What if Henry V of England lived longer?

usertron2020, I am impressed by your depth of knowledge. As I am doing a lot of research into this period myself, do have any suggestions for a good book to read on the 1415-1453 part of the HYW? I'm already reading Jonathan Sumption's "Hundred Years War III" (deals with 1369-1399) for background, which I find fantastic, but I can't get find a good book to deal with the aforementioned period, which is the central period of my research for my timeline.

Thank you.:eek: But I must tell you that my knowledge on the HYW is almost entirely within the framework of the events immediately leading up to Joan of Arc through to the final campaigns that left the English with Calais (costing 25% of the national revenue to maintain:(). And Calais itself lost in the next century. My knowledge of Henry V's campaigns OTL are pretty much limited to what in general knowledge for a history buff (though my knowledge of Agincourt is a little better).

I confess all this talk on this thread regarding dynastic ties and rules/consequences of succession have ofttimes gone over my head.:eek: I always felt that the HYW was much more a military struggle than most dynastic wars of that age. And that nationalism played a greater role than we today seem willing to give the medieval period credit for. Just as the passage of marauding armies could have a rallying effect on the people of today, so too the people of 15th century France could get pretty fed up with the aristocracy for all their petty squabbles leading to so much national strife for well on to a hundred years.

For all the multitude of errors and fabrications in George Bernard Shaw's "Saint Joan", his fictitious scene between the Earl of Warick (the old earl, not the Kingmaker of the War of the Roses, despite Shaw's depicting him as such:mad:) and one of his priests goes a long way towards explaining the evolution of the HYW following Agincourt and culminating in Joan of Arc's campaigns. The priest saw Joan as a witch to be burned. And that the "Lousy French are cheating us of our rights! We PAID for the witch! Good English cash! POUNDS, not francs!"

Warick looks at his priest with amusement and said: "English? French? Wherever did you pick up those words? I command you to stop using those words if you wish me to retain my temper..." "Why, my Lord? Can it hurt us?" "Of course! If these Gascons and Picards and Armagnacs and Burgundians start to think of themselves as Frenchmen, and we Englishmen? The people turning their loyalty to King and God, rather than their liege Lords and priests? Goodbye to the authority of the Lords, and goodbye to the authority of the Church...Goodbye to you and me!":eek:

A Tolstoyan listening to all this would say: "Of course! Its only the natural evolution of history!" The advocates of the Great Man Theory, OTOH, would make the argument of "Oh, if only [fill in the name of your favorite hero in history who died young] had lived longer!" I suppose there are ATLs where Churchill died in WWII and people speculate that he could have held the Empire together.

Though I an not a Tolstoyan myself, I confess in a land where the HYW had been going on so very long, environmental forces really do begin to come into play. After Agincourt, legitimacy may have been bestowed upon Henry V by (most) of the nobility, but NOT the population in general. The groundswell of support that occurred at Joan's appearance was proof enough of that.

I must say despite agreeing with you on most everything else and getting the sense that you know a good deal more about Henry V than I do, here is where I disagree. Many states that have the aforementioned characteristics have survived.(1) France itself is a testament to how one can draw lines on a map to create a "state" (or idea of one) with 3 language groups (Langue d'Oil, Langue d'Oc and Germanic on the northern fringes) and have that become a state through a succession of very strong rulers (with France's case, spread over about 1000 years).(2) Also, having multiple economic regions and general economic diversification was in fact a boon to several great powers.(3)

This is all leaving aside the fact the Burgundian State effectively functioned as an independent power for much of the 15th century,(4) and its piecemeal absorption into the Habsburg Empire was certainly a decisive factor in their rise as a the strongest dynasty of the 16th century.(5) During the later reign of Phillip the Good and during most of Charles the Bold's time the Burgundian territories were a serious threat to France. Louis XI was overjoyed when he heard of Charles the Bold's death, and practically delirious to watch his greater rival in continental western Europe dissolve, being able to reincorporate Ducal Burgundy and Picardy into the French state. (If only he had know that his dire mismanagement of the Mary the Rich and her marriage negotiations would create France's newest rival in Europe -- alas.)(6)

The point I am trying to make here is that someone in 1470 would have trouble believing that by 1480 the line of Valois-Burgundy would be extinct their territory effectively partitioned between France and the Hapsburgs.(7)

Scipio

1) With geographically sound borders that are militarily defensible? Poland disappeared off the map for 123 years because she lacked defensible borders.

