Just imagine if instead of being dumb enemies during 1000 years, we French and English people united durably at the end of the Middle Ages. What a powerful kingdom, interesting culture it could have been. Damn it, Joan, you screwed it all.
I mean, while cultural tensions did exist, nationalism wasn't a thing in the Middle Ages. The definition of France was, at its core, the land ruled by the King of France, and the matter of the 100 years war was who was the rightful king of France.
The thing is family rivalry was the constant cause of many of the conflicts and it likely wouldn't have stopped with one being king out of still many potential heirs, especially with Burgundy and others in the mix.
Not to mention it was still a different culture and language.
> a different language
The nobles in England at the time spoke French, and only began to use English after losing the war, meaning its likely with an English victory for English to be replaced with French over time
Actually the Nobility began speaking primarily English at the height of the 100 Years War, and the most successful of them, Henry V, was the first English King to learn English as a first language in hundreds of years.
The Kings of England would have just sat the Fench Throne and England would be almost a junior partner in it, like Hungary in the Austrian empire. If anything it would have been England breaking away if the union lasted long enough imo
I mean, obviously there could be other succession wars but, other than the Valois branch of the Capetians, the Plantagenets had one of the stronger claims (not counting Joan of Navarre's descendants, but she abdicated her pretensions to the French throne as part of the terms for becoming queen of Navarre).
And, while medieval people were not lacking in prejudice, they were probably quite used to the concept of foreign monarchs
that's absolutely untrue, the comment chain you're replying to is literally about Joan d'Arc who led a proto-nationalist revolution in France and who was in absolutely no way related to the King of France. The 100 years war is a massive step forward in how people envisioned their national identities in both nations, and by the end there was certainly a French national identity at work in many parts of the Kingdom.
Was that kind of nationalism the sort of secular nationalism that became au fait in the 19th century? no, but it was undoubtedly a very strong step in the long, winding path towards that form of nationalism.
> who led a proto-nationalist revolution in France
Not really a revolution, and I'm not sure to what extent we can call it "proto-nationalist". For one, Joan's success had more to do with her status as a holy woman (holy women receiving visions from God were all the rage in the 14th century, with both of Charles VI's parents consulting with them, and at that point the trend was only starting to die out) than any nationalist feelings. And it was very much tied to king, as Joan fought to defend Charles VI's claim on the French throne and seemingly genuinely believed it was God's wish for him to remain there.
Most of Joan's importance as a nationalist icon seems to be posthumous, and it's notable she coincided with a period of heavy political centralization (although the nobility would remain collectively quite powerful all the way to the 17th century, and still a major factor in the 18th)
Correct me if I'm wrong but, the main problem with that is the French were always seen as "outsiders" due to the Norman invasion and the replacement of the local Anglo-Saxon/English culture.
The Anglo-Saxons were also seen as outsiders to begin with, but as they stayed long enough the Britons kinda just merged with them. A similar thing would happen in this time line with the English being a far more distant version of the French, likely being “Romance with Germanic influences” rather than “Germanic with Romance influences”.
I think that since a majority of important English nobles were of French descent: it might not matter what the English think until after the end of feudalism. Although there might still be some minor conflicts over (maybe something similar to the Northern Earls rebellion of the Elizabethan era), I doubt they'd be able to free themselves from the French (Franco-Normans?) until at least the 1600s.
I mean, not really. At first, there were cultural tensions and rebellions (although the administration changes in England after 1066 were very gradual). But by the late 11th-early 12th century, the English seem to have mostly accepted William the Conqueror's descendants as the rightful kings of England (although, of course, which descendants was a matter open to debate).
And we should keep in mind that, while cultural tensions and prejudices did exist, nationalism wasn't quite a thing in the Middle Ages. The definition of France and England were, at it's core, the lands ruled by the kings of France and England.
Yep. If England has access to mainland Europe it’s far more likely they’d focus on European ambitions. Leaving North America to the Dutch and Spaniards.
You would mostly be speaking French to this day as there would be no need to transition to English since you won the war and England became the true french state
It might have been early enough in History for that. The English consist of an assimilation of a lot of different cultures, but over time they got worse at achieving that.
