England becomes the victor of the 100 years' war

Before I start, I'd like to ask that you use the quote option so that when you constructively critique other posts, everyone knows which posts you are critiquing.

I understand your point, but I think you are downplaying the cultural question, and only taking into account the political and administrative aspects of the question, which is fairly common on this site, and is seriously starting to get on my nerves:mad:. People are not robots in the service of their rulers: they have group consciousness, can be influenced by propaganda and aesthetic representations, and all of those things do contribute to shape history: human beings are not necessarily rational in everything they do. Joan of Ark was a formidable opponent for the English because she knew how to build her own reputation so that she might eventually be able to shape history. You can still argue that she was a puppet in the hands of French rulers.

I don't think anyone is discounting the existance of some kind of proto-nationalism during the Middle Ages. However, the nobilities of both France and England were linked by marriage, blood, and a shared culture. The ruling dynasty in England, the Plantagenets, were French lords who succeeded to the English throne. Most English nobility was either descended from, or assimilated into, the French Norman culture that William the Bastard brought over with him, and which was re-enforced by the French extraction of the ruling English family.

So though folk culture on the French and English sides may differ, the nobilities were part of the same broad French-influenced culture.

This does not change the fact that there was someone behind the scenes with the ability to understand that politics is about representations. I am not making it up myself: Hobbes himself made this very clear. There was already some sort of national consciousness, whether you want it or not. What you also seem to fail to understand is that the nobility had to deal with the opinion of the people in their respective countries.
The people in this era were overwhelmingly illiterate peasants whose lives were short, harsh, and pious. You need to be able to live in some level of comfort and security to have the luxury of nationalism (thus why its rise can be largely traced to the Industrial Revolution- neat huh?).

If this is not clear enough, go read Coriolanus by Shakespeare. You will be able to see for yourself what happens to rulers who are unable to deal with the opinion of their subjects or fellow citizens.
Machiavelli said that the ideal Prince should be able to be both a lion and a fox: being a fox surely involves dealing with representations. Let us say it again, once and for all: politics is first and foremost about representations. If you do not know what representation is, go read Aristotle's Poetics. This will do you a world of good.
Bearing this in mind, I don't believe that in the contest of representations the English had a chance to have the upper hand. You might think otherwise,and I am ready to discuss this further, but please do not shun the cultural aspect of the question.
I think that your projecting modern day views of nationalism onto writing that should, at best, be viewed as proto-nationalism. The way that people in earlier ages viewed nationality and culture was VERY different then the way that we view it today.

On the idea of representation. Are you getting at the idea that even under an authoritarian system, there must be some level of support among the population for the regime in power? I totally agree with that idea. Its just that in the era in question, the political base was much, much smaller, since most of the population had little ability to influence the outcome of events. (Peasant Rebellions notwithstanding)

As far as the general historical context is concerned, I would also like you to take into account that I was referring to the long-term consequences of the union between France and England in my previous posts, not the mere hundred years following their victory.
You say that there would be no resentment on the side of the English in the case of an English victory: well, that is possible, but keep in mind that I was referring to a capital city established in France, not the mere victory of England.
And I still believe that a shift of power in favour of the French nobility would be seen (remember, "re-pre-sen-ta-tions") with resentment in England.
And here is where my thoughts on the whole union come into effect.

I don't think that the Anglo-French Union had a lot recommending it for long-term success. An English King may be able to install himself into the French throne, but is going to face continuing opposition from supporters of the Capets (former French dynasty), probably also from the (Capet cadet line-led) Burgundians (who didn't want to see a winner in the HYW). This opposition is going to cost money to overcome. Add on to this the family troubles that the Plantagenets were already facing (York v Lancaster). Add on to that the English King will probably remove his court to the continent, since France is the more senior Kingdom.

I think that the English gentry are not really happy about the English King moving out of England. Parliament will probably become a center of opposition as the English "people" (such as it is) refuse to support a foreign king waging foreign wars. Moreover, the Parliament (and the country gentry that it represents) will probably feel the addition of France to the English Kings possessions could render them powerless, as their power of the purse becomes meaningless in the face of the unrestricted revenue that France may be able to generate. (I know that fear of French revenues seems at logger-heads with opposition to rising taxes, so call it defense of "English Liberties").

Basically, I don't think the Anglo-French union would last. Rebellion in France will force higher taxes in England which will lead to rebellion in England. Family feuding takes on a whole new level of danger when each branch of the family can take over a Kingdom.

In short, I don't address the long-term because I don't think your long-term would EVER come to pass.
 
Before I start, I'd like to ask that you use the quote option so that when you constructively critique other posts, everyone knows which posts you are critiquing.

Before I start, I would like you to have the courtesy of looking up a few words in the dictionary, such as "critiquing". I am not a native english speaker myself, and I can make a few grammar and spelling mistakes at times, but I, at least, try to be intelligible.

