How much more powerful would the Habsburgs have become with a third (English) branch a.k.a. How screwed is France (and Scotland)?

[FouDuRoy]

Maria Manuela could undoubtedly have more luck than she had in OTL

I agree. And so could João Manuel. Even assuming he still dies as in OTL, his son (or daughter) does not necessarily have to end up fooling around in Morocco.

Well in OTL Mary was initially engaged to Edward so Scotland can agree to that wedding in the right situation

I do not believe one second this marriage would have actually occured (except of course if the Rough Wooing had been successful).

The treaty is most likely butterflied if Charles has a new wife and new kids and the command of the English forces

Hard to say. Maybe. Maybe not.

Because here they have the Habsburg right next door and on the other side of the sea… Is NOT anymore simply England, is something much worse, who can destroy Scotland.

Which is precisely the reason why Scotland needs support more than ever to not become an English district.

 

[isabella]

I do not believe one second this marriage would have actually occured (except of course if the Rough Wooing had been successful).

That was something who could go both ways, depending from how that was handled. Charles was much more powerful than Henry ever was and without a previous engagement to Edward and the Rough Wooing, I doubt who Scotland would try to refute a wedding between Mary and the Prince of Wales. That assuming who Mary (conceived after the POD) would still be born as girl and James V still caught the illness who killed him and died for it

Hard to say. Maybe. Maybe not.

Pretty unlikely to happen as these were concessions from Charles V who wanted put Orleans against the Dauphin. Here he would it much less interesting than OTL

Which is precisely the reason why Scotland needs support more than ever to not become an English district.

What Scotland ABSOLUTELY do NOT need is another costly military defeat against England and Burgundy so if they are not total idiots will NOT continue to stay in the French camp as that would make them an easy target

 

[AsukaEMP]

Could we get a second Treaty of Tordesillas partitioning North America between England and Spain?

While possible I don't deem this too likely. I'd expect they'd go for an agreement that gives the Anglo-Dutch a spot in their trade network instead.

Which is precisely the reason why Scotland needs support more than ever to not become an English district.

This is 100% a case where bandwagoning is the better way to go. There is no way the Auld Alliance can keep Scotland independent anymore. England and the Low Countries combined would need only a fraction of their wealth to raise an army large enough to crush Scotland, and they would still have plenty left over to raise an even bigger one to fend off a French attack on the Low Countries. Not to mention this Anglo-Dutch union is a part of a Habsburg triumvirate encircling France from all sides. If France attacks the Low Countries Spain will attack France in turn.

Also France really wasn't in any position to invade anybody to begin with. The French Wars of Religion kept them busy for the remainder of the century, and really it wasn't until the outbreak of the 30YW that France started launching large invasions into other places again.​

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

You mean the region that provided 40% of the entire budget and Antwerp through which accounted for 40% of the world trade before the 80years war broke out? That money sink

The 80 years war bankrupted the Spanish Empire.

 

[AsukaEMP]

The 80 years war bankrupted the Spanish Empire.

1. Charles V left Spanish state finances in a deplorable state when he abdicated, Philip II had already defaulted on his loans twice before the 80YW had even begun.
2. The 80YW was itself largely a problem of the Spanish their own making. If Philip II hadn't tried to place foreigners in high offices, raised taxes, tried to centralise the state as rapidly, hadn't sent Alba, etc. support for the revolt in the Netherlands would've been much smaller.

 

[Jürgen]

In case of the whole Scotland thing, I can’t help asking whether a marriage alliance with Denmark-Norway would not be better for them, there’s of course the religious aspect working against it. But Denmark-Norway is a rather strong state at this point and not one in conflict with Habsburg or England, so both the English and Habsburg would likely be careful about pushing it into alliance with France.

 

[FouDuRoy]

What Scotland ABSOLUTELY do NOT need is another costly military defeat against England and Burgundy so if they are not total idiots will NOT continue to stay in the French camp as that would make them an easy target

This is 100% a case where bandwagoning is the better way to go. There is no way the Auld Alliance can keep Scotland independent anymore. England and the Low Countries combined would need only a fraction of their wealth to raise an army large enough to crush Scotland, and they would still have plenty left over to raise an even bigger one to fend off a French attack on the Low Countries. Not to mention this Anglo-Dutch union is a part of a Habsburg triumvirate encircling France from all sides. If France attacks the Low Countries Spain will attack France in turn.