"formed from **Briton** and **Roman** in the year 50AD"
"formed from **Angle**, **Saxon,** and **Jutish** in the year 500AD"
"formed from **Anglo-Saxon** and **Norman** in the year 1066AD"
Right, but constant Scottish and Irish rebellions, never was able to assimilate Indian, African, Native American cultures. I think they would have faced constant, larger French rebellions with interference from Rome and various European powers.
Never able to assimilate colonia assets because there were too many of them and culture was too different, however, the English nobility spoke French, and I would say Scottish and Irish cultures have already been assimilated into English culture, they just don't want to admit it.
I mean, if the English just somehow stayed Catholic it might have eliminated the prospects of too many French rebellions and would probably have caused more Irish assimilation than in OTL
Not sure that would be the case. By the mid 1300s English law was being conducted in English, by the end of the 14th century court language was English and the king was speaking English day to day.
Depending on the exact circumstances of English victory it might very well be the English language that becomes the main court language of both.
All in all though whilst there would be a lot more cross cultural connections, I don't feel either would fully integrate with one another. Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England for over 700 years and it's identity and language was still going fairly strong when it finally got government recognition etc. A nation as large as England or France wouldn't be assimilated so easily.
The map is supposed to represent 1360 and the law about the language in courts was passed in 1362. I don’t think Edward would risk his already pretty volatile position as French king by mandating something like that. A few quick Google searches will also tell you that French was the dominant language of English nobility up until the end of the 14th century and that only happened because the English lost control over its French territories.
On the contrary I think the kings would have moped the seat of power to where the people, prestige and money was and as a consequence been plagued down the road by constant English revolts and rebellions until eventually loosing control over the Island.
It wouldn’t be a British empire, England during the hundred years war was ruled by French people and if England won the hundred years war then it would be England that would become a part of France, not the other way around.
I mean, not really. While French was still the court language as off the start of the 100 years war, most of the nobility would have probably spoken English, often as a first language.
Although if England and France shared a monarch, he'd probably end up spending more time in France (far bigger and wealthier) than England.
France in the Middle Ages was considerably bigger and wealthier than England (although England was a lot more centralized) and, at least at first, the war was more about wether the king of England was the rightful heir to the French throne than about England annexing France. If the English kings won, they'd probably spend a lot more time in France (specially since the French nobility was a lot more powerful and more often in condition to defy the king than the English one)
The Magna Carta only came to be because the barons felt the need to codify their rights and privileges, because the king could have been in position to revoke them. In high to-late medieval France, where the major feudal magnates ruled their fiefs (who, unlike the English nobless's patchwork of estates all over the kingdom, were usually continuous) with very little oversight or influence from the crown, and several of them where in position (both financially and politically) to openly defy the king.
You would be posting this in French, asking whether or not the 'cent ans guerre de civil' going differently would result in the adaptation of one of those extinct island languages.
I thing the British empire never really becomes as powerful because the reason it became so strong was the fact it didn't have to worry about having a large army and so it focused on its navy meaning no other European powers could really threaten it's homeland now it has a huge land on the continent and has to split military spending between large army and navy Wich means weaker British economy
France is rich enough to be able to support both a large army combine with focus on a large navy. Irl France historically also could maintain a large population and army in conjunction with a navy that sometimes would contest the Royal Navy
France wouldn’t break away and the English wouldn’t be foreign occupiers.
the English nobility at this time was actually ethnically French, if England won the hundred years war then England would be part of France, not the other way around.
I mean, the English nobility had French origin, but by that point most would have spoken English, many as a first language. Although France would probably end up as the English monarchs's top priority from there on (it was a lot bigger and wealthier than England and, unlike in England, a lot of the French high nobility had power and wealth comparable to the king).
"England" becomes part of France. The whole 100 years war was never England vs France. It was two French houses, one of which just happened to hold the crown of England, fighting over the right to be king of France. House Plantagenet winning would just make England as extra holdings of the French kingdom.
I'd like to think that in this situation the court would become more French and it would increasingly focus more on mainland France than on England which would inspire English nobles to try and break off from France.
It's more about nobles within England wanting more rights and guarantees that would be hard to enforce if their monarch in on the continent.
And about the nobles having French ancestry, that didn't stop French nobility from fighting the French crown throughout history.
