No Burgundian Netherlands

[Alex Milman]

'In 1357 Count Louis II married his seven-year-old daughter Margaret to the minor Duke Philip I of Burgundy, who died from plague four years later. Sole heiress of her father's territories, she was a highly coveted bride courted by both Edmund of Langley, son of King Edward III of England, and Philip the Bold, son of King John II of France and Duke of Burgundy since 1363. After several years of tough bargaining, Count Louis II gave his consent to Philip and his brother King Charles V'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II,_Count_of_Flanders

This basically started the Burgundian Netherlands and the whole sequence of the
events from the Burgundian role as an independent player in the 100YW and all
the way to the "Burgundian Inheritance", Hapsburg encirclement of France and
the wars which eventually broke it (and the Dutch Revolution "on the
side" :-)).

Now, what if Count Louis II chose Edmund of Langley (the future Duke of York)?
Probably, unlike France, Ed III would not give him the lordships in Romance
Flanders (Lille, Douai, Orchies) and a payment of 200,000 livre tournois
(I may be mistaken but it looks like Ed III and Ed Junior were mostly in the
business of taking other people money) but perhaps he could get an offer he
could not refuse, like having few thousands English marching across his lands
turning them into a wasteland or Ed Senior suddenly deciding to help the
Flemish towns to restore their old freedoms. Anyway, in 1369 Margaret married
Edmund (who for the occasion is elevated to Duke of York 16 years prior to OTL).

As in OTL The Flemings again rose in 1382 under Philip van Artevelde and expelled Count Louis from Flanders after the Battle of Beverhoutsveld; Unlike
OTL, the help is coming from England, not France so the Battle of Roosebeke
looks distinctively different tactically but with the same outcome (Flemish
phalanx vs. English archers & mounted and dismounted men at arms). Without the
English aid Ghent can't resist (in OTL it did all the way to 1384).

In 1384 Margaret and Edmund inherit counties of Flanders, Artois and Burgundy.
Philip the Bold remains just a Duke of Burgundy and there are no future
marriages that result in creation of the OTL "Valois Burgundy".

The House of York has territories on both sides of the Channel so how will
it play in a long run on each of these sides?

In OTL Edmund was Keeper of the Realm in 1394/95 and in 1396 (reign of
Richard II). Would it be possible if he had serious vested interests in Flanders?

In OTL, IIRC, at least Philip II and John the Fearless of Burgundy (who unified his mother's and father's possessions) had been trying to get access
to the French Treasury thus getting into conflict with Duke Louis I of Orleans
(the following assassinations of Louis and then John split France into the
Burgundian and Armagnac parties with the well-known impact on the 100YW,
etc.). This may not change too much if Philip and John are just the "simple"
Dukes of Burgundy but perhaps their value as the allies (of any side) is less
than in OTL, especially if the Flanders are in the English hands.

If we assume that the marriages of the "Flemish Plantagenets" are the same
as of the OTL Burgundian Valois, then they eventually expand their territories
to Namur, Hainaut, Zeeland, Brabant, and Limburg. But, let's assume that they
don't have money to buy the Duchy of Luxembourg (or perhaps they do, to make
things closer to OTL). As a result, they have a dilemma similar to one of the
OTL Valois Burgundy: some of their possessions are in France (but there is no
agreement about their return if there are no male issue) and some in the
HRE plus they have lands in England.

Will this change anything in the Lancastrian coup?

If the coup still happens, will it change anything in the 100YW? Will the
"Flemish Yorks" be ready to avail their lands as a base for the English
(Lancastrian) invasion of France knowing quite well that even before they'll
see and Frenchmen, they'll loot "the base"?

If <by whatever combination> there are still Wars of the Roses would the York
side have a noticeable advantage, at least in the ability to finance the war?
What about the English-"Flemish" (plus all other entities) union? Could it be
sustainable taking into an account the French sovereignty over some of the
territories? Or would it be an extended 100YW that'll end up with the Northern
French borders being what it is now (aka, earlier version of the conquests of
Louis XIII and XIV)?

What about the rest of the territories?

There can be also a scenario under which the Yorks end up with just the
Netherlands and the following dynastic marriages creating situation similar
to OTL but without the Hapsburg claims to French Comte?

[Pete Barrett]

Post by Alex Milman
'In 1357 Count Louis II married his seven-year-old daughter Margaret to
the minor Duke Philip I of Burgundy, who died from plague four years
later. Sole heiress of her father's territories, she was a highly coveted
bride courted by both Edmund of Langley, son of King Edward III of
England, and Philip the Bold, son of King John II of France and Duke of
Burgundy since 1363. After several years of tough bargaining, Count Louis
II gave his consent to Philip and his brother King Charles V'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II,_Count_of_Flanders
This basically started the Burgundian Netherlands and the whole sequence
of the events from the Burgundian role as an independent player in the
100YW and all the way to the "Burgundian Inheritance", Hapsburg
encirclement of France and the wars which eventually broke it (and the
Dutch Revolution "on the side" :-)).
Now, what if Count Louis II chose Edmund of Langley (the future Duke of York)?

OK, but for the record, is this likely? The French kings had been supporting
the Flemish counts against the rebellious burghers of Ghent and the other
towns in Flanders, while the English kings had been supporting the burghers.
Unless Louis of Malle has a 180 degree change of heart, and emerges as a
democrat and allies himself with the burghers, he'd be very unlikely to
choose Edmund. Any flirting with the English was surely no more than an
attempt to extort more concessions from the French.

Post by Alex Milman
Probably, unlike France, Ed III would not give him the lordships in
Romance Flanders (Lille, Douai, Orchies) and a payment of 200,000 livre
tournois (I may be mistaken but it looks like Ed III and Ed Junior were
mostly in the business of taking other people money)

They didn't have (for kings) a lot of their own; the French kings were much
richer.

Post by Alex Milman
but perhaps he could
get an offer he could not refuse, like having few thousands English
marching across his lands turning them into a wasteland or Ed Senior
suddenly deciding to help the Flemish towns to restore their old freedoms.
Anyway, in 1369 Margaret married Edmund (who for the occasion is elevated
to Duke of York 16 years prior to OTL).
As in OTL The Flemings again rose in 1382 under Philip van Artevelde and
expelled Count Louis from Flanders after the Battle of Beverhoutsveld;
Unlike OTL, the help is coming from England, not France so the Battle of
Roosebeke looks distinctively different tactically but with the same
outcome (Flemish phalanx vs. English archers & mounted and dismounted men
at arms). Without the English aid Ghent can't resist (in OTL it did all
the way to 1384).
In 1384 Margaret and Edmund inherit counties of Flanders, Artois and
Burgundy. Philip the Bold remains just a Duke of Burgundy and there are no
future marriages that result in creation of the OTL "Valois Burgundy".
The House of York has territories on both sides of the Channel so how will
it play in a long run on each of these sides?
In OTL Edmund was Keeper of the Realm in 1394/95 and in 1396 (reign of
Richard II). Would it be possible if he had serious vested interests in Flanders?

