WI Edward the III Campaign's Were More Succesful

I know the title is a little ambiguous, what I mean by more successful is greater acquisition of territory. Basically I'm trying to right a timeline about Edward the III becoming King of France (and not just by claim) for a competition, however I know little to nothing about him or the era. So what I'm after some ideas upon how would history develop post coronation but more importantly how it could be done within the same rough timeframe. Would the Black Prince live longer? For how long could the Plantagenet's realistically survive? How would important historical events be butterflied and what is likely to still occur? Also if anyone knows of some great sources (not search engines and other pointless comments like it). Any help or ideas in general may also be of use. Thanks in advance,

-E.N
 
Sources wise (secondary) - CJ Rogers 'War Cruel and Sharp' is an excellent scholarly treatment of Edwards military campaigns from his first attacks on Scotland through his attacks on France ; I Mortimer 'The Perfect King' is a more popular biography of Edward, which includes some interesting commentary on the military bit, although Mortimers analysis of the Fieschi letter leads to some to question his thinking.

My thoughts are that it will be difficult to improve Edwards results - in Crecy and Poitiers there were two of the finest victories of English arms since his grandfather, possibly before that. The capture of both the King and dauphin at Poitiers shattered the French government - a more successful follow up campaign may have led to the retention of sovereignty claims but Bretaigny (sp?) was pretty much the most that could be expected.

Also remember the Black Death hit in the middle of this period which limits options
 
I know the title is a little ambiguous, what I mean by more successful is greater acquisition of territory. Basically I'm trying to right a timeline about Edward the III becoming King of France (and not just by claim) for a competition, however I know little to nothing about him or the era. So what I'm after some ideas upon how would history develop post coronation but more importantly how it could be done within the same rough timeframe. Would the Black Prince live longer? For how long could the Plantagenet's realistically survive? How would important historical events be butterflied and what is likely to still occur? Also if anyone knows of some great sources (not search engines and other pointless comments like it). Any help or ideas in general may also be of use. Thanks in advance,

-E.N

How could Edward III be militarily more successful than he actually was. This is the difficulty you are going to have to overcome.

The point is that he won huge military successes but that the solution of the conflict could not be military. It was and had to be political.

Just consider his great grandson Henry V.

His military successes were not bigger than his. But he earned much better and much more lastable political results because he was able to exploit a political opportunity : the civil war and rupture inside the french royal family that drove the Valois-Burgundy to back Edward III's ambitions for the throne.
 
My thoughts are that it will be difficult to improve Edwards results - in Crecy and Poitiers there were two of the finest victories of English arms since his grandfather, possibly before that. The capture of both the King and dauphin at Poitiers shattered the French government - a more successful follow up campaign may have led to the retention of sovereignty claims but Bretaigny (sp?) was pretty much the most that could be expected.

So with battles such as Crecy and Poitiers, could increased French causalities and decreased English casualties be of a positive effect for such a timeline. Something like 2-3,000 surely wouldn't enter the ASB category? By capturing the King and Dauphin could it be possible that this would be used as leverage upon other major houses of France. Maybe Edward could claim it is the "will of god" for him to be King. The Black Plague could be used as evidence that this is "God's will" (if it is timed correctly). What dose anyone else think about the plausibility of such?

How could Edward III be militarily more successful than he actually was. This is the difficulty you are going to have to overcome.

The point is that he won huge military successes but that the solution of the conflict could not be military. It was and had to be political.

Just consider his great grandson Henry V.

His military successes were not bigger than his. But he earned much better and much more lastable political results because he was able to exploit a political opportunity : the civil war and rupture inside the french royal family that drove the Valois-Burgundy to back Edward III's ambitions for the throne.

Perhaps with the above mentioned altered casualties would be as far as any further military success could go, at least in Edward's reign. Could there be anything that would be able to cement Valois-Burgundy support for Edward and maybe expand it slightly?

Also thanks for those two sources larpsidekick, looking into them currently.
 
