Britain wins hundred year war
- Thread starter joemac
- Start date
In the modern day?
Depends on what you mean as a "state".
For one thouhg, it means that Aquitaine, Normandy, and Brittany are sovereign regions of the United Kingdom.
For two, there are no republics or democracies of any major power in Europe or the Americas
For three, anything beyond that is pretty hazy.
Depends on what you mean as a "state".
For one thouhg, it means that Aquitaine, Normandy, and Brittany are sovereign regions of the United Kingdom.
For two, there are no republics or democracies of any major power in Europe or the Americas
For three, anything beyond that is pretty hazy.
Thande
Donor
Okay, first thing: Britain did not exist until 1707. The Hundred Years' War was England vs. France, or to be more accurate, two dynasties squabbling over the crown of France, which at this point did not translate to a single state.
Secondly, there is a general consensus that if England "won" the HYW, the result would be that the Norman kings of England would simply move to Paris and a few years later England would be just an offshore colony of the resulting French state. As far as the English people and the English language is concerned, the OTL result of the HYW is the best possible one, as it forced our aristocracy and monarchs to identify as English rather than French.
Secondly, there is a general consensus that if England "won" the HYW, the result would be that the Norman kings of England would simply move to Paris and a few years later England would be just an offshore colony of the resulting French state. As far as the English people and the English language is concerned, the OTL result of the HYW is the best possible one, as it forced our aristocracy and monarchs to identify as English rather than French.
Let's put it like this...
We'll assume that England still colonizes as it had in our timeline.
What happens though, is that without a French enemy, the Seven Years' War either A) Never ahppens, or B) doesn't nearly bankrupt Britain (due to less harsh colonial taxes since they are spread now over both the Colonies, Britain, and France).
As such, there is no oppression or occupation by British forces, that means no popular reason for a rebellion, and thus democracy isn't born in the Americas.
And even if that does happen, without French aid, the Americans are crushed eventually (even though it was a long and protracted conflict akin to OTL's Dutch Wars of Independence).
We'll assume that England still colonizes as it had in our timeline.
What happens though, is that without a French enemy, the Seven Years' War either A) Never ahppens, or B) doesn't nearly bankrupt Britain (due to less harsh colonial taxes since they are spread now over both the Colonies, Britain, and France).
As such, there is no oppression or occupation by British forces, that means no popular reason for a rebellion, and thus democracy isn't born in the Americas.
And even if that does happen, without French aid, the Americans are crushed eventually (even though it was a long and protracted conflict akin to OTL's Dutch Wars of Independence).
I would say a balkanised France would probably be the best outcome for England.
Thande
Donor
That's true - OTL was also the beginning of a united France which is a bad thing for us - but you know what I mean. "A good outcome", then, not the best.
Thande
Donor
Ahem, butterflies?
If you have a POD in the fourteenth century, America might not be discovered until a hundred years after Columbus. Or it might be discovered fifty years before. Or he might sail for the Portuguese instead and they colonise more or the Americas. And the English might decide never to set up any colonies themselves, that was a fairly unimportant decision at the time.
Either way, you can't compare a colonisation situation in a timeline like this to one in OTL, especially not a war which was only part of a century-long Anglo-French conflict!
My apology, at least in that you assumed by United Kingdom I was referring to Britain. Instead, what I meant was that France and England form a new nation, calls itself the United Kingdom (of England and France) and goes on as such. From there, eventually Scotland is added, much earlier (maybe 1490?) and Ireland, due to (this TL's) Britain looking to the continent due to its continental holdings in France, is left more or less alone till much later (1920's?) when Ireland is incorporated as some Dominion or similar-such.
As for the rest of France...this new country is holding (directly) onto only Brittany, Normandy, and Aquitaine. The rest is carved up into various duchies. As a matter of principle, the English remain in London, but bring Paris and teh surrounding hinterlands, with a narrow strip of land connecting it to Calais and Normandy, as a matter of principle and prestige.
Thande
Donor
Right. Well you have some interesting ideas there, and I'm not saying the basic idea is unsound, but you need to be aware of some anachronisms.