Undoubtedly, as long as he's actually _in_ the realm, which he easily can be
(the distance between Bruges and London isn't far, and the journey was quite
routine at the time). However, many of Edmund of Langley's promotions and
honours were due to Richard II favouring Edmund's son, Edward, Earl of
Rutland, who he wanted to succeed himself, should he dies childless. In the
ATL, there's no Edward; there may be an *Edward, expected to inherit
Flanders, but he'd be unlikely (being brought up in Flanders) to be a
special friend of Richard; and even if he was, it's unlikely that Richard
would be allowed by his other uncles (who, for a great period of his reign,
were dictating his actions to him) to favour, to the extent that he wanted,
someone who was going to inherit a major forieign state. If he tried, it
could bring to a head earlier the crisis which led to his deposition.

(Richard could present it as a way to bring both Flanders and Gascony under
the English crown, thereby surrounding France, threatening it from north and
south west; but that would mean a major change in direction for Richard,
whose independent foreign policy, when he was able to conduct it, which was
for peace with France.)

Post by Alex Milman
In OTL, IIRC, at least Philip II and John the Fearless of Burgundy (who
unified his mother's and father's possessions) had been trying to get
access to the French Treasury thus getting into conflict with Duke Louis I
of Orleans (the following assassinations of Louis and then John split
France into the Burgundian and Armagnac parties with the well-known impact
on the 100YW, etc.). This may not change too much if Philip and John are
just the "simple" Dukes of Burgundy but perhaps their value as the allies
(of any side) is less than in OTL, especially if the Flanders are in the
English hands.
If we assume that the marriages of the "Flemish Plantagenets" are the same
as of the OTL Burgundian Valois, then they eventually expand their
territories to Namur, Hainaut, Zeeland, Brabant, and Limburg. But, let's
assume that they don't have money to buy the Duchy of Luxembourg (or
perhaps they do, to make things closer to OTL). As a result, they have a
dilemma similar to one of the OTL Valois Burgundy: some of their
possessions are in France (but there is no agreement about their return if
there are no male issue) and some in the
HRE plus they have lands in England.

They may not have lands in England. One of the more unpopular (with the
nobility) acts of Richard towards the end of his reign was his
appropriation, without compensation, of the Duchy of Lancaster from his
cousin, Henry Bolingbroke. The temptation to do the same for Edmund of
Langley's lands in England would be irresistable, I would think.

Even if Richard gets deposed before he has a chance to do so, one of his
successors might do the same, leaving a title and a token piece of land in
the hands of the Flemish Plantagenets. Or perhaps the English lands could be
inherited by a younger branch of the Flemish Plantagenets. Either way, I
think there would be no major holdings on both sides of the Channel.

Post by Alex Milman
Will this change anything in the Lancastrian coup?
If the coup still happens, will it change anything in the 100YW? Will the
"Flemish Yorks" be ready to avail their lands as a base for the English
(Lancastrian) invasion of France knowing quite well that even before
they'll see and Frenchmen, they'll loot "the base"?

The Valois started of as loyal allies and subjects of the French kings, but
gradually struck off in their own direction. That event was hastened by
events in French politics, but it's surely inevitable after a couple of
generations, and after they'd acquired lands which were _not_ subject to the
French King.

The Plantagenets would never be subjects of England (would actually be
subjects of France, though I'm not sure how seriously they'd take that
status - the Counts of Flanders had been more or less independent throughout
the Middle Ages), so there'd be less holding them back in that respect
(indeed, the putative acquisition of Brabant, etc. is exactly that). On the
other hand, they probably wouldn't actually go to war with England, simply
because it would go against every material interest they could possibly
have.

Post by Alex Milman
If <by whatever combination> there are still Wars of the Roses would the
York side have a noticeable advantage, at least in the ability to finance
the war?

Marriages are getting in the way here. The Yorkists claimed the throne
through descent from the _Mortimer_ heiress (the daughter of the daughter of
Edward III's second sone, so through simple primogeniture). The Lancastrians
claimed it either through male-line-only primogeniture, or through
parliamentary _fiat_. It's highly unlikely that a Flemish Plantagenet heir
would marry the Mortimer heiress - they would be far too much use in
acquiring Brabant, Liege, etc. by marrying _their_ heiresses, to bother with
the Mortimer inheritance, large though it was.

They _will_ have a claim by male-line primogeniture if the Lancastrians look
like dying out, so if they have to choose sides, they would probably support
Lancaster, rather than Mortimer (or whoever takes on the Mortimer claim) if
they want to preserve their own claim. They may not, of course - they'll be
quite the Netherlanders by then, and may have marriage alliances with one or
other of the parties which will be more important than any vague claim
dating back 100 years.

Post by Alex Milman
What about the English-"Flemish" (plus all other entities) union?
Could it be sustainable taking into an account the French sovereignty over
some of the territories? Or would it be an extended 100YW that'll end up
with the Northern French borders being what it is now (aka, earlier
version of the conquests of Louis XIII and XIV)?
What about the rest of the territories?

Assuming that the Low Countries, England, and Gascony are in some way united
under the English crown (which I think is unlikely), then I think the French
will still win the HYW by driving the English from France. But from the Low
Countries? Brabant and the rest are in the Empire, so it would be difficult
to engineer an excuse for interfering. And if they simply drove the English
out in a war, they'd end up holding a lot of land between the OTL French
border and the Rhine as fiefs of the HRE (assuming they can persuade an
Emperor to transfer the fiefs to the French king; and it seems unlikely that
even the most cash-strapped emperor would be willing to do that, for
whatever money). So yes, an extended HYW ending with some sort of
compromise.

If that leaves England with significant territories across the North Sea and
the Channel, just as we go into the Reformation, then that itself would have
large consequences, though I wouldn't like to speculate as to what they
might be.

Post by Alex Milman
There can be also a scenario under which the Yorks end up with just the
Netherlands and the following dynastic marriages creating situation
similar to OTL but without the Hapsburg claims to French Comte?

As from my comments above, I think that's the most likely scenario (assuming
a Habsburg marriage to a Plantagenet heiress, which obviously depends on the
Flemish Plantagenets dying out in the male line at some time). It would even
give Philip II of Spain a more direct claim to the English throne (instead
of the rather roundabout one OTL)!