2) France fought very long and very hard to gain the borders they now have. And they ARE defensible borders. There is almost an osmotic nature to great powers that their borders will evolve into defendable lines for defense.

3) Its also why rich countries like Belgium and Holland kept being invaded and looted by their more powerful neighbors every generation or so.:rolleyes: Wealth for a country is a great thing to have, but it can also represent blood in the water.

4) Thanks to its very powerful ally England, the fecklessness of Charles VI, the military incompetence of the French nobility, and the Duke of Burgundy's ability to play kingmaker following Agincourt. And following the Treaty of Arras, the Burgundians avoided a direct clash with the French by concentrating on gaining complete control of the Low Countries ($$$).

5) The French concentrating on driving out the English helped too. The Burgundians played the game of playing both sides against each other to come out on top worked very well for a long time, but it couldn't work forever. After all, in George Orwell's "1984", even "East Asia" was sometimes the LONE MAIN ENEMY of both "Eurasia" AND "Oceania". Once the War of the Roses got started in earnest, and with Spain still driving out the Moors, there really wasn't anything to stop the French from chugging on Burgundy. At least, except for the many drams of Burgundy to be tasted by the Hapsburgs.:D

(6) There are a million reasons why the French Monarchy is as dead as mutton. Louis XI is one of them. Letting Joan burn was another.:mad:

(7) Personally, I wouldn't. Just by looking at a map.

Or am I wrong about all this? I've been assuming all along you meant survival to the present day. If its only to the Renaissance, Age of Discovery, the Enlightenment, or the mid-18th century, I could consider that possible.:)

But Napoleon? 1848? The World Wars? Today? No, I can't really see that.:( Sorry. But I'm always ready to be convinced. Just get to work on your TL. I expect you to start posting this morning. Chop-Chop!

UT
 
through to the final campaigns that left the English with Calais (costing 25% of the national revenues to maintain)

That would be Calais, the city which accounted for one third of the English royal revenues every year through the trade it enabled. I doubt those 25% figures, but regardless, it's a net gain for England.

1) With geographically sound borders that are militarily defensible? Poland disappeared off the map for 123 years because she lacked defensible borders.

But there are myriad examples of indefensible borders that worked. England's border with Scotland. Spain's with Portugal. Denmark's with Germany. Russia's borders in Europe. The Balkans. And when successful countries expanded they often left natural frontiers behind.

2) France fought very long and very hard to gain the borders they now have. And they ARE defensible borders. There is almost an osmotic nature to great powers that their borders will evolve into defendable lines for defense.

So why didn't France collapse before it attained those borders? why can't Burgundy do the same?

(6) There are a million reasons why the French Monarchy is as dead as mutton. Louis XI is one of them. Letting Joan burn was another.:mad:

I can guarantee that Joan's death was not a catalyst of the fall of French monarchy. They're just too far apart. In fact, Joan's martyrdom made her a saint, to the later prestige of the French kings. She became a royal symbol.

(7) Personally, I wouldn't. Just by looking at a map.

Or am I wrong about all this? I've been assuming all along you meant survival to the present day. If its only to the Renaissance, Age of Discovery, the Enlightenment, or the mid-18th century, I could consider that possible.:)

But Napoleon? 1848? The World Wars? Today? No, I can't really see that.:( Sorry. But I'm always ready to be convinced. Just get to work on your TL. I expect you to start posting this morning. Chop-Chop!

If you can see Burgundy lasting into the 1700s then why not further? Why couldn't they attain natural borders on at least some sides by then?

And you need to get your butterfly net out and remember that there would be no Napoleon in TTL.
 
