The Legacy of St.Henry; England, 1421-

Henry V stands today as one of the foremost popular figures in world history.
Wherever you are in the world, whether it be Berwick or Lasa, you would be hard pressed not to find someone who has not heard of his legend.
*
Within just 20 years this man accomplished more than most rulers have managed in their entire lifetimes. Virtually undefeated on the field of battle Henry is today regarded amongst members of European civilization as one of the greatest monarchs of all time. Granted the honorific ‘The Great’ in all of the lands over which he ruled in his lifetime he remains held in extremely high regard, in even in nations that have since embraced republican ideologies.
*
Similarly too in the Islamic world he is still regarded as a daemon. The fair skinned fiend from the west whose very gaze can shatter a shield and cause the mightiest of armies to flee. Though he was not a particularly cruel conqueror, especially compared to many previous and subsequent crusaders, his skill on the field of battle was such that he earned himself a special place in the nightmares of all devout Muslims.
*
One cannot help but wonder however, in examining the pages of history, why this man is looked upon in such a positive light by the Anglo people.
For it is clear from even the most cursory glance, that it was his actions in the uniting of France which spelled the ultimate end for the Kingdom of England.
*
The Plantagenet Empire

Henry V*


From his earliest days it was clear that Henry Plantagenet was born to be a soldier. He was only 16 years old when he first led an army to victory against a rebel force in Wales. By the time he became king in 1413 he was already well respected for his leadership abilities.

Henry's campaigns in France began in 1415, the initial attack was directly in response to the Valois support of unrest in Wales however also contributing was the larger issue of the continued instability and chaos from which the French realm was suffering.
Over the following 6 years Henry enjoyed victory after victory as he led his mostly English force against the often against the often far superior numbers loyal to the Valois regime.
As the years went by and France continued to rot from the inside it became ever more helpless against his onslaught and his opponents fell one by one.

It is today generally agreed by historians that the rise of Lucille ('la pucille') was really more the death throes of Valois rule rather than the 'renewed hope for France' it is often romantically painted as by republican groups within France; Nonetheless this period stands out in studying the life of Henry as that in which he suffered his only major defeats, and when he won many of his most prominent victories bringing decades of war between the rival dynasties to an exciting, climactic conclusion at the famed battle of Creuse.

Creuse was a victory so crushing for Henry that it all but ended Valois resistance with one blow, immediately following the battle, the pretender king Charles was forced to flee the country for Aragaon; where he was swiftly imprisoned in exchange for the bargain price sale of lands in Occitania..

Henry had accomplished the great dream of English kings for hundreds of years; the securing of the French throne. Though Henry himself would never be King of France, the death of Charles VI in 1422 has placed his one year old son Henry as France's rightful king. With the removal of the threat of the would-be Charles VII had made Henry's son (also called Henry, the future king Henry VI of England) accepted king of France; and so in the process made Henry of England king in all but name.

Most men would have been content with such an enormous victory and this alone would have secured his place in history, however, Henry was not content. His next campaign was to be even more audacious than the take over of France; he was to retake the Holy Land itself.

In 1436 one of the mightiest forces ever raised by Christendom left Marseille. At its head stood Henry and his closest ally Philip, Duke of Burgundy. In the decade since Henry's great victory in France the two men had planned long and hard for this campaign and now they felt they were finally ready to depart.

Their destination was Egypt.
It had long since been decided that since the Holy Land stood under the sway of Mameluke rule that it would be for the better to strike first at the head of the snake; to first secure their position in the eastern Mediterranean, to defeat all major organised resistance in the area and then to take Jerusalem at their own leisure.
This plan of course was not so novel as many often believe. The 5th crusade had initially planned to attempt the same thing only to fall victim to disease and infighting, the 7th crusade of Louix IX of France had also made the same attempt; with Louis it was money troubles which ultimately spelled his failure.

The first city to be attacked by the crusaders was Damietta. Though the mighty fortress no longer offered the control of the Nile that it did in its former incarnations, it nonetheless stood in an important position for the control of the Eastern Mediterranean.
It was at Damietta that Phillip really showed his worth in the campaign; though Henry was a great military commander he was firmly a product of the medieval era. Philip of Burgundy however stood years ahead of his time; particularly with his confidence in the emerging technology of gunpowder.
The city's mighty walls which would have stood against a conventional crusader army for years fell swiftly and within a matter of a month the city was in Crusader hands.

