England Victorious: The Hundred Years War

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Now, I agree with most of your post. But why would the weather patterns change? We don't really affect that; not at the point we're discussing, anyway.

That was the original meaning of "butterfly effect": butterflies flap wings, storms appear. It's an issue which is more debated, so yeah, bad example. I stick by that aside, however: if you believe some accounts of Luther's life, he was inspired to monasticism by his screamed vows and pleas during a lightning storm. How likley is it that with the changes in commerce and so on rippling to changes in peoples lives, that monk is outside during that thunderstorm?
 
A great majority of us? Realy...
Have you even bothered to review the thread I linked to?

I said "it's not a given" that there will be the same anti-papalist movement in Germany, never mind the same enlightenment revolution in France. If it is a given, you're not arguing for a loose interpretation of butterflies, you're arguing for determinism, which is rather a silly thing to do on an AH website.

I cannot think of a single timeline not implementing some manner of butterfly effect, or poster who would object to the sequence of influence I mapped from Luther to the House of Valois on any but technical-historical grounds, which you have of course failed to respond to.

And Im no more excessively blunt asking you to prove it, than you in your statement that was the reason I replied:

This is a recurring semi-humurous phrase of mine, and I stand by it here. To argue that the people must eventually attempt to overthrow the French state seems to me to ignore causality.

Im not going to highjack this thread more than I already have done :eek:

If you want to discuss this more, go to the thread I linked to :)

This is AH.com. Threads don't have topics so much as stimuli, and I'd appeciate you responding to my actual arguments.
 
The right of the King to rule was unchallengeable and the people had no right to self-determination, so the idea of rebelling to establish an "English King" just would never occur - heck, the Christian religion itself emphasised strongly that even if your King was a cruel oppressor you owed your loyalty to him and to rebel was going against God's will - that's why so many medieval rebellions stated that they thought the King was acting unjustly because his advisers were deceiving him. Attempting to overthrow a monarchy was a very rare occasion, and almost always prompted by extraordinary circumstances.

Herm. While overthrowing a monarchy was rare, overthrowing the monarch was not.

1422-Henry V does not catch dysentery and instead is mostly healthy (POD)

1422-1430-Orleans is captured and Dauphin's resistance collapses (albeit slowly due to methodical seiges of various castles). Dauphin flees France. He is seen as a weak and indecisive pretender. In the mean time Henry has 2 more children in addition to OTL Henry the VI, Richard and Catherine.
.

Okay, let's play devil's advocate. Bedford was a highly capable regent and smart chap, yet he faced obstacle after obstacle. Why would Henry succeed where Bedford failed?
 
Herm. While overthrowing a monarchy was rare, overthrowing the monarch was not.



Okay, let's play devil's advocate. Bedford was a highly capable regent and smart chap, yet he faced obstacle after obstacle. Why would Henry succeed where Bedford failed?

Bedford was extremely capable. The advantage Henry V might have is that he was actually recognised as the heir to the French King. Orleans might be butterflied.
 
I sort-of agree, but as a Scot I feel that might be a little of an oversimplification. There are some pretty important differances. Language, for instance.

Yes, it's an oversimplication and there are quite a few differences. I meant that it would take second place in the mind of the various kings, even if their first royal titles come from there and that, as the poorer of the two realms, it is likely to fare badly in case of revolt.
 
Okay, let's play devil's advocate. Bedford was a highly capable regent and smart chap, yet he faced obstacle after obstacle. Why would Henry succeed where Bedford failed?

For a start, because Parliament started rejecting taxation requests to fund the war when Henry died? My personal take on the matter is that it would be hard to run the Dauphin completely out, however. In my mind, a surviving Henry V would succeed in cementing his rule over the north of France and over Gascony and would stop there.
 
I don't see a Scotland in the UK comparison at all, I see it being far worse.
Scotland and England though two seperate nations were on the same island and had largely compatable interests.
England and France though...totally different interests.
For instance the king will be wanting to get money to go to war against whoever owns the Netherlands so as to expand French power- England has no reason to war here. Indeed it wants peace here, it makes its money through trade with the Netherlands!


