No 'third phase' of Hundred Years War: Effects on France?

[cincpac overboard]

Let's assume by whatever mechanism there is no 'third phase' of the HYW, meaning no conquests by Henry V. How does this affect French political, social, and military developments? Does the French nobility remain more 'autonomous' compared to OTL? Do some duchies become de facto, possibly legally, independent? Does England actually hold on to its French holdings longer without the campaigns of Henry V?

 

[Prince of Permsia]

I assume the cause of this would be Charles VI not going insane.

 

[cincpac overboard]

I assume the cause of this would be Charles VI not going insane.

I was thinking more along the lines of Henry V not becoming king in this ATL, or major unrest in England prevents him launching his campaign.

 

[RedSword12]

I was thinking more along the lines of Henry V not becoming king in this ATL, or major unrest in England prevents him launching his campaign.

How about the Percy Revolt succeeds and kills Henry V at Shrewsbury?

 

[Henry III]

You could have Henry V win his victory then have him dies before he lunches his campaign into Normandy

Then you could have Thomas of Lancaster being made king and focus more on Scotland or having a son

Their is the Burgundians and almanac conflict

England issue was also due to the bad rule of Henry Vi he never really made a decision and it was his uncle John Ducke of Bedford

Who won big victories in France that equal his brother King Henry

If France is left alone it would be the most populated kingdom in Europe of around 25 million people compared to England 5.4 to 6 million

The Hasburge Valos rivalry the Hasburge family has Spain, Holy Roman Empire and Neverland and still found it hard fighting France

 

[cincpac overboard]

I'm interested in how an Armagnac_Burgundy civil war plays out minus Henry V inserting himself into the conflict (among other possible effects). If we butterfly either of the assassinations of Louis I of Orleans or John the Fearless of Burgundy (or both), how does one see this struggle develop with a relatively disinterested English monarch?

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Killing off Henry V is easy enough; perhaps his wound taken in the Welsh religion festers and he dies before becoming King. Alternately, if Edward III had a son then the Lancastrians might not come to the throne at all.

Yet the root difficulty for France was the struggle for power between the princes of the realm, which is not easily overcome, though Charles' madness certainly made it much worse. Any King of England is going to view the simmering French Civil War as an opportunity to reverse their defeats and probably intercede in some form or another.

Avoiding the Burgundy-Armagnac feud seems unlikely short of Charles dying early and his successor becoming an early Sun King, alternately having one side definitively win (unlikely without foreign intervention) could perhaps result in a degree of stability for a time.

Finally I would note that stopping the English invasion does not necessarily make for a French holden age, although it helps. Burgundian domination (which I did in my Visconti timeline, as a Lombard-Burgundian alliance exerts their will in Paris) would see France largely reduced to the de facto control of the Low Countries, a situation that would be fairly tense and could easily evolve any number of ways, from Burgundian conquest/inheritance of France to total balkanization to a French constitutional monarchy.

 

[cincpac overboard]

Avoiding the Burgundy-Armagnac feud seems unlikely short of Charles dying early and his successor becoming an early Sun King, alternately having one side definitively win (unlikely without foreign intervention) could perhaps result in a degree of stability for a time.

Finally I would note that stopping the English invasion does not necessarily make for a French holden age, although it helps. Burgundian domination (which I did in my Visconti timeline, as a Lombard-Burgundian alliance exerts their will in Paris) would see France largely reduced to the de facto control of the Low Countries, a situation that would be fairly tense and could easily evolve any number of ways, from Burgundian conquest/inheritance of France to total balkanization to a French constitutional monarchy.

Assuming at least a 20 year long Burgundy-Armagnac feud, and Henry IV's second son Thomas becomes king of England, can we make an informed guess as to which side Thomas would have supported? Let's say Thomas leads an expedition to France to support one side and is killed in a crushing defeat of English forces. This makes John of Lancaster, OTL Duke of Bedford, king of England. Apparently John was a capable general and administrator in English-held France. Can any English history buffs suggest what challenges his realm would have faced in the aftermath of his elder brother's death in France, and how John might have responded to these obstacles?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Assuming at least a 20 year long Burgundy-Armagnac feud, and Henry IV's second son Thomas becomes king of England, can we make an informed guess as to which side Thomas would have supported?

IOTL Henry IV sent forces in support of both factions depending on which was offering more at the time. If Thomas doesn't launch a full-scale invasion of his own, he's likely to continue with this policy.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

The English would support whichever side bribed them better. They intervened under Henry IV against the Armagnac, but didn't get the full payout of land. Henry V strongly favored Burgundy and eventually sided with them.

A decisive victory over England is going to cement Armaganc power, so there would almost certainly be an early confrontation with Burgundy which I do not think France is equipped to do as well in. So more infighting for the French, in all probability. The Dauohin et al would be quite likely to overreach. They could also try a Crusade or intervention in Italy, the Orleans are related by marriage ro the Visconti.