That would be Calais, the city which accounted for one third of the English royal revenues every year through the trade it enabled. I doubt those 25% figures, but regardless, it's a net gain for England.

Winston Churchill, "History of the English Speaking Peoples". But then, what does he know about history?:p

Falastur said:
But there are myriad examples of indefensible borders that worked. England's border with Scotland.(1) Spain's with Portugal.(2) Denmark's with Germany.(3) Russia's borders in Europe.(4) The Balkans.(5) And when successful countries expanded they often left natural frontiers behind.(6)

1) ??? Scotland is an independent country? I have to catch up on my reading.:eek::p

2) Reconquista, the Seventeenth century conquest of Portugal by Spain, says otherwise. If the Spainiards hadn't been so greedy trying to swallow up Italy at the same time...

3) Germany was either too disunited for most of its history, or Denmark was too strong with control of much of Scandanavia to allow the Germans to take advantage. When neither was true (WWII), the Danes didn't even offer military resistance.

4) Russia indefensible!? General Winter, the Pripet Marshes, heavy forests, artic swamps, narrowed lines of defense in the north, the Dneiper River, endless depths, huge numerical superiority, etc, etc, etc... When you have 1/6th of the world's landmass, you don't need the Swiss Alps.:rolleyes:

5) The Balkans are quite tough enough thank you, in terms of terrain. Only Hungary and PARTS of Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Romania have flat surface areas. These rest of those countries, plus Kosovar, Montenegro, Macedonia, and especially Greece are quite strong in terms of terrain defensibility. Just ask the Fascist Italians.:p

6) That is the natural difficulty when populations drift across borders, and ethnicity lines blur with national boundaries.

Falastur said:
So why didn't France collapse before it attained those borders?(7) Why can't Burgundy do the same?(8)

7) The sense of the French nation (or at least the Franks) went back to the 6th century. And they had a solid set of southern borders in the French Alps, and the Pyrennes. With no united aggressor nation on those borders pressing them. The Italians and Spaniards had multiple problems of their own, internal and external. This allowed the French to present essentially a single united front against their enemies. Interior lines and all that.:)

8) Because except for Dijon, and the expansions he was making into Flanders, the Duke of Burgundy was stuck with an amorphous set of boundaries that were a living nightmare. Especially once the Germanies got their act together, "Burgundy" was living on borrowed time. In essence, the Burgundians did the right thing OTL. By lining up with the Hapsburgs, they joined up with not only the new kid on the block, but the toughest one as well.

Falastur said:
I can guarantee that Joan's death was not a catalyst of the fall of French monarchy.(9) They're just too far apart. In fact, Joan's martyrdom made her a saint, to the later prestige of the French kings. She became a royal symbol.(10)

9) Not directly, no. But why was she never canonized in all the time that there ever was a French monarchy? Why did the mechanisms for her eventual elevation only begin during the Third Republic? Because Charles VII's decision to stay home, count his gold, and let Joan burn was just one example of a pattern set by a monarchy that for the next three hundred and fifty years would look to their own best interests first, last, and all things in between. I.E., as opposed to the interest of the French Nation as a whole. When Louis XIV declared: "The State? I am the State!", he was more or less espousing the belief system of both the houses of Valois and Bourbon. The French monarchy really didn't want to remember the sordid details of Charles VII's treatment of Joan, beyond allowing her appointment in the ambigious role of "War Chief", her ennoblement, and her later "re-trial".

10) But not one that bore up under close scrutiny. Joan was for God and France:cool:, not the King and Church.:mad:

Falastur said:
If you can see Burgundy lasting to the 1700s,why not further? Why couldn't they attain natural borders on at least some sides by then?

I'd be curious to see what you see as natural, military defensible, and culturally/linguistically/racially sensible borders...:confused: That's not sarcasm. I'm serious.

Falastur said:
And you need to get your butterfly net out and remember that there would be no Napoleon in TTL.

