You know, I actually think England will come out worst then OTL, the British kings will choose France over it for a multitude of reasons (bigger population, bigger resources, just richer in general) and will put most of their energy of reforms and improvements into it to defend against foreign threats(the Burgundians, Iberians and even Italians come to mind).

Britain meanwhile will be second fiddle and while it won't fall into some horrible negligence, it would definitely be a redhead stepchild. I imagine something like no unification of the islands (imagine a Ireland dominated by Scotland? That would be interesting), simply because the monarchs are already dealing with a hugeass realm and don't want to overextended into lands that seems worthless.
 

JLan1485

Banned
You know, I actually think England will come out worst then OTL, the British kings will choose France over it for a multitude of reasons (bigger population, bigger resources, just richer in general) and will put most of their energy of reforms and improvements into it to defend against foreign threats(the Burgundians, Iberians and even Italians come to mind).

Britain meanwhile will be second fiddle and while it won't fall into some horrible negligence, it would definitely be a redhead stepchild. I imagine something like no unification of the islands (imagine a Ireland dominated by Scotland? That would be interesting), simply because the monarchs are already dealing with a hugeass realm and don't want to overextended into lands that seems worthless.
I wouldn't go quite so far. Ireland will still be conquered and dominated by England, it's possible that ITTL that Ireland is oppressed even more than they had been OTL as a result of the English Lords envy of the increasingly French kingdom and wanting more lands and power of their own.

Perhaps the union of Scotland with England is done through military conquest this time around, rather than through royal marriages and inheritance.
 
You know, I actually think England will come out worst then OTL, the British kings will choose France over it for a multitude of reasons (bigger population, bigger resources, just richer in general) and will put most of their energy of reforms and improvements into it to defend against foreign threats(the Burgundians, Iberians and even Italians come to mind).

Britain meanwhile will be second fiddle and while it won't fall into some horrible negligence, it would definitely be a redhead stepchild. I imagine something like no unification of the islands (imagine a Ireland dominated by Scotland? That would be interesting), simply because the monarchs are already dealing with a hugeass realm and don't want to overextended into lands that seems worthless.
Doubt it. His post about Englishmen receiving massive amounts of land in northern france seems to walk the path of England colonizing places such as Normandy, Pas-de-Calais and potentially Brittanny. England is probably going to end up siphoning a lot of France's might and riches, especially as English lords seem to be receiving massive amounts of land. Ireland is probably going to be conquering much faster using French revenues. France however seems to be staked for division especially with Burgundy's growing influence and the Dauphinate in the south.
 
Doubt it. His post about Englishmen receiving massive amounts of land in northern france seems to walk the path of England colonizing places such as Normandy, Pas-de-Calais and potentially Brittanny. England is probably going to end up siphoning a lot of France's might and riches, especially as English lords seem to be receiving massive amounts of land. Ireland is probably going to be conquering much faster using French revenues. France however seems to be staked for division especially with Burgundy's growing influence and the Dauphinate in the south.
So rather a second try to independence, France would split? Interesting
 
So rather a second try to independence, France would split? Interesting
England is probably going to lose much of France overtime, me thinks, but the on-going colonization of the North seems to hint they'll be able to at least hold on to the North of France. It all depends on how the politics of Burgundy and the Dauphinat in the south develop, if you know what I mean. Burgundy's got a claim on the French Throne, kind of, so they could potentially seek to unite France under themselves, probably only a generation or two from now. If this UBER-Burgundy gets the idea to take the French throne for themselves, I immenselly doubt England's ability to somehow save their French possessions, but if Burgundy's Dukes decide to go the OTL way and make a Lotharingia of their own, a much reduced English France could survive.

If the French nobility recovers, however, it could happen that France could eventually supplant England as the main Plantagenet Kingdom, but here France seems destined for the path of colonization of much of it's North by English-speakers and the ransacking of the rest to finance the English Crown. France will probably be a very poor place in this timeline, not the massive power it was otl.
 