"United Kingdom" was an early 19th century invention to underline the strength of the union between the Kingdom of Great Britain (itself a political union of England and Scotland) and the Kingdom of Ireland.
In this case, it would most probably not be called the Kingdom of X. The fourteenth century was before nation-states in the way we understand it. In this case, the King would be "King of France, King of England, King of Scotland, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Brittany, Duke of Aquitaine, and Lord of Ireland" plus perhaps a few other titles (assuming that the duchies weren't devolved to loyal nobles). There wouldn't be a united nation state, at least until centuries later - they would just be in personal union. Compare to how the King of Great Britain was also King of Ireland until 1801 but they were two separate states.
Also "dominion", in the sense of an official title, only takes from 1867 (or the 1600s if you take the title of Virginia literally).
In my timeline 'Henry VI dies an infant' an interesting side effect of an English victory in the Hundred Years War is the position of the house of Anjou, which would probably resist further English encroachment in the South, and perhaps form an autonomous-becoming-independent nation akin to Burgundy in this period.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Max Sinister
Banned
I also wonder: The position of the Dauphin wasn't great, but he still had most of France south of the Loire (except Aquitaine). How long would the English take to conquer all of it?
Well, what 'was' all of France South of the Loire at this time ? IIRC Provence was Anjou's and I think Toulouse may have been too, fiefs like Bourbon and Armagnac were basically independent in any power struggle as they could decide who to support, Burgundy (Dijon etc) was part of a quasi-independent duchy, Navarre was an independent kingdom, and Roussillon-Cerdagne was part of Aragon. So, its not QUITE as big as one would think
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Rockingham
Banned
we might actually see a commonwealth system which france dominates...if the realms are unified(kingdom of france and england) were unified, could some city on the french coast become capital, or paris remain capital?
Are we too pessimistic, I wonder?
I mean, France isn't gonna submit to English rule easily; places like Aquitaine and Normandy will be easy to rule, but great magnates like the Valois in Burgundy, and even lesser ones, will rulel their territories like kings for years.
So you still have a throne that relies heavily on English support, and Parliament for funding.
France loses the 100 years war - firstly, when? Are they conquered outright? Does England avoid the Black Death and unleash a might army on the decimated French? Does Henry VI live and successfully become King of France?
Depending on when and how victory comes about, I think that France has to be broken up - divide and rule policy.
Scotland won't have a partner in the Auld Alliance and if France falls, Scotland will once again be annexed by England.
Depending on when and how victory comes about, I think that France has to be broken up - divide and rule policy.
Scotland won't have a partner in the Auld Alliance and if France falls, Scotland will once again be annexed by England.
The problem with that is, that in the hundred year war it wasn't an English king who wants to conquer or break the power of France, it was a French noble who wanted to be king of France. He also was the king of England, wich was a useful source of armies, but he wanted to rule an undivided France.
If after a long war the English king would finaly rule France, he would rule France as a Frenchman. The French nobles would in the end accept it, as halve of France was already being ruled by the English king. Because France is larger, wealthier, more populous then England it will become soon the most influential part of the realm.
And then, 136 years later (give or take a decade) the English, frustrated by yet another tax on their trade without proper representation in the Parliment of Paris, rebel and throw a shipload of coffee into Portsmouth harbour. A rebellion ensues and the rag-tag Army of the Isles out-maneuvers the Continental Army of blue-coats sent to quell their impudence. Eventually, against the odds, the French Empire's Armee is routed and retreats to Calais. In the following months the First Isles Congress is held and the Statement of Independence is drafted. The French Nobility, never very enamoured with the boiled-beef eating cousins across the Channel Francaise, wash their hands of it and leave the new United Nations of Bitainnia (UNB) to rot - or so they assumed.
Thande
Donor
Very funny. Of course an English rebellion is quite likely, though I wonder whether the claimant king supported by the barons would be a Norman or someone claiming descent from Anglo-Saxon England... (at this stage, probably the former).
Oh, and the French name for the English Channel is La Manche (the Sleeve).
Oh, and the French name for the English Channel is La Manche (the Sleeve).
Yes, but I assumed fewer would get that reference...