France, Scotland and the Tripartite Indenture, 1405

[cincpac overboard]

Some time ago I posted a thread about the Tripartite Indenture, and asked what would have happened to the constituent parts (Wales, "Northumbria", and southern England) in the event that Henry IV had been defeated and killed by the allied factions of the Glyndwr Rising. The most reasoned responses agreed that the situation was untenable, and that the southern England portion would have eventually reestablished control over the north and Wales. My question now is could France and Scotland have taken advantage of the situation to make the eventual reunification as costly as possible for England. France at least seems to have a window of opportunity, given the OTL civil war hasn't broken out yet between the Armagnac and Burgundy factions. Is Scotland in a position to make some territorial expansion against a Percy-led 'Northumbria' that is likely embroiled in civil war from the moment of its birth?

 

[dcharles]

IDK. I disagree that a re-establishment of control is inevitable. If two of the three parts of the indenture could ally against England, the situation is quite tenable.

 

[how]

France would be able to take over the little continental holdings England had left at the time (Bordeaux, Bayonne and Calais) and possible even the Channel Islands, the Scots were not in the best position to attack, the crushing defeat at the Battle of Homildon Hill put them in a precarious spot with the rebellion being the only reason a full scale invasion was not launched by Henry IV, it was the aftermath of this battle that caused Percy to switch to the rebels as the northern lords had not be allowed to ransom the captured Scottish nobles.

 

[cincpac overboard]

I disagree that a re-establishment of control is inevitable. If two of the three parts of the indenture could ally against England, the situation is quite tenable.

I see two main drivers of instability for a Percy-led 'Northumbria'. The first is the confusion over who the lords of northern England now owe fealty to. Would it be to the de facto ruler of the north, House Percy, or would it be to the king of 'England', which I believe is Edmund Mortimer? The second is that House Percy is not overwhelmingly dominant in northern England. House Neville is a powerful rival, and should Edmund or one of his heirs attempt reunification, they would probably abandon the Percys for the chance to become the dominant force north of the Humber.

France would be able to take over the little continental holdings England had left at the time (Bordeaux, Bayonne and Calais) and possible even the Channel Islands

Lets say that happens: do you see Charles VI of France willing to send military expeditions to Wales and the Percys, to prop up their rule in order to keep England divided? OTL he was in 1405 when he aided his new ally Owain Glyndwr, but I wonder if this will still be a possibility if the Armagnac-Burgundy civil war starts up as it did in 1407. What concessions is he likely to demand of Glyndwr and House Percy for this assistance?

 

[how]

Lets say that happens: do you see Charles VI of France willing to send military expeditions to Wales and the Percys, to prop up their rule in order to keep England divided? OTL he was in 1405 when he aided his new ally Owain Glyndwr, but I wonder if this will still be a possibility if the Armagnac-Burgundy civil war starts up as it did in 1407. What concessions is he likely to demand of Glyndwr and House Percy for this assistance?

I think he would withdraw support once the treaty is put into action as it is essentially mission accomplished, their great rival England has been ruined and attention would shift to internal French politics and centralisation. France already had the Auld alliance and now also would be an ally of Wales so it would be excessive to invest in the Percy domain as they would be overcommiting in the British Isles unless it is phase one of a French take over but that would be very unlikely and France could not support the force required to take England over. France would have ensured its security from its greatest threat and be better off with England now divided but I don't think they would need to invest in maintaining the division so long as they at least prop up Wales and Scotland then the job has been done, besides look at the alternative the third phase of the hundred years war has been effectively averted, there would be no Henry V, no Agincourt etc. Without the third phase of the hundred years war without the humbling they recieved from the English then expect to see the rot in the French military and aristocracy to continue.

With the two English realms the area of contention to me would be East Anglia as it was valuable for the medieval wool trade, without the region the north would be cut off from the wealth generated from exports of cloth to the continent and lose out on these continental trade links so expect to see the Percy's try to get it if possible.

I also wonder what would happen in Ireland, I assume the pale would be lost either becoming independent or being taken over by a local Irish lord, how would Ireland develop without the English, would the Scottish fill the role the English played or could the Irish possibly unify.

 

[cincpac overboard]

the third phase of the hundred years war has been effectively averted, there would be no Henry V, no Agincourt etc. Without the third phase of the hundred years war without the humbling they recieved from the English then expect to see the rot in the French military and aristocracy to continue.

What do you see internal French politics looking like with no third phase of the war? Was Charles VI a strong monarch despite his bouts of psychosis or was he a puppet of the nobility? I wonder how an alternate Armagnac-Burgundy civil war proceeds without English involvement.

With the two English realms the area of contention to me would be East Anglia as it was valuable for the medieval wool trade, without the region the north would be cut off from the wealth generated from exports of cloth to the continent and lose out on these continental trade links so expect to see the Percy's try to get it if possible.

If the rump state of England loses its French and Irish holdings, how shaky do you think Edmund Mortimer's rule become? Would their lose be seen as an unacceptable stain on English honor (and anger whichever lords would lose property), or would Mortimer's hand be strengthened since he now has no foreign distractions to him centralizing his rule?

 

[how]

What do you see internal French politics looking like with no third phase of the war? Was Charles VI a strong monarch despite his bouts of psychosis or was he a puppet of the nobility? I wonder how and alternate Armagnac-Burgundy civil war proceeds without English involvement.

Sadly this is tough for me to answer I do not know a great deal about French dynastic politics at this point in time I only have a surface knowledge so can't go into more depth than what I have already said.

If the rump state of England loses its French and Irish holdings, how shaky do you think Edmund Mortimer's rule become? Would their lose be seen as an unacceptable stain on English honor (and anger whichever lords would lose property), or would Mortimer's hand be strengthened since he now has no foreign distractions to him centralizing his rule?

Well he still controls the wealthier and more populous half but he has given away substantial parts of the kingdom and created two powerful enemies on his border just so he can become king so I imagine his rule will be unstable initially, lords who have holdings on the other side of the channel and/or had invested into Calais will not be happy for starters, along with anyone who will be left without holdings in the north / Wales, it could perhaps spark another barons war with the southern barons wanting to rip up any agreements with Northumbria, Wales and France and retake their lands, plus who knows how parliament in London feels about all of this.