This sudden victory took the Mameluke's very much by surprise; they had originally thought the city would hold out long enough for them to muster an enormous force with which they could crush the Christian invaders. As things stood however the crusading army was upon them even as they made their initial preperations.
The resistance put up by the Egyptians was impressive. Many major battles were fought on the banks of the Nile as the crusaders steadily made their way south. Of these much has been written over the years, particularly that on many days it was only through Henry's unmatched leadership skills that it was the Christians won the day.

In 1438 Cairo fell to the crusading army and John, Duke of Bedford, the younger brother of Henry was declared the first of the Christian kings of Egypt, thus establishing a new offshoot of the Plantagenet dynasty to stand the test of time.

Henry's next decision was one that is often regarded the worst of his reign. Though he wouldn't live to see its fullest effects within the century it would cost Christendom dear.
The crusader's stay in Cairo was to be a short one. The major Mameluke power bases had been removed and it was believed that they no longer posed a threat. Henry decided that it would be for the best to leave Egypt immediately for the Levant. According to him every moment that Jerusalem lay under heathen hands was a slight against God. After a very brief rest the crusader army struck swiftly towards Palestine. Taking Jerusalem by the end of the next year.
Henry's mistake comes in this hurry to leave Egypt. The Mameluke's were far from defeated: as any glance at a map will tell you the country stretches far further south than Cairo. In Upper Egypt many fortresses still remained under Mameluke control and so would they remain for years to come, the last of them only falling with the onset of the 16th century.

It is here that the military career of Henry V all but comes to a close. With Jerusalem liberated from Islamic occupation and a Christian kingdom established over Palestine (led by Philip of Burgundy) he now returned to western Europe to continue with the business of running his two kingdoms.

Henry passed away peacefully in his sleep on the third of July 1452.
In the years that followed the story of his life passed into legend and in 1642 he was granted sainthood by Pope Paul IV.
Though he is commonly regarded as one of the greatest Englishmen of all time one cannot help but wonder what would have happened had he died before his time.
A Islamic Africa? A heretical France? Perhaps even a United Anglo nation.


*****

A very brief little summary:

POD, 1421: The French rally around a young girl and push back Henry V. As a result he doesn't catch dysentery at the siege of Meaux and survives long beyond the following year.

1422-1425: The '100 Years War' drastically picks up in intensity with both sides quickly making large gains followed by large losses. Eventually England emerge victorious.

1436-1438: The 10th crusade. England-France and Burgundy conquer Mameluke Egypt and Palestine establishing two Christian kingdoms in the region.

1452: Henry V of England dies. Henry III of France becomes Henry VI of England (as he was IOTL).
 
Last edited:
Interesting - have to say i like though.

Personally i'd think that Henry would leave Bedford behind as regent for the younger Henry :D
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Whether you wrote it first or not, I don't know. This (Henry V surviving) was the basis for my timeline, of which I am already many pages into. :mad::mad::(:(

Grrr. I begrudgingly wish you the best of luck with this. Perhaps you will do better with it than I will. No matter the case, I shall continue!
 
Sheesh, at least I can see we had some of the same ideas. You have already done a crusade, which was in my plans as well. Perhaps we can discuss ideas together. I am pretty deep into it, but I am putting a lot of detail into mine. Either way is fine, it is just writing style.
 
What do you envision the Ottomans doing about the sudden and comprehensive humiliation of their major rival? May we see an earlier Ottoman Egypt? With a respite for the Balkan kingdoms, what implications for East/Central Europe?

Where does Burgundy stand? Staunch English ally as per OTL? If so, what are the rewards of its loyalty? I could see it used as a buffer vs. the HRE on France's Eastern border. That would put it in an interesting position later on.

Think an Anglo-French kingdom can last?
 
Think an Anglo-French kingdom can last?

