England win the 100 years war!

England, Burgundy and other allies defeat France in the 100 years war and occupy all of modern day France by 1453.

What is next for England? More expansion?

Will the French lead a successful rebellion?

How long will the new 'English-France' last for? (Bonus points if it lasts until 1900).
 
The winner in the end is France as the English kings would spend their time in Paris and in effect, the English noble would feel alienated.
 
The winner in the end is France as the English kings would spend their time in Paris and in effect, the English noble would feel alienated.
Why Paris? Just sit in Rouen or Calais. Calais is within sight of England anyway, but is still in France, so it pleases both. Rouen is the capital of Normandy, and while it is farther from England, it is safer, being farther from the border with the Southern Netherlands, and could still be close enough for the English nobles to be satisfied. If worse comes to worse, one King could just give England to one son and France to the other, or Salic law could split the kingdom as well, with France going to a male cousin and England going to a daughter, or however that works. Honestly, it is probably best for both countries that they are separate, as it would be too much of a hassle to manage...


PS: It is hard enough in EU4 to keep the union and manage France, imagine how hard it would be in real life:eek::p:rolleyes:.
 
It's close from being ASB, the whole conflict turning to a war of attrition that fiscal policies of England couldn't withstand on the long run. It asked for a full-fledged civil war to have Lancaster managing to hold 1/4 of the kingdom, without any real means to advance than pressuring as much they could an already scortched region.

Simply said, in matter of ressources, politics, legitimacy and logic, England couldn't have "won" HYW (as in having Plantagenet/Lancaster dynasty taking over).

Now, assuming (and I must stress that we're talking about something particularly implausible) it's done. What do we have?
A dual kingdom : with two different structures, fiscally, administrativly, military; on which french ones are going to prevail.

Giving that a king of France does hold more important and prestigious power (there's a reason why Plantagenets arms put France's arms on the first position, and Lancasters twice), without any reasonable doubt, the core of Plantagenet/Lancaster is going to be in Northern France and in Paris.
Why? Because we're talking about what was not only the main city in the kingdom but in the whole of western Europe; and on which the bulk of the French administration was already present.

And let's be clear : in order to fund this dual kingdom, their rulers aren't going to recieve much of the English Parliment. Going to Rouen or Calais would makes approximatly as much sense than having the British capital being set in Newcastle upon Tyne to please everyone.

What would be the situation in France? In all likeness Burgundy holds at least half of the kingdom under its hands : not only trough fiefdoms but trough the Bourguignon faction within all the kingdom (and that would definitely be at the core of anti-Lancaster activity, Valois-Bourgogne appearing now as the most likely candidate for a French restauration).

And that with an England more and more frightened by the increasingly French influence. It would be like Vietnam trying to swallow up China : it's not going to be the smaller, less wealthy and far less inhabited country that's going to integrate the other.

And giving the rise of national feeling, the fact that French kings had already a more important power over Parliments (and the fear of a political unification at the expense of English Parliaments' freedoms). That's simply *not* going to end well.

To resume : A Lancaster king stuck between an uncomfortable ally at his right, and a growingly dissatisfied England at its left.

If it doesn't ends with a general collapse...
 
France was nigh on ungovernable during the Wars of Religion - absolutely no way the Dual Kingdom could survive that period.

If Henry V is as able as Alexander and lives till he's 60 then maybe some kind of enduring superstate (as in decades not centuries) could be forged but if Henry VI is as useless as IOTL it will all fall apart on a far grander scale.

Even if Edward III / Edward Black Prince were to somehow "do an Agincourt" then Richard II is waiting in the wings to throw it all away.
 
France was nigh on ungovernable during the Wars of Religion - absolutely no way the Dual Kingdom could survive that period.
Indeed it was. Gosh, Henry III could've been a much greater king hadn't the civil war with the Guise family put a constant pressure on his shoulders. He even imagined the Edict of Nantes before Henry IV (it was the Edict of Amboise).
England wasn't exactly stable at the time, it had had the Two Roses' War (great time to have a Valois take over France) and its own religions wars, and with Spain owning the American gold, it certainly has ressources enough to turn down such an unstable construct.
 
What about England hanging on to Normandy and Aquitaine rather than taking the whole of France? As England is a Kingdom and the other two Duchies, England would remain pre-eminent.
 
I think realistically, England winning the 100 Years War would generally involve retaining Aquitaine and possibly Normandy. At even then it's not going to last.

In retrospect, even if England wins, and that's a big if mind you. Ultimately England is going to end up being reduced to just England proper, whether by France trying again and again until England is kicked off the European mainland, or until English nobles decide that the Lancasters are not worth keeping on the English throne.
 
The English kings slowly become more and more French to the point that England establishes it's independence.
 
The English kings slowly become more and more French to the point that England establishes it's independence.

Like the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, or Austria Hungary, or the kingdom of Spain?

I'm not saying it will last forever, but I don't think the idea of a dual monarchy is really ASB.
 
An English-French dual monarchy would never have lasted.

