AHC: England fights a "100 Years War" equivalent in....

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
...Scandinavia, Germany/HRE, the Low Countries, the Iberian peninsula, Italy, Greece or Morrocco, or the Baltic coast.

To satisfy the conditions of the OP, England needs to at least try to establish kingship by force over large parts of one or more of the regions mentioned above. Whether England succeeds (in terms of centuries of actual control like Ireland) or fails is up to you.

Use any point of English history that you wish, before or after the historic hundred years war or instead of or in addition to that struggle.
 
But the King of England was a vassal of the King of France. Perhaps if the King of England got a fief from the Holy Roman Emperor in Germany, so the king of England would be a vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor (which was actually the case during 1714-1806).

Then the King of England would desire to hold the fief without having to pay homage for it, so he decided to contest the Holy Roman Election.

He loses, then he accuses the HR emperor of cheating, and then wages war ostensibly to claim the HR throne, but in reality, to expand his fief, and to hold it independently, without having to acknowledge that he held it from the Emperor.
 
But the King of England was a vassal of the King of France.
No, he wasn't. The Duke of Normandy was a vassal of the King of France, the Duke of Aquitaine was a vassal of the King of France, the Count of Anjou was a vassal of the King of France, etc... but only for those fiefs, and not for the Kingdom of England which some holders of [one or more of] those French titles also controlled.

The obvious possibility, it seems to me, would be to keep the thrones of England and Denmark held by the same line of kings for significantly longer, with their 'Hundred Years War' equivalent being to keep the rest of Scandinavia under control.
 
HRE could probably be handled by Richard of Cornwall by somehow sidetracking Alfonso of Castille so he becomes Holy Roman Emperor doing the interregnum between Frederik II and OTL Henry VII, followed by a honest accident (war, disease, something) befalling his brother (Henry III) and his sons making him the heir for the English Throne
 
No, he wasn't. The Duke of Normandy was a vassal of the King of France, the Duke of Aquitaine was a vassal of the King of France, the Count of Anjou was a vassal of the King of France, etc... but only for those fiefs, and not for the Kingdom of England which some holders of [one or more of] those French titles also controlled.

The obvious possibility, it seems to me, would be to keep the thrones of England and Denmark held by the same line of kings for significantly longer, with their 'Hundred Years War' equivalent being to keep the rest of Scandinavia under control.

Joys of Feudalism. I'm required (as vassal to King of X) to declare war on myself (King of Y), since X and Y are at war.
 
Not really. The Duchy of Burgundy was buddy-buddy with England to the dismay of France most of the time.

??? I'm not talking about Burgundy, I'm talking about the King of England.

The Duke of Normandy (as vassal of France) is required to war against himself as the King of England, with whom France is at war.

Obviously, 'required' didn't mean 'happened'.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Sian

HRE could probably be handled by Richard of Cornwall by somehow sidetracking Alfonso of Castille so he becomes Holy Roman Emperor doing the interregnum between Frederik II and OTL Henry VII, followed by a honest accident (war, disease, something) befalling his brother (Henry III) and his sons making him the heir for the English Throne

...remarkably interesting PoD in the mid-13th century..

Seems to me this could be spun to work well with this:

But the King of England was a vassal of the King of France. Perhaps if the King of England got a fief from the Holy Roman Emperor in Germany, so the king of England would be a vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor (which was actually the case during 1714-1806).

Then the King of England would desire to hold the fief without having to pay homage for it, so he decided to contest the Holy Roman Election.

He loses, then he accuses the HR emperor of cheating, and then wages war ostensibly to claim the HR throne, but in reality, to expand his fief, and to hold it independently, without having to acknowledge that he held it from the Emperor.

If an English ruler could really get broad backing at home for either the claim to the HRE crown and/or significant territories within it, what are the odds of England being driven to quit trying within a century or so versus the odds of them having a territorial presence in north-central Europe (the OTL territories of the HRE) up to 500 years later?
 
Top