British win the Hundred Years' War?

(...)

But if the English did win the war? Yes, a Paris based monarchy would come to be dominant over England. Until the day that the Duke of York is told by a young English peasant girl that she is there to save England and see him crowned as the one true King of England.:cool:

I was thinking about something similar. The house of York would probably be the best candidate for an England, who wants to regain 'independence'. At the same time France probably will rally towards a Capetian (Valois) candidate too. The control of the house of Lancaster on France wasn't that strong and it would seriously be jeopardized, if England would revolt.
The Burgundian ally is acting in the interest of Burgundy with the right reward, they will indeed switch sides. Even when the issues between the Orléans and Burgundy branch of the Valois dynasty needs to be sorted out too. An Anglo-French union wouldn't be in both their interest.
Then there also is the dynastic part, Valois-Burgundy had a better, yet distant claim, on the throne of France, especially when a Valois king would be restored.
 
A slight digression from the opening post but I've often wondered whether England might not have been better off with a French monarchy that's weakened and forced to give up a lot of their influence over their more powerful nobles leading to a greater decentralised state rather than trying to take the lot themselves. English Aquitaine and Gascony, Burgundy, Brittany, perhaps a recreated the Duchy of Toulouse etc. would all be interested in seeing a less powerful monarchy.

Possibly yes, at least if you are going to maintain English primacy and not England as a backwards province of France, a France that's as broken apart as the HRE, with English Normandy and Acquitaine, and an England friendly Brittany could work very well.

If Britain goes on to form it will never fear a continental power seizing the channel ports anyway.
 
I was speaking of the man as he was called at the time, while the English were running rampant while he stayed hiding out in Chinon. as the man who stayed at home counting his gold while the woman who crowned him was being used as a charcoal briquette.:mad: So, whether Mark Twain says it or not, in his case, it IS true. As king, he could always be assured of not hearing the word in his presence, but that didn't stop it from being said. It was another generation before he finally took the actions that earned him the title of "Victorious". Funny. I've read some two dozen biographies of Joan of Arc, and they've never failed to mention, along with the others, the title of "Base". Are you saying that they were all wrong? Including Anatole France and Andrew Lang?

Yes, usertron. It's a 19th century invention, like his son's supposed moniker "Louis the Cruel", which circulated for a time thanks to the tendency of writers of an era to echo each other, and quite frequently leave echoes that follow after them. Anti-monarchial opinion in France was running high, at least in most intellectual circles, and expecting the British (or the Americans for that matter) to write kindly about a French king was pretty much a lost effort. Add to that, Charles was hardly a lovable figure--charmless, spindly and neurotic, even the contemporary records show a sort of embarrassment that this was the king who finally beat back the English. One can detect this in that second nickname I mentioned, "the Well-Served". He had deathly fears of wooden floors and bridges, thanks to a pair of bad experiences, and wouldn't stand on the one and cross the other if he could help it. (Frequently, when forced to, he would have an attack of nerves, fall to the ground, and roll up into a ball.) Much of his early 'reign' involved him being bullied by a succession of "favorites" who tended to succeed each other by killing their predecessor. At the end of his life, he was engaged in a feud with his son and heir (who'd positioned himself as the defender of feudal liberties) and was suffering from a tumor of the jaw that eventually got so bad he could neither speak nor eat. (As for Louis, upon gaining the throne he turned around, adopted almost every damn one of his father's centralizing practices, and frequently took them further. When his reversal was pointed out to him, Louis reportedly replied "I wasn't a king then.") He was so cautious that he bordered on, and frequently crossed over to the indecisive.

But he was also clever and careful and strangely dedicated, and he cared about the well-being of his realm. He worked to make the kingdom work, and when he died, his son took up the same job. The France of the late 15th and early 16th century, that astonishing realm that challenged the world, and that could and would fight in Italy for over sixty years, was their joint creation, presided over by more amiable but less able men. To turn his entire reign into one issue is to reduce a fascinating figure into a facile caricature.
 
Even if one insists on taking a wholly cynical view on Joan of Arc's contributions (which our friends across the pond are particularly-but not always-prone to do), the fact is (correct me if I am wrong people) the English never won a major battle starting the day she first raised her banner. Lucky for the English, they were facing Charles the Base.