Think it will for a couple of generations then they'll be a civil war, which the French side will win because they have the advantages of numbers and economy (which should have been repaired by then)
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Whether you wrote it first or not, I don't know. This (Henry V surviving) was the basis for my timeline, of which I am already many pages into. :mad::mad::(:(

Grrr. I begrudgingly wish you the best of luck with this. Perhaps you will do better with it than I will. No matter the case, I shall continue!

Oh, sorry. I've been doing this for a while; the entire reason I'm doing this is that though its one of the famous examples of AH (along with CSA wins ACW, Nazis win WW2, etc....) no one ever really does a TL about it.


What do you envision the Ottomans doing about the sudden and comprehensive humiliation of their major rival? May we see an earlier Ottoman Egypt? With a respite for the Balkan kingdoms, what implications for East/Central Europe?
They aren't yet quite at the stage where the mamelukes are a major rival but yeah, nonetheless they would start expanding in the east. The balance of power in that area has been pretty messed up. I don't think they'd try and pick a fight with the crusader kingdoms for a while though.
Where does Burgundy stand? Staunch English ally as per OTL? If so, what are the rewards of its loyalty? I could see it used as a buffer vs. the HRE on France's Eastern border. That would put it in an interesting position later on.
As of this time its a strong English ally (it is still officially part of France actually). Phillip and Henry built up quite a friendship over the years. Rulers change though...
 
Henry VI

Henry VI's reign is a frequent subject of debate.
To some he is a spoilt brat, a man-child suffering from the psychological issues that come from being raised from his earliest days to be the most powerful man in christendom.
To others he is a victim, a man constantly stuck in the shadow of his father, expected to achieve things far above that which would be reasonable.

My view of things is one that takes a bit of a middle ground; Henry VI was an effective but unspectacular ruler, a man who was dealt the rather unglamorous but highly necessary task of organising and governing the Plantagenet Empire and that it is merely through historiography's over-emphasis on great battles and adventures into the unknown that whilst his father is remembered as 'the great', school children just learn of Henry VI as 'the son of the great'.

It's not without question that the young King Henry certainly did constantly live in the shadow of his father. He hadn't even reached his first birthday yet when the word came through about the death of Charles VI; The baby was instantly whisked away to Paris to be crowned king of France. Due to the long life of his father though it was quite some time before he was able to truly rule as a king.

Over the years following his coronation Henry underwent a education typical of the English nobility. At the age of 14 however things changed as his father left France to crusade in the holy land. It is here that King Henry was given his first taste of power thanks his regent (and uncle) Humphrey of Gloucester who decided to delegate several trivial affairs of state to Henry who it was soon found had a knack for such things.

When Henry V returned from the Holy Land he stood as a hero, practically a god amongst men, few really took notice that Henry V was only King of England and it was his now adult son who was the actual King of France.
Henry VI stayed firmly in the background during his father's lifetime, proving himself to be a shrewd financier as he steadily nursed the French economy back to health after years of full scale civil war. This clearly earned him the respect of his father as many quotes from the great man will testify however to most he went unnoticed; allowing his father to retain control of military and foreign policy matters whilst he stuck to his books.

With the death of his father however things changed and the 'accountant king' showed a side of himself that came entirely unexpected to both his court and the world at large as his attention was for the first time drawn to military concerns.
Why he did what he did is uncertain; some believe it was the corruption of power and the desire for prestige, others believe that it was simply the result of his economic ambitions now having new tools to reach their goal.
Whatever the reason though Henry now turned to war and upon declaring himself the rightful overlord of the British Isles launched an invasion of Scotland.
*
The Anglo-Scottish war was begun with the onset of Spring in 1459. Scottish resistance was fierce and several grave errors in judgement by English commanders offered the Scottish a few major victories early on resulting in several incidents of large Scottish attacks into English territory. The walls of Berwick must take a lot of credit at this time for being all that stood between the Scots and England-proper.
Traditionally when fighting the English Scotland needed the aid of France; and even here they often found the going tough. When faced with the joint forces of England and France against them however there was no way Scotland could win and their early successes were soon undone as English forces advanced northwards.
By the end of 1460 Edinburgh had fallen and King James II captured. A peace treaty then followed under which Scotland was lucky to keep any of its independence. The treaty included numerous clauses; economic, secession of land, etc… though the most prominent amongst them was undoubtedly James II being made to recognise Henry as his feudal superior.
*
Four years later Henry launched the next of his military adventures; the Irish campaigns.
Though Henry was already nominal ruler of the island as had been all English kings since 1171 the actual position of the monarchy in the mid 15th century was highly nominal at best and rarely extended far beyond the Dublin Pale.
From 1464 onwards English forces engaged in a series of battles against the various local Irish rulers, to 'help in his effort' in 1467 Henry upgraded the Lordship of Ireland to a principality (with the help of a large donation to the church of course).
*
Though 1470 was recorded at the time as the year of official victory in Ireland the truth of the matter is more complicated. Though Ireland remained largely peaceful for several years in 1473 a large scale rebellion broke out in Ulster. This rebellion was quickly suppressed however for the following 80 years an almost constant campaign against Irish unrest was fought by England; full control over the island only really coming in 1537 with the final defeat of the O'Neills at the battle of Sligo.

