WI no vision of Jeanne D'arc, Orleans falls

[A Random Person]

What if Joan of arc did not receive her vision and take up the cause against the English?

Orleans falls and the Dauphin is put to the sword. What would be the immediate consequences of English France?

What would be the long term possibilities?

Would we see an independent Burgundy, or would it be part of England or an English Vassal?

 

[Makemakean]

What if Joan of arc did not receive her vision and take up the cause against the English?

Orleans falls and the Dauphin is put to the sword. What would be the immediate consequences of English France?

What would be the long term possibilities?

Would we see an independent Burgundy, or would it be part of England or an English Vassal?

To be completely honest, I would kind of anticipate that if the English won the Hundred Years' war, with a Plantagenet monarch reigning over France, he might very well prefer to reign from Paris to reigning from London. England would over time become little more than an exotic, albeit rebellious, French province.

 

[twovultures]

To be completely honest, I would kind of anticipate that if the English won the Hundred Years' war, with a Plantagenet monarch reigning over France, he might very well prefer to reign from Paris to reigning from London. England would over time become little more than an exotic, albeit rebellious, French province.

Could the English really occupy all of France successfully though? Even with great military victories, the English could still face guerilla war from some of the more desperate nobles and if they piss off the local population they could face some very large peasant uprisings. Even if they succeed in putting down all these rebellions, the cost would quickly become prohibitive.

 

[Razgriz 2K9]

In all honesty, the answer to that question is quite likely to be difficult to answer.

Now granted, this is all in an age before Nationalism, so I can see that should the Plantagenets play their cards right, we might see an Anglo-French state last to say the 19th century, maybe even to the 20th.

But, you do bring up the point of the possibility of guerilla warfare from desperate nobles (I can see that coming from the noble houses of Armagnac and possibly Bourbon as well.) As for the population, I'll answer this with another question. How did the English treat the local population in the French territories they've already occupied?

In my opinion, I don't really see them conquering all of France and its vassals. At best, I could probably see the Valois being driven to the Occitan and Provencal speaking areas, but that's my best bet.

 

[el t]

Jeanne D'arc

In all honesty, the answer to that question is quite likely to be difficult to answer.

Now granted, this is all in an age before Nationalism, so I can see that should the Plantagenets play their cards right, we might see an Anglo-French state last to say the 19th century, maybe even to the 20th.

But, you do bring up the point of the possibility of guerilla warfare from desperate nobles (I can see that coming from the noble houses of Armagnac and possibly Bourbon as well.) As for the population, I'll answer this with another question. How did the English treat the local population in the French territories they've already occupied?

In my opinion, I don't really see them conquering all of France and its vassals. At best, I could probably see the Valois being driven to the Occitan and Provencal speaking areas, but that's my best bet.

I agree. And what happens with Henry VI? I speculate that he would not be able to hold much of France. This makes for a more interesting Wars of the Roses, with perhaps both factions being forced to make concessions to the French, in order to fight in England.

 

[Elfwine]

I agree. And what happens with Henry VI? I speculate that he would not be able to hold much of France. This makes for a more interesting Wars of the Roses, with perhaps both factions being forced to make concessions to the French, in order to fight in England.

Well, given that the Wars of the Roses happened OTL because of failure/s in France, I think we have some very irate butterflies intent on derailing its course.

 

[Alex Richards]

I think this is one of those situations which can lead to a HRE like France. Burgundy, Armagnac and what's left of the Valois and Bourbon houses will probably be, by and large, independent. England hasn't got the resources to hold onto all of France, but has a far better tax collecting system and administration meaning that it's still essential for a Plantaganate to treat the country well.

Most like outcome IMO is that England loses most of France, but comes out keeping Normandy, Calais and Gascony on a much longer term than OTL. Possibly Brittany, more of Aquitane and the Ile de France as well at a push. Biggest result will be a more stable and succesful Burgundy most likely.

 

[MNP]

I love Jehanne, but someone do this timeline!

 

[Larus Marinus]

There is no way an Anglo-French state born out of the HYW would last for long. At best we'll see the kingdoms split in two, with one heir getting England and the other getting France. This could lead to more friendly Anglo-French relations, but could also lead to increased tensions later down the line due to potential religious differences and squabbling over inheritances etc.

There's also the issue of the status of provinces such as Calais, Normandy and Gascony even if the kingdoms aren't split. If they are made part of the French state, the English lose a very important source of revenue*...But if they remain part of England, then what does that say about the new King of France?

As for Burgundy; it would most likely remain de facto independent, but nonetheless be something of a nominal vassal of France. In some ways, we might see a return to the earlier days of the Burgundian dukes, where they were in near complete control of the French state. If nothing else, the English will be heavily reliant on Burgundy to maintain their position in France. This could get very dangerous in the long run for the English; "House of Capet trying to rule France with Aquitaine owning half the country" bad.