As to protestantism:
I agree its not at all a given however something was certainly brewing.
The wars of the 16th and 17th centuries were not just a matter of anti-papalism though that tended to be the primary excuse, even if you completely remove Martin Luther and anyone like him you still have the other brewing problems; the bourgois seeking greater political power, the emergance of the age of capitalism, the end of feudalism, the formation of nation states. Lots of trouble to be had even assuming the catholic church does get its act together- which could well happen under Plantagenet domination of Europe as it would later under Habsburg IOTL.
 
Last edited:
For a start, because Parliament started rejecting taxation requests to fund the war when Henry died? My personal take on the matter is that it would be hard to run the Dauphin completely out, however. In my mind, a surviving Henry V would succeed in cementing his rule over the north of France and over Gascony and would stop there.

An important mistake made by the English was the marriage of the Duke of Gloucester to Jacqueline, countess of Hainaut and Holland. This alienated their Burgundian allies who actually occupied most of Northern France for their allies.

Their failure to keep their allies on board was certainly major cause for the quick destruction of the English posistion after the Treaty of Arras.

In fact, up to 1435, the situation in France can be regarded as a three-sided civil war, with all parties (English, Burgundians and Armagnacs/Royalists) having a claim to the throne. The Burgundians, seeing the succes of Charles VII thanks to Joan of Arc, merely switched sides from the English to the Royal house. Now outnumbered, the English were quickly reduced to just holding Calais.
 
An important mistake made by the English was the marriage of the Duke of Gloucester to Jacqueline, countess of Hainaut and Holland. This alienated their Burgundian allies who actually occupied most of Northern France for their allies.

Would Henry V be smart enough not to do this?

In fact, up to 1435, the situation in France can be regarded as a three-sided civil war, with all parties (English, Burgundians and Armagnacs/Royalists) having a claim to the throne. The Burgundians, seeing the succes of Charles VII thanks to Joan of Arc, merely switched sides from the English to the Royal house. Now outnumbered, the English were quickly reduced to just holding Calais.

I've actually thought one of the cooler, and sadly unexplored outcomes is a Burgundian Empire encompassing northern France and the Low Countries.

For a start, because Parliament started rejecting taxation requests to fund the war when Henry died? My personal take on the matter is that it would be hard to run the Dauphin completely out, however. In my mind, a surviving Henry V would succeed in cementing his rule over the north of France and over Gascony and would stop there.

But then the issue becomes:

1) Why would Parliament not reject Henry V's demands? It wasn't just that he was dead, the country was broke.

2) Why was Northern France and Gascony an insufficient base for for the English, and how does Henry change that?
 
Would Henry V be smart enough not to do this?

Henry didn't in the first place. He personally forbade the match to prevent the falling out of relations with Burgundy. Gloucester's response was to continue privately seeing Jacqueline, and then to marry her as soon as possible after Henry's death. In a world where Henry stayed alive, likely the marriage wouldn't happen at least for a good few years. However, I can't see England and Burgundy staying friends forever. It was no secret that the Dukes of Burgundy sought independence - at one point they almost persuaded a Holy Roman Emperor to crown them King of Burgundy, I think this was around 1430, and it was only avoided when the HRE got cold feet on the way there and turned around. Personally, in this scenario I see Charles the Bold continuing to support Henry in pacifying the north, then demanding independence in exchange. Henry would most likely reject this in the short-term, wanting to see Burgundy continue as a French vassal for a while while the north was properly brought under control. Likely this would then result in the Burgundians playing along until such a time as they could force the issue - maybe around 1430. I find it unlikely that they would defect to the French camp, as that would do their independence demands no good whatsoever. Rather, they'd likely just withdraw their forces from the garrisons and play hardball. However, Henry by this point would likely be in a position now where he could take over from the Burgundians. In this position, Burgundy would get its independence and Humphrey Duke of Gloucester would get his marriage to Jacqueline of Hainaut.