Doubt it. His post about Englishmen receiving massive amounts of land in northern france seems to walk the path of England colonizing places such as Normandy, Pas-de-Calais and potentially Brittanny. England is probably going to end up siphoning a lot of France's might and riches, especially as English lords seem to be receiving massive amounts of land. Ireland is probably going to be conquering much faster using French revenues. France however seems to be staked for division especially with Burgundy's growing influence and the Dauphinate in the south.
It should be noted that riches from France come not only from massive population that means a big tax base and lands that produce lots of food and other luxury items (wine is the main thing that comes to mind), but also simply because they had many important trade routes going and unto places, like being the only land road to Iberia, having the biggest border with the HRE and having sea and land routes to Italy, and that's not even mentioning cities like Bordeaux and La Rochelle that were important centers of commerce as well as stuff like fairs that happened in the big cities. England will certainly benefit from having zero import duties of their products (specially wool) but it's more likely that they'll be more dependant on France than France will be on England, specially if the English merchants and lords start to move to France and build wealth there instead of developing it in England. Meaning that it will be more like a poisoned chalice where a part of the realm gets poorer because it's inhabitants are moving to a more Rich land and depriving their native place of their skills and wealth.

As for the English colonists... They'll more likely be absorbed into the population or create a unique identity that is neither English or french, this isn't the colonization of Ireland with it's religious and cultural differences, in here they would have enough in common to fuse instead of segregating, although I imagine the Bretons wouldn't be very happy with trading a french master for a English one and would be more resistant to integration.
 
England is probably going to lose much of France overtime, me thinks, but the on-going colonization of the North seems to hint they'll be able to at least hold on to the North of France. It all depends on how the politics of Burgundy and the Dauphinat in the south develop, if you know what I mean. Burgundy's got a claim on the French Throne, kind of, so they could potentially seek to unite France under themselves, probably only a generation or two from now. If this UBER-Burgundy gets the idea to take the French throne for themselves, I immenselly doubt England's ability to somehow save their French possessions, but if Burgundy's Dukes decide to go the OTL way and make a Lotharingia of their own, a much reduced English France could survive.

If the French nobility recovers, however, it could happen that France could eventually supplant England as the main Plantagenet Kingdom, but here France seems destined for the path of colonization of much of it's North by English-speakers and the ransacking of the rest to finance the English Crown. France will probably be a very poor place in this timeline, not the massive power it was otl.
It should be noted that the reason they wanted to create Lotharingia was to defend themselves from French expansion, here they instead would have a Cold War where they're just waiting for the chance where the English are distracted so they can swipe in, get some propaganda about "returning France to Frenchman" and "the revenge of the Valois" and be pragmatic enough with the Lords and they would have many support of both the nobility and peasants, more likely capturing the northern and central provinces first and use them as places for further expansion later. If the Burgundians feel like they can take the crown, they'll do it without hesitation.
 
I wouldn't go quite so far. Ireland will still be conquered and dominated by England, it's possible that ITTL that Ireland is oppressed even more than they had been OTL as a result of the English Lords envy of the increasingly French kingdom and wanting more lands and power of their own.

Perhaps the union of Scotland with England is done through military conquest this time around, rather than through royal marriages and inheritance.
The question is why though? The king is already have difficulties juggling both England and France together with his political rivals (the House of Lords and Burgundians) making their moves already. Why would they go and waste money, energy, men and resources they need elsewhere on conquering two seemingly poor kingdoms? Ireland is not united and asides from agriculture, dosen't have that many resources, Scotland just lost it's main ally on the mainland so they'll turn their gaze towards Scandinavia and do their thing there, meaning a English invasion could bring in some sort of Norwegian or danish intervention.

And of course, if they try and take these realms by force, it'll just mean they'll bleed themselves fighting guerrilla warfare on places like Scottish Highlands and swamps as well as mushy and rainy Ireland terrain, too much cost for little gain.
 

JLan1485

Banned
The question is why though? The king is already have difficulties juggling both England and France together with his political rivals (the House of Lords and Burgundians) making their moves already. Why would they go and waste money, energy, men and resources they need elsewhere on conquering two seemingly poor kingdoms? Ireland is not united and asides from agriculture, dosen't have that many resources, Scotland just lost it's main ally on the mainland so they'll turn their gaze towards Scandinavia and do their thing there, meaning a English invasion could bring in some sort of Norwegian or danish intervention.

And of course, if they try and take these realms by force, it'll just mean they'll bleed themselves fighting guerrilla warfare on places like Scottish Highlands and swamps as well as mushy and rainy Ireland terrain, too much cost for little gain.
You're thinking like someone from the 21st century.