They didn't won a major battle since Verneuil in 1424. Joan of Arc isn't responsible of Lancaster attentism that began during the last part of Henry V : lack of ressource, lack of unity, unreliable ally, etc.
Saying that Lancaster didn't won a major battle after 1430's is like arguing about Napoleon not having won a major battle after 1815. That's technically true, but missing the point by far.

And, no, there's no contemporary mention of Charles the Base I can think of. Now, if you have a contemporary chronicle using this precise surname, please share the source.
Biographies of Joan of Arc are usually quite unreliable, because they focus on her action rather than the historical context.
Critically when, as I said above, she didn't had the effective military command of the french armies.

If you understand french (well, that would be quite necessary to have direct sources after all), I recomand this. It's far from perfect, and biased on its own way but at least highligt the overall context, instead of a Great Man (well Woman) History.

A slight digression from the opening post but I've often wondered whether England might not have been better off with a French monarchy that's weakened and forced to give up a lot of their influence over their more powerful nobles leading to a greater decentralised state rather than trying to take the lot themselves. English Aquitaine and Gascony, Burgundy, Brittany, perhaps a recreated the Duchy of Toulouse etc. would all be interested in seeing a less powerful monarchy.
You forget that continental holdings of English Crown were as divided than the rest of the realm, especially everything south of Loire. And their continental vassals were interested on a relativly strong french king as it allowed them to go against their immediate suzerain. (It's basically what caused Plantagenet-Capetian wars).

Furthermore, Plantagenets were felt more as a threat than an ally, due to their "imperialistic" ambitions. Toulouse, by exemple, entered in an alliance with Capetians (that allowed eventually the formers to intervene directly) precisely because of Henry II's claims. Plantagenet's neighbours preferred eventually to deal with who was seen as the ultimate suzerain rather than more direct and possibly present dukes.
It's as true for other holdings, as consulates in southern France gaining the support of royal sénéchaux.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
I think a better POD would be Henry V living long enough to claim the French throne.

The problem is that Henry V would be stuck with the same problem that his brother John of Bedford got stuck with, which is with the Burgundian defection the military situation looks untenable.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I was thinking about something similar. The house of York would probably be the best candidate for an England, who wants to regain 'independence'. At the same time France probably will rally towards a Capetian (Valois) candidate too. The control of the house of Lancaster on France wasn't that strong and it would seriously be jeopardized, if England would revolt.
The Burgundian ally is acting in the interest of Burgundy with the right reward, they will indeed switch sides. Even when the issues between the Orléans and Burgundy branch of the Valois dynasty needs to be sorted out too. An Anglo-French union wouldn't be in both their interest.
Then there also is the dynastic part, Valois-Burgundy had a better, yet distant claim, on the throne of France, especially when a Valois king would be restored.

I actually think this is a really fun scenario: the war of the Roses spanning both England and France, with a Yorkist England and a Lancastrian France as a result.

But then again, without losing the HYW, the chain of events which set off the WoR never occurs.
 
The problem is that Henry V would be stuck with the same problem that his brother John of Bedford got stuck with, which is with the Burgundian defection the military situation looks untenable.

Don't forget the fun of having to beg Parliament for more money for what is increasingly looking like a sinkhole.
 
This tends to get trotted out as the stock answer whenever questions like this come up but what were England and France like financially and organisationally compared to each other? I have vague memories of England being the more centralised and if not having a higher income then one which wasn't that far off France's at least at the beginning, but this being a period I don't know a great deal about couldn't say which way.

I don't have a comparison of the early revenues offhand, but by the time suggested as the PoD, France had become more centralised (partly in response to the English threat) and IIRC correctly its revenues were higher.

More to the point, the title of King of France had much greater prestige, and France was a much larger nation. I have trouble seeing the new Kings of France deciding to keep their main residence in London.
 
I could see England winning and stabilizing their new continental empire....if it went like the Triune Kingdom of England-France-Ireland from https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=217912

Just northern France, or the regions most accustomed to English rule, would be both a winning of the war and stable for England-France to absorb and actually not fall apart....and when i still say France i can easily see both sides keeping the name, or a situation where they have the title, but not everything...but it'd have to be early enough really for it to work, preferably under the Plantagenents
 
Last edited:
if it went like the Triune Kingdom of England-France-Ireland from https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=217912
This's pretty close to impossible, and mostly handwave the difficulties.