And yet, the Habsburgs and the Tudors did not "crush" Scotland in OTL. Neither during the Italian War of 1542–1546 (that coincided with the Rough Wooing and in which Henry VIII and Charles V were allied against France), neither when Mary Tudor and Philip II were married (while Mary Stuart was in France and engaged to the future Francis II).
If the Habsburg/England alliance could so easily "crush" Scotland, why didn't it do it? The Habsburg/England alliance DID exist in OTL. Despite this, France and Scotland survived and the Auld Alliance lasted until the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560.
Why would it be different ITTL?

Also France really wasn't in any position to invade anybody to begin with. The French Wars of Religion kept them busy for the remainder of the century, and really it wasn't until the outbreak of the 30YW that France started launching large invasions into other places again.

Sure. With the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis, Henri II let to the Habsburgs all the territories they disputed (save from the duchy of Burgundy). After that, the Valois seemed to have renounced to the idea of openly challenging the Habsburg's hegemony and they tried to expand their influence through more indirect ways: election of the duke of Anjou as king of Poland, election of the duke of Alençon as "protector" of the Netherlands WITHOUT his brother's official support, marriage proposals to Elizabeth I, support to the prior of Crato for the Portuguese throne...
Likely, things would turn like that ITTL too.
As for the Scottish, they may or may not end the war before the French and they may or may not concede a marriage to a duke of York but NOT to a prince of Wales. And that would not be the end of the Auld Alliance even if open war is over.

In case of the whole Scotland thing, I can’t help asking whether a marriage alliance with Denmark-Norway would not be better for them, there’s of course the religious aspect working against it. But Denmark-Norway is a rather strong state at this point and not one in conflict with Habsburg or England, so both the English and Habsburg would likely be careful about pushing it into alliance with France.

Ah, the Denmark-Norway thing...
Charles V's nieces Dorothea and Christina were claimers to its throne. Christina actively tried to push her claim as late as in the 1560s. King Eric XIV of Sweden accepted to help her if she managed to also get the support of the emperor and the Netherlands. The emperor refused because that could endanger the equilibrium of powers in the Holy Roman Empire, due to Saxony being allied to Denmark-Norway.
Could Mary Tudor (if she is still alive ITTL), being the religious zealot that we know, push the claim of her Catholic cousin?
Interestingly, Christina's son and heir Charles of Lorraine had been raised in French court, was married to a French princess and was good friend with his brothers-in-law, making his mother's claim rather ambiguous towards the Habsburgs. Of course, this point can easily be changed ITTL.

 

[Janprimus]

1. Charles V left Spanish state finances in a deplorable state when he abdicated, Philip II had already defaulted on his loans twice before the 80YW had even begun.

Not just Spain, that includes his other possessions like the Burgundian Lands.

2. The 80YW was itself largely a problem of the Spanish their own making. If Philip II hadn't tried to place foreigners in high offices, raised taxes, tried to centralise the state as rapidly, hadn't sent Alba, etc. support for the revolt in the Netherlands would've been much smaller.

More specifically a problem of the making of the monarch Burgundy shared with Castile & Aragon. Philip II was a distant monarch, who unlike his father rarely visited the Burgundian Lands if ever after the beginning of his reign. He clearly hadn't learned from his Valois-Burgundy forebearers, nor his grandfather Maximilian. The Burgundian Lands, though wealthy, were unruly and attached to their privileges, for the policies of Philip II to succeed in the Burgundian Lands, he should have held court there and not Castile.

 

[isabella]

And yet, the Habsburgs and the Tudors did not "crush" Scotland in OTL. Neither during the Italian War of 1542–1546 (that coincided with the Rough Wooing and in which Henry VIII and Charles V were allied against France), neither when Mary Tudor and Philip II were married (while Mary Stuart was in France and engaged to the future Francis II).
If the Habsburg/England alliance could so easily "crush" Scotland, why didn't it do it? The Habsburg/England alliance DID exist in OTL. Despite this, France and Scotland survived and the Auld Alliance lasted until the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560.
Why would it be different ITTL?

We had NEVER a true Habsburg England united with the Netherlands and with an heir… Here the situation would be much different than OTL

 

[FouDuRoy]

We had NEVER a true Habsburg England united with the Netherlands and with an heir… Here the situation would be much different than OTL

What would having an heir or not change about the military forces Philip II and Mary Tudor could use against Scotland?

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Could Mary Tudor (if she is still alive ITTL), being the religious zealot that we know, push the claim of her Catholic cousin?

