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

That's more of a "we can put an army in Rome should we desire it" thing to do, to be fair.


or when they weren't in the mood for casual militar exercises in Italy, they paid bribes or threatened some cardinal to get a pope elected favorite for Paris, if that were not the case: Hey Rome ! , you know that Avignon is always ready for a new pope, right ?
 
or when they weren't in the mood for casual militar exercises in Italy, they paid bribes or threatened some cardinal to get a pope elected favorite for Paris, if that were not the case: Hey Rome ! , you know that Avignon is always ready for a new pope, right ?
But yeah, that also meant that France had a lot of negociating/bullying power to get favorable resolution to conflicts on ecclesiastic matters with the Papacy, unlike England.
 
On the topic of Sunni Islam, one very important factor towards what you think well Sunni Islam was the Shia century where Shia groups managed to conquer from Iran to North Africa, with the Caliphs puppets of the Shia Buyids, Mecca was ransacked by the Qarmatians and the Alawite and Druze where born in this period as well Twelver doctrine as we know it.

Subsequently Sunni's seeking to restore their faith to the rightful place they felt it deserved began the Sunni revival Seljuk Empire championed it, with the support of the Caliph began the homogenisation of Sunni Islam to help prevent the process of Shia creeds from taking root inside it and helped create the religious student system that exists in some places today. Saladin was another key figure for his role in bringing Egypt back into the Sunni fold.

It was also during this period you began to really see the view of Shia's being a deadly fifth column that needs to be rooted out form verus's them being weak cultists. I wonder if if it failed the Seljuk's the first major Turkish Sunni dynasty would find it much harder gaining legitimacy ground than be able spiritual and power vacuum as result of these wars.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
I would say it depends on how tolerant the English Catholic government is going to be in the long run. But with all certainty that Scotland will not want to unify with England. So probably the nation remains independent or is conquered by the British (which completely changes the dynamics of the relationship).
I do wonder if Scotland would go Protestant if England is catholic. After all it was fairly catholic until the 1570s
 
People will happily agree to renege on everything they've believed so far simply because you offer them promises that their finances will be better off if they do.

Because we all know that in reality the inhabitants of the various societies are only pretending to share the cultural, political and social assumptions of their environment, and they are more than willing to discard them in an instant, in favor of accepting others that are diametrically opposed, in the name of hypothetical financial gains.

(The last paragraph is sarcasm)
 
But yeah, that also meant that France had a lot of negociating/bullying power to get favorable resolution to conflicts on ecclesiastic matters with the Papacy, unlike England.


mainly yes, France was the second largest group of curiates in the papal government after only the Italians, let's say that the wars that hit England during the late fourteenth and throughout the fifteenth century did not help to maintain a constant presence in Rome to defend English interests if we add to this the constant French opposition we have a perfect mix ( think that for almost 50 years there was not even an English cardinal, a very strange thing given that by prestige and number they were the 3rd as foreign representation after only France and HRE, even ahead of the Iberian kingdoms ( which however were steadily rising in importance )
 
mainly yes, France was the second largest group of curiates in the papal government after only the Italians, let's say that the wars that hit England during the late fourteenth and throughout the fifteenth century did not help to maintain a constant presence in Rome to defend English interests if we add to this the constant French opposition we have a perfect mix ( think that for almost 50 years there was not even an English cardinal, a very strange thing given that by prestige and number they were the 3rd as foreign representation after only France and HRE, even ahead of the Iberian kingdoms ( which however were steadily rising in importance )

Distance probably didn't help matters either.
 
