What if the Black Prince doesn't catch dysentry and becomes Edward IV?

I know this question has been asked a few times previously, but here is my opinion on it.

Despite the general opinion in this forum seeming to think the Black Prince was incompotent, which I find rather strange and totally disagree.

If the Black Prince is still fit and healthy in 1369 when Charles V restarts the war I think the English will fiar far better, as they have a strong, popular and militarily compotent leader to lead the fight against the French.

While John of Gaunt was compotent, he did not have the same military successes as Edward and was not as popular as Edward, which meant the English defence was not sound and the chevaechee of 1373 failed.

I know Charles V had found the affective way to beat the English, and I accept the English would probably still lose, but would probably hold onto more territory in France than they did in the OTL.

Also the if the Black Prince lives longer it means Richard II may turn out to be a slightly better king.

Also the Peasants revolt may not happen, (it probably still will) as the Black Prince was far more popular under the English peasantry that Richard II.
 
I know this question has been asked a few times previously, but here is my opinion on it.

Despite the general opinion in this forum seeming to think the Black Prince was incompotent, which I find rather strange and totally disagree.

If the Black Prince is still fit and healthy in 1369 when Charles V restarts the war I think the English will fiar far better, as they have a strong, popular and militarily compotent leader to lead the fight against the French.

While John of Gaunt was compotent, he did not have the same military successes as Edward and was not as popular as Edward, which meant the English defence was not sound and the chevaechee of 1373 failed.

I know Charles V had found the affective way to beat the English, and I accept the English would probably still lose, but would probably hold onto more territory in France than they did in the OTL.

Also the if the Black Prince lives longer it means Richard II may turn out to be a slightly better king.

Also the Peasants revolt may not happen, (it probably still will) as the Black Prince was far more popular under the English peasantry that Richard II.

The Black Prince was a competent tactician , no question about that. However, it does not look like he was anywhere close to the same level as a strategist. As a politician he was hardly up to the challenges and as the administrator he was clearly the lousy one: managed to lose practically all popularity and local support that the English rulers traditionally enjoyed in Aquitaine (see "Sack of Limoges" and related events). Neither did he ever recognize the power of the legalistic: Treaty of Bretigny was full of the grey areas (which was not his fault) which Charles managed to use to his advantage and which Edward could exploit but did not figure out how (forms of a homage, scope of the jurisdiction, etc.).

As a king he would probably start a new war (just because as a bad politician he would not see other tools), which would mean that more money would have to be extracted from England. Which means that there would be some kind of unrest that he would crush even more severely than Richard II. War was popular among those who were benefiting from it, not among those who was paying for it.
 
The Black Prince was a competent tactician , no question about that. However, it does not look like he was anywhere close to the same level as a strategist. As a politician he was hardly up to the challenges and as the administrator he was clearly the lousy one: managed to lose practically all popularity and local support that the English rulers traditionally enjoyed in Aquitaine (see "Sack of Limoges" and related events). Neither did he ever recognize the power of the legalistic: Treaty of Bretigny was full of the grey areas (which was not his fault) which Charles managed to use to his advantage and which Edward could exploit but did not figure out how (forms of a homage, scope of the jurisdiction, etc.).

As a king he would probably start a new war (just because as a bad politician he would not see other tools), which would mean that more money would have to be extracted from England. Which means that there would be some kind of unrest that he would crush even more severely than Richard II. War was popular among those who were benefiting from it, not among those who was paying for it.

I was talking about the years between 1370 and 1377 were the English defence of France may go a lot better, if a fit Black Prince is able to lead the defence.

I have read about the sack of Limoges, but I have also read evidence from a historian that apparently stated that most of the townspeople wanted nothing to do with the revolt and it was only the bishops who took part in it. It also says that the French garrison actually massacred the population of Limoges instead of the Black Prince.

When the Black Prince becomes King Edward IV, while he may not have been the greatest politician himself, his brothers seemed to have been far better politicians than him. This means his brothers such as John of Gaunt, Edmund of Langley and Thomas of Woodstock can focus on the politics while Edward himself can focus on the war with France and Castille.

Also with no regency for Richard II that reduces the problems England will experience in the years 1377-1381.
 
I was talking about the years between 1370 and 1377 were the English defence of France may go a lot better, if a fit Black Prince is able to lead the defence.

Sorry, but unless we had completely different history books, the English were not defending France (the French had a king for this purpose). They had been defending their possessions in France, which is not the same. :)

I have read about the sack of Limoges, but I have also read evidence from a historian that apparently stated that most of the townspeople wanted nothing to do with the revolt and it was only the bishops who took part in it. It also says that the French garrison actually massacred the population of Limoges instead of the Black Prince.

This would hardly stand to any criticism: city was taken by storm by the Anglo-Gascon force (approximately 3,200 strong). The garrison left by the Duke of Berry was approximately 140 men and hardly had a chance to arrange a meaningful massacre of the town people while also trying to defend the city. Even Froissart, explicitly attributed massacre of 3,000 citizens to the English (which is probably an inflated number) and it looks like even the British historians do not have problems with attributing the killings to the English (massacres after taking cities by storm were a commonplace). The sack effectively ended the Limoges enamel industry, which had been famous across Europe, for around a century, which clearly indicates that Edward was not even able to understand importance of the industries as a source of taxation.
 
Sorry, but unless we had completely different history books, the English were not defending France (the French had a king for this purpose). They had been defending their possessions in France, which is not the same. :)



This would hardly stand to any criticism: city was taken by storm by the Anglo-Gascon force (approximately 3,200 strong). The garrison left by the Duke of Berry was approximately 140 men and hardly had a chance to arrange a meaningful massacre of the town people while also trying to defend the city. Even Froissart, explicitly attributed massacre of 3,000 citizens to the English (which is probably an inflated number) and it looks like even the British historians do not have problems with attributing the killings to the English (massacres after taking cities by storm were a commonplace). The sack effectively ended the Limoges enamel industry, which had been famous across Europe, for around a century, which clearly indicates that Edward was not even able to understand importance of the industries as a source of taxation.

I meant french posessions.
 
Top