The people in this era were overwhelmingly illiterate peasants whose lives were short, harsh, and pious. You need to be able to live in some level of comfort and security to have the luxury of nationalism (thus why its rise can be largely traced to the Industrial Revolution- neat huh?).

Really? Have you ever heard about the famous phrase "boutez les Anglais hors de France!" (Drive the English off our lands!). I am not sure people of the nobility were the only ones to use that kind of slogan. Poor and uneducated people do tend to be fairly nationalistic. Anyway, apparently, we do not share the same assessment of nationalism. I have never seen nationalism as a "luxury": nationalism is for dunces and backward people.

I think that your projecting modern day views of nationalism onto writing that should, at best, be viewed as proto-nationalism. The way that people in earlier ages viewed nationality and culture was VERY different then the way that we view it today.

After having taught me about the importance of illiteracy, your "I think that your projecting" ("you're" for God's sake!), and "then" instead of "than" are fraught with some sense of tragic irony. But I doubt you grasp the concept of tragic irony.
Anyway, the French built their own cultural and national identity against the English. French and English nationalism were born in that period. If you believe that the English had no consciousness of their ethnicity, why did they treat the Welsh and Irish as they did? Why did the Scots, to this day, still feel Scottish and not English? Is this due to the Industrial revolution? I am sorry, but you are not making sense.

On the idea of representation. Are you getting at the idea that even under an authoritarian system, there must be some level of support among the population for the regime in power? I totally agree with that idea. Its just that in the era in question, the political base was much, much smaller, since most of the population had little ability to influence the outcome of events. (Peasant Rebellions notwithstanding)

You have at least understood one of the meanings of representation. Has it ever occurred to you that political representation and theater have something in common? Politics is about acting, that is what I meant. Now, Joan of Ark was very good at acting, and she came to represent and to stand for the whole nation of France (nationalism, get it?). She was a virgin, which had been assessed by ecclesiastical authorities. This had a meaning: Joan of Ark represented a state in which France (feminine: we say "La France") had not been raped and defiled by the English invaders. This image had a lot of appeal, even among the commoners. Everyone in France could understand that kind of imagery. But the English didn't, and even managed to make herself a martyr. As you did in your previous post, the English failed to grasp the importance of imagery, representation, and symbols.

I think that your projecting modern day views of nationalism onto writing that should, at best, be viewed as proto-nationalism. The way that people in earlier ages viewed nationality and culture was VERY different then the way that we view it today.

Coriolanus has nothing to do with modern politics (you said "modern day views") as you seem to understand it. It is based on Plato's Republic, and it is greatly influenced by Macchiavelli. You spoke of "illiteracy": Macchiavelli has shown, quite convincingly to my mind, that the mob is fickle (from Latin "mobile vulgus", hence vulgar and mobile, movable, changeable) precisely because it is vulgar. Nationalism is about representations: a nation is, first and foremost, an idea. Now the mob bought that idea of a French nation slowly but surely. French nobles used that idea to get rid of their "English" opponents, and galvanize the population of France. Nowadays, Joan of Ark is still a symbol for the main nationalist party (the sadly notorious "Front National") in my country. French nationalism was born with Joan of Ark. This is my country: I know how it works.
 
Before I start, I would like you to have the courtesy of looking up a few words in the dictionary, such as "critiquing". I am not a native english speaker myself, and I can make a few grammar and spelling mistakes at times, but I, at least, try to be intelligible.

I'll try and keep your grammatical corrections from hurting my feelings.

Since this is after all alternate-history what do you think about the actual alternate history piece of my (obviously sub-par) post:

I don't think that the Anglo-French Union had a lot recommending it for long-term success. An English King may be able to install himself into the French throne, but is going to face continuing opposition from supporters of the Capets (former French dynasty), probably also from the (Capet cadet line-led) Burgundians (who didn't want to see a winner in the HYW). This opposition is going to cost money to overcome. Add on to this the family troubles that the Plantagenets were already facing (York v Lancaster). Add on to that the English King will probably remove his court to the continent, since France is the more senior Kingdom.

I think that the English gentry are not really happy about the English King moving out of England. Parliament will probably become a center of opposition as the English "people" (such as it is) refuse to support a foreign king waging foreign wars. Moreover, the Parliament (and the country gentry that it represents) will probably feel the addition of France to the English Kings possessions could render them powerless, as their power of the purse becomes meaningless in the face of the unrestricted revenue that France may be able to generate. (I know that fear of French revenues seems at logger-heads with opposition to rising taxes, so call it defense of "English Liberties").

Basically, I don't think the Anglo-French union would last. Rebellion in France will force higher taxes in England which will lead to rebellion in England. Family feuding takes on a whole new level of danger when each branch of the family can take over a Kingdom.

In short, I don't address the long-term because I don't think your long-term would EVER come to pass.
 
I'll try and keep your grammatical corrections from hurting my feelings.

Since this is after all alternate-history what do you think about the actual alternate history piece of my (obviously sub-par) post:

As you have already understood, I didn't address that part of your post because I thought that this was a rather sensible analysis.
 
Top