DBWI: WI France never unified?

WI, during the French Wars (also known as the Century War) in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, rather than French Briten and mainland France uniting, mainland France had resisted forceful annexation and the two nations had gone their different ways?
 
(OOC: Shouldn't the title be: "DBWI: What if France unified?")

OOC: Closely read the OP again.

IC: Since nobody's biting, I'll throw in my half ducat.

In a world where mainland France and French Briten stay separated, we'd probably see much more competition for colonization of Colombia. Obviously, instead of France, you'd have mainland France and Briten as colonizers. Also, without the Aragonese War, Castile and Aragon would probably end up in a personal union, so Ispania would never form. Portogale would stay independent and colonize Colombia, as would Castile-Aragon. Does anybody know if Burgundy would survive ITTL, or would it get a slice of Colombia istead?
 
Last edited:
Bright day
Well, that is way too far reaching change for me to consider it in full.

Would France still control papacy?

How would weak France affect the Luxemburg dynasty. Would it lead to stronger HRE or weaker?

To your comments, I see no reason for Portugal to be independant ITTL.
 

ninebucks

Banned
I doubt Briten would be able to forge an empire on her own, (and I say this as a Bretien). Case in point, look at the failed attempts that the Kingdom of Scotland made in trying to punch above its weight, and, in a much later example, the ridiculous shamble that was the short-lived Japanese 'Empire'.

Island nations are simply unable to achieve as much as their mainland counterparts. They are too disconnected from the most prosperous trade routes and are unable to adapt their militaries to different situations.
 
Bright day
Well, that is way too far reaching change for me to consider it in full.

Would France still control papacy?

How would weak France affect the Luxemburg dynasty. Would it lead to stronger HRE or weaker?

To your comments, I see no reason for Portugal to be independant ITTL.

IMO a France that stayed divided would not influence the HRE as much. The Luxemburg dynasty would most likely retain its influence for longer than OTL.

Also, a united Iberia? Most intruiging.

I doubt Briten would be able to forge an empire on her own, (and I say this as a Bretien). Case in point, look at the failed attempts that the Kingdom of Scotland made in trying to punch above its weight, and, in a much later example, the ridiculous shamble that was the short-lived Japanese 'Empire'.

Island nations are simply unable to achieve as much as their mainland counterparts. They are too disconnected from the most prosperous trade routes and are unable to adapt their militaries to different situations.

Interesting take on the situation. I've read that prior to reunification of France, the Britiens had interests in taking over Ireland. Is there any merit to a surviving Briten conquering Ireland?
 
IMO a France that stayed divided would not influence the HRE as much. The Luxemburg dynasty would most likely retain its influence for longer than OTL.
That is possible. That would mean different Eastern Europe, if Luxemburg ambitions there are supported by their posession of imperial title. Though it is question if they go so eastwards without Wittlesbachs emperors in their way.

Also, a united Iberia? Most intruiging.
It would certainly be the preeminent power in the world I feel.



Interesting take on the situation. I've read that prior to reunification of France, the Britiens had interests in taking over Ireland. Is there any merit to a surviving Briten conquering Ireland?
Did not France posses some irish land for few centuries itself?

But defeated Briten, has all the weakness of its royal system without the strength of united kingdom to draw on.
 
Where would Briten align?
It obviously can't stay alone...Would it fall back under the Scandinavians or with the Empire?
 
That is possible. That would mean different Eastern Europe, if Luxemburg ambitions there are supported by their posession of imperial title. Though it is question if they go so eastwards without Wittlesbachs emperors in their way.

Interesting. You'd also have to keep the Hapsburgs in mind, because a disunited France would probably have big effects on them.

It would certainly be the preeminent power in the world I feel.

Interesting. Perhaps they get the biggest chunk of Colombia ITTL?

Did not France posses some irish land for few centuries itself?

Only coastal towns and holings, AFAIK. Nothing beyond trading posts and ports.

But defeated Briten, has all the weakness of its royal system without the strength of united kingdom to draw on.

That's quite true. Perhaps Scotland eventually ends up leading a union with Briten ITTL?
 

ninebucks

Banned
Interesting take on the situation. I've read that prior to reunification of France, the Britiens had interests in taking over Ireland. Is there any merit to a surviving Briten conquering Ireland?

Well, Scotland has managed to hold the northern third of Ireland for the past 500 hundred years, so its possible. But 'conquest' is a strong word, island nations always have trouble deploying their forces overseas, so I doubt one island could overwhelm the other - a union of local élites, however, is possible.
 
Well, Scotland has managed to hold the northern third of Ireland for the past 500 hundred years, so its possible. But 'conquest' is a strong word, island nations always have trouble deploying their forces overseas, so I doubt one island could overwhelm the other - a union of local élites, however, is possible.

So if Briten allied with one of the Irish tribes and supported it, over time there could be a united Ireland under Briten? Or is this ASB, seeing as how disagreeable the Irish are amongst themselves.
 
Perhaps Scotland eventually ends up leading a union with Briten ITTL?
Doubtful. Scotland and Angland were too much in conflict - they probably hated each other too much for union to ever happen. Well, except by conquest maybe.

By the way, if you're talking about a TL where Briten was never part of France then you should properly call French Briten "Angland", which was its name when it was an independent kingdom. Saying "Briten would be a coloniser of Columbia" is anachronistic, and also inaccurate (since, of course, Scotland is also located on the island of Briten). Of course when we say "Briten" we're colloquially referring to French Briten, but to be accurate and specific we should call it "Angland".
 
Doubtful. Scotland and Angland were too much in conflict - they probably hated each other too much for union to ever happen. Well, except by conquest maybe.

By the way, if you're talking about a TL where Briten was never part of France then you should properly call French Briten "Angland", which was its name when it was an independent kingdom. Saying "Briten would be a coloniser of Columbia" is anachronistic, and also inaccurate (since, of course, Scotland is also located on the island of Briten). Of course when we say "Briten" we're colloquially referring to French Briten, but to be accurate and specific we should call it "Angland".

Okay, I'll take that into account. If Scotland and Angland were always fighting, is there a chance that one may completely conquer the other?
 
Top