So, exactly what the title says. My impression is that the town remained potentially defensible in 1558, which leads me to the question, what is the latest date that England could realistically hope to hold onto Calais as a foothold on the continent assuming OTLs end to the hundred years war and general English control of French territory?
How Long Could England Hold Calais
- Thread starter Bureaucromancer
- Start date
Not in 1558. It had been severely neglected at the end of Henry VIII's reign and through Edward VI's, given the lack of funds. The deterioration continued under Mary, and when the French took the city in 1558, it was really without any huge issues. The fortifications were outdated and useless. I imagine England may be able to keep Calais if an alternate 1550s involves England not being dragged into a war with France. A proper government could certainly modernize the fort, as Elizabeth did the British forts. It could revitalize Calais as a defensive point, and perhaps as trade entrepot. The days of Flanders Wool are long passing, but it could be a new point for French luxuries to enter the English market.
It would take investment by the English government, as already noted. Since Henry had given up hopes of defeating France on land and instead invested in his fleet this would need to be overturned.
A potential port for importing goods from the continent is a strong possibility if Henry could see the monitery upside of continuing to support Calais, but what goods I really don't know.
In this case I can see Calais being supported until the Civil War when the French would probably take advantage of the situation and reclaim Calais.
A potential port for importing goods from the continent is a strong possibility if Henry could see the monitery upside of continuing to support Calais, but what goods I really don't know.
In this case I can see Calais being supported until the Civil War when the French would probably take advantage of the situation and reclaim Calais.
It doesn´t benefit England in the long run to focus to much on continental matters, as they were slowly starting to realize at this point.
Yeah, I guess they could spend enough on Calais to not make it worth the effort for the French. But with a pod in the 1550s there´s always a chance there won´t be a civil war.
One possibility to pull it of in addition to more spending on the defences is also a weaker France. But that´s hardly interesting. With both England and France at full steam Calais becomes more interesting.
I´d be amused if someone made a TL where Britain hands Calais over to a communist France in 1997
(yeahyeah, ASB)
Yeah, I guess they could spend enough on Calais to not make it worth the effort for the French. But with a pod in the 1550s there´s always a chance there won´t be a civil war.
One possibility to pull it of in addition to more spending on the defences is also a weaker France. But that´s hardly interesting. With both England and France at full steam Calais becomes more interesting.
I´d be amused if someone made a TL where Britain hands Calais over to a communist France in 1997
(yeahyeah, ASB)Calais held why?
Britain was starting to see the benefit of investing what little money it had on exploiting trade etc outside of Europe. Co-ordinated military investment by the monarch was driven by the return perceived or otherwise on that investment. It is even true of the crusades where a decent looting opportunity was presented. No cash in France the easy money is to be made overseas therefore Calais is neglected and allowed to fall
Britain was starting to see the benefit of investing what little money it had on exploiting trade etc outside of Europe. Co-ordinated military investment by the monarch was driven by the return perceived or otherwise on that investment. It is even true of the crusades where a decent looting opportunity was presented. No cash in France the easy money is to be made overseas therefore Calais is neglected and allowed to fall