PC and WI: the English manage to relieve La Rochelle

During the siege of La Rochelle, two attempts were made to relieve it, first in April 1628 under the earl of Denbigh, and later the same year under the earl of Lindsey. As we know, both failed, and La Rochelle surrendered to the King of France shortly afterwards.
How plausible would it have been for one of them to succeed? Would England remain more implicated in the 30YW? Could it help keep Charles' head attached to the rest of his body a few years down the line?
 
Last edited:
There would be a lot of ripple effects. I'm more familiar with French history than English, so I'll focus on their end:

Given how long and grueling that siege was, it probably would have ended the war regardless of its outcome. An English/Huguenot victory likely means a peace settlement in their favor. But I suspect that this settlement would not last very long, and that the crown would eventually fight them again and defeat them. This might lead to a harsher settlement than that of 1629 (which eliminated their political/military privileges but upheld their religious freedoms from the Edict of Nantes).

If a renewed religious war takes place in the 1630s, then France is not likely to get involved in the Thirty Years' War, at least not until its own domestic conflict is resolved. That could mean that the peace settlement of 1635 holds, or perhaps that the Catholic side in the war presses its advantage against the weakened Protestant side (with Gustavus Adolphus having died).

Overseas, the struggling colony of New France was captured by a English force in 1629, but this was after the war had ended IOTL, and it was returned to France. With an outright English/Protestant victory it perhaps wouldn't be returned at all - or perhaps France would receive it back on the condition that Protestants could continue to settle there (that right was taken away during the 1620s). Either way North American history would be very different.
 
Overseas, the struggling colony of New France was captured by a English force in 1629, but this was after the war had ended IOTL, and it was returned to France. With an outright English/Protestant victory it perhaps wouldn't be returned at all - or perhaps France would receive it back on the condition that Protestants could continue to settle there (that right was taken away during the 1620s). Either way North American history would be very different.

What would France have in this situation that it could realistically offer to get New France back?
 

Driftless

Donor
With a respite following the relief of La Rochelle, any chance the Hugenots recognize their continuing peril and attempt to find an alternative home(s)?

If so, where could they go under this TL's changed situation?
 
With a respite following the relief of La Rochelle, any chance the Hugenots recognize their continuing peril and attempt to find an alternative home(s)?

If so, where could they go under this TL's changed situation?

There were some who left around this time for England or the Netherlands. If they won the war, though, I'm not sure why more of them would leave than IOTL.

What would France have in this situation that it could realistically offer to get New France back?

Probably money. New France at this time had around 100 settlers, so it probably wasn't worth any territorial exchange.
 
With a respite following the relief of La Rochelle, any chance the Hugenots recognize their continuing peril and attempt to find an alternative home(s)?

I'd argue that Richelieu would, if anything, become more conciliatory towards Huguenots if the siege of La Rochelle gets bogged down. The destructive French Wars of Religion still fresh in the minds of the leadership, Richelieu would have undoubtedly placed a premium on maintaining national unity, even if it meant further concessions to local authority (which happened to an extent OTL anyway). So the Huguenots would have had little incentive to leave.

An example still has to be made of La Rochelle, of course, so even if the first siege fails there will be another... and another... until the English Parliament finally decides to give up.

A delay in the siege could have ramifications for the French involvement in the Thirty Years' War, but probably not by much - after all, the OTL Treaty of Barwalde did not commit France to any great sacrifices and they certainly did not expect Gustavus Adolphus to be successful (or as short-lived) as he turned out to be - which might imply that their initial involvement/intentions in the 30 Years' War, at least in the late 1620s/early 1630s, were fairly minor.
 
Last edited:
Top