WI:England wins the Hundred year's war

What sort of victory do you want?

Just a status quo ante bellum or are we pressing the English claim to the French throne to victory?

As I see it, If the status of the crown is unresolved, that is either France pushes England off the continent, or England is victorious, or there is some compromise candidate accepted, then any status quo ante bellum will eventually lead to renewed conflict so the 100 years war may become the 150 years war.

If however we are pressing the claim to the throne, then it's a resurrected Angevin Empire+. This would be both a powerful and administratively complex state to control and I can see a long term administrative division emerging similar to the German and Italian crowns in the HRE.
 
What sort of victory do you want?

Just a status quo ante bellum or are we pressing the English claim to the French throne to victory?

As I see it, If the status of the crown is unresolved, that is either France pushes England off the continent, or England is victorious, or there is some compromise candidate accepted, then any status quo ante bellum will eventually lead to renewed conflict so the 100 years war may become the 150 years war.

If however we are pressing the claim to the throne, then it's a ressurected Angevin Empire+. This would be both a powerful and administratively complex state to control and I can see a long term administrative division emerging similar to the German and Italian crowns in the HRE.
They don't take the throne,they just keep what they had in France.
 
England can't win the "hundred years war" because England is not waging the hundred years war. The Plantagenet kings of England are.

We have to be clear about the "hundreds year war"is. Its a series of wars, taking place over a hundred years, that involved the Kings of France taking back the remaining Plantagenet held fiefs in southwestern France, and centralizing control of France, as well as establishing the Valois branch of the Capet line of the throne of France. This also involved fending off the ambitions of the cadet Burgundian line. England was involved because the Dukes of Guyenne were also Kings of England. The English Parliament voted to fund military expeditions to France in return for a greater say over the government -which turned out to matter hugely- and also many English nobles also had holdings in France.

Due to the change to the valois line, the Kings of England also had a claim to the French throne, which they pursued with various degrees of seriousness to given them a legal and PR advantage, though the claim was pursued very seriously in the mid 1400s and they actually came close to getting established on the French throne.

"England"never wins because "England "is not trying to take French territory. The only way for "England"to win is not to play.

The Plantagenets can still wind up in possession of Guyenne at the end of the fifteenth century and even expand their holdings in France. They might get out of having to pay homage to the King of France as well. Anything along those lines counts as a win. This does have big ramifications for England and France, for England because their Kings are more involved in southwestern France, and because there are increased economic and cultural ties to southwestern France that did in fact develop in the late Middle Ages IOTL. The French Kings and France get a huge headache that IOTL they got rid of, leaving France less able to intervene in Italy or Flanders for example.

If you get Henry V of England and his successors established on the throne of France, that is a different type of win with different ramifications. What you get is a dual English/ French monarchy. Because France is the more important half, eventually the Plategenet kings focus on France and England drifts away, it may even successfully revolt, say under the Yorkist branch.

And either outcome produces butterflies affecting the course of the Protestant reformation in England and France.
 
The invasion of France by Henry V had important dynastic ramifications in France but also in England.

France had an insane King, Charles VI, and was plunging into a civil war as the Burgundian branch of the Valois pushed their claims. Essentially Henry V intervened on the Burgundian side. Defeat that and you still have a civil war in France that could still lead to a change in dynasty.

However, the implications for England were greater. Henry V married a daughter of Charles VI. Their son, Henry VI of England, also crowned King of France, turned out to be insane at times. Some historians think the problem was genetic and inherited from his maternal grandfather. Because of the incapacity of Henry VI, it was England that plunged into a civil war, involving the claims of another Plantagenet branch. And this results in a new English dynasty, based on a family not even in the running (the Tudors were a Welsh family with ties by marriage to Henry V's French Queen and later to the Yorkist branch of the Plantagenet, its very easy to get that dynasty butterflied away).

Obviously stop Henry V and the marriage to Catherine of Valois doesn't happen, and no insane heir and probably no or a very different Wars of the Roses. But the OP postulates an "English" victory. But this still can butterfly away the Wars of the Roses.

Henry VI got into trouble because he was seen as incapable. And he was seen as incapable due to the defeats in France. But a good part of the reason for the defeats in France was because Henry VI really was incapable. Suppose the POD is a capable Henry VI? Or the POD is that Henry V lives longer, in which case he would have had other heirs and may well have taken steps to remove his first born son from the line of succession (for example, get him to renounce the throne and pursue an ecclesiastical career, which IOTL Henry VI probably would have been OK with). Most PODs with greater Plantagenet success in France will butterfly the Wars of the Roses away. And they will be good for the Burgundian Valois branch too.
 
It depends what you mean by victory.
If you meant English kings enforcing their claims to the French throne, then it would be really hard : the only realistic PoD I could think of would be Henry V living on, while Charles VII and his son would timely die at Bourges. It would make Henry the sole clear successors, as the next in line to French throne in Valois dynasty would have been Louis of Orléans, then hostage in England.
The Armagnac and Armagnac-sided nobility, while still powerful, would be more or less headless and eventually probably acknowledging Lancaster's suzerainty in exchange of a relative independence of French nobilities south of Loire.

Of course, such situation would leave Burgundy with a large influence in Northern France, that would be directly detrimental to French interests : the Lancaster-Valois-Burgundy alliance was souple at best, and could entierly disappear if Lancasters wanted to affirm further their rights in France, of if Burgundy decided they could do without Lancasters or even claim the throne.

At this point, the Lancaster personal union cease to be England, as other said : would it be on demographical grounds the difference between England ( 2,5 millions) and France (16 millions) let little doubt : the double-monarchy would be for England what act of Union was for Scotland, not to mention the economical disprency or the cultural domination 'favoured by what remains of Anglo-Norman features in England).

Other than this PoD, I don't think it was really winnable for England : the war of attrition clearly favoured a wealthy France that benefited from more finely tuned fiscal and military resources than an England that was plagued by a Parliment that required the king to make fructuous campaign at little cost.

It was the reason why most Plantagenêts (directs of Lancasters) rather searched something along independence from french suzerainty on the continent.
It's basically the core of the Treaty of Brétigny (where the super-Aquitaine was technically a proper holding of England, or rather the Prince of Wales), what might have happened if Edward survived longer and what might have been attempted in the XVth century if Thomas Lancaster became king instead of Henry V, creating a new Aquitain principalty benefiting from Armagnac-Bourguignon civil war.

The thing was that Valois never saw these treaties or concessions anything but temporary repsites, a way to gather their forces before taking these back : IOTL Charles V, after a time, just resumed to treat Aquitaine like it was still under his suzerainty (even if it was kinda not according Brétigny*), helping Gascon lords that complained about Edward's increasing fiscal pressure. With Plantagenet complaining, he basically answered that the treaty was never enforced, and declared war on Plantagenets for being bad vassals.

That's how much he cared for Brétigny, and how Valois would eventually go : "lol, gtfo n00b" that it would have been the same. It's more or less the textbook exemple of Capetian/Plantagenêts conflcits and how they began anew since the XIIth century.

*Technically, the treaty was never applied soooo....
 
Last edited:
Top