[Alex Milman]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
'In 1357 Count Louis II married his seven-year-old daughter Margaret to
the minor Duke Philip I of Burgundy, who died from plague four years
later. Sole heiress of her father's territories, she was a highly coveted
bride courted by both Edmund of Langley, son of King Edward III of
England, and Philip the Bold, son of King John II of France and Duke of
Burgundy since 1363. After several years of tough bargaining, Count Louis
II gave his consent to Philip and his brother King Charles V'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II,_Count_of_Flanders
This basically started the Burgundian Netherlands and the whole sequence
of the events from the Burgundian role as an independent player in the
100YW and all the way to the "Burgundian Inheritance", Hapsburg
encirclement of France and the wars which eventually broke it (and the
Dutch Revolution "on the side" :-)).
Now, what if Count Louis II chose Edmund of Langley (the future Duke of York)?

OK, but for the record, is this likely? The French kings had been supporting
the Flemish counts against the rebellious burghers of Ghent and the other
towns in Flanders, while the English kings had been supporting the burghers.
Unless Louis of Malle has a 180 degree change of heart, and emerges as a
democrat and allies himself with the burghers, he'd be very unlikely to
choose Edmund. Any flirting with the English was surely no more than an
attempt to extort more concessions from the French.

Edmund's candidacy existed so it was not unrealistic. Louis, AFAIK, was trying
to play a balancing act between France and England (not very successfully) and
something could be said in a favor of the English option. France was recently
defeated by England, English connection could solve at least some of his
problems with the England-aligned burghers (and would benefit Flanders
economically). And, as I said, at least in theory Edward could make an offer
which Louis hardly would be able to refuse by presenting him with a choice
between marriage and full-scale invasion.

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
Probably, unlike France, Ed III would not give him the lordships in
Romance Flanders (Lille, Douai, Orchies) and a payment of 200,000 livre
tournois (I may be mistaken but it looks like Ed III and Ed Junior were
mostly in the business of taking other people money)

They didn't have (for kings) a lot of their own; the French kings were much
richer.

Indeed. And no matter how much did they manage to loot, they never had enough.

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
but perhaps he could
get an offer he could not refuse, like having few thousands English
marching across his lands turning them into a wasteland or Ed Senior
suddenly deciding to help the Flemish towns to restore their old freedoms.
Anyway, in 1369 Margaret married Edmund (who for the occasion is elevated
to Duke of York 16 years prior to OTL).
As in OTL The Flemings again rose in 1382 under Philip van Artevelde and
expelled Count Louis from Flanders after the Battle of Beverhoutsveld;
Unlike OTL, the help is coming from England, not France so the Battle of
Roosebeke looks distinctively different tactically but with the same
outcome (Flemish phalanx vs. English archers & mounted and dismounted men
at arms). Without the English aid Ghent can't resist (in OTL it did all
the way to 1384).
In 1384 Margaret and Edmund inherit counties of Flanders, Artois and
Burgundy. Philip the Bold remains just a Duke of Burgundy and there are no
future marriages that result in creation of the OTL "Valois Burgundy".
The House of York has territories on both sides of the Channel so how will
it play in a long run on each of these sides?
In OTL Edmund was Keeper of the Realm in 1394/95 and in 1396 (reign of
Richard II). Would it be possible if he had serious vested interests in Flanders?

Undoubtedly, as long as he's actually _in_ the realm, which he easily can be
(the distance between Bruges and London isn't far, and the journey was quite
routine at the time). However, many of Edmund of Langley's promotions and
honours were due to Richard II favouring Edmund's son, Edward, Earl of
Rutland, who he wanted to succeed himself, should he dies childless.

That's true but he could be elevated as a result of his marriage to be more
equal to the bride.

Post by Pete Barrett
In the
ATL, there's no Edward; there may be an *Edward, expected to inherit
Flanders, but he'd be unlikely (being brought up in Flanders) to be a
special friend of Richard; and even if he was, it's unlikely that Richard
would be allowed by his other uncles (who, for a great period of his reign,
were dictating his actions to him) to favour, to the extent that he wanted,
someone who was going to inherit a major forieign state. If he tried, it
could bring to a head earlier the crisis which led to his deposition.

This is a good consideration but Edmund would still have his lands in England
to be inherited by his son (whatever the name) and this son could be hanging
at the English court trying to play a role in the English politics (like Jean
Fearless did in France). With some Flemish money to throw around he could
become a popular figure creating problems for his English relatives (like
Jean for Louis of Orleans)

Post by Pete Barrett
(Richard could present it as a way to bring both Flanders and Gascony under
the English crown,

IMO, this is problematic on a formal level: Edmund's line possesses Flanders
and other areas as vassals of either France or the HRE so how England could
get into the picture unless there is Yorkist (for simplicity sake) coup with
the following personal union which is hardly acceptable for Richard.

Of course, an informal "family union" could work for a while: a King of
England is a senior member of the family by a virtue of his rank and as long
as the rulers of the "Netherlands" posses lands and positions in England
everybody lives happily ever after, at least in theory.

Post by Pete Barrett
thereby surrounding France, threatening it from north and
south west; but that would mean a major change in direction for Richard,
whose independent foreign policy, when he was able to conduct it, which was
for peace with France.)

The Flanders would benefit from peace and could strengthen Richard's position.

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
In OTL, IIRC, at least Philip II and John the Fearless of Burgundy (who
unified his mother's and father's possessions) had been trying to get
access to the French Treasury thus getting into conflict with Duke Louis I
of Orleans (the following assassinations of Louis and then John split
France into the Burgundian and Armagnac parties with the well-known impact
on the 100YW, etc.). This may not change too much if Philip and John are
just the "simple" Dukes of Burgundy but perhaps their value as the allies
(of any side) is less than in OTL, especially if the Flanders are in the
English hands.
If we assume that the marriages of the "Flemish Plantagenets" are the same
as of the OTL Burgundian Valois, then they eventually expand their
territories to Namur, Hainaut, Zeeland, Brabant, and Limburg. But, let's
assume that they don't have money to buy the Duchy of Luxembourg (or
perhaps they do, to make things closer to OTL). As a result, they have a
dilemma similar to one of the OTL Valois Burgundy: some of their
possessions are in France (but there is no agreement about their return if
there are no male issue) and some in the
HRE plus they have lands in England.

They may not have lands in England. One of the more unpopular (with the
nobility) acts of Richard towards the end of his reign was his
appropriation, without compensation, of the Duchy of Lancaster from his
cousin, Henry Bolingbroke.

Wasn't there some political excuse?

Post by Pete Barrett
The temptation to do the same for Edmund of
Langley's lands in England would be irresistable, I would think.

Well, if he is a political ally, there would not be a reason for such an
act.

Post by Pete Barrett
Even if Richard gets deposed before he has a chance to do so, one of his
successors might do the same, leaving a title and a token piece of land in
the hands of the Flemish Plantagenets.

This would be a distinct possibility, at least in a long run and, speaking
of the "token piece", did you see "Passport to Pimlico"? :-)

Post by Pete Barrett
Or perhaps the English lands could be
inherited by a younger branch of the Flemish Plantagenets. Either way, I
think there would be no major holdings on both sides of the Channel.

