English Victory in Hundred Years War

Hi everyone

Are there any TLs that deal with some form of English victory (either partial or total) in the Hundred Years War?

What do people think could've been a route to victory for the English and what do you think Would've followed? Would the English simply retain their French territories? Would Burgundy continue as an independent nation (even to the modern day) and could (most extreme case) could there have been an Anglo-French Union? I'm open to all options and opinions
 
Hi everyone
What do people think could've been a route to victory for the English and what do you think Would've followed?

It depends of the PoD, but it should be something that alter history significantly. Plantagenet never really had the goal to conquer France, using their claim to bargain for territory and independence from French suzerainty on continent (see Treaty of Brétigny).
Lancastre tried to do so, as the civil war between Armagnacs and Bourguignons opened a large door, but they weren't really in a position to impose their rule to all the kingdom (even in the northern part, they had to share de facto the rule with Bourguignons).

I could see three PoDs that might help.

- Plantagenet having an actually valid claim to french crown.
OTL, their claim was quite poor : if the principe that women can't transmit rights was kept, they couldn't access to the crown (and the principe was accepted since the succession of Artois crisis that they couldn't) their claim was simply void; if it was accepted women could (and that's really unlikely) then the daughters of Louis X and Philippe V had superior rights.

Having an English king that could really pretend to the throne (or able to enforce a spouse right), critically if the situation is more blurry in France.

-For that, you'll need to really mess with Valois, making them extinct quickly and maybe pull a Bourbon : the successor is far away from the throne, not that popular at first.

-An unrelated, and later PoD : Charles VII dying before his sacre would certainly help. Armagnacs would have loss their main rally banner. It doesn't mean that a conquest is possible, but I could see the 2/3 of France under Charles VII's rule to eventually accept to recognize Henri II/VI as king even if more or less nominally.

The main consequence would be the francisation of the union.
The demographical 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.

For Burgundy or else, it really depends when the change happens and how. It could go both ways, really.
 
Two possibilities to improve England's chances of a better finish to the Hundred Year's War.

1. Edward III marries Blanche of Navarre.

2. Say Charles VII goes into exile and is perhaps killed. That idea comes from Nancy Goldstone's book "The Maid and the Queen". Basically Charles VII was often on the verge of going into exile until Joan of Arc showed up.... Perhaps England gets another break. Henry V lives longer and fathers more sons with Catherine of Valois, and their first-born OTL Henry VI dies early and Henry V is succeeded by a strong heir who had plenty of on-ground the training and military experience in France. Either the boy favours Henry V, Bedford, Clarence or Charles V (grandfather of Catherine of Valois). Take your pick, instead of getting the worst characteristics of the gene pool, Henry V's heir ends up favouring his more successful relationships. It could happen, Catherine of Valois' had other children who didn't suffer from hereditary madness or who were much more competent than Henry VI.
 
1. Edward III marries Blanche of Navarre.
How does that helps actually? Navarrese kings claims were nullified, and Edward III didn't helped a strengthening of his own : or they were valid, or they weren't.

2. Basically Charles VII was often on the verge of going into exile until Joan of Arc showed up....
Not really : his position wasn't the best, but it was far from being desesperate. He still ruled 2/3 of the kingdom, his ennemies were really divided (not only Bourguignons and English, but english side itself).

I suspect this came from the testimony of a member of Valois court, fifty years after the events that the Dauphin would have asked God to let him flee to Castille or Scotland if he wasn't the true heir or to help him if he was.
This is more the continuation of the stereotype of a Charles VII doubting about his right to take the crown, stereotype that if it can have a part of reality, is most of all made to reinforce the miraculous recovery that happened then.

Between Verneuil and Orléans, 4 years passed without any immediate threat for Charles VII depsite his defeat. There was no real reason to have a self-exile, and doesn't plaid on the favour of the depiction of the Dauphin as a desesperate prince.

Perhaps England gets another break. Henry V lives longer and fathers more sons with Catherine of Valois, and their first-born OTL Henry VI dies early and Henry V is succeeded by a strong heir who had plenty of on-ground the training and military experience in France.
That doesn't change several factors :

-English Parliment was really hostile to continuing the campaigns, as it was without benefit for England itself (and actually really costly), critically with the acknowledged threat of a french presence and influence on the union.