Just northern France, or the regions most accustomed to English rule,
That's Gascony and...that's all. It was the only region that showed a bit of loyalty for English crown, Northern France being probably the most pissed about it (mostly because they were more raided).

Remember that a large part of Northern France was actually controlled by Burgundy, not England (that controlled Normandy, and roughly half of Northern France that didn't showed any real support for Lancasters, safe the usual "I give you privileges, and you give me support"), while they had to face a relativly unified opponent with an unreliable at best ally (if the duke John wasn't killed, you'd have ended with a Armagnac/Bourguignon reconciliation quite early)

At the risk of repeating myself, a takeover of the entiere french realm was not possible. At best, Plantagenets or Lancasters could keep a good portion of it (and far more likely in the south than in north) but still risks the usual issues : local nobles asking for help to French kings, badly united demesnes, more important ressources in French side, etc.
 
At the risk of repeating myself, a takeover of the entiere french realm was not possible. At best, Plantagenets or Lancasters could keep a good portion of it (and far more likely in the south than in north) but still risks the usual issues : local nobles asking for help to French kings, badly united demesnes, more important ressources in French side, etc.

Would it even be healthy for the English to do this?

Seems to me that if England keeps unsuccessfully concerning herself on the continent and not paying enough attention to the situation on the isles it might actually lose the chance to become the global power of OTL. Getting defeated so decisively in the HYW might have been a blessing in disguise for England. A stalemate or a not-so-decisive defeat would mean another long century of painful squabble with the French only resulting in both realms becoming significantly weaker than the other continental powers.
 
Would it even be healthy for the English to do this?
Depends which English we're talking. The first beneficiers would have been high nobility and the court, as well, for the revenues and posts to be taken.

Parliment and groups as yeomen wouldn't really benefit from it, while they favoured raids and chevauchées greatly : it costed only a few and could end with winning quite a lot.

Peasantry wouldn't tolerate much heavy taxes and military defeats in the same time.
 
People have been speaking of a Yorkist (or other domestic) uprising in England and the Lancastrian position being weakened in France as if they are necessarily different ideas. Forgive my ignorance of the topic, but would it not be possible, in the event of increasingly unpopular Lancastrians persisting in bloody and expensive wars of conquest on the Continent without total sucess, that they could both happen? One of them could weaken the Lancasters and thus make the other decide to act.
 
. Forgive my ignorance of the topic, but would it not be possible, in the event of increasingly unpopular Lancastrians persisting in bloody and expensive wars of conquest on the Continent without total sucess, that they could both happen? One of them could weaken the Lancasters and thus make the other decide to act.
It's hard to really say. Henry VI was unpopular before we went cloudcuckoolander because he didn't really wanted to continue the conflict.

At this point Lancaster were pretty stuck : if they loose, they were unpopular.
Duke of Suffolk quite payed the price for this in 1447, being considered no better as a traitor and an incompetent, and eventually killed by mob.
You had rebellions as "John Mortimer"'s in 1450, more or less on a pro-Yorkist base indeed, because troops were defeated and unpaied.

If they persisted, they were unpopular, because it was costly and not really maintainable.

Being really honest, it would have required huge and improbable skills to deal with that without major political crisis.

Perhaps she not being around would cause 'the Two Hundred Year's war'.

Even if England had the ressources to do that (they didn't), when I said their hold was limited, I meant it.
Past Gascony and Normandy (that knew regular revolts), all Northern France (Don't mind the english strips in S-W France, I don't really know what they're supposed to show) was pretty much divided : Bourguignons had the better hold, more or less controlling Paris with Lancasters and having all the Eastern part; Anjou and Touraine being more a protectorate than an actual domination, and Armagnacs holdings popping a bit everywhere in Flanders or Ile de France.

If she's not around, the ressources, the military leaders (again, safe exception, Joan didn't was the effective military leader, but more of a...political/symbolical head), the division in Northern France (between Bourguignons and Lancaster, between Lancasters and part of French elites, and between Lancaster themselves), all is there already.
 
Top