Of course, in a long run the arrangement would not work as it did not work
in France: sooner or later having a vassal who is also an independent ruler
of a rich area is going to be inconvenient.

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
Will this change anything in the Lancastrian coup?
If the coup still happens, will it change anything in the 100YW? Will the
"Flemish Yorks" be ready to avail their lands as a base for the English
(Lancastrian) invasion of France knowing quite well that even before
they'll see and Frenchmen, they'll loot "the base"?

The Valois started of as loyal allies and subjects of the French kings, but
gradually struck off in their own direction.

Well, the loyalty is a tricky thing. In his book on the 100YW Jean Favier
wrote that the first Dukes of Burgundy needed French money to maintain
themselves so the "loyalty" was determined by an ability to get access to
the Treasury of France. When after assassination of Louis of Orleans they
got a de facto control of the French government they were loyal (to their
own interests) but this loyalty continued only as long as they did have
that control. When they lost it, Jean the Fearless started playing his own
games.

Post by Pete Barrett
That event was hastened by
events in French politics, but it's surely inevitable after a couple of
generations, and after they'd acquired lands which were _not_ subject to the
French King.

Of course but idea of the first few rulers was to keep sucking the French
money and using them to expand their possessions outside France.

Post by Pete Barrett
The Plantagenets would never be subjects of England

Yes, this would be a major difference.

Post by Pete Barrett
(would actually be
subjects of France, though I'm not sure how seriously they'd take that
status - the Counts of Flanders had been more or less independent throughout
the Middle Ages),

But acknowledging their status (IIRC, Louis II confirmed it officially)

Post by Pete Barrett
so there'd be less holding them back in that respect
(indeed, the putative acquisition of Brabant, etc. is exactly that).

Yes. Being a part of the HRE was pretty much being your own boss as long as
you can defend yourself.

Post by Pete Barrett
On the
other hand, they probably wouldn't actually go to war with England, simply
because it would go against every material interest they could possibly
have.

Yes.

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
If <by whatever combination> there are still Wars of the Roses would the
York side have a noticeable advantage, at least in the ability to finance
the war?

Marriages are getting in the way here. The Yorkists claimed the throne
through descent from the _Mortimer_ heiress (the daughter of the daughter of
Edward III's second sone, so through simple primogeniture). The Lancastrians
claimed it either through male-line-only primogeniture, or through
parliamentary _fiat_.

Or based on de facto possession (unofficially). :-)

Post by Pete Barrett
It's highly unlikely that a Flemish Plantagenet heir
would marry the Mortimer heiress - they would be far too much use in
acquiring Brabant, Liege, etc. by marrying _their_ heiresses, to bother with
the Mortimer inheritance, large though it was.
They _will_ have a claim by male-line primogeniture if the Lancastrians look
like dying out, so if they have to choose sides, they would probably support
Lancaster, rather than Mortimer (or whoever takes on the Mortimer claim) if
they want to preserve their own claim. They may not, of course - they'll be
quite the Netherlanders by then, and may have marriage alliances with one or
other of the parties which will be more important than any vague claim
dating back 100 years.

OK, no Wars of the Roses. Fine by me: I never liked the Tudors. :-)

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
What about the English-"Flemish" (plus all other entities) union?
Could it be sustainable taking into an account the French sovereignty over
some of the territories? Or would it be an extended 100YW that'll end up
with the Northern French borders being what it is now (aka, earlier
version of the conquests of Louis XIII and XIV)?
What about the rest of the territories?

Assuming that the Low Countries, England, and Gascony are in some way united
under the English crown (which I think is unlikely),

Extremely unlikely, IMO: the French had been actively squeezing English
from Southern France at the time of Charles V and the Low Countries are
ruled by another branch of a family as the French or imperial territories.

Post by Pete Barrett
then I think the French
will still win the HYW by driving the English from France.

Most likely: even at his worst time the Dauphin had a much higher income
than the revenue from the English held territories of France could provide
and, with the idea that the war must be financed by the French lands, the
English were doomed to loose sooner or later.

Post by Pete Barrett
But from the Low
Countries? Brabant and the rest are in the Empire, so it would be difficult
to engineer an excuse for interfering.

But Artois and other French counties are OK.

Post by Pete Barrett
And if they simply drove the English
out in a war, they'd end up holding a lot of land between the OTL French
border and the Rhine as fiefs of the HRE (assuming they can persuade an
Emperor to transfer the fiefs to the French king;
and it seems unlikely that
even the most cash-strapped emperor would be willing to do that, for
whatever money).

IMHO, this would be EXTREMELY unlikely: why would he do anything of the kind
and could he do this, anyway?

Post by Pete Barrett
So yes, an extended HYW ending with some sort of
compromise.
If that leaves England with significant territories across the North Sea and
the Channel, just as we go into the Reformation, then that itself would have
large consequences, though I wouldn't like to speculate as to what they
might be.

Protestant "superpower" on the early stages of the Reformation?

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
There can be also a scenario under which the Yorks end up with just the
Netherlands and the following dynastic marriages creating situation
similar to OTL but without the Hapsburg claims to French Comte?

As from my comments above, I think that's the most likely scenario (assuming
a Habsburg marriage to a Plantagenet heiress, which obviously depends on the
Flemish Plantagenets dying out in the male line at some time). It would even
give Philip II of Spain a more direct claim to the English throne (instead
of the rather roundabout one OTL)!

Well, IIRC, he never made that claim seriously and was trying to cooperate
until Liz left him out of options.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
In the
ATL, there's no Edward; there may be an *Edward, expected to inherit
Flanders, but he'd be unlikely (being brought up in Flanders) to be a
special friend of Richard; and even if he was, it's unlikely that Richard
would be allowed by his other uncles (who, for a great period of his
reign, were dictating his actions to him) to favour, to the extent that
he wanted, someone who was going to inherit a major forieign state. If he
tried, it could bring to a head earlier the crisis which led to his
deposition.

This is a good consideration but Edmund would still have his lands in
England to be inherited by his son (whatever the name) and this son could
be hanging at the English court trying to play a role in the English
politics (like Jean Fearless did in France). With some Flemish money to
throw around he could become a popular figure creating problems for his
English relatives (like Jean for Louis of Orleans)

Post by Pete Barrett
(Richard could present it as a way to bring both Flanders and Gascony
under the English crown,

IMO, this is problematic on a formal level: Edmund's line possesses
Flanders and other areas as vassals of either France or the HRE so how
England could get into the picture unless there is Yorkist (for simplicity
sake) coup with the following personal union which is hardly acceptable
for Richard.

I was thinking that Richard could present his plan for Edmund's line
inheriting England (as well as Flanders), thus by passing the senior lines,
as a plan for surrounding France. But as I said, it would mean a massive
turn in Richard's policy; and I don't think Richard (who seems to have
allowed his policy on the succession to be dictated by his personal
affections) would have favoured Edmund if Edmund's son hadn't been a close
friend of his own.

