usertron2020
Donor
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.
I confess all this talk on this thread regarding dynastic ties and rules/consequences of succession have ofttimes gone over my head.
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
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!"
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
UT