What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?

Honestly I am genuinely shocked nobody's ever done a TL on Edward I conquering Scotland. Now, I have talked plenty about Scotland always joining England is a tired and worn out trope.....but Edwards conquest of Scotland would actually be highly interesting to explore. For one Edward never declared himself King of Scotland or Emperor of Britain or whatever other title we would associate with the ruler of the British Isles. No he remained plain old King Edward of England and his goal for Scotland was to incorporate it as land or subordinate region much in the same way as Ireland or Wales.

Scotland for all of the spats between it England was better treated than Ireland(Low bar but nothing like the Irish potato famine ever happened in Scotland), mostly due to the fact that Scotland was for a while an equal partner with England and joined willingly(At least in theory, because lets be honest England will always dominate any united Britain). In a world where thats no longer the case, Scotland is not likely to have as good of a time of it under English Rule especially under Edward I, who if I recall correctly made something of a habit of evicting Welsh Peasants from their land and settling Englishmen on it.

Something I am sure is going to be repeated on the Scottish lowlands. As the crown will likely be busy dealing with the Highland Clans and defending Gascony from the French(Its highly unlikely that the hundred years war would start as it hinges on not one, not two but all three sons of Phillip IV dying without a male heir) I could see England continuing its relatively loose oversight over Ireland and the policy of intermarriage and alliance with the Anglo Irish Noblity especially with the House of De Burgh in Ulster continues, we could potentially see a UK where Ireland serves as Englands main 'sidekick' instead of Scotland.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I am genuinely shocked nobody's ever done a TL on Edward I conquering Scotland. Now, I have talked plenty about Scotland always joining England is a tired and worn out trope.....but Edwards conquest of Scotland would actually be highly interesting to explore. For one Edward never actually declared himself King of Scotland or Emperor of Britain or whatever other title we would associate with the ruler of the British Isles. No he remained plain old King Edward of England and his goal for Scotland was to incorporate it as land or subordinate region much in the same way as Ireland or Wales.

Scotland for all of the spats between it England was better treated than Ireland(Low bar but nothing like the Irish potato famine ever happened in Scotland), mostly due to the fact that Scotland was for a while an equal partner with England and joined willingly(At least in theory, because lets be honest England will always dominate any united Britain). In a world where thats no longer the case, Scotland is not likely to have as good of a time of it under English Rule especially under Edward I, who if I recall correctly made a habit of it evicting Welsh Peasants from their land and settling Englishmen on it.

Something I am sure is going to be repeated on the Scottish lowlands. As the crown will likely be busy keeping dealing with the Highland Clans and defending Gascony from the French(Its highly unlikely that the hundred years war would start as it hinges on not one, not two but all three sons of Phillip IV dying without a male heir) I could see England continuing its relatively loose oversight over Ireland and the policy of intermarriage and alliance with the Anglo Irish Noblity continues especially with the House of De Burgh in Ulster continues, we could potentially see a UK where Ireland serves as Englands main 'sidekick' instead of Scotland.
Tldr:
Britain essencially becomes Greater England with Ireland being spared in the role of Scotland and Scotland playing the role of Ireland making Braveheart real

Also.the british english never bother trying to conquer France
 
Tldr:
Britain essencially becomes Greater England with Ireland being spared in the role of Scotland and Scotland playing the role of Ireland
Let's go with this as the Flag. The funny thing is that it was actually proposed in 1937.
my88g101x1p81.jpg

making Braveheart real
In all honesty while the movie was inaccurate its depiction of Edward I wasn't completely off. If I recalled after capturing Robert the Bruces sister Mary, he forced her into a literal cage and publicly displayed her at Roxburgh castle. He also did this to another Scottish noblewoman at Berwick so this clearly wasn't a onetime thing.
Also.the british english never bother trying to conquer France
Weirdly enough Edward II might actually be an effective King this time around as he actually was a somewhat effective political intriguer and showed a bit of genuine political deftness in playing his vassals against each other to bring back his boyfriend back from exile which would serve him better in trying to consolidating his fathers conquests then actually you know defeating Robert the Bruce in battle.
 
Let's go with this as the Flag. The funny thing is that it was actually proposed in 1937.
my88g101x1p81.jpg


In all honesty while the movie was inaccurate its depiction of Edward I wasn't completely off. If I recalled after capturing Robert the Bruces sister Mary, he forced her into a literal cage and publicly displayed her at Roxburgh castle. He also did this to another Scottish noblewoman at Berwick so this clearly wasn't a onetime thing.

Weirdly enough Edward II might actually be an effective King this time around as he actually was a somewhat effective political intriguer and showed a bit of genuine political deftness in playing his vassals against each other to bring back his boyfriend back from exile which would serve him better in trying to consolidating his fathers conquests then actually you know defeating Robert the Bruce in battle.
Edward III he is really a very interesting ruler, with him he can explore many different scenarios the one that intrigues me the most
and where obtaining lands in the HRE (since he had been appointed imperial vicar in 1338) it is true that the princes were not exactly the most loyal or useful allies in the war against France (but as an idea it must be admitted that it is intriguing )
then we must also consider the prophecy that was born in his first years of life (that is, that on his death he would have been buried in Aachen near Charlemagne, and that he would have worn three crowns including the imperial one) furthermore it must be considered that it was not the first time that an English sovereign was involved in imperial politics there were precedents (including an ancestor of his who was elected emperor during the interregnum: Richard of Cornwall, as well as links with the Guelph family (Otto IV was nephew of John without land) or even the kinship with the defunct imperial dynasty of the Hoffenstaufen) would also make marriage attempts really useful both with the Luxembourgs (see Queen Anne) or those only proposed but never made with the Habsburgs (who were about to establish themselves , Rudolf IV is from this period)
 