The Irish campaigns proved to be quite a major mistake for Henry. He had thought that increased taxes in France would allow him plenty of cash flow to run a permanent army. He had previously been entirely fair with the taxation of his realms balancing them to just the right amount to enrich him and the country as a whole. The Irish taxes imposed upon France were nothing extraordinary for their time however when combined with the previously low rates and the general French resentment over foreign rule something went wrong and in November 1468 a massed uprising against English rule broke out in central France.

This rebellion was on a scale far larger then any of the minor revolts that had taken place since Henry V's victory and the French leaders found great difficulty in dealing with it. Large swathes of the country particularly in the regions of Poitou, Marche and Limousin were devastated in the course of their attempts.
The handling of the rebellion was initially left in large part to the local dukes however when it became clear that they were probably doing more harm then good the central government took a more active role in suppressing the rebellion, their efforts were led by Richard; eldest son of the king. Over the latter part of 1469 managed to successfully split the rebel force and turn them against one another (in many cases by rather underhand means) before picking off the remnants.

Just when things seemed to be looking up for Henry VI however disaster struck as the king was thrown from his horse whilst on a hunting trip. The still breathing king was quickly rushed to bed and doctors were summoned; this though proved to be in vein and, within days, the king was dead.


Brief summary:

1459-1460: England invades Scotland. The borders are passed into English hands whilst the rest of Scotland becomes a (unwilling) English vassal.

1464-1470: Large scale campaigns fought in Ireland. Principality of Ireland established.

1468-1469: Big rebellion in central France.

1469: Death of Henry VI. Richard III (son of Henry VI- he is a different man remember) becomes king.
 
Last edited:
Good stuff, I would reckon that if the "English" keep themselves to the Scottish lowlands then assimilation (Welsh style) will happen. As for Ireland, I could see that eventually becoming a problem long term as English interests look south to France.
 
Yeah they are sticking to the lowlands with Scotland- they haven't even took land as far as Edinburgh, just a bit in the south.
The lowlands though are already culturally 'English', just not London-English. I wouldn't see much assimilation like Wales happening- Northumbria kept its uniqueness even despite being ruled from London for as long as there's been a England minus only a few decades.

And when is Ireland anything but a problem? :p
 
Yeah they are sticking to the lowlands with Scotland- they haven't even took land as far as Edinburgh, just a bit in the south.
The lowlands though are already culturally 'English', just not London-English. I wouldn't see much assimilation like Wales happening- Northumbria kept its uniqueness even despite being ruled from London for as long as there's been a England minus only a few decades.

And when is Ireland anything but a problem? :p


What you mean to say, surely, is that we Northumbrians are just taking back what is rightfully ours, yes? :p

(ignore the overlords in London, they don't count)
 
School is done now. I've got a bit of a bloc but meh, I'm continuing now.



Richard III

Richard III was thrown right into the thick of things from the start of his reign as king.
Even whilst he still fought the great rebellion of 1469 in France proper, war had broken out between Burgundy and the Holy Roman Empire over the possession of Luxembourg.

The war had initially seemed to start poorly for Burgundy; meeting with very little resistance the Empire had advanced swiftly into the Low Countries and placed several critical strongholds under siege. This lack of initial resistance however had been a calculated (if controversial) move by John of Burgundy to tie down the German army in sieges allowing him to counter attack them at his leisure.

