No France? ... Hell Yeah

WI there was no France and the French area was held by various other countries such as England, Italy, Germany and Spain with a POD of the mid to late 1400s?

I was thinking something along the lines of English-Spainish Alliance creating a re-continuation of the hundred year war and a reversal of the french invasions of italy along with some annexing of land from France by the Holy Roman Empire.

So i was wondering what would the world (Full Flown Butterfly effect) be like if this or something that is similar but more plausible occured?
 
Well, there's a hundred and one different ways to do this, but at the same time you've got to be careful not to fall into any traps. For instance, you can't have the HRE "annexing" bits of France, because the HRE didn't work like that. It was a confederation of states recognised as the successor to Lothair(?)'s share of Charlemagne's inheritance, and as such it couldn't just expand. The states within it could expand, but even then so many of them, especially along the French border, were petty states that they would neither have any claim nor would they be seen as important enough by the HRE or France to claim any land in a peace settlement. Really, for large parts of its history only Austria had the strength and the position to claim land east of the HRE's borders. Similarly, Italy was a collection of small states, of which a few places like the Genoese Republic might be able to make small encroachments and Savoy might be able to take a chunk of land around Provence, but none were strong enough to take on France and any of them claiming large swathes of land would be laughed out of court in that era. Spain is more plausible, but they would need a legitimate reason to claim the land that they annexed - there always must be a claim. England is by far the best bet as the Kings of England claimed the French throne, and they also claimed most of eastern France as individual inheritances - the Duchy of Aquitaine, and claims to the Angevin Empire, for example.

So really, it's very doable but you need to be more specific. How much land do you want Italy or Germany to take, for example? How much land are you willing to let England have? Are you willing to create a new independent Burgundy? And so on.
 
I'd say you need England and Burgundy to lead the way in this. Say Henry V leads a far longer life, is crowned King of France, and re-establishes the Angevin Empire. Places like Brittany and the Occitan will go their own way without Paris to pull them in, while Burgundy will have a far easier time of dominating Flanders and eastern France.
 
England winning the Hundred Years War with Burgundian co-operation isn't that hard to manage, considering that quite possibly sans Jeanne d'Arc it would have happened OTL. It would also help if the English can win over Aragon and/or Castille (would probably require some border concessions) to bring in pressure on France's southern flank.
 
England winning the Hundred Years War with Burgundian co-operation isn't that hard to manage, considering that quite possibly sans Jeanne d'Arc it would have happened OTL. It would also help if the English can win over Aragon and/or Castille (would probably require some border concessions) to bring in pressure on France's southern flank.

Aragon and Castile habitually did side with France/England. There were a number of battles where Castilian troops fought alongside the French in the HYW. The thing is that those countries never had claims to land in France, so their involvement was never anything more than supporting their allies.
 

Philip

Donor
Keep in mind that an English victory in the Hundred Years' War is at least as likely to result in 'No England' as 'No France'. There is a good chance that the English kings would move their courts to Paris. France is, after all, the senior kingdom.

If you want no France, I think the easiest way is to move back to pre-Albigensian Crusade. Prevent France from ever consolidating. You could see Languedoc (Occitania -whatever) independent in the south. Savoy could fall under Milanese (for example) influence. Assuming the Swiss Confederacy still forms, it could pick up some small communities on its NW border. I think it is a strech to assume that Burgundy will still arrise, but I think it is possible for the Low Countries to drift away without a strongly centralized French government to pull them back. Of course, Brittany could remain independent, at least for a while.

Central France is the problem. Unless you completely balkanize the area, there is a good chance that they end up dominating whoever gets control. I think such a balkanization is unlikely. So, you will probably still end up with a France, but not really resembling our France.
 
