England Wins the Hundred Years' War

I can't imagine this hasn't been done before, but what would the history of the next century or two have looked like had England come out victorious at the end of the Hundred Years' War?
 
I can't imagine this hasn't been done before, but what would the history of the next century or two have looked like had England come out victorious at the end of the Hundred Years' War?

Define victory, I guess. Henry V living longer and being crowned King of France?
 
I suppose the Union would overtime become so French-dominated, the English would have to fight for independence from their French oppressors.x'D
 
I can't imagine this hasn't been done before, but what would the history of the next century or two have looked like had England come out victorious at the end of the Hundred Years' War?
It depends of what you mean by victory, eventually.

Are we talking English kings enforcing their claims to the French throne? Then it would be quite hard indeed in first place : it's, granted, not impossible as a realistic PoD (the only I can think of, tough) would be Henry V living on, while Charles VII and his son would timely dying at Bourges. It would make Henry the sole clear successor, as Louis d'Orléans (the next-in-line for what mattered loyalists), would have been hostage in England). It would make the Armagnac and Armagnac-sided nobility and elites, while holding a significant power and virtual independence south of Loire, headless and IMO acknowledging Lancaster's suzerainty as long it remains relatively symbolic.

Of course, such situation would leave Burgundy with a large influence in Northern France, that would be directly detrimental to French interests, at this point Lancaster's interests : the Lancaster-Valois-Burgundy alliance was souple at best, and could entierly disappear if Lancasters wanted to affirm further their rights in France, of if Burgundy decided they could do without Lancasters or even claim the throne (with English rights, which were not really clear to begin with, being politically validated, it opens the can of worm with anyone close enough to the royal line to possibly have a go at it).

At this point, the Lancaster personal union would be a French led-union, as other said on thios board: would it be on demographical grounds only the difference between England ( 2,5 millions) and France (16 millions) let little doubt : the double-monarchy would be for England what act of Union was for Scotland, not to mention the economical disprency or the cultural domination 'favoured by what remains of Anglo-Norman features in England).

It's possible, tough, that the dominance of the French part wouldn't be obvious in the immediate aftermath (especially because of the troubles in Normandy and Brittany, which harboured a significant pro-Valois movement) and that the English nobility would fight their eventual geopolitical decline while Henry V would be more focused on macropolitics at least for a while (he did planned, for instance, a crusade to take place : I don't think it would be the case, but Henry saw big, and might overlook one way or another regional issues until it becomes a political hinderance).

Other than this PoD, I don't think it was really winnable for England, as in a complete conquest of the kingdom : HYW was a war of attrition which clearly favoured a wealthy France that benefited from more finely tuned fiscal and military resources than an England that was plagued by a Parliment that required the king to make fructuous campaign at little cost. In this respect HYW was only the continuation AND the culmination of the long fight between Plantagenets and Capetians since the late XIth century that saw the latter systematically winning eventually thanks to the aformentioned advantages (among others, the Plantagenet political puzzle barely held together to begin with until it was reduced to Guyenne)

It was the reason why most Plantagenêts (directs of Lancasters) rather searched something along independence from french suzerainty on the continent.
It's basically the core of the Treaty of Brétigny (where the super-Aquitaine was technically a proper holding of England, or rather the Prince of Wales), what might have happened if Edward survived longer and what might have been attempted in the XVth century if Thomas Lancaster became king instead of Henry V, creating a new Aquitain principalty benefiting from Armagnac-Bourguignon civil war.

The thing was that Valois never saw these treaties or concessions anything but temporary repsites, a way to gather their forces before taking these back : IOTL Charles V, after a time, just resumed to treat Aquitaine like it was still under his suzerainty (even if it was kinda not according Brétigny*), helping Gascon lords that complained about Edward's increasing fiscal pressure. With Plantagenet complaining, he basically answered that the treaty was never enforced, and declared war on Plantagenets for being bad vassals.

That's how much he cared for Brétigny, and highlightq the sophisticated, legalist and proto-machievallian Capetian geopolitical considerations.

*Technically, the treaty was never applied, which gave Charles a casus belli about how Plantagenets didn't abided by it, because himself didn't.

TL;DR
It was possible, with a narrow window of opportunity in the 1420/1430's that Henry V could have benefitted from. It would have led to a French dominated-union (altough gradually so, and no without big political infighting) with a southern France possibly largely autonomous at first in a first time.

Apart from this, it simply wasn't winnable on the grounds of English total conquest.
 
I suppose the Union would overtime become so French-dominated, the English would have to fight for independence from their French oppressors.x'D
Well, it's arguably a possibility. Shall we see a Maiden of York, freeing the city from these damned French as God intend them to chase them out of the island? Except that, if God would be English, the treasury would be still French.

More seriously, while the proto-nationalist idea was indeed knowing a boost out of the HYW, the first "victims" of such French-dominated ensemble (altough I expect it to be far, far less unbalanced than a 1066 II : Electric Bugaloo) would be the middle/small nobility of England from one hand possibly with yeomen, and urban elites (bourgeoisie and institutionals) whom relation to the late feudal state (increasingly bureaucratized) and a proto-national culture affect would be harmed (or percieved as such) in such an union.