-Even without divisions of Lancastre on this, Bourguignons were at best fragile allies that (and depsite the death of John the Fearless) leaned towards an agreement with Armagnacs. Bourguignons controlled not only their own estates, but a good half of the northern part of the kingdom.

-Charles VII still ruled the 2/3 of the kingdom, with enough men to deal with.
 
And with the crown already well past its ears in debt OTL, an attempt at continuing the conquest of France even more than OTL (assumed by the "Henry V lives longer and has better sons") is . . . where is that money coming from?
 
I am sorry, I meant Joan II of Navarre who might have been Queen of France if her uncle hadn't brought Salic law into the picture. On paper her claim may or may not have been valid, but being married to someone who has the power to back it certainly changes the equation and matters in real life. I've even heard some people on this board say that Henry II became King of England not only because of his mother but because his father was a major landowner in France. In the OTL Joan Navarre did next to nothing to press her own claim either.

Edward III and Joan of Navarre were both also senior heirs of Philip IV if you take Salic law out of the picture. And you could argue whether it applied to the question.
 
I am sorry, I meant Joan II of Navarre who might have been Queen of France if her uncle hadn't brought Salic law into the picture.
First, he didn't "brought" Salic Law but rather an interpretation to succession of the Salic Law that appeared much later.
The inheritence by males of a lot was pretty much on rails, and while it wasn't specifically applied to crown, it didn't make much to be accepted : not because of the Salic Law, that wasn't argued by Philippe V or the Estates, but because it wasn't considered by a valid option by the latter (for several reason, the main one being the virtual lack of support by Jeanne, partially based on the preference by nobility of a male successor).

At the death of Charles, the succession is more or less an elective one : he was chosen not because of the Salic Law but because the pairs, being coherent with their former decisions, chosen a male successor , and there added that he should have rights transmitted by male succession. (For different reasons : more political weight of Valois, refusal of a foreign ruler, being adult)

So, the use of what would be formalized later into an interpretation of Salic Law is a more slow process.

On paper her claim may or may not have been valid, but being married to someone who has the power to back it certainly changes the equation and matters in real life.
Not after she renounced her rights by treaty : it's one of the reasons his son failed to be acknowledged as king depsite an important political support.
Even married with a Plantagenet (and depsite the very likely cancellation of such an union for cosanguinity, or at the very last the consideration of such union as void by french lords) wouldn't give her and his spouse a better deal : the political importance in France of english kings was really limited before the war, and no support for Edward OTL plus no support for Jeanne OTL isn't going, even added, to be a great change.


I've even heard some people on this board say that Henry II became King of England not only because of his mother but because his father was a major landowner in France.
It played a role in a period where anglo-norman nobility was still mixed with french nobility (and often the same people). After Philipp Augustus forced them to choose between their titles in England or in France, it certainly limited greatly this feature.

In the OTL Joan Navarre did next to nothing to press her own claim either.
Because she was assured to have no support : not from her uncles, not from Valois, not from Burgundy and not from nobility in general.
 
Supposing Henry V does not die suddeenly in 1421 aged 36. By this time he had been recognised as heir to Charles VI under the Treaty of Troyes. IOTL Charles died a few months after Henry (October 1422). If however Henry V hadbeen alive at this point he would have been recognised as king of France under the terms of the Treaty of Troyes.

Doubtless he would still have had to face rival claiments but, as we know, Henry was a skilled battlefield commander and statesman. He might well have done much better than the Duke of Bedford and could well have lived another 15 or 20 years establishing English rule and leavig the throne to Henry VI. However, things might well still have fallen apart later as they did IOTL but England's chances could have been improved jhad Henry V lived long enough to establish stable English rule in France.

There were otyher times during the Hundred Years War when France facced great instabity such as the late 1350s and1360s when John II was a prisoner in England and the remnants of the French nobility were bitterly divided having to face uprisings such as the Jacquerie. Had England taken better advantge of this they might have taken a large part of France and held it. However, by this time the English crown was almost bankrupt.
 
Top