The plan proved largely successful in practice; those cities which looked most likely to fall were quickly relieved whilst the best supplied and fortified were left to occupy large numbers of German soldiers. Following this strategy not only did John reduce the amount of forces the Germans could field against him in battle but he also increased the force he could bring into play against them- most of the cities of the Netherlands at the time being very self-serving.

By the time of the Franco-English crown’s entry into the war in 1470 John was already beginning to push into Imperial lands. With the addition of the forces of the crown’s forces (experienced troops fresh from fighting the rebellion in France) the Empire was pushed entirely onto the defensive with cities deep within Imperial lands being placed under siege.

By the end of 1470 a peace agreement was reached.
Even today the debate over whether the peace was a good or a bad decision persists. Its supporters argue that France was in no state for a long drawn out war and (quite paradoxically) that should it’s power look to be becoming too great then other nations would have been drawn into the war against them.

To many in France at the time however, (particularly John of Burgundy) this peace proved deeply unpopular. It was widely believed that given the drastic success the eastward offensives were achieving that large amounts of Imperial land could have been annexed into France; or perhaps even given a longer, more drawn out campaign the Imperial crown itself could added to the Plantagenet empire.

To add further insult to injury for John was that it seemed as though Richard had stolen his victory.
Though the peace deal granted Burgundy all the territorial gains it had aimed to achieve at the beginning of the war (and more) it was the French King who gained all the recognition for defeating the Empire and who pocketed the substantial indemnity payments.

John was quite rightly very upset with Richard, many could see this. Though the two men had never really been the best of friends to date their relations with each other had been relatively amicable, it was in large part due to this large personal falling out that what should have been a grand victory for Richard III turned into the massive blow to France that he would come to be remembered for.

On the 6th of October 1473 John, Duke of Burgundy and King of Jerusalem, declared his official independence from the Kingdom of France.
Though Burgundy had long held a position as only nominally part of the French realm, until now it had still held at least pretence of loyalty.
The ‘official’ reasoning behind John’s move was firmly based in history with the restoration of the Kingdom of Lotharingia, a move which was fully supported by the Pope, Gregory XIIII, a member of a prominent Genoan family unsettled about the growing power of the Plantagenet’s.

This move was a huge gamble by John. Not only did he face war with the superior power of France-England but the Empire too would no doubt have been interested in reclaiming its recently lost lands and perhaps even taking back the entirety of the Low Countries.
As things stood however the gamble paid off.
The reasons behind the lack of reaction from the Empire and France-England were many:
*France-England and the Empire were somewhat concerned about each other’s possible gains. The claims of the two powers overlapped greatly and neither was willing to compromise.
*The two powers were concerned about the possibility of interference from other nations. With the Pope’s backing a mighty coalition could be brought to bear against either of them
*England’s parliament was dead set against another war, especially one that would disrupt the trade with the Low Countries on which England’s economy relied.
*Rebel elements in France were still a worry with the loyalty of some prominent nobles being seen as dubious at the best of times let alone after one of their number has broke away.

Though no war was immediately declared relations between Lotharingia and its neighbours were to prove tense for years to come with the general opinion in Europe being that war could break out at any moment.

It was in October, 1485 that Franco-Lotharingian tensions finally came to a head with the death of Charles II, Count of Nevers. Though the old Count had been a close friend to John of Burgundy and loyal to him before anything his cousin, the new count Henry I saw his future as lying firmly with France rather than the breakaway Kingdom of Lotharingia.
Tensions mounted quickly and by December soldiers from Burgundy were beginning to move into Nevers to take care of the rebellious vassal; an act that prompted Richard to dispatch his own forces to Nevers to defend his vassal.

The war was hard fought and lasted several years.
In the south victory belonged entirely to France with Burgundy entirely falling to the French crown by 1488.
In the Low Countries however things did not go so well for the French, though some battles were won the Dutch fortifications always held fast. On several occasions counter attacks into France were even made with even Paris itself briefly threatened in 1489.