Post by Alex Milman
Of course, an informal "family union" could work for a while: a King of
England is a senior member of the family by a virtue of his rank and as
long as the rulers of the "Netherlands" posses lands and positions in
England everybody lives happily ever after, at least in theory.

_Theoretically_, that's the case for Valois Burgundy as well, but it started
to unravel in the 2nd generation, and was dead and buried in the 4th. I
don't believe the Plantagenets will do any better.

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
thereby surrounding France, threatening it from north and
south west; but that would mean a major change in direction for Richard,
whose independent foreign policy, when he was able to conduct it, which
was for peace with France.)

The Flanders would benefit from peace and could strengthen Richard's position.

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
In OTL, IIRC, at least Philip II and John the Fearless of Burgundy (who
unified his mother's and father's possessions) had been trying to get
access to the French Treasury thus getting into conflict with Duke
Louis I of Orleans (the following assassinations of Louis and then John
split France into the Burgundian and Armagnac parties with the
well-known impact on the 100YW, etc.). This may not change too much if
Philip and John are just the "simple" Dukes of Burgundy but perhaps
their value as the allies (of any side) is less than in OTL, especially
if the Flanders are in the English hands.
If we assume that the marriages of the "Flemish Plantagenets" are the
same as of the OTL Burgundian Valois, then they eventually expand their
territories to Namur, Hainaut, Zeeland, Brabant, and Limburg. But,
let's assume that they don't have money to buy the Duchy of Luxembourg
(or perhaps they do, to make things closer to OTL). As a result, they
have a dilemma similar to one of the OTL Valois Burgundy: some of their
possessions are in France (but there is no agreement about their return
if there are no male issue) and some in the
HRE plus they have lands in England.

They may not have lands in England. One of the more unpopular (with the
nobility) acts of Richard towards the end of his reign was his
appropriation, without compensation, of the Duchy of Lancaster from his
cousin, Henry Bolingbroke.

Wasn't there some political excuse?

There are always excuses! And to be fair to Richard, the policy of absorbing
a large semi-independent palatinate such as the Duchy of Lancaster into the
crown was a very sensible one. But he did it in such a ham-handed manner
that he managed to make more enemies than friends.

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
The temptation to do the same for Edmund of
Langley's lands in England would be irresistable, I would think.

Well, if he is a political ally, there would not be a reason for such an
act.

He would wait until Edmund's death, as he waited until John of Gaunt's death
before moving to take over Lancaster.

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
Even if Richard gets deposed before he has a chance to do so, one of his
successors might do the same, leaving a title and a token piece of land
in the hands of the Flemish Plantagenets.

This would be a distinct possibility, at least in a long run and, speaking
of the "token piece", did you see "Passport to Pimlico"? :-)

A long time ago. <g>

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
Or perhaps the English lands could be
inherited by a younger branch of the Flemish Plantagenets. Either way, I
think there would be no major holdings on both sides of the Channel.

Of course, in a long run the arrangement would not work as it did not work
in France: sooner or later having a vassal who is also an independent
ruler of a rich area is going to be inconvenient.

Yes, which is why I think the separation of the holdings in England from
those in Flanders is likely to happen fairly soon. The initiative for that
could come from either side, incidentally - as they develop their own
policies in the Rhineland, it would be just as inconvenient for the Flemish
Plantagenets to have to worry about annoying the English king and losing
their English holdings.

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
Will this change anything in the Lancastrian coup?
If the coup still happens, will it change anything in the 100YW? Will
the "Flemish Yorks" be ready to avail their lands as a base for the
English (Lancastrian) invasion of France knowing quite well that even
before they'll see and Frenchmen, they'll loot "the base"?

The Valois started of as loyal allies and subjects of the French kings,
but gradually struck off in their own direction.

Well, the loyalty is a tricky thing. In his book on the 100YW Jean Favier
wrote that the first Dukes of Burgundy needed French money to maintain
themselves so the "loyalty" was determined by an ability to get access to
the Treasury of France. When after assassination of Louis of Orleans they
got a de facto control of the French government they were loyal (to their
own interests) but this loyalty continued only as long as they did have
that control. When they lost it, Jean the Fearless started playing his own
games.

Post by Pete Barrett
That event was hastened by
events in French politics, but it's surely inevitable after a couple of
generations, and after they'd acquired lands which were _not_ subject to
the French King.

Of course but idea of the first few rulers was to keep sucking the French
money and using them to expand their possessions outside France.

Post by Pete Barrett
The Plantagenets would never be subjects of England

Yes, this would be a major difference.

Post by Pete Barrett
(would actually be
subjects of France, though I'm not sure how seriously they'd take that
status - the Counts of Flanders had been more or less independent
throughout the Middle Ages),

But acknowledging their status (IIRC, Louis II confirmed it officially)

I doubt that he'd confirm it officially if he was marrying his daughter to
the son of Edward III, and not to the son of John II. He would find it more
convenient to leave the official status vague.

Post by Alex Milman
.....

Post by Pete Barrett
They _will_ have a claim by male-line primogeniture if the Lancastrians
look like dying out, so if they have to choose sides, they would probably
support Lancaster, rather than Mortimer (or whoever takes on the Mortimer
claim) if they want to preserve their own claim. They may not, of course
- they'll be quite the Netherlanders by then, and may have marriage
alliances with one or other of the parties which will be more important
than any vague claim dating back 100 years.

OK, no Wars of the Roses. Fine by me: I never liked the Tudors. :-)

Well, _someone_ will marry Anne Mortimer, and if her brother dies as in OTL,
her children will inherit the legitimist claim. If for some reason it never
gets pressed, then England acquires a tradition of inheritance of the crown
only through the male line (possibly legalised by statute). That would rule
out all the later dynasties.

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
What about the English-"Flemish" (plus all other entities) union?
Could it be sustainable taking into an account the French sovereignty
over some of the territories? Or would it be an extended 100YW that'll
end up with the Northern French borders being what it is now (aka,
earlier version of the conquests of Louis XIII and XIV)?
What about the rest of the territories?

Assuming that the Low Countries, England, and Gascony are in some way
united under the English crown (which I think is unlikely),

Extremely unlikely, IMO: the French had been actively squeezing English
from Southern France at the time of Charles V and the Low Countries are
ruled by another branch of a family as the French or imperial territories.

Post by Pete Barrett
then I think the French
will still win the HYW by driving the English from France.

Most likely: even at his worst time the Dauphin had a much higher income
than the revenue from the English held territories of France could provide
and, with the idea that the war must be financed by the French lands, the
English were doomed to loose sooner or later.

Post by Pete Barrett
But from the Low
Countries? Brabant and the rest are in the Empire, so it would be
difficult to engineer an excuse for interfering.

But Artois and other French counties are OK.