Even if Edward doesn't become the French King, you could at least get him out the feudal noose of paying dues and fealty of his french lands to them. Least allows him the ability, or his descendants, to expand English presence there and then further when needed. Though this would need to entail the french nobles in the English domains to agree as well, which is something they weren't keen on, as quite a few liked that they could go around the English to the French on things.
 
Even if Edward doesn't become the French King, you could at least get him out the feudal noose of paying dues and fealty of his french lands to them. Least allows him the ability, or his descendants, to expand English presence there and then further when needed. Though this would need to entail the french nobles in the English domains to agree as well, which is something they weren't keen on, as quite a few liked that they could go around the English to the French on things.

The treaty of Bretaigny (1360) gave Edward Guyenne and Gascony; Poitou, Agenais, Pontheiu, Sangatte, Calais,Guines and some others, as well as all Islands held by the King of England free and without performing homage - so your suggestion is OTL.

So with battles such as Crecy and Poitiers, could increased French causalities and decreased English casualties be of a positive effect for such a timeline. Something like 2-3,000 surely wouldn't enter the ASB category? By capturing the King and Dauphin could it be possible that this would be used as leverage upon other major houses of France. Maybe Edward could claim it is the "will of god" for him to be King. The Black Plague could be used as evidence that this is "God's will" (if it is timed correctly). What dose anyone else think about the plausibility of such?

Perhaps with the above mentioned altered casualties would be as far as any further military success could go, at least in Edward's reign. Could there be anything that would be able to cement Valois-Burgundy support for Edward and maybe expand it slightly?

Also thanks for those two sources larpsidekick, looking into them currently.

Sorry EN, you seem to have misunderstood me - Edwards armies did capture King John and his son at Poitiers and this was what led to the above mentioned treaty of Bretaigny. Also, Crecy and Poitiers were huge victories by outnumbered English/Welsh forces, seen as miraculous at the time, and so don't have much scope for improvement in terms of casualties, or of the impact of increased casualties. I am of the belief that little could have improved the scope of Edwards military success, what may be possible (highly difficult though) is to have the French Crown accept the ToB as the status quo for longer than it did
 
The problem for the Plantagenet's ambition to succeed was political, not military.

Edward III and the Black Prince won all the victories they could hope. They did literally win an astounding series of victories. They had the enormous luck of facing incompetent french commanders.

And however they could not win the war militarily because England in the late middle ages, even including its french holdings (that at times were huge), just did not have the financial resources to conquer France and have them reckoned as king of France, nor even to retain the huge territories that the Valois ceded at the treaty of Bretigny.

Just consider that, after they had decently replenished their strength, it took the french barely 2,000 men to regain in less than a decade all the territories they had ceded.

It was the age when national consciousnesses were slowly but actually taking shape.

The defeat of Britain was scealed this context and in the Plantagenet's inability to devise the right political strategy.

There have been quite many examples in history where a superior military power eventually loses a war on the political field and is unable to hold in the long run all the territories it has conquered.

Consider emperor Trajan. He conquered all Mesopotamia but was politically unable to hold it because he had not devised a strategy that would win him the loyalty of the local ruling elite.

Consider how, on the contrary, Alexander the great and Seleucos I successfully won and kept control of the persian empire : by integrating the local elite and by turning themselves into persians living most of their time in the heart of the persian empire, ... etc.

Edward III happened to be one of the kings that made decisive advances ... in the emergence of english consciousness. He created a kind of english national army. He was the one who turned what could have remained a feudal war between 2 rival dynasts into a war that was fought as a national war.

Such a political strategy was doomed. One can't have himself accepted as king of an other kingdom if he acts and is perceived as the king of a foreign country trying to gain advantages for this other country at the expense of the country of which he wants to become king too.

Especially if the targeted country is 4 to 5 times as big (in terms of populations and wealth) as the would-be conqueror.

And Henry V understood this contradiction. That's why he devised a political king in order to try having himself accepted as the legitimate king of France by way of adoption.
 
Top