Meanwhile, none of these aforementioned negatives stopped England from doing the same thing OTL because their exploitation of Ireland drew profits, marginal for the United Kingdom, but great for the lords, merchants and the military which gained a large source of manpower.

An England that has been united with France will feel emasculated by their larger, more prosperous, culturally prestigious and more militarily experienced neighbor in the south, and if the King continues favoring them English lords will see an invasion and conquest of Ireland as a way of evening the odds and bringing wealth, glory and land directly into English hands with little chance of 'going native' as I believe many English landowners in France would.
 
You're thinking like someone from the 21st century.

Meanwhile, none of these aforementioned negatives stopped England from doing the same thing OTL because their exploitation of Ireland drew profits, marginal for the United Kingdom, but great for the lords, merchants and the military which gained a large source of manpower.

An England that has been united with France will feel emasculated by their larger, more prosperous, culturally prestigious and more militarily experienced neighbor in the south, and if the King continues favoring them English lords will see an invasion and conquest of Ireland as a way of evening the odds and bringing wealth, glory and land directly into English hands with little chance of 'going native' as I believe many English landowners in France would.
Just because it's from the 21st century, dosen't mean it couldn't be a insight from someone.

You're also forgetting that one of the reasons for England to advance into Ireland was because they had been essentially kicked out of the continent with the exception of Calais, and even with that it took a good while before they managed to conquer it. But a england who has bigger fish to fry on basically every level (diplomatic, military, economic) and can't afford to finance it's Lords to go and conquer Ireland.

And that's not even talking about how the Irish would react upon finding out that the English have defeated their main rival, they would gear up and prepare for a fight, and without the crown being able to give much support thanks to having to deal with France, it'll just be Lord after Lord going after Irish fiefdoms and dying or going broke.
 

JLan1485

Banned
Just because it's from the 21st century, dosen't mean it couldn't be a insight from someone.

You're also forgetting that one of the reasons for England to advance into Ireland was because they had been essentially kicked out of the continent with the exception of Calais, and even with that it took a good while before they managed to conquer it. But a england who has bigger fish to fry on basically every level (diplomatic, military, economic) and can't afford to finance it's Lords to go and conquer Ireland.

And that's not even talking about how the Irish would react upon finding out that the English have defeated their main rival, they would gear up and prepare for a fight, and without the crown being able to give much support thanks to having to deal with France, it'll just be Lord after Lord going after Irish fiefdoms and dying or going broke.
That's where you're wrong. England doesn't have bigger fish to fry, The King does. Now I grant you that the King is going to be very occupied indeed with continental affairs, and that might suffice for a half-century until the spoils from France have long since been divvied up and restless but powerful lords in England feel a disconnect between themselves and the Anglo-French landowners in the south who constantly drag England into wars to maintain or expand the French realm while taxing English landowners, merchants, etc.

They'd want a piece of the pie that isn't liable to be held by Frenchmen but by Englishmen who won't go native.

Furthermore, your own point about the disparate Irish polities preparing for war is in itself reason alone for England to subjugate Ireland because when Spain and later Spain+HRE unite into a realm ruled by a single King/Emperor you'd better believe the Irish beyond the Pale will be fighting against the English, and armed with Spanish weapons.

Remember that subjugating Ireland at this point (mid 15th century) isn't a matter of a Medieval style D-Day invasion. It's a matter of fully subjugating an island that has remained half conquered for 3 centuries because of intermittent warfare on the continent.

And it's one thing to be able to say to your nobles that "we can't conquer Ireland while we still have our lands/Kingship in France to take back and if you support me you'll have a share of the loot/land" and it's another to say "we can't conquer Ireland because we're fighting to expand or protect the borders of France and uhh well we can pay your for your military service but that's it."
 
That's where you're wrong. England doesn't have bigger fish to fry, The King does. Now I grant you that the King is going to be very occupied indeed with continental affairs, and that might suffice for a half-century until the spoils from France have long since been divvied up and restless but powerful lords in England feel a disconnect between themselves and the Anglo-French landowners in the south who constantly drag England into wars to maintain or expand the French realm while taxing English landowners, merchants, etc.

They'd want a piece of the pie that isn't liable to be held by Frenchmen but by Englishmen who won't go native.