Artois and Flanders are France; Brabant, Hainault, Luxemburg, Cambrai, and
(I think Liege), are HRE. If the English hang on to the latter, but the
French take over the former, then communication between England and Brabant
would become difficult, unless they also have Holland and Zeeland (quite
likely). Both countries have tempting salients which the other would view as
ripe for attack, anyway.

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
And if they simply drove the English
out in a war, they'd end up holding a lot of land between the OTL French
border and the Rhine as fiefs of the HRE (assuming they can persuade an
Emperor to transfer the fiefs to the French king;
and it seems unlikely that
even the most cash-strapped emperor would be willing to do that, for
whatever money).

IMHO, this would be EXTREMELY unlikely: why would he do anything of the
kind and could he do this, anyway?

There were precedents in the HRE for transferring a fief from one claimant
to another (Ottokar II, for instance, lost Austria, Styria, and Carinthia to
the Habsburgs), but there was usually more of a legal excuse than simply
recognising realities. Even if he has to call a Diet, none of the delegates
would seem to have any reason to prefer the English to the French in the Low
Countries. So I think he _could_ do it.

But of course, it's the Emperor himself who has every reason _not_ to want
the French in his fiefs, so as you say, it would be most unlikely. And I
don't see a French king offereing anything which might persuiade him.

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
So yes, an extended HYW ending with some sort of
compromise.
If that leaves England with significant territories across the North Sea
and the Channel, just as we go into the Reformation, then that itself
would have large consequences, though I wouldn't like to speculate as to
what they might be.

Protestant "superpower" on the early stages of the Reformation?

I can see two possibilities:

1) Reformation goes in England much as OTL, except that it affects the Low
Countries as well. That would give a significan Anglican (=Episcopalian)
presence in the HRE, in addition to Catholicism and Lutheranism, in the
early years of the Reformation.

2) Reformation goes in the Low Countries more or less as OTL,but also
strongly influences England in the Calvinist direction. If the English
church is more Calvinist and less Catholic, then it might prevent some of
the later troubles between England and Scotland.

Either or both of those might happen.

[Alex Milman]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
If that leaves England with significant territories across the North Sea
and the Channel, just as we go into the Reformation, then that itself
would have large consequences, though I wouldn't like to speculate as to
what they might be.

Protestant "superpower" on the early stages of the Reformation?

1) Reformation goes in England much as OTL, except that it affects the Low
Countries as well. That would give a significan Anglican (=Episcopalian)
presence in the HRE, in addition to Catholicism and Lutheranism, in the
early years of the Reformation.
2) Reformation goes in the Low Countries more or less as OTL,but also
strongly influences England in the Calvinist direction. If the English
church is more Calvinist and less Catholic, then it might prevent some of
the later troubles between England and Scotland.
Either or both of those might happen.

No matter what option plays, this is just a beginning of the very serious
differences. For the simplicity sake I'm skipping the Italian Wars.

#1 Within few decades Protestantism (Calvinism) is growing in France leading
to the Wars of Religion. In OTL the Protestants had been extensively using
the help from German Protestants: everything from hiring the German reiters
and all the way to inviting the whole army of invasion. However, as far as
the Netherlands were involved, they were too busy with their own war against
Spain to be of any use (AFAIK, it was other way around: the French Protestants
had been fighting on the rebels' side). The same goes for the English forces:
they were fighting in the Netherlands. In ATL there is an Anglo-"Dutch"
(just to make it terminologically simple) state which is not too busy with the
internal problems and has extensive financial resources or at least its "Dutch"
part has: in OTL it was able to finance 50 (?) years of war against Spain
without being destroyed economically. In OTL they built up a mercenary army
to which they could provide a regular pay (a rare thing even in the later
times) in exchange of enforcing a strict discipline and (the first) modern
drill. In ATL they have plenty of cadres for hiring just across the Channel and
one may expect an intervention on the Protestant side on a scale much greater
than in OTL (surely, the Anglo-Dutch states will have some reasons besides
just those of religion).

The French government (or rather Catholic Party, which was not always the
same) has two options:

(a) Make a sustainable peace with the Protestant Party (something the
"politicians" led by Catherine Medici had been trying to achieve without a
success).

(b) Continue fighting. Taking into an account that in OTL the Catholics had
problems with a much weaker opponent, they may need a strong ally and the
only one available is Spain (in OTL there was a direct Spanish intervention).
There can be multiple options for such an alliance, all the way to the
direct fight between the French-Spanish and Huguenot-Anglo-Dutch armies.

#2. If Anglo-Dutch participation in the Wars of Religion is avoided or kept
minimal, the next thing to follow is ATL version of the 30YW. In OTL Bohemian
Estates elected Frederick V of the Palatinate because they expected help from
James I (who had other problems). In ATL, no matter who is elected, can we
expect the Anglo-Dutch intervention into the German conflict or is it more
reasonable to assume that the Dutch merchants would not be excessively eager
to spend huge amounts of money on a conflict which does not touch them
directly?

Similarly, will Spain get involved up to the same degree (aka, basically saving
the imperial posteriors) if there is no need to maintain the Spanish Road?

What would be French position in an absence of the Hapsburg Encirclement?
Is it reasonable to assume that the government of Louis XIII would look for
the border "adjustments" on the East and South instead of North?

Or, if the Northern border still is a priority (providing that Artois,
Picardy, etc. are not yet in the French hands), then the set of the alliances
is different: obviously, fighting against the Anglo-Dutch state means that
France does not support the Protestant cause in Germany, aka, is not paying the
subsidies to the numerous hoodlums from Count Mansfield to GA but rather
supporting the Catholic League (the German one) while having the Hapsburgs as
the allies. OTOH, the threat from the South may prompt the Anglo-Dutch to
subsidize Sweden so, again, we have combinations/confrontations different from
OTL. One of the byproducts could be an earlier (by a couple decades) creation
of the French national army: in an absence of the German and Swedish "proxies"
they'd need one of their own.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
If that leaves England with significant territories across the North
Sea and the Channel, just as we go into the Reformation, then that
itself would have large consequences, though I wouldn't like to
speculate as to what they might be.

Protestant "superpower" on the early stages of the Reformation?

1) Reformation goes in England much as OTL, except that it affects the
Low Countries as well. That would give a significan Anglican
(=Episcopalian) presence in the HRE, in addition to Catholicism and
Lutheranism, in the early years of the Reformation.
2) Reformation goes in the Low Countries more or less as OTL,but also
strongly influences England in the Calvinist direction. If the English
church is more Calvinist and less Catholic, then it might prevent some of
the later troubles between England and Scotland.
Either or both of those might happen.

