Is it possible for England to win the Lancastrian Phase of the HYW

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
The Hundred Years War, as we all know, was a 116-year conflict fought between the House of Plantagenet (and later its cadet branch, the House of Lancaster) against the House of Valois for the claim to the French throne. Now there a lot of reasons why the French won out in the end. (Stiff French resistance, in the face of seemingly superior English arms, the defection of the Duchy of Burgundy to the French via the Treaty of Arras in 1435, the weakness and ineptitude of King Henry VI). But in the end the English lost, and it would lead to a further weakening of the English via the Wars of the Roses shortly thereafter.

Now my single question is, is it even possible for England to win against France, and by victory is defined by their original intent, for the King of England to successfully be recognized and to maintain their positions as Kings of France over the Valois Kings (Charles VI and Charles VII)? Or was it just a delusion of grandeur, and is considered impossible.
 
If Henry V couldve captured/killed the Dauphein, then yes, it'd be easily done...whether theyd hold onto France long enough to make sure itd never break away again, is another story
 
The main issue is finance. Parliament was willing to fund the war if it was going well, usually, but only up to a point. Funding was cut in the last years of Henry V's reign because Parliament assumed that as he was now effectively King of France, the war had become a French civil war which England need not finance. Henry himself somewhat acknowledged this, setting up his own chancery in Paris and negotiating with the French nobility in terms of vassals rather than as enemies. Had Henry lived, he probably would've encountered the same problems as his successors did-his French holdings were cohesive enough to be effectively governed, requiring English subsidies which Parliament was unwilling to grant.

Honestly, I think the best case outcome for the Lancastrians would be to retreat into Normandy, colonise that and hold it as a base for future attacks into France. Vassalise Brittany and uphold the legal rights of Aquitaine, even if they can't be enforced. That way you have a firm bridgehead into France, legitimate legal rights for a further war (Aquitaine) and the invincibility of English arms hasn't been disproven yet.
 
Henri V managed to get that much of France, mainly because of Bourguignon/Armagnac civil war (having negociated with both sides in order to gain local support). Eventually, it means that Lancastrian holding was dependent of their alliance with a french faction, that was fragile at best (Each side blaming the other for English victories, and claiming to be the best representatives of french interests).

cartes11.jpg


This alliance managed to hold OTL thanks to a series of events : assassination of Orléans, assassination of the Duke of Burgundy, etc. But the contacts between them and the vision of Henri V as a foreign threat really lead to a truce.
Eventually, Charles VIII beneficied from more support in Anglo-Bourguignon lands, than the contrary.

As said Saepe Fidelis, finances are another factor : English parliment didn't was too much fond of continental adventures, even victorious, as they were eventually more ruinous than fructuous for England proper.

For a maintained Lancastre presence on continent, Normandy is actually a bad candidate : being one of the most raided region by english armies and mercenaries clearly pissed the population. Even during Bedford regency, that tried to gain Normans elites by giving them a Parliment and an University, you had revolts in behalf of Charles VII (even if the main population stood more cautious)
Gascony, on the other hand, really showed favouring English kings, as they were relativly spared, knew a more long time under their rule, and benefitted from a fructuous trade with British Isles.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
The main issue is finance. Parliament was willing to fund the war if it was going well, usually, but only up to a point. Funding was cut in the last years of Henry V's reign because Parliament assumed that as he was now effectively King of France, the war had become a French civil war which England need not finance. Henry himself somewhat acknowledged this, setting up his own chancery in Paris and negotiating with the French nobility in terms of vassals rather than as enemies. Had Henry lived, he probably would've encountered the same problems as his successors did-his French holdings were cohesive enough to be effectively governed, requiring English subsidies which Parliament was unwilling to grant.

Okay, how long would it have taken for France to be centralized to the point where the finances would not be as big of an issue?

On the other issue, Even if they can hold onto Aquitaine, I doubt England can hold it for long.
 
Forget about England in the HYW.

The english-french dimension of the conflict was the cause of the defeat of the king of England.

The king of England could have own the HYW if he actually become the french king instead of behaving like an english king ruling in France.

France was 4 times as populated as England. So the condition of success was the Plantagenet king becoming mainly french, the same way the elder branche or the Habsburg gave précédente to Spain over their other peripheral possessions.
 
Okay, how long would it have taken for France to be centralized to the point where the finances would not be as big of an issue?
As such thing as feudal centralization doesn't exist, and that late french feudal system was well maintained by a constant war-like threat, I would say it would take the end of HYW and its consequences for a start, like OTL.
 
Forget about England in the HYW.

The english-french dimension of the conflict was the cause of the defeat of the king of England.

The king of England could have own the HYW if he actually become the french king instead of behaving like an english king ruling in France.

France was 4 times as populated as England. So the condition of success was the Plantagenet king becoming mainly french, the same way the elder branche or the Habsburg gave précédente to Spain over their other peripheral possessions.

So an English victory in the war would have paradoxically resulted in French control of England?
 
It would have helped had Henry VI not developed a serious mental illness which (rightly or wrongly) many assumed had been inherited from his grandfather Charles VI.
 
So an English victory in the war would have paradoxically resulted in French control of England?

More or less. Some of the more far-sighted members of the Loyal Opposition in Parliament during the troubles before and throughout the American Revolution worried about the concept of the python swallowing the baby elephant. As in: "You've got it now, so are you really going to try to swallow all that?"

I know its a matter of divine faith for writers of "Britain Victorious in the American Revolution" ATLs to have London somehow manage to prevent American consolidation and restrict colonial expansion into the West from a distance of three, four, five, and six thousand miles:eek:, but frankly, I've always seen that as wishful thinking more than anything else. As if sterile policy in Whitehall will stop Greed from indulging itself in North America. Frex, the US Army had a serious problem with desertion during the California Gold Rush. In a nation of English speaking whites (as opposed to Latin America, Asia, and Africa), I doubt the British Army will do very much better. Better, but not VERY much better.

So too the idea that you could prevent an eventual "Frenchizing" of England, at least in those regions closest to the Continent. IMO you'd more likely see an eventual divorce the next time different claimants to the throne are based in different parts of an Anglo-French nation. All it would take is one claimant establishing him/herself successfully in London, while the other retreats to Paris. If the French declare for "their" candidate, instant French Independence. That, or the HYW starts again, and maybe in a different century.:(

Imagine trying to maintain a Franco-English Union in the face of the Wars of the Roses, the end of the Tudor Dynasty, the Stuarts, the Glorious Revolution, and Bonny Prince Charlie! YES, I KNOW butterflies will mostly remove all that. But it will only mean that other butterflies will take their places. Like what happens when the Spaniards inevitably expel the Moors and the Holy Roman Empire gets its act together, meaning the frontier on France's borders will have to be seriously defended.

It would have helped had Henry VI not developed a serious mental illness which (rightly or wrongly) many assumed had been inherited from his grandfather Charles VI.

Don't forget that foul limb of the Fiend, either.:p[SIZE=-4]joan[/SIZE]
 
Last edited:
Far from supporting the war, the English Parliament feared winning as the Royal axis would migrate to France. Already Reims was acting as the Royal Court in France. The war was bringing in a good return in loot and ransom as well as employing various ne'er do wells of all classes as long as it was being fought.

I cannot but suspect an Lancastrian victory in France would precipitate an attempt to separate England from France and a bloody civil war ensue with the Lancastrians bringing their French armies into England.
 
Top