True enough.:eek: But do you see aristocratic rule holding on forever throughout the Continent? No revolutions? No republics? No Industrial Revolutions creating irresistible social unrest?:confused:
 
Last edited:
usertron2020, thanks for bringing up these flaws with the Burgundian State. I was aware of them before, but it's nice to have them reiterated so succinctly. What I was trying to get at was that, yes, it would be very hard for that state to survive, but the survival of any state is of nearly insurmountable difficulty. It is very teleological to state that presented with such difficulties, a state cannot survive.

Instead, I think it is better to think in terms of likelihood. In 1770, who could have foreseen the Declaration of Independence, much less that a ragtag army of colonists could defeat the great military power in the world at the time, which was fresh from defeating its greatest rival in the Seven Years War. How absurd would it seem to an American in 1850 that within 100 years, his or her nation would be the largest economical power and the planet and facing off with a Russia that had adopted the some of the ideology of that German political theorist Karl Marx, yet twisted his ideology to such an extent that it was Russia after this revolution was at least as authoritarian as before. All history is unlikely, it is only our perspective looking back that allows us to see trends and pattern that led to certain events.

As for my timeline, I still have months of research and planning ahead of me. This whole "getting into college" thing is such an impediment to my historical reading :rolleyes:. After I've read about 10 more books and plan things in depth, I will start to post the timeline, and I can't wait to show you how interesting and plausible the state I am planning will be. Not to give too much away, but my POD will result in a very different France after the Treaty of Troyes, and an stronger start to the Burgundian dukes establishing their own power base.

Scipio
 
I don't see why Burgundy couldn't survive. The Netherlands did IOTL.
I believe they'd lose a lot of their territory, likely including Burgundy proper, but there's no reason a independant Low Countries couldn't exist between France and the empire.
 
I don't see why Burgundy couldn't survive. The Netherlands did IOTL. I believe they'd lose a lot of their territory, likely including Burgundy proper, but there's no reason a independant Low Countries couldn't exist between France and the empire.

Now THIS I agree with completely.:)

In fact, in the 1632verse, that is precisely what Eric Flint has Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand doing. NOTE-For those of you who aren't familiar with his works it is an ISOT involving a West Virginian town being plopped into Thuringia in 1631.

By Richelieu arranging an alliance of Spain, France, England, and Denmark (and destroying the Dutch Fleet in a mid-battle betrayal by the Dutch's so-called "allies" the Anglo-French), Ferdinand is able to quickly conquer all of the Netherlands (except the northernmost three provinces, and Amsterdam, which he promptly laid siege to). After a long protracted siege, he was able to force the surrender of Frederick Henry's forces and the city of Amsterdam. With full possesion of the histories from the future, he is able to avoid all the mistakes of his conquistador predecessors (the Duke of Alva, and others) by offering mercy and religious toleration (setting the example by executing three inquisitors who failed to obey his specific orders not to round up Jews and "heretics").

This is where it got interesting. Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria, destined (and promised by her father Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II) to marry Maximillian of Bavaria, decided she didn't want to marry a man so much older than herself, particularly since she would only be a duchess whether she stayed in Vienna or went to Munich. So she fled, hopefully, for the Low Countries. {NOTE-By this time, American radios were in embassies throughout Europe where countries were still non-hostile, like Switzerland and the Papal States}.

As it turned out, Pope Urban VIII had granted Ferdinand a Papal Bull freeing him from his ecclesiastical duties, in the name of fulfilling new duties in Brussels (royal ones, though Philip IV certainly didn't know any of this). Through the use of ISOTed radio equipment, he was able to communicate with Maria Anna and make a daring proposal to her: Would she like to marry him, her first cousin, and become the Queen of the United Netherlands?:D So by arrangements made with the ISOTed Americans, with a loaned aircraft and pilot, Ferdinand flew to where Maria Anna had reached (Basel, in the Swiss Cantons), picked her up at a scratch-prepared runway, and flew them both back to Brussels! Whereupon they were promptly married, and were crowned as King Ferdinand and Queen Maria Anna of the Netherlands (which ITTL comprised all of the Low Countries, Ostfriesland, and various tidbits from the Rhineland:cool:).