No matter what option plays, this is just a beginning of the very serious
differences. For the simplicity sake I'm skipping the Italian Wars.
#1 Within few decades Protestantism (Calvinism) is growing in France
#leading
to the Wars of Religion. In OTL the Protestants had been extensively using
the help from German Protestants: everything from hiring the German
reiters and all the way to inviting the whole army of invasion. However,
as far as the Netherlands were involved, they were too busy with their own
war against Spain to be of any use (AFAIK, it was other way around: the
French Protestants had been fighting on the rebels' side). The same goes
for the English forces: they were fighting in the Netherlands. In ATL
there is an Anglo-"Dutch" (just to make it terminologically simple) state
which is not too busy with the internal problems and has extensive
financial resources or at least its "Dutch" part has: in OTL it was able
to finance 50 (?) years of war against Spain without being destroyed
economically. In OTL they built up a mercenary army to which they could
provide a regular pay (a rare thing even in the later times) in exchange
of enforcing a strict discipline and (the first) modern drill. In ATL they
have plenty of cadres for hiring just across the Channel and one may
expect an intervention on the Protestant side on a scale much greater than
in OTL (surely, the Anglo-Dutch states will have some reasons besides just
those of religion).

But the very fact that a traditional enemy on its northern border has gone
Protestant will have an effect on the Reformation in France. OTL, French
Protestants could fight against Spain in the Low Countries and still be
serving French interests; it was the Catholic League who were receiving help
from a traditional enemy (Spain). In the ATL, it's the Protestants, who in
addition to being heretics, will also carry the stigma of being traitors.
That will be particularly the case if they receive material help from the
Anglo-Dutch state, but will also be the case even if they don't - they'll be
viewed with suspicion, seen as unreliable, there'll be moves to exclude them
from positions of power. Will that be enough to seriously weaken the
Huguenots in numbers? I think it might be. Will it be enough to weaken their
influence in the French court? I think definitely.

Post by Alex Milman
The French government (or rather Catholic Party, which was not always the
(a) Make a sustainable peace with the Protestant Party (something the
"politicians" led by Catherine Medici had been trying to achieve without a
success).
(b) Continue fighting. Taking into an account that in OTL the Catholics
had problems with a much weaker opponent, they may need a strong ally and
the only one available is Spain (in OTL there was a direct Spanish
intervention). There can be multiple options for such an alliance, all the
way to the direct fight between the French-Spanish and
Huguenot-Anglo-Dutch armies.

This seems likely. France is a big prize, and if the Huguenots are strong
enough numerically to make Anglo-Dutch intervention to put them into power
potentially successful, it will happen. If there's then Spanish (and perhaps
imperial) participation in response, the fight over France starts to look
like the fight over Germany in the 30 Years War, but earlier and shifted
west. OTL, there was a 20 years gap between the end of the French Wars of
Religion (which more or less remained localised in France) and the beginning
of the 30 Years War; in the ATL, there seems to be a real posibility that
outside interference in the Wars of Religion would make them spill over into
western Germany. Could there be something like a longer and wider 30 Years
War? How much destruction can western Europe take before it affects later
colonialism in the Americas and the rest of the world?

Post by Alex Milman
#2. If Anglo-Dutch participation in the Wars of Religion is avoided or
#kept
minimal, the next thing to follow is ATL version of the 30YW. In OTL
Bohemian Estates elected Frederick V of the Palatinate because they
expected help from James I (who had other problems). In ATL, no matter who
is elected, can we expect the Anglo-Dutch intervention into the German
conflict or is it more reasonable to assume that the Dutch merchants would
not be excessively eager to spend huge amounts of money on a conflict
which does not touch them directly?
Similarly, will Spain get involved up to the same degree (aka, basically
saving the imperial posteriors) if there is no need to maintain the
Spanish Road?
What would be French position in an absence of the Hapsburg Encirclement?
Is it reasonable to assume that the government of Louis XIII would look
for the border "adjustments" on the East and South instead of North?
Or, if the Northern border still is a priority (providing that Artois,
Picardy, etc. are not yet in the French hands), then the set of the
alliances is different: obviously, fighting against the Anglo-Dutch state
means that France does not support the Protestant cause in Germany, aka,
is not paying the subsidies to the numerous hoodlums from Count Mansfield
to GA but rather supporting the Catholic League (the German one) while
having the Hapsburgs as the allies. OTOH, the threat from the South may
prompt the Anglo-Dutch to subsidize Sweden so, again, we have
combinations/confrontations different from OTL. One of the byproducts
could be an earlier (by a couple decades) creation of the French national
army: in an absence of the German and Swedish "proxies" they'd need one of
their own.

[Alex Milman]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett
If that leaves England with significant territories across the North
Sea and the Channel, just as we go into the Reformation, then that
itself would have large consequences, though I wouldn't like to
speculate as to what they might be.

Protestant "superpower" on the early stages of the Reformation?

1) Reformation goes in England much as OTL, except that it affects the
Low Countries as well. That would give a significan Anglican
(=Episcopalian) presence in the HRE, in addition to Catholicism and
Lutheranism, in the early years of the Reformation.
2) Reformation goes in the Low Countries more or less as OTL,but also
strongly influences England in the Calvinist direction. If the English
church is more Calvinist and less Catholic, then it might prevent some of
the later troubles between England and Scotland.
Either or both of those might happen.

No matter what option plays, this is just a beginning of the very serious
differences. For the simplicity sake I'm skipping the Italian Wars.
#1 Within few decades Protestantism (Calvinism) is growing in France
#leading
to the Wars of Religion. In OTL the Protestants had been extensively using
the help from German Protestants: everything from hiring the German
reiters and all the way to inviting the whole army of invasion. However,
as far as the Netherlands were involved, they were too busy with their own
war against Spain to be of any use (AFAIK, it was other way around: the
French Protestants had been fighting on the rebels' side). The same goes
for the English forces: they were fighting in the Netherlands. In ATL
there is an Anglo-"Dutch" (just to make it terminologically simple) state
which is not too busy with the internal problems and has extensive
financial resources or at least its "Dutch" part has: in OTL it was able
to finance 50 (?) years of war against Spain without being destroyed
economically. In OTL they built up a mercenary army to which they could
provide a regular pay (a rare thing even in the later times) in exchange
of enforcing a strict discipline and (the first) modern drill. In ATL they
have plenty of cadres for hiring just across the Channel and one may
expect an intervention on the Protestant side on a scale much greater than
in OTL (surely, the Anglo-Dutch states will have some reasons besides just
those of religion).

But the very fact that a traditional enemy on its northern border has gone
Protestant will have an effect on the Reformation in France. OTL, French
Protestants could fight against Spain in the Low Countries and still be
serving French interests; it was the Catholic League who were receiving help
from a traditional enemy (Spain). In the ATL, it's the Protestants, who in
addition to being heretics, will also carry the stigma of being traitors.