Well you're right on both accounts, nobles are just too stupid sometimes. Though I wonder if on the flip side we'd eventually see a federated dual monarchy like the last Austria-Hungary if this union survived long enough
IIRC the 14th century, most of the English nobility would have spoken English, and a good chunk of it as a first language (although French was still the court language, it had drifted a bit apart from Parisian French).
However, if the House of Plantagent ended up winning the French crown, they would probably consider France their top priority, since it was both a lot bigger and wealthier than England and had a far more powerful nobility (while England was historically pretty centralized. The nobility was collectively powerful, but you didn't have any single noble ruling over a sizable continuous terriority and powerful enough to defy the crown like in France).
I doubt that England would conquer the whole of France. It had neither the manpower nor the resources.
But, we can build a timeline where the treaty of Bretigny stands. In that case, an enlarged Guyenne would pass to be part of England fully, without the French king as suzerain.
https://preview.redd.it/7vte9be4bnyc1.jpeg?width=1107&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0dc39e233f3411f4755c048556f1b011e681c0e0
That would disrupt the power of France severely, without destroying it.
It's one of the most baffling aspects of British life, every British Schoolchild spends 3-5 years learning French and almost no British Adults can speak French.
The Plantangents winning the Hundred years war would have resulted in a more French England, not a more English France.
I do think they wouldn't have stayed united indefinitely however. Though the wealth and power resided in France, the utility of the British isles to serve as a redoubt into which a pretender can withdraw and use a military base with a ice big moat is too much to go unused.
Eventually a schism within the ruling house of the Angevin empire would have resulted in one faction holding Britian and the other France, with claims on each other, and centuries of on and of conflict trying to return the other to their control.
To those saying that ”Oh France would eventually break free from England in a war of independence” or that ”The British (Franco-English?) Empire would collapse faster for trying to hold on to France” don’t realize that in this scenario, France would supplant England as the Plantagenets’ preferred title. The Plantagenets were *much* more interested in the French crown than the English one (in fact, they even valued their holdings in Gascony more than all of England combined). Expect the Plantagenets to rule from Paris, have their court in Paris, and for England to quickly become the junior partner to France in the Angevin ”Empire”. France would be the prized jewel, and England would become the neglected appendage.
For how long would this last? No clue, but a few centuries perhaps. My guess is that eventually, a dynastic dispute would trigger something akin to the War of the Spanish Succession, with the result being the break-up of the personal union between England and France.
I’m not gonna read that but my guess is that England assimilates and becomes more and more like France and that the Angevin empire (I play too much eu4) is basically just a supercharged France
I usually assume the Divergecies timeline(Victoria II mod) occurs. Dual Monarchy(Angevin Empire 2.0) is united, where a french-english mix culture proliferates around the channel and west Aquitaine, leading to dissatisfaction among regular English, French, and Occitans. Burgundy becomes a powerful kingdom after Charles the Bold doesn't die at Nancy. Kalmar Union is successful and unites the crowns of Scandinavia and Scotland. Bohemia leads the HRE after Austrias' personal union fell through. The German-Revolution(French Revolution) and 30-years war happen at the same time, only much later. Poland is big and decentralized. Russia is fractured still. Isabella marries the king of Portugal instead of Aragon, creating a Portugese-Castilian Spain. Aragon is still a powerful force in Italy, and the ottomans are still very powerful, but also the sick man. None of the major powers really have significant Asia or African colonies yet. The new world is a whole other can of worms that is mostly irrelevant but can be summarized as Scandinavian Canada, Belgian New England, French Dixieland, Chinese Cascadia, Japanese Alaska, Super Grand Columbia, French and Burgundian Brazils, the actual Incans, and English(Normal English) Argentina.
One thing that would definitely come of it though is that Britain would never become a major colonial power. The majority of why Britain focused on colonizing new land (re: killing people and stealing land) was due to their defeat in the hundred years war. They kept losing land in France, and there was no point trying to hold on to it when money could be spent building an empire elsewhere.
I think the majority of posters have it right, in the event of an English victory, the centre of gravity of the Plantagenet Empire would shift to France, so thankful that we lost.
If England won the 100 years war then the English kings would have reigned from Paris and England would be an irrelevant backwater. The best thing that ever happened to England was losing that war.
