WI: Edward I doesn't try and conquer Scotland?

So no William Wallace, no Flower of Scotland, and no shitty movies with whatshisface in them.

Edward I, after Margaret, the Maid of Norway, dies, decides: "you know what, screw it" and just leaves the Scottish alone, deciding that it's much preferable to just deal with France, and try and raise his son to be a decent king. How does this change things?
 

Thande

Donor
Not in his character and would be seen as a missed political opportunity.

However he could certainly have been less heavy-handed, ie restrict himself to installing Balliol as a pliable anglophile candidate without intending to use that as a stepping stone to full annexation by England.
 

Zioneer

Banned
If he doesn't conquer Scotland, and instead attempts to pummel France around, I think he'll have less success, but the English possessions in France will last slightly longer. Not much longer, but I think Edward's war-machine would be good enough to help the English continental domains last a little longer.
 
So no William Wallace, no Flower of Scotland, and no shitty movies with whatshisface in them.

Edward I, after Margaret, the Maid of Norway, dies, decides: "you know what, screw it" and just leaves the Scottish alone, deciding that it's much preferable to just deal with France, and try and raise his son to be a decent king. How does this change things?

Are you trying to move this thread to ASB?:p
 
Edward could have been subtler in manipulating John Balliol, doing just enough to ensure that Scotland would not be a threat when he was busy invading France,without openly trying to vassalize or puppetize the state. Maybe he could have reconquered Normandy.
 
Stranger things have happened than men like Edward I having capable successors, but not many.

It's not in Longshanks make up to raise Edward II to be competant. The drive and ambition of the man added to his dominating and domineering personality and volcanic temper were never going to be the hallmarks of a good father who nurtured the development of his children and helped them become competant in their work, confident in themselves or successful in their lives.

If Edward II has been raised away from his father, independent of his father's influence he may have developed into a more confident and competant individual - talented on the other hand...probably not - maybe if he had gone on crusade himself he might have leant how to be a soldier, or maybe he would have been captured or killed after doing something stupid.

Maybe if Edmund Crouchback hadn't died besieging Bordeaux and lived until 1305 or something he would have been a better influence on his nephew.
 
Well, its not as if Frederick the Great's father was good father material, but at least some of what he did was beneficial (or at least he failed to ruin his son entirely). I'm fairly sure there are other examples, but he's the first one that comes to mind.

Edward (Longshanks) might have a similar impact on Prince Edward - but that would require someone else to make up for the bad parts.

Edmund might be good here as you said. I don't know much about him but he seems to have lacked his brother's ferocity and aggressiveness in the sense those are flaws.
 
I can't find much infomation about Crouchback but he seems to have been a competant soldier and diplomat, completely loyal to his brother and whom he shared a loving relationship with, and a much more peaceable fellow than his brother. Certainly its possible he could have had a positive impact on his nephew if he hadn't fallen ill and died at Bordeaux.
 
Certainly couldn't have hurt. For some reason I have the impression Edmund was also a good administrator, but I can't remember why now.

Just struck me at some point he sounded like a man who was short on glory but not ability.
 
If he had the same drive as his brother he might have had that glory but he seems to have been content just to play a supporting role to Longshanks' ambitions.
 
If he had the same drive as his brother he might have had that glory but he seems to have been content just to play a supporting role to Longshanks' ambitions.

Yeah. An interesting what if I'd like to explore some day if I ever find out enough on him to do it would be "What if Edmund becomes king?"

Edmund might still take Wales and certainly fight France, but Scotland seems likely to be dealt with fairly - and not as in "fair treatment by a conqueror".
 
The best PoD is to keep Alexander III from falling off a Fife cliff in 1286 and have him live another two decades, producing an heir along the way - after all he was only in his forties, apparently fit and healthy, and most importantly, he had just remarried. Even if Edward I doesn't treat John Balliol like crap, the latter still owes him homage for the Scottish Crown and Edward is going to call that in at some point or another.
 
Even if Edward I doesn't treat John Balliol like crap, the latter still owes him homage for the Scottish Crown and Edward is going to call that in at some point or another.
He'll want to, yes, but I'm pretty sure we can arrange things in the Hundred Years' War so he won't have time. For that matter, perhaps he gets killed in battle, causing Balliol to refuse to pay homage to his son?
 
I think that in that situation John Balliol would have done what William the Lion did with Richard the Lionheart back in 1189 - bought his way out of vassalage. But if Edward does go and fight in France I can't imagine he wouldn't demand military assistance from Balliol - it doesn't seem in his nature.
 
I think that in that situation John Balliol would have done what William the Lion did with Richard the Lionheart back in 1189 - bought his way out of vassalage. But if Edward does go and fight in France I can't imagine he wouldn't demand military assistance from Balliol - it doesn't seem in his nature.

Wasn't that one of the reasons Balliol declared war against Longshanks in OTL? That Longshanks demanded Scottish troops for his wars against France and demanded the Scottish King go with them.
 
Wasn't that one of the reasons Balliol declared war against Longshanks in OTL? That Longshanks demanded Scottish troops for his wars against France and demanded the Scottish King go with them.
Balliol didn't declare war, he just refused to supply the spear-chuckers Edward deemed to be his by right of his being overlord of Scotland.
 
I can't find much infomation about Crouchback but he seems to have been a competant soldier and diplomat, completely loyal to his brother and whom he shared a loving relationship with, and a much more peaceable fellow than his brother. Certainly its possible he could have had a positive impact on his nephew if he hadn't fallen ill and died at Bordeaux.
Interesting, I'd forgotten that he was invested by Innocent IV as King of Sicily to try to destabilise Conrad IV and his descendents and attempt to bring it more under Papal influence. Now I've got an urge to see if it's somehow possible to get a timeline where Edmund doesn't die at Bordeaux and also somehow manages to take possession of Sicily. A Plantagenant Kingdom of Sicily could be amusing. :)
 
Wasn't his objective to rule Scotland so he could have a free hand in France?

He started messing with them long before there were any issues in France.

Prior to this, Richard I had decreed that the English would totally recognise Scotlands independence, compared to before when they had suggested that the Scottish king was actually subservient to the English one.

Edward I grew up believing that the facts were that the Scottish were subservient, and Richard was simply being nice to them, whilst the Scottish believed that they had always been independent, and that Richard I had recognised this fact.

Also, there was little issue of the Scots causing trouble, at least before the chances of civil war between Baliol and Bruce, the border had been decided on in Henry's time.

But even so, the Scots regularly had to politely refuse invitations by English kings, or publicly (but again politely) remind the King of their independence. Alexander did so on his wedding day, and did so again when Alexander was obliged to do homage to Edward as a landowner in England.

Therefore, when it was suggested after Alexander died that Edwards son marry the Maid of Norway, he saw an opportunity not only to secure his own borders from the violence of a Scottish civil war, but to pave the way for an Englishman to rule a united Kingdom, stretching from the channel to the North Sea.

After Margaret died however, there was still the issue of civil war in Scotland. Robert the Bruce stated in a letter that if Edward assisted him in taking the throne, Robert would be willing to accept that Scotland was subservient to England.

My POD would be that Edward did not believe him, accurately judging from past experience and from the experience of his father that the Scottish would never accept English rule, and that any Scottish king who did try to state his subservience to England would have to fight against his own lords, opening up Edwards lands to the danger of a Scottish civil war. Thus, he concluded that trying was pointless, but, if he put Baliol on the throne, Bruce would probably try and rebel against him. If that happened, Edward could offer his "assistance" against Bruce, and then use that opportunity to get more concessions from the Scots. Land, money etc.
 
Top