Prevent The Hundred Years War

Philip

Donor
The marriage of Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine is not annulled. Instead, Marie, Countess of Champagne is born male.
 
On the Wikipedia page for the Saintonge War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saintonge_War) it says that Saint Louis did not annex Plantagenêt Guyenne because he was more concerned with going on Crusade. Could Louis IX have done this, and therefore evicted the Plantagenêts from the continent two centuries early?
 
Last edited:
Well the 100 Years War was in large part because of autonomous and strong French vassals that could pick sides without much risk of being wipes out along with one vassal (Normandy) managing to achieve kingship that make them the strongest single vassal the French had. The legitimacy of already being a king goes along way in the fuedal era where kings are first amongst equals.

To avoid the 100 Years War you need for William "The Conqueror" to remain "The Bastard" or become "The Failure".

To shorten it you just need a decisive French victory in one of the various wars, stripping the English Kingdom of all it's French fiefs or for the English Kingdom to have a decisive victory and become Kings of France
 
The HYW was essentially a feudal civil war among vassals of the French Crown so it's difficult to stop something similar even if the Duke of Aquitaine isn't King of England.
It's not even really one war just a period of little wars and truces. It's lumped as one due to the opposing sides always including the King of France versus the King of England.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Just make it so that the highly unlikely event that all 3 of Philip IV's sons dying in quick succession without leaving male heirs doesn't happen, the hundreds year war basically started because Edward III pressed his claim on the French throne through his mother Isabella who was Philip's daughter

or isabella doesn't marry Mortimer instead marry some faraway German or Italian prince instead

no hundreds year war with France in that case

what's even more interesting is that John of Gaunt actually had a claim on the Castilian throne, he gave it up after losing a war in Spain, it would be really interesting if some stuff happens on the Castilian side (lack of a male heir after one of the kings die?) that could result in a English "Hundreds Year War" with Castille instead of France
 
Just make it so that the highly unlikely event that all 3 of Philip IV's sons dying in quick succession without leaving male heirs doesn't happen, the hundreds year war basically started because Edward III pressed his claim on the French throne through his mother Isabella who was Philip's daughter

Wasn't a war over the status of Aquitaine still coming, regardless of whether the English king had a claim on the French throne?
 
If i remember correctly (and i'm not of it) the king of England was legitimely the King of France right ?

In a way, maybe we should have lost the war, the king of England would have ruled from Paris and England would have been a part of the kingdom.
 
Wasn't a war over the status of Aquitaine still coming, regardless of whether the English king had a claim on the French throne?
A war? Certainly. The war? Certainly not.

The HYW as it was only developed as it did because Edward III (and later, his great grandson also) was able to make a strong claim to the throne of France.

However, as long as the King of England holds land of the French crown, there is a better than average chance of war. The French king cannot have a vassal beyond reproach, just because said vassal holds other lands outside of France. At the same time, the English king cannot subject himself to the will of the King of France, just because he possesses land in the French kingdom.

At the risk of sounding like a medieval version of Yes, Minister, it's a question of hats. As far as the French crown is interested, Edward's hat is a ducal coronet. While he wears that hat, he holds lands of the French king, is a vassal of such, and must act accordingly. As far as Edward is concerned, his hat is the crown of England. While he wears that hat, he is a king, whatever the domain, and he is subject to no other king.

This can be seen in the case of Robert III, Count of Artois: one of the proximate causes of the war. He fled Philip's realm and laws, and threw himself on the justice of the King of England. Philip demanded that the Duke of Aquitaine (his vassal) expel the rebellious Count of Artois (another vassal), or - if possible - hand him over to the French crown. Edward, as king of England, can't have the French king telling him who can and can't be allowed at his court, and the refused. Philip, as king of France, has every right to tell his dukes who they can have at their court. The fact that the Duke is also a king is irrelevant. This is an internal French matter. This was one of the primary reasons Philip cited for attempting to confiscate the duchy.

Now, this scenario didn't have to lead to war. A less confident Philip might not have pushed the issue. A less confident Edward may have given Robert some money, and sent him off to Scotland, or somewhere else. But, even if this particular incident is resolved without war, that doesn't solve the long term reason for both the war and the argument over Robert.

As long as the English king wears both hats, there will be wars over the conflict of interests between the two hats. There may be periods of peace, but war will only be one argument over jurisdiction away. The only way for that to end is for the King of England to lose his ducal coronet(s), or gain the French crown.
 
Last edited:
If i remember correctly (and i'm not of it) the king of England was legitimely the King of France right ?

In a way, maybe we should have lost the war, the king of England would have ruled from Paris and England would have been a part of the kingdom.

France and England would be separate kingdoms in personal union, like Spain and Austria under Charles V. Perhaps they could have eventually united, though.
 
Top