireland, plus maybe his succesors will be more receptive to Manuel II (Byzantine emperor) calls for help
Exactly, Edward, the Black Prince and his other prestifious generals will bring scotland to heel for goodI would say that Scotland would certainly be conquered to avoid problems on the northern border but otherwise the kingdom's focus will be on the contine
Which is nothing but good for English interests.Exactly, Edward, the Black Prince and his other prestifious generals will bring scotland to heel for good
What of Castile and Navarre?Exactly, Edward, the Black Prince and his other prestifious generals will bring scotland to heel for good
They will definitely have more resources to aid peter agaisnt his half-brother henryWhat of Castile and Navarre?
What of Castile and Navarre?
The Biscay Empire shall encompass all sides of the Bay of Biscay!here these will certainly be among the main objectives of the future Plantagenet rulers ( as well as HRE, especially its Italian parts ) but not only as support for allies, but rather even as lands to conquer
I mean, he can't be a Charlemagne figure if he doesn't conquer eastwards as wellhere these will certainly be among the main objectives of the future Plantagenet rulers ( as well as HRE, especially its Italian parts ) but not only as support for allies, but rather even as lands to conquer
This is definitely an interesting idea to ponder Nuraghe, as you discussed in the other thread. I do worry about what might happen after Edward III, though: even if he manages to succeed to such glorious heights and surpass Charlemagne and becomes a new Augustus, it is worth considering what happens after him. After all, we saw what happened once Charlemagne was cold and in the ground and poor Louis the Pious suffered a near death experience + his planned division of the empire. While I think one could argue that a "revival" of Charlemagne's empire within France and England definitely be a bit more centralized than Charlemagne's and could probably pass without division to a single heir, it is definitely a system that is based on the person that governs. Assuming this Edward III proves to be up to stuff and a great king/emperor, it's just as likely that his son (or grandson, or whatever probable successor) may not measure up sufficiently.I do not deny that I am very interested in reading what you come up with for this TL, given that defining Edward III as a new Charlemagne will be ( absurdly ) almost reductive, given that with the control of France's resources, he can really aspire to surpass him, becoming the one who reforms the ancient glory of Rome ( since I see almost no one capable of effectively opposing him, not even the current HRE Louis IV or Charles of Luxembourg or the Anjous ) therefore other than the coronation in Aachen, here the aim is to go directly to the Urbe ( which moreover is "free" from the control of the pontiff, therefore the Romans would be more than happy to acclaim the new Augustus from Britain in the Capitol Hill, provided he spent some time in the city )
I mean, he can't be a Charlemagne figure if he doesn't conquer eastwards as well
Though...IDK what the Pope is going to think of all this when the Plantagenet empire surrounds the Papal States on both sides.
This is definitely an interesting idea to ponder Nuraghe, as you discussed in the other thread. I do worry about what might happen after Edward III, though: even if he manages to succeed to such glorious heights and surpass Charlemagne and becomes a new Augustus, it is worth considering what happens after him. After all, we saw what happened once Charlemagne was cold and in the ground and poor Louis the Pious suffered a near death experience + his planned division of the empire. While I think one could argue that a "revival" of Charlemagne's empire within France and England definitely be a bit more centralized than Charlemagne's and could probably pass without division to a single heir, it is definitely a system that is based on the person that governs. Assuming this Edward III proves to be up to stuff and a great king/emperor, it's just as likely that his son (or grandson, or whatever probable successor) may not measure up sufficiently.
While France and England are merely separated by the channel and the English nobility (if one can say that) are still mostly Norman—that is, French in culture as well as speech. One cannot help but wonder might come about from such a union, where France would no doubt be the prime 'kingdom' as the wealthiest and largest. I could certainly see possible issues if Edward III proves too favorable towards his new barons, though at least the English nobility will finally be able to breathe a sigh of relief: for a long time they have straddled two horses, in that it was not uncommon for them to have estates in England as well as in France / Normandy. It all being under one sovereign will make things much simpler.
I think it's just as likely the whole thing could be a tinderbox just waiting to explode.
Should we see Edward III as an Augustus of sorts, it would be interesting to ponder his policy vis-a-vis the East... especially with the remnants of the Frankocratia in Greece, which suffered from chaos throughout the 14th century. The Byzantines were certainly not in great shape in the 1340s, but have not fallen as far as they would in the next century. Just as Charlemagne pondered a match between Rotrude and Constantine VI, might the new Augustus seek a match with the Palaiologos? The 14th century was the heyday of foreign Augustas—Andronikos III wed Adelheid of Brunswick and Anna of Savoy, while Andronikos II had married Anna of Hungary and Yolande of Montferrat. They could do worse than a princess whose father dominates western Europe.