The remnants of the Armagnac party will most likely keep sowing dissent and making it a pain in the arse for any Plantagenet king to rule France, especially in the territories were they had a lot of influence OTL. The king would most likely have to grant quite a few privileges etc. to the French nobility to keep them at least semi-loyal. As Alex said, this could easily result in France destabilizing further and eventually going down the HRE route.


*Even in the event of the two kingdoms remaining united in the person of one king, I doubt said king would get away with spending French resources on England or vice versa.

 

[Vingilótë]

I love Jehanne, but someone do this timeline!

Scipio Africanus has been writing a TL which is sort of like this; There's an earlier POD; but Joan of Arc is nerfed from the TL shortly after she appears.

 

[Elfwine]

There is no way an Anglo-French state born out of the HYW would last for long. At best we'll see the kingdoms split in two, with one heir getting England and the other getting France.

In the unlikely turn of events that France is made to acknowledge Henry VI as king, why?

 

[Razgriz 2K9]

There is no way an Anglo-French state born out of the HYW would last for long. At best we'll see the kingdoms split in two, with one heir getting England and the other getting France. This could lead to more friendly Anglo-French relations, but could also lead to increased tensions later down the line due to potential religious differences and squabbling over inheritances etc.

To reiterate Elfwine, Why do you think that? This is 15th century England, not the 9th century Frankish Empire. I do not think there is laws that state that the King of England must divide his demense and titles among all of his male children upon death.

There's also the issue of the status of provinces such as Calais, Normandy and Gascony even if the kingdoms aren't split. If they are made part of the French state, the English lose a very important source of revenue*...But if they remain part of England, then what does that say about the new King of France?

*Even in the event of the two kingdoms remaining united in the person of one king, I doubt said king would get away with spending French resources on England or vice versa.

This one, I do not know for sure. I can't really see who will have the final say in said territories without ailenating either the English barons or the French nobles, or both.

As for Burgundy; it would most likely remain de facto independent, but nonetheless be something of a nominal vassal of France. In some ways, we might see a return to the earlier days of the Burgundian dukes, where they were in near complete control of the French state. If nothing else, the English will be heavily reliant on Burgundy to maintain their position in France. This could get very dangerous in the long run for the English; "House of Capet trying to rule France with Aquitaine owning half the country" bad.

I doubt England would want to give Burgundy de facto control over it's French domains, and I say this not only because of what you said Kuld, but also because I feel that the Plantagenets would probably want to rule Anglo-France from Paris (which I believe was a much grander city to rule in a possible Anglo-French Union) rather than from Westminster/London.

The remnants of the Armagnac party will most likely keep sowing dissent and making it a pain in the arse for any Plantagenet king to rule France, especially in the territories were they had a lot of influence OTL. The king would most likely have to grant quite a few privileges etc. to the French nobility to keep them at least semi-loyal. As Alex said, this could easily result in France destabilizing further and eventually going down the HRE route.

There is that problem yes, even if it manages to hold on to half or 2/3rds of France as I would think is the most plausible scenario. I can see that that would be the primary issue for any French Plantagenet. Unless you have a Plantagenet with the same wily wit as say, OTL Louis XI of France, I think that a "French Confederation" would be the most likely fate.

 

[Elfwine]

To reiterate Elfwine, Why do you think that? This is 15th century England, not the 9th century Frankish Empire. I do not think there is laws that state that the King of England must divide his demense and titles among all of his male children upon death.

I doubt England would want to give Burgundy de facto control over it's French domains, and I say this not only because of what you said Kuld, but also because I feel that the Plantagenets would probably want to rule Anglo-France from Paris (which I believe was a much grander city to rule in a possible Anglo-French Union) rather than from Westminster/London.

It might not have a choice on how much de facto control Burgundy has - Burgundy is the most powerful of the French nobles, and a significant ally of England.

Overmighty vassals are hard to check - and I'm ignoring the issue of where the king rules from.

 

[Larus Marinus]

In the unlikely turn of events that France is made to acknowledge Henry VI as king, why?

To reiterate Elfwine, Why do you think that? This is 15th century England, not the 9th century Frankish Empire. I do not think there is laws that state that the King of England must divide his demense and titles among all of his male children upon death.

Either you rule from France (most likely scenario), causing future discontent in England by marginalizing it, or you rule from England increasing the already existing discontent in France. Either way, you're eventually going to end up in a situation where trying to rule both at once will be nothing short of folly. The kingdoms would not necessarily be split under or right after the reign of Henry V, but a union born out of the HYW would be unlikely to survive in the long run.

I am not saying it would be *impossible* for such a union to last, but it seems to me that it would be far more trouble than it's worth to keep both crowns on one head. Splitting the kingdoms might be necessary at some point just to to keep both in the family at all.

The worst case scenario would of course be one with a monarch with only female heirs. That would end the union for sure.

I doubt England would want to give Burgundy de facto control over it's French domains, and I say this not only because of what you said Kuld, but also because I feel that the Plantagenets would probably want to rule Anglo-France from Paris (which I believe was a much grander city to rule in a possible Anglo-French Union) rather than from Westminster/London.

