What it says on the tin. Somehow, the Scots manage to defeat the English, and Edward Bruce becomes High King of Ireland. What does this mean for England? Can Edward hold the throne? Could there be a potential union of Ireland and Scotland shortly thereafter?
What if Edward Bruce Succeeds in his Irish Campaign?
- Thread starter Huehuecoyotl
- Start date
Edward Bruce *was* appointed High King, in 1315, or at least was recognised as such by the northern gaelic Irish lords. The problem was that the Pope refused to retract the Laudabiliter and appoint Edward the position, when he was asked by Irish nobles in 1317. If you could change this, that might help.
The fact that his army lived off pillaging also affected his campaign - it would be hard to have an alternative to this though given the Europe-wide famine between 1315-1317. If he hadn't then there might have been a bit less resentment - a Connaught chronicle at the time complained of "Scottish foreigners less noble than our own foreigners."
The army that was defeated at Faughart in 1318 was already broken - that battle was a foregone conclusion. The slow hunger and waning of his force over the preceding year is what you'd need to change to get a successful Bruce campaign - as well as Irish support outside Ulster.
The fact that his army lived off pillaging also affected his campaign - it would be hard to have an alternative to this though given the Europe-wide famine between 1315-1317. If he hadn't then there might have been a bit less resentment - a Connaught chronicle at the time complained of "Scottish foreigners less noble than our own foreigners."
The army that was defeated at Faughart in 1318 was already broken - that battle was a foregone conclusion. The slow hunger and waning of his force over the preceding year is what you'd need to change to get a successful Bruce campaign - as well as Irish support outside Ulster.
A more Scottish-sympathetic Pope, then? And I do wonder how the famine's effects on the Scottish army could be mitigated. If anyone has some ideas, I'd love to hear them, I may be interested in starting a TL on this some time.
Not just Scottish-sympathetic, but a Pope with something against Edward I will work too. France and/or the HRE having a conflict with Edward I might also influence the Pope.
This is the easiest way. Have Franco-English rivalry on the continent flare up slightly earlier, so that Robert the Bruce's renewal of the Auld Alliance in 1326 comes forward a bit. That way, England will be fighting with one arm tied with continental commitments. Although, if this happened, the whole need for an Irish campaign kind of lessens.
Possible, maybe. He'd need O'Neill support, and O'Neill of Tyrone would be almost certainly a stronger power than Edward Bruce, even if the latter took the entirety of the English-supporting areas under the Bissetts, Savages and de Mandevilles.
The problem is that establishing Edward as a ruler of a rump state in Ulster means disinheriting the O'Neills to an extent - they were backing him as King of Ireland where he couldn't do much harm to them, not as a local magnate with conflicting interests.
The problem is that establishing Edward as a ruler of a rump state in Ulster means disinheriting the O'Neills to an extent - they were backing him as King of Ireland where he couldn't do much harm to them, not as a local magnate with conflicting interests.
If England owning Ireland didn't in itself give England an overwhelming advantage over Scotland, which I think most people would agree it didn't, then Scotland controlling Ireland wouldn't give Scotland a major advantage over England -- especially as it was the weaker of those two nations anyway -- either. Edward might manage to hold the throne for his lifetime (however long,or short, that is...), but even if that's so then considering what the Irish leaders were like in those days there's a fair chance that they elect somebody else instead of his own preferred heir afterwards.