WI: Edward I Doesn't Get Bogged Down in Scotland

OTL, when the Maid of Norway succeeded Ned Longshanks was busy campaigning in Gascony as well as dreaming of a new crusade. Then she died, and Longshanks was asked to mediate between the rival factions. The English got mired up to the rims in Scots' affairs and Ned had to sign a treaty with the king of France and move his crusade idea to the backburner.

Now, for arguments' sake, let's suppose that the Maid of Norway doesn't die, and the English don't have to divert attention away from Gascony (or the crusade-idea). What happens next? Edward I most likely still remarries, although he originally wanted to wed the Scots' dowager, Yolande of Dreux, IIRC.
 
In regards to a crusade, I'm not sure any crusade will be enough to save Acre from the Mamluks. So any money Edward raises would probably be used for his personal projects and/or wars.
 
Any other takers. I agree with the fact that a Crusade like what he most likely would've imagined is unlikely. Or even if it does, not necessarily successful. But what of his issues in France? Might they get a different result?
 
If Edward I spent his last year's fighting in France I suspect it would go similarly to his efforts in Scotland and his grandsons efforts in France, battlefield success failing to make up for structural weaknesses eventually leading to defeat.
 
A few thoughts of the top of my head:

IIRC Longshanks almost bankrupted his treasury fighting the Scots (it was already low following the Welsh invasion). One of the reasons Ed II did so much worse than his father was that the barons didn't want to get dragged into more pointless fighting - pointless to them, that is, because they didn't personally get enough out of it.

I don't see that campaigning in France instead of Scotland would change his monetary situation - except perhaps if his barons are more willing to bankroll him, see below.
If he can take lands in France which his barons want, then maybe they'll be more willing to keep going across the channel with him ("just one more battle and you can have another castle" "oh, okay then sire") - and maybe donate to his war chest as well (in kind if not in gold). French lands would have been more appealing to his barons than lands in Scotland. Also, with the fragmented nature of France at the time, there might well have been less ongoing resistance to the new English rulers than there was OTL in Scotland. Having a new barony is much better if it isn't in semi-constant rebellion, after all.

I still think his son would have ended up as a poor follow-up, but maybe not quite as bad as OTL. A friendly border in the north and some better holdings in France would certainly set Ed III up better for the Alt-HYW (which might not be as long...).
 
I don't see that campaigning in France instead of Scotland would change his monetary situation - except perhaps if his barons are more willing to bankroll him, see below.
If he can take lands in France which his barons want, then maybe they'll be more willing to keep going across the channel with him ("just one more battle and you can have another castle" "oh, okay then sire") - and maybe donate to his war chest as well (in kind if not in gold). French lands would have been more appealing to his barons than lands in Scotland. Also, with the fragmented nature of France at the time, there might well have been less ongoing resistance to the new English rulers than there was OTL in Scotland. Having a new barony is much better if it isn't in semi-constant rebellion, after all.

I think France was fragmented, but Philippe IV had already started to centralize/unify it. In my uneducated opinion I don't think it would be wrong to say that Philippe IV's reign was sort of the height of French centralized power for a while (given some of the reigns that came after him). So I can't see Philippe being all that eager about Ed running around in his backyard, disrupting this.
 
...I can't see Philippe being all that eager about Ed running around in his backyard, disrupting this.
Agreed, but perhaps the OTL 1294-1303 war might have gone better for the English if they'd not been trying to occupy Scotland at the same time. I agree that Phillipe would still likely have had the upper hand, but a few defeats and/or extra castles held/taken might have led to a stronger English position, particularly if the OTL alliance with Flanders still happened.
 
I still think his son would have ended up as a poor follow-up, but maybe not quite as bad as OTL. A friendly border in the north and some better holdings in France would certainly set Ed III up better for the Alt-HYW (which might not be as long...).

I agree. The war with France alone might have some successes and build things up for TTL Edward III. With extensive Gascony holdings, this should be a much easier war. It should be noted despite the discrepancy in population, tax base, and army size the Plantagenets nearly won the HYW since it was a civil war as much as a war between kingdoms. At one point Henry VI's regents actually had three times as many non-merc French (levies from Normandy and loyal counts) as they had English in their field armies in France. Once the momentum slid the other way, the French counts suddenly left the Plantagenet camp and all lined up behind the "right" claimant, but if TTL Edward III gets a head start, it shouldn't be a Hundred Years War. 30?
 