Furthermore, your own point about the disparate Irish polities preparing for war is in itself reason alone for England to subjugate Ireland because when Spain and later Spain+HRE unite into a realm ruled by a single King/Emperor you'd better believe the Irish beyond the Pale will be fighting against the English, and armed with Spanish weapons.

Remember that subjugating Ireland at this point (mid 15th century) isn't a matter of a Medieval style D-Day invasion. It's a matter of fully subjugating an island that has remained half conquered for 3 centuries because of intermittent warfare on the continent.

And it's one thing to be able to say to your nobles that "we can't conquer Ireland while we still have our lands/Kingship in France to take back and if you support me you'll have a share of the loot/land" and it's another to say "we can't conquer Ireland because we're fighting to expand or protect the borders of France and uhh well we can pay your for your military service but that's it."
Thing is, is that many of these lords wouldn't be in their majority some of the most powerful ones, simply because those are more likely to have gone to France in order to try and get some land for themselves alongside those who have some sort of commercial interest in the islands.

I agree with you that Ireland can be conquered, but I'd wager it would be something smaller and that would take more time to become complete, specially because instead of being the major Lords and the crown, it's instead local Lords that can't or won't go to France and decide to get a consolation prize in order to prove they're still relevant.
 

JLan1485

Banned
Thing is, is that many of these lords wouldn't be in their majority some of the most powerful ones, simply because those are more likely to have gone to France in order to try and get some land for themselves alongside those who have some sort of commercial interest in the islands.

I agree with you that Ireland can be conquered, but I'd wager it would be something smaller and that would take more time to become complete, specially because instead of being the major Lords and the crown, it's instead local Lords that can't or won't go to France and decide to get a consolation prize in order to prove they're still relevant.
On that we agree, unless and until the Reformation kicks in and all of a sudden there are religious enemies around (and within) Neo-Angevinia. Then you'd have a Cromwell style military campaign that successfully shatters the independent Irish polities for good.

however, I'm getting ahead of myself. What I'm suggesting isn't a total conquest, at least not yet but something of a Tudor style conquest wherein the Southeast and east of Ireland is fully brought to heel while the rest of the island is considered lands of the King but in name only for the time being. Which would bring the benefit of uniting the English holdings in Ireland and provide English lords additional lands and revenues to satiate them while their sons march off to the continent to fight the 7th war of German aggression or whatnot.
 
V.Henry VI and II: The Echoes of the Mad King

- Henry VI and II: The Echoes of a Mad King -


Henry_VI_enthroned_-_British_Library_Royal_MS_15_E_vi_f405r_(detail).jpg

Henry VI and II on his throne

The late 1440sβ€”early 1450s saw the consolidation and height of the Duke of Suffolk's power as head of the English monarchy, with Beaufort as a go-between in France. It was followed by a strengthening of the royal authority, or rather of the power behind the king. The parliaments are convened in an increasingly spaced period, going from annual during the previous decades to biannual between 1449 and 1456. The right of inspection of the representatives on certain internal affairs of the kingdom was ignored but the economic decisions remained subject to judgment of the institution. However, there was a tax increase. It provokes incomprehension and anger within the nobility but also among the English people β€” in a situation of reigning peace which did not pretext such a lifting.

In 1450 a popular revolt broke out in Kent, led by a peasant named Jack Cade. Rebel troops approached London and had claims against the royal government, including accusing the Duke of Suffolk of corruption and incompetence. De la Pole reacted quickly and sent a strong contingent led by Humphrey Stafford who quickly defeated the insurgents at Blackheath in May 1450. The rebels were all executed and Clade, captured, was imprisoned in the Tower of London. He is tortured and interrogated, in particular to find out if he has a link with the Duke of York β€” Cade took John Mortimer as an alias, family ancestors of Richard of York. But nothing was drawn and he died from the punishments he suffered.