Either it goes in the sense of a confederal union (which seems dubious to be honest, at least as a planned outcome : maybe it could be the result in long term of all the infighting), either the sheer weight of France (especially if Burgundy tries something funny) will impose a quasi-permanent court maybe not in Paris but in France (we could see the development of a meta-capital in the Seine Valley, sort of early equivalent of the Loire Valley) with England would tend to become a junior partner in the personal union (as it was in the XIIth century) with more or less pissed off middle classes (which played an important role at this point).

EDIT : In fact, on some aspect, you'd still have plenty of room for a French-based revolt against this personal union. The class base would be a bit different as a significant part of the urban middle class had not that trouble supporting Henry V, or rather denounce Charles VIII; but on the other hand Lancaster support depended from the support of Bourguignon party which was more than just the Duchy and its estates, but also the political faction it led in France and that held Paris as its stronghold until the end.

With a, quite possible, Lancaster-Burgundy fall-out as described in the former post above, you'd have the political and cultural ground for an anti-Lancaster revolt in France.
 
Last edited:
Basically what should have happened is that Henry V or Henry VI divides France and England between to his two sons.
While it could have been a sensible policy, I doubt it would have been enacted : all the claims of Plantagenets was about a dual monarchy, and such a plan would have screamed "well, all of this was for nothing" for everyone close enough to facepalm at the sheer realisation. Let alone that a Lancaster France would be a bit too dependent from England military wise (Burgundians are definitely not going to turn meatshield), and that the great nobility of England would be politically pissed while they managed to finally undergo a seemingly impossible goal...

At best such agreement would paralyze both, as the regency in France prooved in the 1430's.
At worst, you'd have a War of the Roses on steroids as the next new phase of HYW between France and England, complete with the prospect of a Valois revival.

I would rather see one of the sons being trusted with ducal Aquitaine, possibly more or less autonomous, would it be only to maintain a pressure on southern French nobility (which would likely be largely independent from Lancasters, even if acknowledging his suzerainty).
 
I can't imagine this hasn't been done before, but what would the history of the next century or two have looked like had England come out victorious at the end of the Hundred Years' War?
I think somebody did it before.
Check "Henry V lives longer" or similar.

Actually it'd have been possible and it brings some questions about the genealogy of Charles V that could be slightly influenced.

I'll assume Reformation would still happen 'cause IMO it is quite inevitable with post-XIV century PoDs.

Let's split the TL in two:
1• Charles V genealogy wouldn't be influenced:
- War between Spain/Empire and England/France (I assume Charles would still get the Imperial title.).
- French would rebel against the English.
- MegaEmpire (Spain-Portugal-France-"Germany"-most of Italy + the rest.).
- Charles would die or (It is unlikely ITT.) abdicate.
- German-speaking possessions would still ask for a German to rule 'em (Ferdinand.).
- French possessions would so ask for a French one (Rebellion.).
- Philip II would almost ignore the Dutch and concentrate on the French (I don't think he would succeed.).
- After a bloody long war France would be free, but some parts of the South would still be in Spanish hands as Bretagne and Calais in English ones.
- England would prepare itself for another war on the continent for a while (Less interest in colonization.).
- Spain would be weaker, but would have a slightly larger Empire.

Mid term consequences:
- A big war in the XVII century involving Austria, German Protestants, Denmark, (Sweden?) (Basically TY'W.), France (That may either be Catholic or Protestant.), (Holland?), England and Spain. (Would this war have any Italian parenthesis? If so, add Venice.).
- Slower English penetration in Ireland.
- Independent Scotland? If so I think it would be a second Holland (Maybe more neutral.) and I think could conquer Ulster (If English are slow enough.).
- French colonization would be poor IMO 'cause France would be surrounded by two aggressive powers (Spain and England.) that are quite good on the sea and by the nation that ITT would have the strongest navy (Holland.).
- English colonization would be weaker (Spanish Georgia? Nieuw Nederland absorbing New England?).
- About Louisiana I'd say Spanish western part and English eastern part (But I'm definitely not sure.).

Long term consequences:
Butterflies punching this TL in the face.

2• No ideas, really.

Sorry for the poor point "2" and for my English.
 
We had this discussion a few times, and people often mentioned that France would inevitably start to wag England.
 
Define victory, I guess. Henry V living longer and being crowned King of France?

Or the English possessions in France became independent from the French crown as per the Peace of Bretigny (1360).
250px-Map-_France_at_the_Treaty_of_Bretigny.jpg
 
Of course, such situation would leave Burgundy with a large influence in Northern France, that would be directly detrimental to French interests, at this point Lancaster's interests : the Lancaster-Valois-Burgundy alliance was souple at best, and could entierly disappear if Lancasters wanted to affirm further their rights in France, of if Burgundy decided they could do without Lancasters or even claim the throne (with English rights, which were not really clear to begin with, being politically validated, it opens the can of worm with anyone close enough to the royal line to possibly have a go at it).

