What if Henry V hadn't died in 1422?

All of this true, but you and all would have to admit, if Henry's long term goals were, rather than attempt to conquer all of France and instead push for an enlarged Aquitaine, or something of similar capacity to the Brétigny treaty, then I'd say the English would be better off in the long haul prestige-wise.
Mmm...That depends.

On the bright side, it would be relativly easy to get these without real costs, and it would probably turns out as Henry would be the clear vaniquisher of this war (Let's say Lancastrian war).
If he manages to keep Bourguignons and Armagnacs at each other throats (a bit like Edward III let Charles the Bad acting of its own), that's still a good benefit.

That said, with the traditionnal attitude of aquitain vassals (going from not giving a shit, and searching support from Valois) and especially if your super-Aquitaine does include Armagnac lands; it's not going to be that easy to manage. The lack of raids, energies and ressources being devoted to stabilisation, would be a problem as Henry V would have to deal more with Parliment.

Eventually, when war will broke out again, Henry V is gonna have an Edward III-like treatment as "Why didn't you took all of France as you claim it, it would have been easy and we won't be in trouble now".

So, on short term, yes it would have a relativly good press. At middle term, it would be seen as the financial and ressource gap it was since Edward III.

Then again, assuming that France has similar population growths as OTL, I can probably say without a doubt that Aquitaine would not stay English for long.
I could see multiple Calais-like holdings after a second Caroline Phase, (especially on Gascony), and the pursuing of raids up to the late XVth century.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Mmm...That depends.

On the bright side, it would be relativly easy to get these without real costs, and it would probably turns out as Henry would be the clear vaniquisher of this war (Let's say Lancastrian war).
If he manages to keep Bourguignons and Armagnacs at each other throats (a bit like Edward III let Charles the Bad acting of its own), that's still a good benefit.

That said, with the traditionnal attitude of aquitain vassals (going from not giving a shit, and searching support from Valois) and especially if your super-Aquitaine does include Armagnac lands; it's not going to be that easy to manage. The lack of raids, energies and ressources being devoted to stabilisation, would be a problem as Henry V would have to deal more with Parliment.

Eventually, when war will broke out again, Henry V is gonna have an Edward III-like treatment as "Why didn't you took all of France as you claim it, it would have been easy and we won't be in trouble now".

So, on short term, yes it would have a relativly good press. At middle term, it would be seen as the financial and ressource gap it was since Edward III.


I could see multiple Calais-like holdings after a second Caroline Phase, (especially on Gascony), and the pursuing of raids up to the late XVth century.

I can see the raids, but I more see England losing all of Gascony rather than just a few cities remaining, but I do agree on the resource and financial gap though, probably even earlier if the Burgundian inheritance and the English War of Succession still happens.
 
I can see the raids, but I more see England losing all of Gascony rather than just a few cities remaining,
Eventually yes, but they can hope holding some outposts up to the XVIth, as Calais.

but I do agree on the resource and financial gap though, probably even earlier if the Burgundian inheritance and the English War of Succession still happens.
I don't see the former with a 1420's PoD. For the latter...I agree that the reconquest of Aquitaine instead of Northern France would change little to its causes.
 
Top