Well, it does not look like in OTL there was any noticeable concern about
receiving money and military help from the "traditional enemy" (Spain) as long
as it was on a right side religion wise. It is also rather difficult to see
how the OTL Huguenots could claim service to the "French interests" by
inviting an army of the German Protestants. As a matter of fact, Henry Guise
got his reputation of a national hero by playing a major role in repealing one
of these invasion. Paris was greeting Parma's troops as the saviors from the
Devil incarnate Henry of Navarra (their future beloved Henry IV) who was
starving city to death.

In other words, the "treason" thing would not work in the case when religion
takes a precedence over the (not completely developed) national unity, etc.

Post by Pete Barrett
That will be particularly the case if they receive material help from the
Anglo-Dutch state,

No problem: the League was receiving it from Spain and the Guises were national
heroes.

Post by Pete Barrett
but will also be the case even if they don't - they'll be
viewed with suspicion, seen as unreliable, there'll be moves to exclude them
from positions of power.

They WERE viewed with suspicion in OTL but this did not exclude them from
anything: they were a power to recon with and any attempt of reconciliation
meant giving them prominent position.

Post by Pete Barrett
Will that be enough to seriously weaken the
Huguenots in numbers? I think it might be. Will it be enough to weaken their
influence in the French court? I think definitely.

Nope. You are looking at the situation from the modern positions but the people
of these times had their views and priorities. Alliances would not change the
numbers of Huguenots, just as they did not change the numbers of Catholics and
having a powerful ally would only increase Huguenots' power and influence
because a prevailing practice was to buy (if you can't kill) the powerful
opponents and the more powerful they are, the greater would be the price.

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
The French government (or rather Catholic Party, which was not always the
(a) Make a sustainable peace with the Protestant Party (something the
"politicians" led by Catherine Medici had been trying to achieve without a
success).
(b) Continue fighting. Taking into an account that in OTL the Catholics
had problems with a much weaker opponent, they may need a strong ally and
the only one available is Spain (in OTL there was a direct Spanish
intervention). There can be multiple options for such an alliance, all the
way to the direct fight between the French-Spanish and
Huguenot-Anglo-Dutch armies.

This seems likely. France is a big prize, and if the Huguenots are strong
enough numerically to make Anglo-Dutch intervention to put them into power
potentially successful, it will happen.

The issue was not really putting them into power, because this was unrealistic
in OTL and remains unrealistic in ATL: they are a distinct minority (with a
disproportionally big military potential due to the big numbers of nobility).
Their official goal was to create state within the state (partially achieved
by the Edict of Nantes) and each of the leaders also had his personal interests
like governorships, high court positions, land grants, etc. At best, they could
end up as a powerful group at court backed up by the military and economic
power of the areas they are allowed to control officially.

Post by Pete Barrett
If there's then Spanish (and perhaps
imperial) participation in response, the fight over France starts to look
like the fight over Germany in the 30 Years War, but earlier and shifted
west.

Well, in OTL the only "imperial" forces involved were the German Protestants
(guess on which side). I doubt that an Emperor had physical ability to
interfere: no money and, as a result, no troops (look at how the 30YW started).
Spain is a different story BUT, short of Phillip's religious obsession, in an
absence of the Netherlands he does not have a serious reason to get involved
in France on a big scale. Perhaps subsidies to the League but no possibility
of his troops marching to Paris (all the way from Spain): unlike OTL, the
French Huguenots and/or crown are not involved in the Dutch rebellion.

Of course, being a man of principle (who also was in a direct communications
with God), he COULD get directly involved.

Post by Pete Barrett
OTL, there was a 20 years gap between the end of the French Wars of
Religion (which more or less remained localised in France) and the beginning
of the 30 Years War; in the ATL, there seems to be a real posibility that
outside interference in the Wars of Religion would make them spill over into
western Germany. Could there be something like a longer and wider 30 Years
War? How much destruction can western Europe take before it affects later
colonialism in the Americas and the rest of the world?

According to one of the great specialists on the subject, "to conduct a war
you need 3 things: money, money and money". The 30YW would be impossible without
the Spanish and French money. While in the midst of the Wars of Religion France
(as any of the parties involved) did not have money to spare on what in ATL was
a war of prestige (part of Richelieu's policy). Unlike OTL, Spain does not have
a serious reason to subsidize the Catholic cause in Germany (no Dutch rebellion,
no Spanish Road). Anglo-Dutch state has money and is a Protestant power but
at least its Dutch part is a merchant state which is interested in trade much
more than in the foreign wars and would be reluctant to get into an open-ended
commitment to finance such an enterprise. I'm not even sure if, short of the
direct French aggression (unlikely in the midst of a civil war), there would
be a military involvement into the French affairs. What for? IIRC, the
Huguenots were not even strong in the Northern France.

Germany at that time was reasonably quiet: the Hapsburgs were not strong
and/or aggressive enough to challenge status quo while the Protestants did
not yet manage to piss off the Catholics to form a League. So, a much earlier
30YW seems unlikely.

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Alex Milman
#2. If Anglo-Dutch participation in the Wars of Religion is avoided or
#kept
minimal, the next thing to follow is ATL version of the 30YW. In OTL
Bohemian Estates elected Frederick V of the Palatinate because they
expected help from James I (who had other problems). In ATL, no matter who
is elected, can we expect the Anglo-Dutch intervention into the German
conflict or is it more reasonable to assume that the Dutch merchants would
not be excessively eager to spend huge amounts of money on a conflict
which does not touch them directly?
Similarly, will Spain get involved up to the same degree (aka, basically
saving the imperial posteriors) if there is no need to maintain the
Spanish Road?
What would be French position in an absence of the Hapsburg Encirclement?
Is it reasonable to assume that the government of Louis XIII would look
for the border "adjustments" on the East and South instead of North?
Or, if the Northern border still is a priority (providing that Artois,
Picardy, etc. are not yet in the French hands), then the set of the
alliances is different: obviously, fighting against the Anglo-Dutch state
means that France does not support the Protestant cause in Germany, aka,
is not paying the subsidies to the numerous hoodlums from Count Mansfield
to GA but rather supporting the Catholic League (the German one) while
having the Hapsburgs as the allies. OTOH, the threat from the South may
prompt the Anglo-Dutch to subsidize Sweden so, again, we have
combinations/confrontations different from OTL. One of the byproducts
could be an earlier (by a couple decades) creation of the French national
army: in an absence of the German and Swedish "proxies" they'd need one of
their own.

--
Pete BARRETT

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Pete Barrett
2) Reformation goes in the Low Countries more or less as OTL,but also
strongly influences England in the Calvinist direction. If the English
church is more Calvinist and less Catholic, then it might prevent some of
the later troubles between England and Scotland.

Troubles? For sure it would have totally redefined the English Civil
War even if it didn't cause the Stuart Kings to reconsider their
Catholicism. I can't begin to imagine the effect a different Scottish
Kirk would have had on English affairs particularly with respect to
conformity on the matter of the Book of Common Prayer.