I doubt they'd have much of a choice, actually. The Plantagenet might be able to increase their own royal power over time, but early on in an English victory scenario they'd likely have to continue relying on Burgundian support like they had up until then. If you downplay the role of your sole real ally in France in the French government, you're not going to last long...Especially if said ally is as powerful as the Duke of Burgundy.

 

[Elfwine]

Either you rule from France (most likely scenario), causing future discontent in England by marginalizing it, or you rule from England increasing the already existing discontent in France. Either way, you're eventually going to end up in a situation where trying to rule both at once will be nothing short of folly. The kingdoms would not necessarily be split under or right after the reign of Henry V, but a union born out of the HYW would be unlikely to survive in the long run.

Or you move between kingdoms without worrying about a single kingdom for both.

I am not saying it would be *impossible* for such a union to last, but it seems to me that it would be far more trouble than it's worth to keep both crowns on one head. Splitting the kingdoms might be necessary at some point just to to keep both in the family at all.

Not sure. Depends on how you handle the secondary kingdom.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Interesting discussion. First off, did England have any real support from the Nobles in France (besides Burgundy)? If so then they could pull off such a union. But if not then they'll be ruling on borrowed time. Second, what is the status of the French Nobility after the fall or Orleans? Are the opposition still organized or have they fallen into diss ray and only care about defending ther own lands? If its the first then the English will definitely have a problem, if not then they can take out each noble one at a time. Third, is Henry V alive in such a scenario or is Henry VI King? That makes a big difference. With Henry V there's a warrior King on hand to deal with problems and govern the Kingdoms. With Henry VI the Regency Council rules and that could be a problem.

A union born out of a military victory would no doubt be weaker then a union born out of a lucky marriage or being the closest heir (Anglo-Scottish Union). However, using examples in history from the Spanish Empire, its certainly possible. The Kingdom of Naples, for instance, was independent before being forced into Personal union with Aragon (later Spain). True, on the reverse end there's the eighty-years war that had the Netherlands broke away from Spain. SO IDK which way it would go. The King (Henry V or Henry VI) would have to rule from Paris, not London. France was the more populous, rich and really the more important of the two Kingdoms. Plus the King and generals would need to be on hand to deal with any possible revolts.England, on the other hand, was more centralized and the King seemed to be able to govern more effectively than in France. But of the two, I'd guess that it would be easier to put down a revolt in England than in France.

 

[Larus Marinus]

Or you move between kingdoms without worrying about a single kingdom for both.

That could work...For a while. Having two kingdoms, one of them far greater in wealth, power and prestige than the other, is eventually going to lead to the monarch prioritizing that kingdom over the other. That's a long-term issue though. In the short-term, the problem is going to be keeping France subdued and convincing the English nobles etc. at home that it was worth their money. (Lots of titles up for grabs, I suppose. That could create some lasting - if forced - ties between the kingdoms, if nothing else.)

Most likely there would have to be a regent or something to that effect in one kingdom while the monarch is away in the other. This could potentially complicate things further. Spend too much time in one kingdom, and your regent in your other kingdom might start getting some unsettling ideas about his role.

Oh, and the English are not going to like it when their king starts using English soldiers, money and resources for continental wars that don't benefit England in the slightest. Wiser monarchs might realize this, but since when were all monarchs wise?

You'd probably need a few generations of good monarchs to make a thing like this stick, and even then it's going to be infuriatingly difficult at best.

 

[Vingilótë]

Or you move between kingdoms without worrying about a single kingdom for both.



Not sure. Depends on how you handle the secondary kingdom.

Honestly, that sounds like a recipe for instability to me. While I'm uncertain how accurate the comparison is; it reminds me of the juggling game that the HR emperors had to do to hold onto Italy.

 

[Elfwine]

That could work...For a while. Having two kingdoms, one of them far greater in wealth, power and prestige than the other, is eventually going to lead to the monarch prioritizing that kingdom over the other. That's a long-term issue though. In the short-term, the problem is going to be keeping France subdued and convincing the English nobles etc. at home that it was worth their money. (Lots of titles up for grabs, I suppose. That could create some lasting - if forced - ties between the kingdoms, if nothing else.)

I'm not sure France is greater in power and prestige than England, and wealth is an open question.

Oh, and the English are not going to like it when their king starts using English soldiers, money and resources for continental wars that don't benefit England in the slightest. Wiser monarchs might realize this, but since when were all monarchs wise?

But that's a problem with any personal union, period.

You'd probably need a few generations of good monarchs to make a thing like this stick, and even then it's going to be infuriatingly difficult at best.

See above.


Zmflavius: No one said personal unions were easy. My objection here is to the idea that England-France is particularly difficult.

 

[el t]

Jeanne D'arc

I'm assuming that Henry V is already dead in this scenario. I know that the loss of Orleans would be extremely demoralizing to the French, but they could still recover. Parliament would levy increasing higher taxes in order to maintain Lancastrian France and there is always the Scottish problem.