WI: France permanently split up by Hundreds Year War

RousseauX

Donor
The last phase of the hundreds year war was really a civil war between two branches of the French royal house, House of Burgundy and the Dukes of Orleans. The English were essentially invited in and formed an alliance with the Burgundians and at one point the Anglo-Burgundian force took over most of northern France, with a Burgundian government in Paris. The deathblow to the English in the war came when burgundy broke their alliance and became the neutral party and the French crown finished the english off.

lEINerY.png


What if Burgundy kept permanent control of northern France and France ends up divided? By the 1400s the Dukes of Burgundy are already thinking of themselves more as an independent entity rather than an appendage of the French royal house.

A good PoD is avoiding the death of John of Bedford who was the brother of Henry V and who was an extraordinarily talented soldier and statesman. He kept the alliance going and English successful on the battlefield and the alliance fell apart after he died. Let's say he gets 30 more years to live (so until he's in his mid 70s) and Burgundy/English solidifies their hold on northern France. While the French crown holds the south.

Let's say something like otl war of roses still happen in England and the English has to reduce their commitment on the continent and English holdings in SW France falls as per otl, but Burgundy holds onto northern France including Paris (under their control now that the English pulled out) and the English holds onto Normandy.

Burgundy now holds a connected core of territory in modern day France, Belgium and Netherlands. Which are some of the wealthiest and most productive parts of Europe. While the French crown controls central and southern France. Burgundy and France are effectively two different countries at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Burgundy#/media/File:Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png

What comes next? France's rise to great power status has effectively being severely derailed, while Burgundy has a much better chance of surviving since it is no longer sandwiched by France to the west and the Hapsburg to the east. They are going to be benefactors of the rise of capitalism in Amsterdam and Antwerp. Does Burgundy become a great colonial power? Does it become "mega-Netherlands" and establish some sort of northern European hegemony? Or does it fall to the same problem as it did otl?
 
The best way to split France at this point would be having Henry V or Henry VI being acknwoledged as kings of France with the death of both Charles VIII and Louis IX, that would make Lancasters the sole clear successor,s as Louis d'Orléans (the next-in-line for what mattered loyalists or rather what would have remained), would have been hostage in England). It would make the Armagnac and Armagnac-sided nobility and elites, while holding a significant power and virtual independence south of Loire, headless and IMO acknowledging Lancaster's suzerainty as long it remains relatively symboli

Of course, such situation would leave Burgundy with a large influence in Northern France (I'd suggest using this map rather than the one you posted) that would be directly detrimental to French interests, and these are at this point Lancaster's 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 (with English rights, which were not really clear to begin with, being politically validated, it opens the can of worm with anyone close enough to the royal line to possibly have a go at it).
At this point, the Lancaster personal union would be a French led-union, as other said on this board: would it be on demographical grounds only 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).
It's possible, tough, that the dominance of the French part wouldn't be obvious in the immediate aftermath (especially because of the troubles in Normandy and Brittany, which harboured a significant pro-Valois movement) and that the English nobility would fight their eventual geopolitical decline while Henry V would be more focused on macropolitics at least for a while (he did planned, for instance, a crusade to take place : I don't think it would be the case, but Henry saw big, and might overlook one way or another regional issues until it becomes a political hinderance).

The main problem with a Burgundian/Armagnac civil war continuation without England meddling in it was that Burgundian faction was not interested on just splitting away (and neither Orléans/Armagnacs) but ruling the whole of the thing. IOTL, Burgundian dukes were content with an influence in France and focusing on Rhine basin, because whoever ruled in France was more or less inexpugnable thanks to their relative alliance. ITTL, if Burgundian make a go at the throne, the IOTL alliance between them and Armagnacs would eventually be made at the benefit of their claims, even if it means a significantly autonomous southern nobiliar estates.
 
Top