Hundred Years War in reverse?

How would you make England the battleground for the Hundred Year's War?
Maybe an England where the Normans don't merge with the Saxon population and they maintain their "Frenchness."
 
There were some serious French Raids, and if things go better for them at the start, then you could have very large ones.

Or are you talking about more than just battles, but the causes instead?
 

wormyguy

Banned
Perhaps Louis VIII's claim to the English throne and invasion of England might be a good starting point?
 

Philip

Donor
You need to reverse the Battle of Sluys (1340ish). England smashed the Franco-Genoese invasion fleet and gained control of the Channel. France never really had a chance to gain a foothold on Great Brittain after that.

The capture of Calais a few years later ensured that England could land troops on the Continent.
 
The problem is that England was never nearly as divided as France was, and when landowners came to own land on both sides of the Channel, they were usually men very close to the Kings of England and given new big estates in England which outshone their old ones, or they already powerful lords and were given small estates in England which they simply weren't interested in defending compared to their French holdings. You could arrange a TL to encourage French raids in England, but the problem is it's pretty much all or nothing - having parts of England shaved off and handed to the King of France or his main supporters, and which can serve as a base of operations, isn't really plausible, and it's hard to foster a group of lords who want to fight to regain their English possessions because if they have that important an English domain, they're probably on the English side. You could have a war where the French keep invading England, but it's either going to be a very short war where the French solidify control, i.e. a POD where Prince Louis in 1217 wins the throne and stays a loyal French vassal or the thrones merge, or the French will fail to gain any land and the war will simply be a few skirmishes. I'm not sure such a series of wars would ever see as many campaigns and battles as France saw IOTL, and I have to say that the war would never last 100 years, not in the way that OTL HYW saw continued constant ranging against each other.
 
The only thing that makes sense is a crushing French victory at Sluys. But how would that happen without opening a whole new can of worms? English firepower from their longbows defeated the French fleet.
Would it be ASB if it was France instead of England that made good use of longbows instead of the cumbersome crossbows?
 
Standard Harold wins Hastings fayre.
Yet have the Normans keep up their claim on England.
IOTL it was the English king with claims on France, this would give us the French with claims on England.
 
Standard Harold wins Hastings fayre.
Yet have the Normans keep up their claim on England.
IOTL it was the English king with claims on France, this would give us the French with claims on England.

that would also mean that the Norman and Saxon populations remain distinct from each other and they don't merge as a single people with a common English identity. Maybe have the Normans fiercely maintain their French identity and continued anomosity with the Saxon population.
 
What about Matilda marrying Louis VI of France instead of the Emperor Henry V? William Adelin still dies ITTL, and the throne of England is disputed between the Capets and Stephen's descendents.
 
Onward! Onward to the Orkneys!

A French dominated war of aggression on English soil? Why not? England had been a doormat for Romans, Scandanavians, Germans, and Normans for well over 1,000 years. But lasting 100 years? Only if the Norman/French invaders were determined to overrun every last inch of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Not gonna happen. If nothing else, they'd go broke trying.:eek:
 
Top