Search results

I can't see that happening. Aside from the massive morale loss the people of London would suffer hearing that their government was fleeing the capital leaving them to their fate, even if this did happen Parliament would absolutely move back to London as soon as the war ended, and postulating...

It means the would-be Henry IV is unlikely to return to England to take the throne from Richard II, as a start, meaning Richard will continue on the throne unchallenged.

I used to make up crazy storylines involving John of Gaunt realising his claim to Castile. He went there in 1386 with a small army but honestly his intention was never to conquer the country, it was to pose just enough of a threat to John of Castile that he could be paid a significant enough sum...

Not really, considering Paul's letters included advice to slaves that they should actively accept their status as slaves and should not try to run away or request their masters make them free. Christianity's condemnation of homosexuality is entirely tied up with the fact that the Christian view...

I believe France's first standing army dates back to the late 1430s - 1436 I believe? If I remember my facts right, this was actually preceded by one year by an English* standing army signed on a one-year contact, but it never saw any action so it is virtually forgotten. *Actually an army of...

Yes, but airships are not the same as aeroplanes. If you're seriously talking about airship "fleets" in the sense of a number of airships which actively attack each other, then they aren't going to be constrained by the same things which constrain fighter planes, i.e. size and weight. Now...

I find that a rather ironic statement, since in reality she played the English like a fiddle. Elizabeth had to keep taking her away from the men she had been sent into the custody of - she was passed between various nobles to keep in luxurious imprisonment - because they kept falling in love...

Because you misunderstood Plumber's idea. He suggested having only the southern colonies break away, meaning Canada is now "Canada + New England + Oregon + some of the northern Mid-West", and the USA is "Greater Dixie + Cali + everything in between + Mexico and Central America" (for the wank...

It'd be an interesting situation for sure, though I'm not sure how long that situation could last. The two states - Norman England and the Anglo-Saxon successor state of sorts - would be honour-bound to be enemies to the death, and eventually one of them would gain the upper hand and sweep the...

Fair enough then, I take the point. But you're talking about Icelanders who want to be Canadian, especially at a time when Canada hasn't formed much of an identity and most Canadians would identify themselves as "British". Either way, you're talking about Icelanders who have become naturalised...

For one, you're confusing Iceland with Greenland. For two, I'm not sure the UK would go along with this. It's all a bit dodgy, the fact that those Icelandic- (Greenlandic?)-Canadians have been brought up as citizens of the Empire and then sent back to seize control of another nation's territory...

The issue here is that the Swiss were originally a defensive alliance, and they were successful because their terrain (i.e. mountains everywhere, and pretty much no flat land at all) played entirely to their strengths. The day that the Swiss break out of the Alps and start occupying territory on...

During the Scramble for Africa it stayed independent, though, and that is what the OP specified. I'm really not sure about this, but I suspect if you could make a couple more large African entities - such as the (anachronous, I know) Kanem-Bornu Empire, then those states might be able to use...

Well, at the time of WW1 there were precisely 28 independent states in existence IIRC. If you can find a way of making WW1 end in stalemate, and constrain the US ambitions of breaking up the European monarchies and ending colonialism, it pretty much solves itself. That said, doing those two...

It's such an open-ended question. The government type, the basis of society, relative wealth, technology levels, they all add up to how colonialism would go, and if it even would happen at all. You'd need to provide more details of how Europe became united in order to properly answer this question.

I've done a bit of my own looking around and I'm not sure where I got it from either (in fairness it was a good few years ago that I learned that bit). From what I've seen, I'm starting to think that it was the reign of Henry V when the UoP favoured the English claim, and that may be for obvious...

You're right that it was a serious push for this to ever approach being likely, but remember that there was some support in France for Edward. The University of Paris, for example, debated the matter intensely for many months and eventually decided that Edward's claim was the superior one. Of...

I've been reading Peter Ackroyd's History of Britain series and in his first book he seems to think that the coming of the Saxons was largely unavoidable. He cites that from the middle of the Roman Britain era, Saxons had come to England in drips and drabs as hired workers of various orders -...

Hmm, fair enough then.

I'm tempted to say - although I'm not certain - that if the Americans got all of their "54 40 or fight" demands, that Britain then buying northern Alaska (supposing it found a reason to want it) would only be followed by the Americans pursuing a campaign of seeding it with American gold diggers...