Jack_Cade.png

Jack Cade's Rebellion

That's enough for Suffolk to keep York in Ireland as much as possible. The duke, in constant need of men and money for his mandate, used this as a pretext to hope to return to England, but Suffolk made sure to send him whatever he wanted. The Lieutenancy of York was nonetheless beneficial to the English presence in Ireland β€” the Pale was the only province under their control while the rest was ruled by Hiberno-Norman lords. From 1449 to 1455, he subjugated Ulster, of which he was the earl, and Kildare, thus preparing the bases for the future reconquest of the island at the end of the 15th century.

pale.png

Ireland in 1455

However, in 1456, the situation suddenly became explosive β€” on 10 December, Queen Eleanor died of exhaustion after giving birth. Henry, who showed little interest in his married life, maintained on the other hand a strong relationship of friendship with his wife and at the announcement of her death the king was seized with madness. Apparently he was suffering from some kind of schizophrenia β€” stricken with hallucinations, he didn't recognize people around him and couldn't remember who he was. Completely indifferent to all external events, even those touching him closely β€” for example, on 16 December, the king did not react to the announcement of the death of Henry, his son and only heir. It became apparent to the courtiers that the worrying illness of his grandfather, Charles VI the Mad, had also passed on to his grandson, meaning the kingdom was virtually left without a king. All opposing groups immediately rushed to take advantage β€” with an incapable monarch without an heir, they could realize their ambitions more than ever.

In January 1457, the news of the king's illness is reported to the Duke of York who decides to embark for England for London. Claiming the end of his 10-year term as a lieutenant in Ireland, he reached Kent and gathered forces on 29 February at Datford. Gathering 7,000 men, he was joined by detachments disgruntled with the reign of royal favourites, principally the Neville clan, led by the Earl of Salisbury, brother-in-law of York, and his son the Earl of Warwick. On 1 March, Suffolk lined up in front with nevertheless fewer men. De la Pole, who had set up a Council of Regency, of which he was the leader, tried to gain time so that the bulk of his forces, who had remained in France, would arrive as reinforcements. To York, through the Duke of Buckingham, he sending a peaceful resolution of the situation.


220px-Richard_Neville,_5th_Earl_of_Salisbury_seule.jpg
richard-neville-16th-earl-of-warwick-illustration-id1138458212.png

from left to right:
Richard Neville,
5th Earl of Salisbury; Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

On 2 March in the morning, Richard of York launched into battle. Suffolk has the experience for him but his troops are demoralized, having never faced soldiers of the reputation of those of Richard. De La Pole decides to fight on foot in the middle of the clashes to maintain the weakening cohesion but he is struck in the skull and dies instantly. The effect on these troops is immediate and most decide to rally York β€” paving the way to London. On 10 March, the duke solemnly entered the capital, and 4 days later he was unanimously approved by the assembly of the barons of the kingdom as Lord Protector of England for the duration of Henry VI's illness. The establishment of the Protectorate of York was peaceful enough β€” as a gesture of goodwill he held a solemn funeral of Suffolk, for which the merit of the capture of Orleans was unconditionally recognized and allowed the soldiers who had fought on his side to gone home. He even integrates non-partisan people into the regency council and formally maintains Beaufort in his functions in France.

Yorkist_canons.png

York's forces artillery fire

In France, the reaction is not long in coming. On all sides the coup de force of Richard of York is condemned β€” only Calais sided with him and his son-in-law Charles de Charolais supported him. The Lieutenant General of the Kingdom, Edmund of Somerset publishes a manifesto accusing York of the murder of Suffolk, of imprisoning King Henry, of usurpation of royal power and of attempting to monopolize the throne of England and France and appeal the subjects of the island to rebel. All the parliaments of France register its manifesto, publish it, propagate it and produce their own condemnation of York's seizure of power. The English lords of France, who have a bad memory of the lieutenancy of Richard, support in their large majority Somerset β€” the Norman barons constitute its most faithful partisans. The French, in particular the great lords of DauphinΓ©, Burgundy, OrlΓ©ans, Bourbon and Britanny, sided with Beaufort β€” they all saw Richard of York as an opponent of their autonomy due to his reforming ambition.

Between May and June, the Estates General meet where the participants reiterate their loyalty to Henry VI, jointly condemn the York enterprise and organize the response β€” the French, reluctant to participate militarily, prefer to vote the taille in order to finance an army raised in the Anglo-French seigniories. Recruitment was slow and complicated due to the structural weakness of the French Lieutenancy. It was not until October that 8,000 soldiers were assembled under the command of John Talbot, Constable of France.