Why not?

 

[cex]

Miguel was the heir of the heiress to Castile and Aragon, and Spain and Portugal were part of the same island. England....isn't

Mary and Philip's son wouldn't be the first instance where English candidates were mentioned for the Crown of Castile: John of Gaunt comes to mind.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Mary and Philip's son wouldn't be the first instance where English candidates were mentioned for the Crown of Castile: John of Gaunt comes to mind.

That was when there was a succession crisis going on...

 

[cex]

That was when there was a succession crisis going on...

Had John of Gaunt been victorious and Richard I died young, we could have had a King John II of England, Ireland, Aquitaine and Castile. The inheritance awaiting Philip and Mary's son would probably have been on a similar, if not even greater scale.

 

[isabella]

What would having an heir or not change about the military forces Philip II and Mary Tudor could use against Scotland?

Changed a lot the situation for Scotland as Marian regime was seen as temporary and Mary of Scotland as possible heiress of England by everyone. Once Mary Tudor (and Charles V, who was a very different man than his son) had an heir(ess) things completely change as that child is automatically heir to both England and the Burgundian lands

 

[ordinarylittleme]

that child is automatically heir to both England and the Burgundian lands

Why would/should Scotland care?

 

[isabella]

Why would/should Scotland care?

Because that mean bigger troubles for them if they provoked in any way England

 

[holycookie]

Because that mean bigger troubles for them if they provoked in any way England

Well, it's not like england is going to have an easy life, religious wars, disputes with other european powers, a foreign king among other problems. As for Scotland being in big trouble, it depends. England is the smallest of the crowns in the union, smaller than Spain and smaller than Austria. Probably therefore being more ignored in a similar way to what happened with Portugal where Spain prioritized its problems to the detriment of Portugal. The same will happen with England. I tend to find that more TTL is more of a screwed England than anyone else

 

[AsukaEMP]

And yet, the Habsburgs and the Tudors did not "crush" Scotland in OTL. Neither during the Italian War of 1542–1546 (that coincided with the Rough Wooing and in which Henry VIII and Charles V were allied against France), neither when Mary Tudor and Philip II were married (while Mary Stuart was in France and engaged to the future Francis II).
If the Habsburg/England alliance could so easily "crush" Scotland, why didn't it do it? The Habsburg/England alliance DID exist in OTL. Despite this, France and Scotland survived and the Auld Alliance lasted until the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560.
Why would it be different ITTL?

Henry VIII and the Habsburgs are incomparable, when Henry tried to invade Scotland in the Rough Wooing it was with a relatively small army consisting largely of feudal levies, not professional soldiers. And Henry and Charles were allied against France, yes, but not against against Scotland. As for the 4 years when Philip II was king of England, there was no war with Scotland then. And the one time that the French regent in Scotland tried to launch an invasion (in 1557) the Scottish lords went home before they had even reached the border. There was no reason for Philip to open another front in that war.

Meanwhile in 1557 the Habsburg raised an army estimated at at least 55.000 men, funded mostly by the Netherlands and consisting for the most part of Dutch and German troops. It was more than twice the size of any of the armies ever seen in the Rough Wooing, as well as twice the size as the army France could field against it in an attempt to relieve the siege of Saint Quentin. The French army was decimated by the Habsburg forces, and Saint Quentin along with a bunch of other towns were occupied until the peace was signed with the French powerless to stop them.

The Habsburgs had more money, more connections, more experienced generals (who on top of that are familiar with the most modern kind of warfare), more manpower. Everything between them and the Tudors was different, so why would this be the same?

 

[isabella]

Well, it's not like england is going to have an easy life, religious wars, disputes with other european powers, a foreign king among other problems. As for Scotland being in big trouble, it depends. England is the smallest of the crowns in the union, smaller than Spain and smaller than Austria. Probably therefore being more ignored in a similar way to what happened with Portugal where Spain prioritized its problems to the detriment of Portugal. The same will happen with England. I tend to find that more TTL is more of a screwed England than anyone else

England would NOT be in union with either Austria or Spain but ONLY with the Netherlands. With this POD Mary would marry Charles V (who is Emperor but NOT ruler of Austria and Spain would be mostly under Philip’s regency). And what religious wars? Unlikely they will be much involved in the German or French ones and here England would pass from the Henrician church (who was still pretty much Catholic in doctrine and practice) back to the Catholic Church (and Scotland and Netherlands would remain mostly Catholic in this scenario)