Burgundy could usurp the French throne, becoming Super France (still pretty ASB).

Or France could just dissolve into its component duchies, a la 1000 with Robber Barons keeping the monarchy small and insignificant. England and Burgundy could extend their influence over bits of France, though they would still technically be vassals to the French king. It would just be an extended occupation, one that couldn't last.

Burgundy has a better chance than England in the 1400s of taking over much of France. England just didn't have the marital ties to justify it anymore.

I love the idea of Super-Burgundy/France under Valois-Bourgogne, though.
 
Why Paris? Just sit in Rouen or Calais. Calais is within sight of England anyway, but is still in France, so it pleases both. Rouen is the capital of Normandy, and while it is farther from England, it is safer, being farther from the border with the Southern Netherlands, and could still be close enough for the English nobles to be satisfied.

When James VI of Scotland became James I of England, did he establish his capital in northern England?

The situation between France and England was comparable at this time. England had about four million people while France had about 15-16 million. I doubt that the king of France would move the capital from its centuries-old location in Paris just to please a much smaller realm. I think it's much more likely that he and his descendants would get settled in at Paris and gradually lose interest in England, which eventually would chafe under this neglect and revolt.
 
The situation between France and England was comparable at this time. England had about four million people while France had about 15-16 million.

I think this is part of the idea in English historiography that they were little old England, facing the great and big hostile powers. The problem is that England in the middle ages was usually punching well above its weight because of its superior governance, as indicated by the fact that it was rampaging across France with no one to oppose it. If England wins, it's because it is the stronger state.
 
I think this is part of the idea in English historiography that they were little old England, facing the great and big hostile powers. The problem is that England in the middle ages was usually punching well above its weight because of its superior governance, as indicated by the fact that it was rampaging across France with no one to oppose it. If England wins, it's because it is the stronger state.

England and Burgundy - important nuance there. England alone was not powerful enough to control France.
 
What if Burgundy takes Eastern France, and England takes Western France?

i.e. England gets Normandy, Aquitane, Brittany, and nearby areas. Burgundy gets the Paris area, and basically most of inland France.

The point is, as long as England doesn't have Paris they have no reason to move their capital to France, making the union more likely to last longer.
 
What about England hanging on to Normandy and Aquitaine rather than taking the whole of France? As England is a Kingdom and the other two Duchies, England would remain pre-eminent.
It's doable, and probably more likely (at least for Aquitaine, Normandy would be far harder to hold) as an English victory. That said, Valois would use, as Capetians before them and as they did IOTL, the tactic known as "denying the treaty was valid anyway, and legitimate a conquest trough the call of Gascon/Aquitain lords to the king of France, as their english vassal refused to humiliate himself before his justice".

It's basically how Capetians and Valois justified all their wars against Plantagenêts IOTL and how they always took back Aquitaine. At best, England buys some time.

Heck, Brétigny was basically that, with abandon of claims on French throne, and Charles V basically launched back hostilities 8 years late.

The best way to keep Aquitaine would be to have Plantagenets/Lancaster crushing Valois so hard they could have all of France anyway. (We discussed it a bit there, if you're interested)

that it was rampaging across France with no one to oppose it.
Which was an actual tactic of scortched earth by John II and later Charles V. It's basically why english chevauchées were unfructuous and why Edward III didn't get to be crowned in Reims, had to relinquish the Treaty of London (that gave him half of France without abandon of claims) to the far less favourable Treaty of Brétigny.

It was when they forced the decision about opposing them, having French gambling on an open field battle where overall tactical superiority of English made them prevail, that they won the well known battles of the HYW : Crécy, Poitiers, Azincourt; and it was these defeats that allowed English geopolitical advance eventually.

If England wins, it's because it is the stronger state.
It would ask for massive changes. IOTL, French state was roughly stronger : royal authority on fiscal matters, for exemple were far greater than anything Plantagenets/Lancaster could ever reach (and it's why they heavily depended on chevauchées or money as diplomatic tractation).

It's telling that, while reduced to 2/3 of the kingdom, Charles VII managed to get the better of the era. Basically, even the English rule over Northern France never really managed to be as strong as it was during Charles V.

What if Burgundy takes Eastern France, and England takes Western France?
Neither is going to be satisfied by such agreement. An England with only half of the kingdom is actively acknowledging its rights are bogus (and actually deprives itself of a good part of te remaining wealth on the kingdom, not that touched by war than West); and a that strong Burgundy would soon forget about only Lotharingia to dream about reconstituing Carolingian Empire by adding France to it (they would have claim, most popular support, most wealth...)
 
Last edited:
Long Live the Maid

England gains France, Scotland, and Burgundy. The monarchy drifts slowly towards France, moving the capital first to Calais then Paris. Before they even realize it, the English People have found themselves being ruled over by an Anglo-French (mostly French) aristocracy and are fighting the Second Hundred Years War to free themselves from their French overlords:eek::p


The English being led to their inevitable victory by their God-sent war leader Joan Dark, Maid of Oxfordshire:cool:
 
Top