But then the issue becomes:

1) Why would Parliament not reject Henry V's demands? It wasn't just that he was dead, the country was broke.

2) Why was Northern France and Gascony an insufficient base for for the English, and how does Henry change that?

1 - England wasn't broke, it was just becoming broke. Henry had the personality to force Parliament to accept his terms, and he had the popularity among the citizens for them to want to keep fighting, just a little bit longer. If he decides to settle on consolidation, he can probably have his aims fulfilled in around 5 years, give or take a few, and this would just about be manageable. Remember that at the same time, the Langue d'Oc was also having massive fiscal problems, so it would be unlikely that Henry would need to constantly raise big armies to fight the Dauphin, he would merely need constant waves of reinforcements to take over the north.

2 - Because Normandy and Gascony were still somewhat opposed to him, or at least were wary of throwing their weight in either direction. As King of France he could likely bring them on board over time, there were a small lobby in France outside of Burgundy who supported his claim, but it would be a dangerous thing to send out the taxmen so soon. It would turn his new subjects against him and would risk partisan noblemen creating trouble by attacking those tax collectors, depriving him of money, and possibly create a new front Henry would need to fight on. Logic dictates that when you conquer a new area of land, especially a major one like northern France, you treat it like royalty for a little while, to win the loyalty there. Only then do you start using it to raise money.

Gascony is a bit more complicated, too. Gascony had a tradition of weak Ducal control and strong vassals. The Duke had little right to tax there at all, and the King of France had virtually no right to do anything there at all. Gascony was a traditionally troublesome region. The English were somewhat popular in the coastal regions because English trade had made the middle classes popular, and the English Dukes didn't break local laws and traditions like French Dukes did, which is largely what provoked the Gascons to send a plea to England for them to send an army in 1450 to retake control there when the French were finally mopping up, but it still really wasn't a great place for sponging money. There was only a small hinterland around three major cities - Bordeaux, Bayonne and Dax, I think - where the Duke was the local landlord and had right to gather taxes. For this reason, Gascony would only ever be able to raise enough money to fund its own garrisons, plus anything vassals might send out of pure generosity rather than loyalty.
 
Herm. While overthrowing a monarchy was rare, overthrowing the monarch was not.



Okay, let's play devil's advocate. Bedford was a highly capable regent and smart chap, yet he faced obstacle after obstacle. Why would Henry succeed where Bedford failed?
Lol, dunno the 100 Years' War isn't really my strongest point, I take it for granted that Henry V is a military genius because of Agincourt and his ability to get the Treaty of Troyes signed...perhaps better progress gets made because their isn't an unstable regency and military effort is united behind a popular and able king
 
England Victorious.

If Henry V had lived longer and nearly completed his conquests, then his very weak successor would most certainly have lost nearly everything. I see the Dauphin holding out somewhere; maybe not in France proper, but in Savoy or Italy, awaiting his chance to return, provided he's not captured and executed by Henry V. I see serious problems with the Scots, who will be encouraged by the French to cause trouble, as always. I see a very sudden and massive revolt that essentially gets rid of the English fairly quickly. The attempted union of Spain and Portugal was a failure, despite more cultural and linguistic similarities than the French and the English.
 
Lol, dunno the 100 Years' War isn't really my strongest point, I take it for granted that Henry V is a military genius because of Agincourt and his ability to get the Treaty of Troyes signed...perhaps better progress gets made because their isn't an unstable regency and military effort is united behind a popular and able king

But Agincourt, in light of Henry's pre and post battle skill, looks like a bit of a fluke.
 
Yes, it's an oversimplication and there are quite a few differences. I meant that it would take second place in the mind of the various kings, even if their first royal titles come from there and that, as the poorer of the two realms, it is likely to fare badly in case of revolt.

Perhaps. But the analogy doesn't seem exact.

The Low countries were far richer than Austria. Which one ended up as more important in the Habsburg state?

(Okay, Charles V is a bad example. But I think the point stands).

England is centralized and with a far more centralized government than France. It's a rich and powerful state in its own right.
 
Top