Burgundian claim makes makes situation so messy politically and militarily that the outcome is completely unclear both in a short and a long run. :'(
 
Burgundian claim makes makes situation so messy politically and militarily that the outcome is completely unclear both in a short and a long run. :'(
And even without that, Burgundy and Bourguignons (as a faction) are still going to be an issue. At this point, Burgundy didn't commited itself to state-building in Moselle/Meuse basin and Netherlands as much as it did after Valois victory, even if Jean II really began to do so, and kept a large interest (factional and political) in Northern France.
Meaning that whatever happens, Lancasters kings will be confronted to a large independent-minded entity that, contrary to various southern French lords (that would probably take on themselves to manage former royal demesne lands south of Loire "in the name of") would have an important influence in the northern part of the kingdom, including Paris. The situation wouldn't be that tolerable on the long run, but it depends how Lancaster manage it : either they give-up on Burgundian lands (which might be a bit too much, giving they would have similarily given up on effectively ruling southern France ITTL), they try a compromise, or they pull a Louis XI. All of these are viable, but the Burgundian problem would have to be dealt with one way or another.
 

Kaze

Banned
Winning the Wars would not be easy but feasible. The problem is keeping France. The Wars of the Roses would likely be sparked - King Henry was not the most competent king, his wife was too demanding and French, and the other Dukes were over ambitious. All the French would have to do is wait for one of the Dukes to rebel and start the Wars of the Roses to have a new Joan of Arc liberate France.
 
And even without that, Burgundy and Bourguignons (as a faction) are still going to be an issue. At this point, Burgundy didn't commited itself to state-building in Moselle/Meuse basin and Netherlands as much as it did after Valois victory, even if Jean II really began to do so, and kept a large interest (factional and political) in Northern France.

Well, to start with, they were extremely popular in Paris so, if their claim is going against one of alt-Henry, he would have to besiege his own capital in France.
 
Winning the Wars would not be easy but feasible.

It was not just feasible, it happened: the 100YW is a somewhat artificial term which includes a series of wars most of which had the official end with the peace treaty at the end. Pretty much like the term "Napoleonic Wars". And the English side was an "official winner" in most of these conflicts. Well, of course, what's really matter is that it completely lost the last one. :cryingface:

The problem is keeping France.

During the "Edwardian stage" this was not a goal. The _real_ goal was to achieve independence of the Plantagenetian possessions in France from the French crown. Formally, this was achieved by the Treaty of Bretigny but the conditions seemingly agreed upon never were fully implemented and the whole thing fall apart with the resulting major territorial losses for the Plantagenets.

Henry V was seemingly more ambitious in that regard AND he came in a right time when France was weakened by the internal conflicts but with the English idea that the war should be paid for by the French territories and himself being a little bit too much on a looting and burning side even by the contemporary standards, I'm not sure that his dynasty would be excessively popular and, anyway, it would have to deal with the competing claims from either Orleans or Burgundian faction (or both).
 
During the "Edwardian stage" this was not a goal. The _real_ goal was to achieve independence of the Plantagenetian possessions in France from the French crown. Formally, this was achieved by the Treaty of Bretigny but the conditions seemingly agreed upon never were fully implemented and the whole thing fall apart with the resulting major territorial losses for the Plantagenets.
One of the very few times that any of my university lecturers touched on AH speculation was based on Bretigny.

Unfortunately, I didn't have the opportunity to discuss the merits of different interpretations of the butterfly effect, but one of my medieval lecturers discussed that an Edward III who died shortly after Bretigny, or the Black Prince following such a death, may well have gone down in history as an Edward the Great. Instead, he lost France, fell in thrall to a mistress, contracted gonorhea, and left a bitterly divided realm in the hands of a ten-year-old.

One of these day, I might look into discussing it with him further. He always said he was disappointed I didn't do my dissertation under his supervision.
 
One of the very few times that any of my university lecturers touched on AH speculation was based on Bretigny.

Unfortunately, I didn't have the opportunity to discuss the merits of different interpretations of the butterfly effect, but one of my medieval lecturers discussed that an Edward III who died shortly after Bretigny, or the Black Prince following such a death, may well have gone down in history as an Edward the Great. Instead, he lost France, fell in thrall to a mistress, contracted gonorhea, and left a bitterly divided realm in the hands of a ten-year-old.

One of these day, I might look into discussing it with him further. He always said he was disappointed I didn't do my dissertation under his supervision.

Well, out of the whole bunch only Charles V was one with the brains and the English started losing territories even while Papa Ed was still alive. Power of the paperwork never should be overlooked.

But it seems that Ed Senior can get a credit for making a war into the state-sponsored commercial enterprise: people were getting loans for getting into the war on condition of paying certain percentage from the future ransoms to the lender (Papa Ed). Looked like a sensible commercial model as long as the opponents were indulging the English with the big battles in which they could be captured. ;)
 
Top