I agree. The war with France alone might have some successes and build things up for TTL Edward III. With extensive Gascony holdings, this should be a much easier war. It should be noted despite the discrepancy in population, tax base, and army size the Plantagenets nearly won the HYW since it was a civil war as much as a war between kingdoms. At one point Henry VI's regents actually had three times as many non-merc French (levies from Normandy and loyal counts) as they had English in their field armies in France. Once the momentum slid the other way, the French counts suddenly left the Plantagenet camp and all lined up behind the "right" claimant, but if TTL Edward III gets a head start, it shouldn't be a Hundred Years War. 30?


That may be true, but the Hundred Years War as we know it would be directly butterflied.

See, the reason for the war was because the Direct Capetians became extinct, and the throne went to Philip VI, who was the first cousin in the male line of Charles IV. Edwards III was the nephew of three French kings, Louis X, Philip V, and Charles IV, because his mother, Isabella of France, was their sister, and a child of Philip IV, while Philip VI was merely the nephew of said Philip IV.

In this timeline, since Edward II marries the Maid of Norway, and this Edward III would be the child of Margaret of Norway and Edward, it means that Edward II does not marry Isabella of France, and this Edward III would not be the grandchild of Philip the Fair, and thus, would not have any claim on the throne of France that is better than Philip VI.

And without any claim to the throne, there is no basis for the war as we know it. Any plausible war would be on the status of Gascony, which, as the War of Saint Sardos shows, and all wars since the time of King John, goes badly for the English. Why? Because the other French nobles would not support the English king, because they could not pretend that he is the rightful king of France, and therefore, not violate their feudal oaths.

In OTL, the supporters of the kings of England in France would say that they are not rebelling against the king of France, their rightful overlord, but merely supporting their liege, the rightful king of France, who happened to be the king of England. In this case, there would less ideological justification of supporting a rebellious vassal against their king.
 
Agreed, if Ed II of England marries Margaret. In fact, she was not engaged to him. Ed I of England wanted the engagement, probably to gain some level of control over Scotland, but the Treaty of Birgham specified that she would not be engaged prior to arrival in Scotland - see below.

If Ed II didn't marry Margaret, then there's a chance the OTL marriage would happen, which could still lead to an alt-HYW. I'm not saying that's definite, obviously, just that it's plausible.

Parliamentary Records said:
That the aforesaid lady, queen and heiress, come to the kingdom of England or Scotland before next All Saints' Day [1 November 1290], quit and free of all contract of marriage and espousal, which thing the aforesaid messengers of Norway have promised to procure in good faith, in so far as they can, during the aforesaid term, if she does not have a reasonable and allowable excuse in this part.
And the aforesaid king of England has promised in good faith that if the aforesaid lady comes, quit and free of all contract of marriage and espousal in her hand or in her custody, that when the kingdom of Scotland is in good and secure peace, with the proviso that she can come and stay there safely then, he is to be required by the good men of Scotland to send her to the kingdom of Scotland also quit and delivered of all contract of marriage
Source: Records of the Parliaments of Scotland
 
In this timeline, since Edward II marries the Maid of Norway, and this Edward III would be the child of Margaret of Norway and Edward, it means that Edward II does not marry Isabella of France, and this Edward III would not be the grandchild of Philip the Fair, and thus, would not have any claim on the throne of France that is better than Philip VI.

Good point, Friendly ghost mentioned that and I forgot about it.

And without any claim to the throne, there is no basis for the war as we know it. Any plausible war would be on the status of Gascony, which, as the War of Saint Sardos shows, and all wars since the time of King John, goes badly for the English.

Well actually they still have a plausible claim to NORMANDY, not France. But I digress, there might still be a succession war. There were actually 5 candidates considered for succession before the HYW, but only the Valois and Plantagenet ones actually tried. I think one of the claimants given name was Jean, I'll have to look it up. Someone actually mentioned a WI the Plnatagnets supported him instead. But you're right that if a succession war is fought, the Plantagenets have no claim over France and they'll only be backing whoever takes their side in Gascony.