In November, Talbot's army landed in southern England, heading for London. York, who had been forced to send his knights home, had no time to remobilize supporters and fled from the capital to Fotheringhay Castle. Talbot lingered briefly in London, where, with a large gathering of people, he announced the "return" of power to Henry VI, who continued to be in a semi-mad state, and moved north, preparing for a decisive battle with York. He is joined in his race by Welsh troops led by Owen Tudor and his sons, Edmund and Jasper. The clash takes place on 16 November in St Albans. On both sides, 10 to 12,000 men face each other thanks to the arrival of reinforcements in each camp. The battle raged from dawn until noon and eventually York's forces faltered and retreated. However, their defeat was canceled out by the fact that the 73-year-old "English Achilles", hit by an arrow; fell from his horse in the middle of the battle and was hacked to death by one of the Yorkist militiamen. Deprived of its hero and commander-in-chief, the demoralized royal army, despite the efforts of the other commanders, is completely disbanded. Once again the route to London was open, but on 30 November Somerset was already anchored on the Kent coast. And under his banner the remnants of Talbot's army immediately assembled and soon London opened the gates to the Lancastrian army.

Henry_VI_Part_I_-_Lord_Talbot_dies.jpg

John Talbot's body found after the battle

On 8 December, the Battle of London Bridge took place – York's forces crossed the frozen Thames, overwhelming the defenses of Somerset, but the reinforcements that arrived in time were able to restore the defences. York failed to take London and he was forced to retreat to Blackheath. Throughout the winter, the parties prepared for a decisive confrontation and in the spring of 1458, hostilities resumed. On 1 May, York reoccupied the capital, but unexpectedly for everyone on 25 May, Henry VI came to his senses, which meant the end of the Lord Protector's powers. Henry immediately urged the parties to make peace and personally volunteered to reconcile York and Somerset. Reluctantly, the two enemies arrived at Westminster Abbey, where they swore eternal friendship in the presence of the king.

Henry VI referred the dispute between York and Somerset to the Royal Council, having cleared it of the Yorkists. His decision turned out to be quite predictable: York and all his supporters were deprived of their posts and removed from participation in political life. The logical reaction was that on 21 October the Yorkists took up arms again – the two armies met at Watford, where the Lancastrians were completely defeated, and Henry VI, who personally commanded the army, was captured by York. However, this time Somerset was ready to react to a rebellion – over the summer he managed to strike agreements at Rouen in June with John V of Brittany and Philip III of Burgundy, who pledged to support their king. in case of further rebellion, and also called on his side the Scottish King James II, whose sister Joanna – married the son of Somerset. Thanks to this, a very large force was under Somerset's command in a short time.

scale_1200.jpg

Henry VI surrendering to the Duke of York

At the end of December, Henry VI again descended into madness and thanks to this York again proclaimed himself protector. However, this time he failed to take advantage of this advantage, because at this precise moment Calais – the stronghold of York on the continent – was attacked by the forces of the Duke of Burgundy, and the troops of James II fell on the north of England. The Yorkists had to stretch their forces, which Somerset took advantage of. On 23 March 1459, the decisive Battle of Richmond took place, in which nearly 35,000 people participated on both sides. Somerset despite its military incompetence won – the wounded Duke of York, as well as his son Edward, who fought shoulder to shoulder with his father, were captured. The rebels are tried in Parliament, which condemns the leaders of the revolt to death – on 26 March, York and Salisbury are executed. Somerset planned to decimate the Yorkists, but in July the king came to his senses and he immediately called on the parties again for reconciliation.

Beheading.jpg

Execution of Richard, 3rd Duke of York
 
Interesting TL thus far. I love how the Lancastrians winning this phase of the HYW doesn't necessarily mean England claiming supremacy over France, but instead more of an alt-Wars of the Roses that involves two kingdoms instead (though tellingly, it's only England that's as restive as OTL).

If the conflict spills over to the other side of the Channel...
 
Interesting TL thus far. I love how the Lancastrians winning this phase of the HYW doesn't necessarily mean England claiming supremacy over France, but instead more of an alt-Wars of the Roses that involves two kingdoms instead (though tellingly, it's only England that's as restive as OTL).

If the conflict spills over to the other side of the Channel...
Thanks again for this positive feedback. France will have a destiny, which you will see, will be quite special.

I take this opportunity to disclose the nature of my next article. It will be a biography on one of the important characters of this timeline.
A clue: he died, like OTL, of a mouth lesion preventing him from eating in the early 1460s.
 
Top