AHC: 3rd Hundred Years war?

The First is OTL: 1337–1453, between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France for control of the French throne.

The Second is OTL: 1689-1815, is an periodization or "historical era" term used by some historians[1][2][3] to describe the series of military conflicts between the Kingdom of England (later Kingdom of Great Britain after 1707, and still later United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after 1801), and the nation of France (with the various regimes of the Kingdom of France, the First French Republic and the First French Empire of Emperor Napoleon I) that occurred from about 1689 (or some say 1714) to 1815. The term appears to have been coined by J. R. Seeley in his influential work "The Expansion of England: Two Courses of Lectures" (1883)

So could their have been a third?
So somehow get Britain and France to fight against each other in a series of conflicts post 1815 for roughly a hundred years?
 
The First is OTL: 1337–1453, between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France for control of the French throne.

The Second is OTL: 1689-1815, is an periodization or "historical era" term used by some historians[1][2][3] to describe the series of military conflicts between the Kingdom of England (later Kingdom of Great Britain after 1707, and still later United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after 1801), and the nation of France (with the various regimes of the Kingdom of France, the First French Republic and the First French Empire of Emperor Napoleon I) that occurred from about 1689 (or some say 1714) to 1815. The term appears to have been coined by J. R. Seeley in his influential work "The Expansion of England: Two Courses of Lectures" (1883)

So could their have been a third?
So somehow get Britain and France to fight against each other in a series of conflicts post 1815 for roughly a hundred years?

Maybe they get into fights all over the world over colonial throughout 19th century, and then an Anglo-Prussian/German alliance happened that lasted well into 20th century?

Marc A
 
Maybe they get into fights all over the world over colonial throughout 19th century, and then an Anglo-Prussian/German alliance happened that lasted well into 20th century?

Marc A

Starting at Napoleon III coronation in 1852 and continuing in World wars and cold war into the 60's?
 
The First is OTL: 1337–1453, between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France for control of the French throne.

The Second is OTL: 1689-1815, is an periodization or "historical era" term used by some historians[1][2][3] to describe the series of military conflicts between the Kingdom of England (later Kingdom of Great Britain after 1707, and still later United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland after 1801), and the nation of France (with the various regimes of the Kingdom of France, the First French Republic and the First French Empire of Emperor Napoleon I) that occurred from about 1689 (or some say 1714) to 1815. The term appears to have been coined by J. R. Seeley in his influential work "The Expansion of England: Two Courses of Lectures" (1883)

So could their have been a third?
So somehow get Britain and France to fight against each other in a series of conflicts post 1815 for roughly a hundred years?

There was in fact a third, which happened to be the first : 1152-1259.

After 1815, there could not be another one. After 1815, France's diplomatie axis was never to confront the UK again. France no longer had the means to confront the world number one power that the UK had become.
 
Not sure if it was wat you were looking for but many historian call the period between 1154 (crowning of Henri II and Alienor of Aquitaine as king and queen of england) and 1259 (treaty of Paris between Henri III and Saint-Louis) the first one hundred year war so there we go! You got you 3 one hundred year wars :D
 
Not sure if it was wat you were looking for but many historian call the period between 1154 (crowning of Henri II and Alienor of Aquitaine as king and queen of england) and 1259 (treaty of Paris between Henri III and Saint-Louis) the first one hundred year war so there we go! You got you 3 one hundred year wars :D

I mentioned 1152 because I think the marriage was more important than the crowning. ;) The heir of England, duke of Normandy, count of Maine and Anjou, united with the duchess of Aquitaine.
 
I mentioned 1152 because I think the marriage was more important than the crowning. ;) The heir of England, duke of Normandy, count of Maine and Anjou, united with the duchess of Aquitaine.

It defend itself, I would probably have gone with that too if it was not for the anarchy, the crowning of Henri II was the point were the line of king stephen finaly submitted and, as such, the moment when a upcoming clash between the french crown and a way too powerfull vassal became a clash between paris and london.
 
Starting at Napoleon III coronation in 1852 and continuing in World wars and cold war into the 60's?

If that had happened, I'm pretty sure posterity would've said it was part of the 1707-1815 era, with only a minor interlude. In other words, you're not creating a third HYW, you're creating a "Two Hundred Years War" in their place.
 
If that had happened, I'm pretty sure posterity would've said it was part of the 1707-1815 era, with only a minor interlude. In other words, you're not creating a third HYW, you're creating a "Two Hundred Years War" in their place.

Yeah; it's worth remembering that there were periods of peace and even friendship during the OTL HYWs (e.g. the Anglo-French alliance of c. 1716-1731). So making the period of occasional wars last longer merely serves to either make the term change, or even remove the concept entirely (if England/UK and France are fighting pretty much constantly from 1150-1950, the periods of friendship would be more significant).
 
Yeah; it's worth remembering that there were periods of peace and even friendship during the OTL HYWs (e.g. the Anglo-French alliance of c. 1716-1731). So making the period of occasional wars last longer merely serves to either make the term change, or even remove the concept entirely (if England/UK and France are fighting pretty much constantly from 1150-1950, the periods of friendship would be more significant).

If we go from 1066 when the French first came (Normans are kind of french) we have quite literally a 900 year war, though a 800 year war is also quite an shocking image, the periods of peace being seen during contemporary times as merely a cease-fire
 
If we go from 1066 when the French first came (Normans are kind of french) we have quite literally a 900 year war, though a 800 year war is also quite an shocking image, the periods of peace being seen during contemporary times as merely a cease-fire

At the end of the day, it's the nature of pre-modern states that they will war the states on their borders, and they will war them frequently. Really, the HYW became significant because the English were fighting not for petty (relative to the entire course of European history) diplomatic goals but for the actual conquest of France. The 2nd HYW obviously didn't have this motive, but without the original HYW to paint overtones of some glorious mythical clash of the titans between the two states, it wouldn't be termed a 2nd HYW, it would just be "that period when England and France were a little more aggressive than usual with each other".

My previous point about a "200 Years War" was not so much a comment on how often England and France fought each other - because so much was inevitable. If our definitions of a HYW is just "some wars over the space of 100 years" then we might as well just declare that the entire history of human existence has been one glorious millennia-long world war and England and France are just small factors of the whole. My point was instead that to comment that for a distinct "3rd HYW" to occur, it needs to be a period of heightened aggression over what was normal between the two states, and it needs to happen a significant time apart from the other two perceived HYWs to prevent the separate periods from being merged together by historians.
 
Top