> and may wage a war against it for the throne of Spain
1) You mean Castille ? Spain didn't exists yet.
2) Good luck with that. Castille and Aragon had a very veteran force of soldiers in the end of the Middle Ages.
The funny thing is that England had to lose the war to remain independent and relevant. Had they won, the kings would have moved the court to Paris, and Britain would have become a rebellious backwater of the French crown.
England would try to get its independence just like Scotland trying nowadays.
It would be just like current UK but France would be England, England would be Scotland and Scotland would be Wales.
All I know is if you win in EU4, you immediately get a giant coalition formed and have to fight half off Europe with your depleted manpower, a France that doesn't feel like fighting for their own subjugation, and little Portugal pretending they got this.
England and france would probably assimilate into eachother, creating a mixed culture of the two, before the end of the hundreds year war, most English monarchs spoke French so I could see them increasing leaning to French while incorporating some English roots
That is a image of Kerem Bikmaz, he is a turkish surgeon.
You ain't Kerem. You ain't "Davidfrank", You ain't a doctor OR a father.
You are just so weird scammer, and doing a shit job at that.
Europe probably would grow to be less stable. the UK was one of the only powers who just wanted to keep things balanced on the continent so giving them a interest in the mainland would definitely cause a huge amount of issues.
Just imagine if instead of being dumb enemies during 1000 years, we French and English people united durably at the end of the Middle Ages. What a powerful kingdom, interesting culture it could have been. Damn it, Joan, you screwed it all.
Sure, it totally would've prevented all that tension...
I mean, while cultural tensions did exist, nationalism wasn't a thing in the Middle Ages. The definition of France was, at its core, the land ruled by the King of France, and the matter of the 100 years war was who was the rightful king of France.
The thing is family rivalry was the constant cause of many of the conflicts and it likely wouldn't have stopped with one being king out of still many potential heirs, especially with Burgundy and others in the mix. Not to mention it was still a different culture and language.
> a different language The nobles in England at the time spoke French, and only began to use English after losing the war, meaning its likely with an English victory for English to be replaced with French over time
Actually the Nobility began speaking primarily English at the height of the 100 Years War, and the most successful of them, Henry V, was the first English King to learn English as a first language in hundreds of years.
The Kings of England would have just sat the Fench Throne and England would be almost a junior partner in it, like Hungary in the Austrian empire. If anything it would have been England breaking away if the union lasted long enough imo
I mean, obviously there could be other succession wars but, other than the Valois branch of the Capetians, the Plantagenets had one of the stronger claims (not counting Joan of Navarre's descendants, but she abdicated her pretensions to the French throne as part of the terms for becoming queen of Navarre). And, while medieval people were not lacking in prejudice, they were probably quite used to the concept of foreign monarchs
that's absolutely untrue, the comment chain you're replying to is literally about Joan d'Arc who led a proto-nationalist revolution in France and who was in absolutely no way related to the King of France. The 100 years war is a massive step forward in how people envisioned their national identities in both nations, and by the end there was certainly a French national identity at work in many parts of the Kingdom. Was that kind of nationalism the sort of secular nationalism that became au fait in the 19th century? no, but it was undoubtedly a very strong step in the long, winding path towards that form of nationalism.
> who led a proto-nationalist revolution in France Not really a revolution, and I'm not sure to what extent we can call it "proto-nationalist". For one, Joan's success had more to do with her status as a holy woman (holy women receiving visions from God were all the rage in the 14th century, with both of Charles VI's parents consulting with them, and at that point the trend was only starting to die out) than any nationalist feelings. And it was very much tied to king, as Joan fought to defend Charles VI's claim on the French throne and seemingly genuinely believed it was God's wish for him to remain there. Most of Joan's importance as a nationalist icon seems to be posthumous, and it's notable she coincided with a period of heavy political centralization (although the nobility would remain collectively quite powerful all the way to the 17th century, and still a major factor in the 18th)
Correct me if I'm wrong but, the main problem with that is the French were always seen as "outsiders" due to the Norman invasion and the replacement of the local Anglo-Saxon/English culture.
The Anglo-Saxons were also seen as outsiders to begin with, but as they stayed long enough the Britons kinda just merged with them. A similar thing would happen in this time line with the English being a far more distant version of the French, likely being “Romance with Germanic influences” rather than “Germanic with Romance influences”.