Not by Henry V's reign, I think. I've read around the subject, and I think that people misunderstand the strength of English nationalist sentiment by the reign of Henry V - it grew in a way French nationalism didn't quite, and it remained whereas French nationalism died down until the Enlightenment era after this point. There are a lot of small clues around to this. The repeated and increasing use of English as a language wasn't for convenience - French was more convenient. The use of English by Edward III, Henry V etc shows that they saw themselves as English Kings, not former French nobles. While the English Parliament frequently disregarded France and was happy to see Gascony and Normandy lost to France, these Kings generally saw them as their birthright and natural appendages to England, and failed to see the French viewpoint of them merely being autonomous areas of France. There was even a clause in the Treaty of Troyes 1420, designed to stop Henry V from separating areas of France from Paris and annexing them to English control - which suggests that it was common knowledge then that Henry and his advisors preferred England as the dominant partner to France. In addition, the HYW had shown that England was capable of performing at a higher level of efficiency than France could - whereas England had cemented royal control of the country, established a centralised state and effected brutally efficient military practises, France had languished in a state possibly worse than before 1337. In addition, England, with a population of some 2.5 million people, had proved that it could regularly raise taxes roughly equivalent to what the French kings could pull from 20 million subjects, especially considering large areas of France were off-limits to taxation due to local autonomy, or otherwise were hard to get money from. I have to suspect that if Henry V won the HYW, large parts of the former Angevin Empire would go into English orbit, Burgundy would be given its independence, and Paris would become the weaker partner. Then again, I'm also nowadays of the opinion that England would need until around 1440 to be able to push the French south of Bourges and quite likely there would be a stalemate rather than a conclusive English victory, so...
 

Susano

Banned
Well, there's a hundred and one different ways to do this, but at the same time you've got to be careful not to fall into any traps. For instance, you can't have the HRE "annexing" bits of France, because the HRE didn't work like that. It was a confederation of states recognised as the successor to Lothair(?)'s share of Charlemagne's inheritance, and as such it couldn't just expand.
Feudalism isnt confederation
Ive heard it called confederation so often, it makes me gah! That isnt how it works! In fact, the HRE historically DID annex French territories (well one time, when the bigger share of the Burgundy inheritance fell to Habsburg, they annexed those parts that formerly were French fiefs to the HRE). So, yes, theoretically it would work. There is even an incentive for that: If they are anenxed to the HRE, they arent French fiefs anymore, and hence the French Monarch will not even theoretically be overlord anymore. This incentive was lacking when Habsburg got Hungary (swalloed theoretically whole, so no overlords) or when Prussia took part in the partition of Poland (again no overlords).

Now, on the practical level you are right, at least for the timeframe after 1400, that except Austria there arent really any German states that could take on France. But theoretically-legitimately annexations to the HRE work.
 
Feudalism isnt confederation
Ive heard it called confederation so often, it makes me gah! That isnt how it works! In fact, the HRE historically DID annex French territories (well one time, when the bigger share of the Burgundy inheritance fell to Habsburg, they annexed those parts that formerly were French fiefs to the HRE). So, yes, theoretically it would work. There is even an incentive for that: If they are anenxed to the HRE, they arent French fiefs anymore, and hence the French Monarch will not even theoretically be overlord anymore. This incentive was lacking when Habsburg got Hungary (swalloed theoretically whole, so no overlords) or when Prussia took part in the partition of Poland (again no overlords).

Now, on the practical level you are right, at least for the timeframe after 1400, that except Austria there arent really any German states that could take on France. But theoretically-legitimately annexations to the HRE work.

Agree with you on the confederation thing.

Was it just Flanders and Cambray that the HRE annexed from France as most of the annexations went the other way?

BTW onlookers: the D of Burgundy was never annexed by the Habsburgs to the HRE from France, the DoB was still a French fief despite being held by the Habsburgs when they were HR Emperors.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Keep in mind that an English victory in the Hundred Years' War is at least as likely to result in 'No England' as 'No France'. There is a good chance that the English kings would move their courts to Paris. France is, after all, the senior kingdom.
Which is why I think an English victory might have been the better outcome of the war :)
 
Feudalism isnt confederationIve heard it called confederation so often, it makes me gah!

I understand the difference, trust me. But the HRE wasn't the usual form of feudalism. I'm not saying that it wasn't feudalism, just that it was different. The HRE's structure was unlike any other feudal state - the lack of power of the Emperor, the ability of the vassals to fight and make foreign policy (limited) themselves, the idea of the Diets etc. Of course I know that the HRE wasn't a confederation but in many ways it might as well have been one. I use the term as a matter of convenience and nothing else, I promise you.

And you make a good point about Burgundy but ultimately, that comes down to Austria annexing a bit of land and claiming a transfer of sovereignty. The original point I was making was that the HRE as a whole wouldn't just say "we believe that...Picardie, say...rightfully belongs to us, and we shall declare war over it" in the way that other countries could. It was a case of the individual states getting involved.
 
....or, instead of doing a Henry V thing, you could have King Philip II Augustus lose Bouvines (and his son lose Roche-au-Pointe).
 
Artois too, i believe. And wasn't Cambrai part of the HRE? Wikipedia suggests it was.