All throughout the war the rest of Europe largely watched on.
In Iberia a tense stand off was in place following a major disagreement between Portugal and Castile over the continuing reconquista in North Africa. Though Aragon had no direct stake in this disagreement they nonetheless stood to gain quite significantly should Castille and Portugal come to blows.
For the Empire the war in the west came at the worst possible time for they were already in the midst of building up to war with Poland following the latter’s large scale annexation of lands belonging to the Teutonic Order. By 1490 this situation had largely calmed down however victory was already clearly in the hands of the French by this time.

A formal peace was eventually reached between France and Lotharingia late in 1492. The war had been a victory for France however it was only slight. In the peace deal Nevers was to be allowed to join France and all Lotharingian lands west of the Saone as well as the rest of the Duchy of Burgundy and Vermandois were taken by the French crown: leaving the Palatinate of Burgundy, Artois and Boulogne as John’s only lands in France.

Though the war was a defeat for Lotharingia in later times it would become a key part of their national psyche; it showed Dutch resilience against overwhelming French forces and spelled the final end for the old Duchy of Burgundy ruling the Low Countries from the distant wine country. Some Lotharingian historians have even called this conflict (more normally known as the Nevers War) their war of independence.

For Britain too this war has a relatively important place in history for the way it marked how the king would put France’s interests before those of England. The English economy was heavily reliant upon trade with the Low Countries and the state of war between the two had greatly disrupted (although not at all completely stopped) this. Though Richard III is often regarded as the last of the English kings of England it was without a doubt during his reign that the foundations of the English independence movement were laid.

The rest of Richard’s reign was uneventful for France and England in terms of ‘grand events’. He ruled on until dying peacefully in his sleep in 1509 following a period which for most, yielded moderate peace and prosperity.
 
The resistance put up by the Egyptians was impressive. Many major battles were fought on the banks of the Nile as the crusaders steadily made their way south. Of these much has been written over the years, particularly that on many days it was only through Henry's unmatched leadership skills that it was the Christians won the day.

I'm glad to finally see a Henry V tl, but... how does this happen?
 
I'm glad to finally see a Henry V tl, but... how does this happen?

He was a famous warrior king and religion at the time was still rather a big deal. A new crusade could be the way forward for the nobility who have lost their chance to earn honour fighting in France as they were expecting to do and of course for him to further gain his place in history alongside the absolute greats.
After France is his I couldn't reasonably see the Plantaganets and their followers sitting around. The Islamic world is the best place to vent this I think.


Also of course aside from rationally thinking 'what would happen next' crusades are rather cool and it really helps further cement Henry as a central point of history.
 
He was a famous warrior king and religion at the time was still rather a big deal. A new crusade could be the way forward for the nobility who have lost their chance to earn honour fighting in France as they were expecting to do and of course for him to further gain his place in history alongside the absolute greats.
After France is his I couldn't reasonably see the Plantaganets and their followers sitting around. The Islamic world is the best place to vent this I think.

I get the Crusade, I just don't get why it doesn't end in the same disaster that led to Nicopolis.
 
The Seventh Crusade disaster would be the better comparison I'd think.

For Nicopolis...well this was a lot less multinational, it had the one (slightly two but Burgundy was officially subserviant to France) well respected central leader figure, it was more prepared for taking fortifications, the mamluke military was not up to the standards of the Ottoman one (and had no experience against Europeans) and of course the primary factor in all wars: luck.
There is a bit of a Nicopolis (not involving the French or English hence not mentioned here yet) in this TL though at the end of the 15th century. It ends in a failure too.
 
St. Henry

With the English tied up in France, and attempting to control a far-flung empire, how would Scotland react? Would England attempt to conquer Scotland? Would'nt the French revolt against the English? How could England control all of France, since France is so much more densely populated than England?
 
With the English tied up in France, and attempting to control a far-flung empire, how would Scotland react? Would England attempt to conquer Scotland? Would'nt the French revolt against the English? How could England control all of France, since France is so much more densely populated than England?

One by one.

*England isn't really trying to control a far-flung empire, they installed new rulers over there then largely left it to itself. Much like the earlier crusader kingdoms.
*England pretty much conquered Scotland.
*The French did revolt.
*How could Paris control all of France since the rest is so much more densely populated than Paris? The 100 YW was not a case of England trying to conquer France, it was a French civil war except one of the side's leaders were also kings of England.
 
Top