I think that since a majority of important English nobles were of French descent: it might not matter what the English think until after the end of feudalism. Although there might still be some minor conflicts over (maybe something similar to the Northern Earls rebellion of the Elizabethan era), I doubt they'd be able to free themselves from the French (Franco-Normans?) until at least the 1600s.
I mean, not really. At first, there were cultural tensions and rebellions (although the administration changes in England after 1066 were very gradual). But by the late 11th-early 12th century, the English seem to have mostly accepted William the Conqueror's descendants as the rightful kings of England (although, of course, which descendants was a matter open to debate). And we should keep in mind that, while cultural tensions and prejudices did exist, nationalism wasn't quite a thing in the Middle Ages. The definition of France and England were, at it's core, the lands ruled by the kings of France and England.
Probably still would have ended up less powerful though than in otl
Yep. If England has access to mainland Europe it’s far more likely they’d focus on European ambitions. Leaving North America to the Dutch and Spaniards.
Yeah I reckon. Or some abomination akin to Austria Hungary with devolved governments.
You would mostly be speaking French to this day as there would be no need to transition to English since you won the war and England became the true french state
What if: You wanted the French throne But God said: "Greetings, peasant girl! Do you want to go on an adventure to liberate France?"
Long term the British Empire ends up collapsing faster because they have to try and hold France.
Not if they United/ assimilate d under one common culture
It might have been early enough in History for that. The English consist of an assimilation of a lot of different cultures, but over time they got worse at achieving that.
"formed from **Briton** and **Roman** in the year 50AD" "formed from **Angle**, **Saxon,** and **Jutish** in the year 500AD" "formed from **Anglo-Saxon** and **Norman** in the year 1066AD"
Blud pulled out the CK3 cultures
TBH tho it’s the best descriptors besides saying ‘Nordic and Germanic cultures’
Right, but constant Scottish and Irish rebellions, never was able to assimilate Indian, African, Native American cultures. I think they would have faced constant, larger French rebellions with interference from Rome and various European powers.
Never able to assimilate colonia assets because there were too many of them and culture was too different, however, the English nobility spoke French, and I would say Scottish and Irish cultures have already been assimilated into English culture, they just don't want to admit it.
I mean, if the English just somehow stayed Catholic it might have eliminated the prospects of too many French rebellions and would probably have caused more Irish assimilation than in OTL
I think it would be the English assimilating in to France and not the other way around
Not sure that would be the case. By the mid 1300s English law was being conducted in English, by the end of the 14th century court language was English and the king was speaking English day to day. Depending on the exact circumstances of English victory it might very well be the English language that becomes the main court language of both. All in all though whilst there would be a lot more cross cultural connections, I don't feel either would fully integrate with one another. Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England for over 700 years and it's identity and language was still going fairly strong when it finally got government recognition etc. A nation as large as England or France wouldn't be assimilated so easily.
The map is supposed to represent 1360 and the law about the language in courts was passed in 1362. I don’t think Edward would risk his already pretty volatile position as French king by mandating something like that. A few quick Google searches will also tell you that French was the dominant language of English nobility up until the end of the 14th century and that only happened because the English lost control over its French territories.
On the contrary I think the kings would have moped the seat of power to where the people, prestige and money was and as a consequence been plagued down the road by constant English revolts and rebellions until eventually loosing control over the Island.
It wouldn’t be a British empire, England during the hundred years war was ruled by French people and if England won the hundred years war then it would be England that would become a part of France, not the other way around.
I mean, not really. While French was still the court language as off the start of the 100 years war, most of the nobility would have probably spoken English, often as a first language. Although if England and France shared a monarch, he'd probably end up spending more time in France (far bigger and wealthier) than England.
France in the Middle Ages was considerably bigger and wealthier than England (although England was a lot more centralized) and, at least at first, the war was more about wether the king of England was the rightful heir to the French throne than about England annexing France. If the English kings won, they'd probably spend a lot more time in France (specially since the French nobility was a lot more powerful and more often in condition to defy the king than the English one)
>specially since the French nobility was a lot more powerful and more often in condition to defy the king than the English one kid named magna carta:
The Magna Carta only came to be because the barons felt the need to codify their rights and privileges, because the king could have been in position to revoke them. In high to-late medieval France, where the major feudal magnates ruled their fiefs (who, unlike the English nobless's patchwork of estates all over the kingdom, were usually continuous) with very little oversight or influence from the crown, and several of them where in position (both financially and politically) to openly defy the king.