Of course Cambrai was - doh! - it was part of Hainaut. And Artois was part of Flanders...


So, was there another French fief that became a HRE fief?

Maybe Namur as it passed back and forth between Flanders and Hainaut every 50 years or so?


Anyways, back on topic, I do think a preHYW POD is more likely to remove "Greater Francia" as we know it.
 
Of course Cambrai was - doh! - it was part of Hainaut. And Artois was part of Flanders...


So, was there another French fief that became a HRE fief?

Maybe Namur as it passed back and forth between Flanders and Hainaut every 50 years or so?

I thought that Artois and Flanders were counties that were in personal union with each other, than that Artois was realy part of Flanders. I think that even if Namur was conquered by Flanders it remained part of the HRE, just like Zeeland would have remained part of the HRE if Flanders would have conquered it from Holland. Of course that could have changed later if Flanders would have remained French, but during the middleages I think it remained in the HRE.
 

Susano

Banned
Agree with you on the confederation thing.

Was it just Flanders and Cambray that the HRE annexed from France as most of the annexations went the other way?
According to Wikis map of the Burgundian "empire", Cambrais always was part of the HRE. It was the French part of Flanders (part of it was already hRE before) and Artois.

BTW onlookers: the D of Burgundy was never annexed by the Habsburgs to the HRE from France, the DoB was still a French fief despite being held by the Habsburgs when they were HR Emperors.
No atcually, the Duchy itself never fell to the Habsburgs but was immidatly occupied by France.


I understand the difference, trust me. But the HRE wasn't the usual form of feudalism. I'm not saying that it wasn't feudalism, just that it was different. The HRE's structure was unlike any other feudal state - the lack of power of the Emperor, the ability of the vassals to fight and make foreign policy (limited) themselves, the idea of the Diets etc.
Thats, uh, standard feudalism.

And you make a good point about Burgundy but ultimately, that comes down to Austria annexing a bit of land and claiming a transfer of sovereignty. The original point I was making was that the HRE as a whole wouldn't just say "we believe that...Picardie, say...rightfully belongs to us, and we shall declare war over it" in the way that other countries could. It was a case of the individual states getting involved.
Uh, actually, it was not an uniliertal proclamation, but a rightfuly treaty with France. And pre-1648 the Emperors decision was enough to represent the HREs side (post-1648 it would have to be ratified by the Imperial Diet, but even thats doable).

I thought that Artois and Flanders were counties that were in personal union with each other, than that Artois was realy part of Flanders. I think that even if Namur was conquered by Flanders it remained part of the HRE, just like Zeeland would have remained part of the HRE if Flanders would have conquered it from Holland. Of course that could have changed later if Flanders would have remained French, but during the middleages I think it remained in the HRE.
Oh, well, yes, Burgundy (and even before it Flanders) held territories on both sides of the border in personal union. Those didnt affect the HRE/France border. But when Habsburg and France grabbed their parts of the Burgundy inheritance, the border between them was also made the HRE/France border, basically (except for the County of Charolais).
 
Yes and no (EDIT not in response to Susano who's a far better authority on these things...)
It's part of the problems with vassalage in general, especially when you have counties being "part of" other counties. Artois was considered part of Flanders until 1180ish when Philippe II of France took possession as part of his wife's dowry.

In the modern era of nationstates we often forget that in feudal times you could be Count of 2 separate Counties and owe fealty to 2 separate Kings, and even be one of those Kings. It's one of the reasons for the English-French wars as the King of England was the Duke of Normandy/Aquitaine/etc who owed fealty to the King of France. Though the confusion over French vs HRE fealty can be considered to be about who was the heir to the Frankish King and Emperor Carolus Magnus in which territories.
 
i was thinking something like this:
nofrance.jpg


Anyway i was more asking what effect it would have on the future not how it might occur. It could be ASB for all i care but NO FRANCE = ?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Anyway i was more asking what effect it would have on the future not how it might occur. It could be ASB for all i care but NO FRANCE = ?

We get a HRE mess from the atlantic to the vistula, through without French pressure the Emperor may succed in uniting it into a universal state.
 
Last edited:
The crucial question is the way how France magically vanishes.
This would impact whether

- there is still a Romance speaking people in OTL's France, and
- whether the cultural advances of OTL's France can still take place.

I think these two questions would change a lot about the state of the world
in PoD + couple-o'-centuries.
Borders and thrones are much more transient institutions.
 
Top