What I mean by '"switch roles" is this. Basically have France become the main Parliamentary power that England/Britain was IOTL, and have England or Britain become the Absolutist power that France was IOTL. This can be accomplished with a POD after 1000 A.D. Any thoughts?
ACH: France and England "switch roles".
- Thread starter Zoidberg12
- Start date
France still has a king or a queen, but not a prime minister or president instead. Could be interesting. I see one is a reastion of each other.
Sounds good. Also, maybe prevent Simon de Montfort from being born, thus the Second Barons War in England either never happens or is much more minor. Although the rebellion failed IOTL, the idea of Parliament survived. The rebellion never happening could eventually lead to an Absolutist Britain.
For Britain, maybe have an earlier union of the crowns of Scotland and England, perhaps at the time of the Spanish union. This weakens parliament in either state at the expense of the crown.
Then maybe have a more 'bottom-up' reformation in Britain. This makes parliament unworkable in the sixteenth century, as the catholics and protestants won't sit in the same chamber without violence breaking out.
Meanwhile in France, there is a top-down reformation, and the king becomes head of a united church. There will be a long set of wars against the Hapsburgs, but that happened anyway.
Then a French dynastic struggle weakens the crown. A new King (maybe a kind of Henri IV) brings in a parliament, binding his successors. The more absolutist provoke rebellions, so they get shunted aside. Add in an invasion or two, so the parliament-raised army is seen to do better than royalist incompetent ones.
Oh, and add in a British continental connection, like Hanover. This ensures the Brits get involved in lots of wars, which drain the treasury. The more absolute monarchy taxes merchants much more heavily than France, and periodically repudiated its debts.
Regards
R
Then maybe have a more 'bottom-up' reformation in Britain. This makes parliament unworkable in the sixteenth century, as the catholics and protestants won't sit in the same chamber without violence breaking out.
Meanwhile in France, there is a top-down reformation, and the king becomes head of a united church. There will be a long set of wars against the Hapsburgs, but that happened anyway.
Then a French dynastic struggle weakens the crown. A new King (maybe a kind of Henri IV) brings in a parliament, binding his successors. The more absolutist provoke rebellions, so they get shunted aside. Add in an invasion or two, so the parliament-raised army is seen to do better than royalist incompetent ones.
Oh, and add in a British continental connection, like Hanover. This ensures the Brits get involved in lots of wars, which drain the treasury. The more absolute monarchy taxes merchants much more heavily than France, and periodically repudiated its debts.
Regards
R
The irony is that France might become much more powerfull then OTL as a result.
france needs to be a republic, the french monarchs just... sucked.
This explains why France was the most powerful European state (or second if we count the Ottomans as European) from at least the late 16th until the 19th century - and formidable from ~1300 on (as a rule).
All those sucky monarchs somehow managing to fumble their way to making France a great power while the HRE cracked.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
France was big, and in a time before industrialization thats what mattered.
Come on they had the largest population in Europe until the 1800s and thats why they were able to (try and) make europe their bitch.
But if you really think that the French had such great monarchs, name a few that weren't biggoted and absolutist who wanted a better life for their people instead of just increasing their own domains.
and the HRE was always gonna crack, it was almost destined to do so
France was only big because its kings were able to unite and hold all of that together. If the French kings were dribbling morons, we'd see a patchwork of counties and duchies bickering with each other like - at best - Scotland at its most unstable writ large. The HRE is larger than France, but it's not united in any effective manner.
Being bigoted is normal in this era (pre 1900), being an absolutist isn't the same as being incompetent, and wanting to expand one's own domains is also normal and also not the same as being a bad ruler.
Though if you want an example of the last, St. Louis. He cared more about being a good Christian and just king than being absolutist for the sake of power or his own domains over the good of France.
A republic is not the same as "good government" and monarchy isn't the same as "bad government".
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
i never once said the french kings were morons (well, some of them were) I said that they sucked at leading their people (which means more than going to war), which they did.
BTW, thanks for the example it was a general statement I dont really think every french king was horrible, just most of them
Quite possibly. If you want to move into the industrial era, then it becomes important that France includes Belgium and Lorraine, which gives them significant domestic coalfields.
Regards
R