Honestly I am genuinely shocked nobody's ever done a TL on Edward I conquering Scotland. Now, I have talked plenty about Scotland always joining England is a tired and worn out trope.....but Edwards conquest of Scotland would actually be highly interesting to explore. For one Edward never actually declared himself King of Scotland or Emperor of Britain or whatever other title we would associate with the ruler of the British Isles. No he remained plain old King Edward of England and his goal for Scotland was to incorporate it as land or subordinate region much in the same way as Ireland or Wales.

Scotland for all of the spats between it England was better treated than Ireland(Low bar but nothing like the Irish potato famine ever happened in Scotland), mostly due to the fact that Scotland was for a while an equal partner with England and joined willingly(At least in theory, because lets be honest England will always dominate any united Britain). In a world where thats no longer the case, Scotland is not likely to have as good of a time of it under English Rule especially under Edward I, who if I recall correctly made a habit of it evicting Welsh Peasants from their land and settling Englishmen on it.

Something I am sure is going to be repeated on the Scottish lowlands. As the crown will likely be busy keeping dealing with the Highland Clans and defending Gascony from the French(Its highly unlikely that the hundred years war would start as it hinges on not one, not two but all three sons of Phillip IV dying without a male heir) I could see England continuing its relatively loose oversight over Ireland and the policy of intermarriage and alliance with the Anglo Irish Noblity continues especially with the House of De Burgh in Ulster continues, we could potentially see a UK where Ireland serves as Englands main 'sidekick' instead of Scotland.
A small correction : Ireland until 1801 was in theory an independent nation / protectorate that shared a monarch with England / Britain. In theory they were a separate nation when the Lordship of Ireland was abolished in favor of the Kingdom of Ireland in 1542
 
I just came acrossed with this map on Google Images (from Reddit by TheMexicanHistory user):



And yes, it's pretty much that.
It was so cliche and dumb us New Zealand decided to just peace out along with the Emu's
Yeah I'll give you that. Scotland over all did enjoy a lot of priveligies in comparison to Ireland and was more of a beneficiary of the empire than anywhere else except for England itself.
 
Yeah I'll give you that. Scotland over all did enjoy a lot of privileges in comparison to Ireland and was more of a beneficiary of the empire than anywhere else except for England itself.

Except Irish involvement in Empire was just the same as Scottish. Civic leaders in Dublin were claiming the city was the second city of the Empire after Union:


As for being colonised, the Normans became involved in Ireland on the invitation of a local chieftain. They had no such excuse when they invaded England.
 
Except Irish involvement in Empire was just the same as Scottish. Civic leaders in Dublin were claiming the city was the second city of the Empire after Union:
Scotland never exactly had many independence revolts after 1745. The article you linked while pointing how the British didn't actually hold up to their end of the bargain in terms of providing economic development doesn't mention Scotland at all. Actually I can point to both Scotland and Irelands very different levels of economic growth. While Scotland industrialised rapidly and become a centre of manufacturing, Irelands industrialisation was relatively disappointing outside of mostly protestant Ulster I wonder why.....
As for being colonised, the Normans became involved in Ireland on the invitation of a local chieftain. They had no such excuse when they invaded England.
Usually when people talk about Englands colonisation of Ireland they go with the plantations set up during the reign of Mary and Elizabeth. Not the Normans, because let's be honest they usually assimilated into Irish culture far more than they displaced the natives.
 
It is apparently an iron law of the universe that if America goes communist, it will amalgamate a bunch of states together and change all the internal borders for some reason.

Here's an example pulled from this map.
hQ1xXKG.png
 
It is apparently an iron law of the universe that if America goes communist, it will amalgamate a bunch of states together and change all the internal borders for some reason.

Here's an example pulled from this map.
hQ1xXKG.png
Also they behaves exactly like Capitalist America against their neighbors (invading and puppetizing them in order to plunder the resources) even if this has no sense. But curiously they don't try to invade Canada...
 
The Byzantines are never simply surviving - which would already be a wank - but going on to reconquer most / all of the eastern Mediterranean.
 
It is apparently an iron law of the universe that if America goes communist, it will amalgamate a bunch of states together and change all the internal borders for some reason.

Here's an example pulled from this map.
hQ1xXKG.png

Only thing that map is missing is a ton of Amerindian territories and New Afrika in the Gulf States akin to ASSRs, just for the sake of eventually doing a 1:1 of Soviet history.

Also they behaves exactly like Capitalist America against their neighbors (invading and puppetizing them in order to plunder the resources) even if this has no sense. But curiously they don't try to invade Canada...

Because the view of LatAm being the US's backyard isn't gonna go away even with a red revolution, only thing that changes is the window dressing behind the interventions.

Canada is at least excusable, it's likely the major escape point for American government loyalist forces and emigres in addition to Canada being under British protection, none of which makes it an appealing target for intervention.
 

NotBigBrother

Monthly Donor
No matter what political entities lies on the continent known IOTL as North America, there are always borders on 49N and the river known IOTL as Rio Grande.
 
Last edited:
Top