Meanwhile an English defeat could easily topple the Lancaster. Their government was fairly shaky prior to Agincourt and military defeat would open new mutterings about their usurpation and regicide.

 

[cincpac overboard]

What is the likely response of the HRE to any extended period of civil war in France? Maybe I'm not checking the right sources, but there doesn't seem to be an emperor for the period of the OTL Armagnac-Burgundy feud (1407-1435). Was there a 'first among equals' in the HRE that could have wrested any of the smaller duchies on the western HRE border out of the French orbit?

 

[Nuraghe]

What is the likely response of the HRE to any extended period of civil war in France? Maybe I'm not checking the right sources, but there doesn't seem to be an emperor for the period of the OTL Armagnac-Burgundy feud (1407-1435). Was there a 'first among equals' in the HRE that could have wrested any of the smaller duchies on the western HRE border out of the French orbit?

well there was no Emperor but only because it would not have been possible to carry out a coronation officially recognized in Rome by the Pope ( due to the Western schism ) but in that period the king of the Romans was Sigismund of Luxembourg from around 1410 ( also if he could actually be considered as such since the deposition of his brother Wenceslas in 1400, by a coalition of imperial princes led by Robert of the Palatinate ), who later became emperor with all the trappings in 1433 ( in the meantime also king of Hungary and Bohemia )

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

Let's assume by whatever mechanism there is no 'third phase' of the HYW, meaning no conquests by Henry V. How does this affect French political, social, and military developments? Does the French nobility remain more 'autonomous' compared to OTL? Do some duchies become de facto, possibly legally, independent? Does England actually hold on to its French holdings longer without the campaigns of Henry V?

The war likely becomes a stalemate, especially since I can't see Joan of Arc beginning to command if France isn't losing badly.

 

[LibPrime]

Do some duchies become de facto, possibly legally, independent? Does England actually hold on to its French holdings longer without the campaigns of Henry V?

I've always imagined that if the English saw a divided France, they'd try to conquer all of it just because they could.
Then again if England took a big bite out of France, it would need sometime to digest it all.

 

[cincpac overboard]

The war likely becomes a stalemate, especially since I can't see Joan of Arc beginning to command if France isn't losing badly.

To my thinking (correct me if I'm wrong) Joan of Arc is as mythic a figure to France as George Washington is to the US. Without her legendary exploits and death, and the eventual triumph of France over England, I could see French identity being significantly weaker than OTL. If the French monarchy just becomes a plaything for ambitious dukes, perhaps more regional identities flourish, like Burgundian or Norman. I'm not suggesting that France would become nearly as balkanized as the HRE, but France as more of a collection of competing dukedoms than the mighty centralized juggernaut it became in OTL could make for some interesting timelines.

I've always imagined that if the English saw a divided France, they'd try to conquer all of it just because they could.

an English defeat could easily topple the Lancaster. Their government was fairly shaky prior to Agincourt and military defeat would open new mutterings about their usurpation and regicide.

There's the rub. England can invade but they're one lost battle/dead king away from political turmoil. Can anyone versed in 15th century English history suggest who would become king of England if the Lancasters are tossed out?

 

[The Undead Martyr]

If I recall, weren't the Yorks technically ahead of Henry Iv when he deposed Edward III?

Regardless, they'd be an obvious rival.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

There's the rub. England can invade but they're one lost battle/dead king away from political turmoil. Can anyone versed in 15th century English history suggest who would become king of England if the Lancasters are tossed out?

The Mortimers. Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March (1391-1425) was heir presumptive to Richard II, by descent from Edward III's second son Lionel. His uncle (also Edmund) claimed the crown for him in the rebellion of 1405 (uncle Edmund having married Glyndwyr's daughter). However, the younger Edmund remained in royal custody, was raised in company with the future Henry V, and was Henry's loyal vassal. When the Southampton plotters approached him about displacing Henry in 1415, he immediately told Henry all about it.

Edmund had no children. The Mortimer claim passed to the House of York through Edmund's sister Anne, who married the Duke's younger brother. (He was one of the Southampton plotters, and Edmund sat on the court that condemned him to death.) The Duke died at Agincourt (without issue); the dukedom and the claim both passed to Anne's son Richard, who launched the Wars of the Roses many years later.

There were several Lancasters around in 1400-1410: Henry IV, of course, and his four sons: Henry (1386), Thomas (1387), John (1389), and Humphrey (1390); also two daughters: Blanche (1392) and Philippa (1394). The latter two married out of the country in 1402 and 1406.

If the Lancasters are collectively "tossed out" - that's going to be weird, because there are so many. The next in line is Edmund, who I think has to be the replacement, but before 1409, he's a minor. His political survival up to that point has been achieved by his apparent loyalty to Lancaster. I don't see how he could suddenly disclaim that loyalty and become a rival claimant without getting locked up and probably abridged.