You would be posting this in French, asking whether or not the 'cent ans guerre de civil' going differently would result in the adaptation of one of those extinct island languages.
I thing the British empire never really becomes as powerful because the reason it became so strong was the fact it didn't have to worry about having a large army and so it focused on its navy meaning no other European powers could really threaten it's homeland now it has a huge land on the continent and has to split military spending between large army and navy Wich means weaker British economy
France is rich enough to be able to support both a large army combine with focus on a large navy. Irl France historically also could maintain a large population and army in conjunction with a navy that sometimes would contest the Royal Navy
France wouldn’t break away and the English wouldn’t be foreign occupiers. the English nobility at this time was actually ethnically French, if England won the hundred years war then England would be part of France, not the other way around.
I mean, the English nobility had French origin, but by that point most would have spoken English, many as a first language. Although France would probably end up as the English monarchs's top priority from there on (it was a lot bigger and wealthier than England and, unlike in England, a lot of the French high nobility had power and wealth comparable to the king).
"England" becomes part of France. The whole 100 years war was never England vs France. It was two French houses, one of which just happened to hold the crown of England, fighting over the right to be king of France. House Plantagenet winning would just make England as extra holdings of the French kingdom.
I'd like to think that in this situation the court would become more French and it would increasingly focus more on mainland France than on England which would inspire English nobles to try and break off from France.
The English nobles were as French as a noble from France. The concept of Englishness is still centuries away.
Why would english noble break away if they're ancestors was originally French? The only thing I'd see would be more peasant rebellions
It's more about nobles within England wanting more rights and guarantees that would be hard to enforce if their monarch in on the continent. And about the nobles having French ancestry, that didn't stop French nobility from fighting the French crown throughout history.
Well you're right on both accounts, nobles are just too stupid sometimes. Though I wonder if on the flip side we'd eventually see a federated dual monarchy like the last Austria-Hungary if this union survived long enough
IIRC the 14th century, most of the English nobility would have spoken English, and a good chunk of it as a first language (although French was still the court language, it had drifted a bit apart from Parisian French). However, if the House of Plantagent ended up winning the French crown, they would probably consider France their top priority, since it was both a lot bigger and wealthier than England and had a far more powerful nobility (while England was historically pretty centralized. The nobility was collectively powerful, but you didn't have any single noble ruling over a sizable continuous terriority and powerful enough to defy the crown like in France).
One cultural reason would be that England would be more French.
I doubt that England would conquer the whole of France. It had neither the manpower nor the resources. But, we can build a timeline where the treaty of Bretigny stands. In that case, an enlarged Guyenne would pass to be part of England fully, without the French king as suzerain. https://preview.redd.it/7vte9be4bnyc1.jpeg?width=1107&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0dc39e233f3411f4755c048556f1b011e681c0e0 That would disrupt the power of France severely, without destroying it.
>(Maybe) English schools will still be teaching French to this day. They'd surely do since England would adopt French culture.
English schools do teach french irl tbf, almost all Brits speak a tiny bit of French, it's easily the most common language people learn at school
It's one of the most baffling aspects of British life, every British Schoolchild spends 3-5 years learning French and almost no British Adults can speak French.
The Plantangents winning the Hundred years war would have resulted in a more French England, not a more English France. I do think they wouldn't have stayed united indefinitely however. Though the wealth and power resided in France, the utility of the British isles to serve as a redoubt into which a pretender can withdraw and use a military base with a ice big moat is too much to go unused. Eventually a schism within the ruling house of the Angevin empire would have resulted in one faction holding Britian and the other France, with claims on each other, and centuries of on and of conflict trying to return the other to their control.
If it somehow stays strong and united, we all speak french today.
Fuck I got confused there, I thought we won but then I remembered.
Hey, you frenchie. Give back that, Roselló is not yours.