Distance probably didn't help matters either.


very true, but it should be noted that the other non-Italian cardinals were also in the same situation, but they could travel, albeit with difficulty, without being stopped / arrested ( which, on the other hand, happened to the English cardinals when they had to cross France, especially if their king was at war against the French ) another detail I think there is also a pinch of bad luck, just think of poor Adrian IV who died choking on his lunch for example or Reginald Pole who lost an election ( which he had already won in theory ) because they counted the votes wrong
 
I do wonder if Scotland would go Protestant if England is catholic. After all it was fairly catholic until the 1570s
Perhaps, this will depend on the relationship with England. But I wouldn't find it unusual for them to turn Protestant due to England remaining Catholic.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Perhaps, this will depend on the relationship with England. But I wouldn't find it unusual for them to turn Protestant due to England remaining Catholic.
Doing it out of sheer spite isn’t really the Scottish way. Indeed the fact it was the nobles and required them to basically stage a coup and enforce their will through force suggests it may be more complicated than that
 
England always rules de waves. This is one that annoys me deeply, coming from a determinism that England will always gain supremacy at sea. When for this to happen at OTL, several things had to work out for the English, from the colonization of Brazil by the Portuguese, the Spanish fleet having bad luck with the winds and France not investing in the navy (among many other things). The English only gain supremacy of the sea after the seven years war in the 18th century. Until then, many things can change in a TL making England just another naval power. Depending on the changes, it is not difficult to make, for example, France in the long run become the naval power of Europe. (Or Spain, Al-andalus or other powers from different TLs).
 
England always rules de waves. This is one that annoys me deeply, coming from a determinism that England will always gain supremacy at sea. When for this to happen at OTL, several things had to work out for the English, from the colonization of Brazil by the Portuguese, the Spanish fleet having bad luck with the winds and France not investing in the navy (among many other things). The English only gain supremacy of the sea after the seven years war in the 18th century. Until then, many things can change in a TL making England just another naval power. Depending on the changes, it is not difficult to make, for example, France in the long run become the naval power of Europe. (Or Spain, Al-andalus or other powers from different TLs).
Tbh, even before the Seven Years Wars with the British Navy already showing off immense success during the War of Spanish Succession there was a advantage they had of them Rollin good numbers on the dice while their opponents kept Rollin bad, with a few changes it's not hard seeing them losing their supremacy.

But I agree with this post in general, France or Spain would be the ideal opponents capable of competing and then besting English supremacy at seas if they can get a period or reason to do so
 
But I agree with this post in general, France or Spain would be the ideal opponents capable of competing and then besting English supremacy at seas if they can get a period or reason to do so
The reason I see it is a colonial empire. So France and Spain (or the countries that are going to compete) have to have profitable enough colonies to invest in the navy. So the nation would have to control mexico, the incas or brazil.
 
Tbh, even before the Seven Years Wars with the British Navy already showing off immense success during the War of Spanish Succession there was a advantage they had of them Rollin good numbers on the dice while their opponents kept Rollin bad, with a few changes it's not hard seeing them losing their supremacy.

But I agree with this post in general, France or Spain would be the ideal opponents capable of competing and then besting English supremacy at seas if they can get a period or reason to do so
It's ultimately a risk-benefit calculation driven partially by geography. Britain needed the best navy because it was an island nation, ergo, it could afford to spend less on army and had to spend more on navy. This means that generally, England will be the best on the seas if it is rich enough.
Oversimplified but basically true in broad strokes...
 
It's ultimately a risk-benefit calculation driven partially by geography. Britain needed the best navy because it was an island nation, ergo, it could afford to spend less on army and had to spend more on navy. This means that generally, England will be the best on the seas if it is rich enough.
Oversimplified but basically true in broad strokes...

Granted, you need to have a united Great Britain for that - a England with a independent Scotland on its backyard might not have that luxury.
 
Last edited:
This means that generally, England will be the best on the seas if it is rich enough.
I think that's the biggest factor, rich enough. Portugal not colonizing Brazil would be the first impediment to this enrichment. (for the Dutch also in this case, with the Dutch having an agreement with the Portuguese to be the only ones to sell the sugar produced in Brazil in europe.)
Granted, you need to have a united Great Britain for that - a England with a independent Scotland on its backyard might not have that luxury.
Yes, Scotland remaining independent would be another factor that would impede the English naval growth.
 
Objection. If a country feels that it needs to have something (in this case, a strong navy) what it will do is look for ways to get funding. You will never see any country saying "hey, I think it's too expensive to continue funding the navy which is the only thing standing between us and an enemy invasion. Maybe it would be a good idea to cut the navy allocation to balance the budget, and instead pray that our enemies don't decide to attack us."
 
Top