In OTL, the supporters of the kings of England in France would say that they are not rebelling against the king of France, their rightful overlord, but merely supporting their liege, the rightful king of France, who happened to be the king of England. In this case, there would less ideological justification of supporting a rebellious vassal against their king.

Yes this is true. That's why some could fight for the Plantagnets in the Lancaster phase of the war. If a French succession war did develop and the PLantagnets backed an alternate claimant, any defections would technically be to Jean Whats-his-Face, not alt Edward III
 
In OTL, the supporters of the kings of England in France would say that they are not rebelling against the king of France, their rightful overlord, but merely supporting their liege, the rightful king of France, who happened to be the king of England. In this case, there would less ideological justification of supporting a rebellious vassal against their king.

I was actually thinking the opposite. He could be more successful, as he's promoting a defense of the lord's rights against the king.

Were there any prominent lords who defected to the English? I always interpreted their victories to be based on military supremacy, not powerful lords obeying their new king.
 
Were there any prominent lords who defected to the English? I always interpreted their victories to be based on military supremacy, not powerful lords obeying their new king.

Mostly defections were was counts and some minor nobles with something like "a mannor house and 3 knight households (with maybe 5 fighters)" The biggest defector was Phillip the Good who was arguably in it for himself rather than a true defector. In Edward III's time, he had some defections in the Flanders, Normandy, and Burgundy areas. After the Caroline phase of the war (where the Black Prince won some battlefield victories, lost some money, and gained nothing), the defectors either went into neutral, or died off while succesors moved into the Valois camp.

English OTL victories were indeed military supremacy. Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt show that. But even when it came to knights vs knights, the English usually won the horseback battle. The problem was that battlefield successes could not alone turn into war wins, even if you butterfly away the setback at Orleans and the disaster of Meung. You need to control castles.

Which means that their best shot into parlaying field battle victories into a win was keeping lords into the Plantagenet camp. The English alone could not make their liege King of France, their army would basically have to go home after a single huge defeat if not bolstered by French levies. This is why Henry VI being recognized by some of France was significant and offered consolidation possibilities. The problem was that Suffolk was a moron and Henry VI was mad.
 
I agree. The war with France alone might have some successes and build things up for TTL Edward III. With extensive Gascony holdings, this should be a much easier war. It should be noted despite the discrepancy in population, tax base, and army size the Plantagenets nearly won the HYW since it was a civil war as much as a war between kingdoms. At one point Henry VI's regents actually had three times as many non-merc French (levies from Normandy and loyal counts) as they had English in their field armies in France. Once the momentum slid the other way, the French counts suddenly left the Plantagenet camp and all lined up behind the "right" claimant, but if TTL Edward III gets a head start, it shouldn't be a Hundred Years War. 30?

I actually think the opposite. The Hundred Years War will be over faster, yes, but because France will win faster. An initial setback will only make the centralization process much faster if it is Philippe IV who is king. And once enough centralization happen, the English are doomed, as the difference in population and wealth make it too dificult for them to keep any gain for a prolonged time.
 
I actually think the opposite. The Hundred Years War will be over faster, yes, but because France will win faster. An initial setback will only make the centralization process much faster if it is Philippe IV who is king. And once enough centralization happen, the English are doomed, as the difference in population and wealth make it too dificult for them to keep any gain for a prolonged time.

Well first of all, remember Alt Edward III has no claim to the throne of France. This is something I forgot when Friendly Ghost mentioned it. So if there is a fight, it will either be backing up another claimant or abuse of Gascony by the Valois. Or maybe a succession war that is triggered by Gascony. Also, if the English are as competent as OTL without having that setback and money pit of Scotland, they might very well have de facto control of the English channel by the time the centralization is started, especially if Phillippe's nobles get as discouraged as John Softsowrd did after battlefield defeats.

In short, if the Plantagenets want to get their land in Gascony recognized and have control over the English channel back, it should be easier than OTL. If they want the French throne... well whose ancestry are they going to call up? Are they going to go for the "but the last Capet King of the senior line promised it to use"? I just made up that promise by the way.
 
In short, if the Plantagenets want to get their land in Gascony recognized and have control over the English channel back, it should be easier than OTL. If they want the French throne... well whose ancestry are they going to call up? Are they going to go for the "but the last Capet King of the senior line promised it to use"? I just made up that promise by the way.

They'll say they are defending the traditional rights of the lords of France.
 
Top