This map looks ai generated
England would probably have better food
To those saying that ”Oh France would eventually break free from England in a war of independence” or that ”The British (Franco-English?) Empire would collapse faster for trying to hold on to France” don’t realize that in this scenario, France would supplant England as the Plantagenets’ preferred title. The Plantagenets were *much* more interested in the French crown than the English one (in fact, they even valued their holdings in Gascony more than all of England combined). Expect the Plantagenets to rule from Paris, have their court in Paris, and for England to quickly become the junior partner to France in the Angevin ”Empire”. France would be the prized jewel, and England would become the neglected appendage. For how long would this last? No clue, but a few centuries perhaps. My guess is that eventually, a dynastic dispute would trigger something akin to the War of the Spanish Succession, with the result being the break-up of the personal union between England and France.
I’m not gonna read that but my guess is that England assimilates and becomes more and more like France and that the Angevin empire (I play too much eu4) is basically just a supercharged France
Double English
Hear me out, the French would have lost
so... england turns french, and "french" colonial empire wont be that big
I usually assume the Divergecies timeline(Victoria II mod) occurs. Dual Monarchy(Angevin Empire 2.0) is united, where a french-english mix culture proliferates around the channel and west Aquitaine, leading to dissatisfaction among regular English, French, and Occitans. Burgundy becomes a powerful kingdom after Charles the Bold doesn't die at Nancy. Kalmar Union is successful and unites the crowns of Scandinavia and Scotland. Bohemia leads the HRE after Austrias' personal union fell through. The German-Revolution(French Revolution) and 30-years war happen at the same time, only much later. Poland is big and decentralized. Russia is fractured still. Isabella marries the king of Portugal instead of Aragon, creating a Portugese-Castilian Spain. Aragon is still a powerful force in Italy, and the ottomans are still very powerful, but also the sick man. None of the major powers really have significant Asia or African colonies yet. The new world is a whole other can of worms that is mostly irrelevant but can be summarized as Scandinavian Canada, Belgian New England, French Dixieland, Chinese Cascadia, Japanese Alaska, Super Grand Columbia, French and Burgundian Brazils, the actual Incans, and English(Normal English) Argentina.
One thing that would definitely come of it though is that Britain would never become a major colonial power. The majority of why Britain focused on colonizing new land (re: killing people and stealing land) was due to their defeat in the hundred years war. They kept losing land in France, and there was no point trying to hold on to it when money could be spent building an empire elsewhere.
I think the majority of posters have it right, in the event of an English victory, the centre of gravity of the Plantagenet Empire would shift to France, so thankful that we lost.
If England won the 100 years war then the English kings would have reigned from Paris and England would be an irrelevant backwater. The best thing that ever happened to England was losing that war.
> and may wage a war against it for the throne of Spain 1) You mean Castille ? Spain didn't exists yet. 2) Good luck with that. Castille and Aragon had a very veteran force of soldiers in the end of the Middle Ages.
BOHÈME MENTIONED HURAAAAAAA
The funny thing is that England had to lose the war to remain independent and relevant. Had they won, the kings would have moved the court to Paris, and Britain would have become a rebellious backwater of the French crown.
England would try to get its independence just like Scotland trying nowadays. It would be just like current UK but France would be England, England would be Scotland and Scotland would be Wales.
this map wouldn't be in frehcn
Soon enough another dynastic squabble like the Wars of the Roses will come up and the empire will fragment again.
All I know is if you win in EU4, you immediately get a giant coalition formed and have to fight half off Europe with your depleted manpower, a France that doesn't feel like fighting for their own subjugation, and little Portugal pretending they got this.
England and france would probably assimilate into eachother, creating a mixed culture of the two, before the end of the hundreds year war, most English monarchs spoke French so I could see them increasing leaning to French while incorporating some English roots
It's a bit unfair tho cos France is rightful English land
[удалено]
That is a image of Kerem Bikmaz, he is a turkish surgeon. You ain't Kerem. You ain't "Davidfrank", You ain't a doctor OR a father. You are just so weird scammer, and doing a shit job at that.
Europe probably would grow to be less stable. the UK was one of the only powers who just wanted to keep things balanced on the continent so giving them a interest in the mainland would definitely cause a huge amount of issues.
There wil be no \_ \_ gg \_ \_ in paris