Needless to say, Gustavus Aldolphus was upset, Maximillian went ape-shit, Ferdinand II dropped dead (after a few days), the Duke of Orleans Gaston giggled with glee, Richelieu put his head in his hands, and Philip IV was left screaming about his brother's treachery. At least, until his advisors reminded him that in "the other histories" he was destined to have no surviving competent male issue.

OTL Prince Charles, his brother, died of smallpox in 1632. Butterflies had removed the smallpox that killed him ITTL by preventing the Spanish royal family's visit to Barcelona in 1632. This was due to a Spanish Army being destroyed at the Wurtburg Fortress by the German-American Army, followed by the destruction of Wallenstein's Imperial Army at the Alte Veste {a walkover for the Swedes (plus the now present German-American Army) compared to OTL} completely disrupting Spanish political affairs of state that year. That and that Gustavus Aldophus did not die in the butterflied Battle of Lutzen. With this foreknowledge, Philip IV ordered all necessary measures to introduce catpox and cowpox into Spain.

Also, he was reminded his son Balthasar Carlos would not live long, but die at age 16. No doubt from the many maladies caused by Spanish Hapsburg inbreeding. His other son Charles II of Spain (not born until 1661) would be utterly incompetent to rule, and would start Spain down on the long road to decline (in fact, marking the complete petering out of the Spanish Hapsburg Line).

This would mean Spain, in 1700, would fall to the Bourbons. Philip IV was quite horrified over this. Enough so that he decided to swallow his outrage and accept that at least with a third Hapsburg Dynasty (in the Netherlands), Ferdinand would be free to breed new heirs for Spain if they were needed.

In the end, Ferdinand signed a peace treaty with Sweden and the German States under his control, leaving the Netherlands (Flint even mentioned how it represented the re-creation of "Burgundy"!;)) with defensible borders at last.

France was in no position to intervene, as their own army had just been pulverized by the Swedish-German-American Army at the ATL Battle of Ahrensbok. The only French senior officer to emerge with glory and his reputation intact (and for that matter, enhanced) from the campaign (in a separate sector) was a 22 year old rapidly promoted French Marshal Vicomte de Turenne!:eek:

I know an ISOT story isn't what you meant, but it IS an example of how "Burgundy" could emerge back out from the shadows after 150 years of disappearing from the maps. As happened to Poland. One reason Dutch leadership ultimately accepted the deal offered by Ferdinand was their own study of future history, and how the Low Countries were always being stepped on by their bigger neighbors. A United Netherlands (Burgundy) offered the prospect of holding out better, doing better, than OTL.

Butterflies, indeed.

Opinions?
 
1) With geographically sound borders that are militarily defensible? Poland disappeared off the map for 123 years because she lacked defensible borders.

This is pretty random but Poland disappeared from the maps thanks to a highly dysfunctional political systems. Borders were really the last of our problems.
 
) Because except for Dijon, and the expansions he was making into Flanders, the Duke of Burgundy was stuck with an amorphous set of boundaries that were a living nightmare. Especially once the Germanies got their act together, "Burgundy" was living on borrowed time.

So... they only have until 1871. Got it.
 
Because the Burgundians had $$$. The Duke was considered one of, if not THE, richest noblemen in Europe. Textiles.

Why does that centralize the Empire? France was rich and powerful as well, and unlike the French monarchs, the Burgundians are imperial noblemen.
 
Why does that centralize the Empire? France was rich and powerful as well, and unlike the French monarchs, the Burgundians are imperial noblemen.

I didn't mean centralizing the Empire. Sorry if I was unclear about that.:eek: But the Burgundians simply are THERE, right next to the Empire, while France is further away. It represents an easier target, and more wealth to be had (proportionately) for the effort expended.
 
I didn't mean centralizing the Empire. Sorry if I was unclear about that.:eek: But the Burgundians simply are THERE, right next to the Empire, while France is further away. It represents an easier target, and more wealth to be had (proportionately) for the effort expended.

Not to mention that the Low Countries were lucrative enough that a trade-based colonial empire was able to thrive, even for a short while, within half of its territory.
 
Top