Hey mate I just started playing EU4. pretty lost, got any tips on how the commands work ? (As in what are the important things to know about moving troops, producing troops etc)
@@jameslegrand848 what videos by pravus gaming, zwelki(i think that's the name) eu4 is pretty hard to understand..but it's a fun game..took me a month to understand the basics
@@jameslegrand848 My recommendation is to find a playthrough of a nation and watch it while playing as the same nation. You'll learn the basics and it can help to play as a smaller nation first so that you have less to worry about
@@gofish7388 No first Normans was only a few and Guillaume the Conqueror the Norman brought thousands of Frankish soldiers as his army and they shaped the population of england that why brits have a DNA so close to the French/German people and that english is 50% french
@@ommsterlitz1805 English DNA is mostly Celtic. They are only 5% German. Most of the German DNA comes from the west. The French didn't really settle England. Which is why they speak English and not French. The Normans immigrated en masse to a specific region of northern France. Those people were the ones who invaded England.
@@gofish7388 "The French didn't really settle England. Which is why they speak English and not French. The Normans immigrated en masse to a specific region of northern France" There is something like 155 words of Scandinavian origin in old Norman dialect, while a third to half of English vocabulary is said to have French origin. You've got your theories all in reverse : the impact of Scandinavian cultural identity in Normandy was minimal, while the impact of French cultural identity in England was massive. You can't explain that with your theory. These facts can only be explained with the idea that the Vikings were not that numerous when they settled in Normandy. They probably married the locals and adopted their culture. So much so that two centuries later when the battle of Hastings occured (quite some time after then) they would be ethnically not Scandinavians, they would have cultural traits related to French identity (language, customs, religion etc...) and, last but not least, they self-identifed as French (see the painting of Bayeux). Considering all this, I think it's hard to call them anything else but "French", unless you have a purely ethnical definition of what "French" is, and somewhat believe that a group of 10 Scandinavians mixed marrying with a groupe of a 1000 French would make this group's ethinicity a Scandinavian one after two centuries of inter-marrying. So even with a strictly ethnical definition of what "French" means, I would still argue they were French. What is probably the case though is that the English elite had to deal with the dissonance of having to persuade the population that France was a threat while having a French invasion as a founding myth. So I get why they would go for the "William was actually a Viking" theory : it's probably easier to sell an Anglo-French rivalry to the English population with that in mind. But if we are serious and unless we have an ad hoc definition of frenchness, then these guys do fit the definition of the word "French". We could argue however that none of that make sense since the very notion of national identity was foreign to these times. Which means that these guys were neither French, English or Scandinavian or whatever because their "national" identity was first and foremost related to whatever lord of king they were subject to. These wars in those times were more noble house versus another noble house rather than nation versus nation. I could get behind that framework.
There is a mod for Victoria 2 that creates an alternate Victorian Era in which England won the 100 years war, very close to what he theorized in the video; given that much of the english monarchy was of french origin or culturally french-influenced, the unification of the two kingdoms boosted that even more, and thus both english and french cultures merged together to form the "Anglois" culture. It's called Divergences of Darkness.
Bro this technically would ‘save austria’ as they wouldnt become as rich so wouldnt try to support such expansions,but might’ve united with the hungars due to a personal union that could’ve kept going or be reformed.
Also, I think a case can be made for the Anglo-French Monarchy of this timeline remaining Catholic. If you butterfly away Henry VIII and the political circumstances of the Anglican Schism, the English (in this case Anglo-French ) monarchy going Protestant shouldn't be taken for granted anymore. Also, the French monarchy of our timeline had lots of political reasons for converting to Protestantism, but it didn't happen (this didn't prevent them to trade and forge alliances with Protestant countries, though ).
Exualy be a good place for the southern french to build up a seperatist movement. Aswell as the burgundian counts to become independent enought to join the holy roman enpire. That pretty much leaves only young prussia, that smaller netherlands and the swedish empire protestant empire. - That means the 30 years war is those to.little continental states deffending againt the empires with sweden for back up. And maybe the ottomans if joing againt austria.
Also if the anglo king turned protestant in this timeline, it will be free real-estate for the Habsburg : as claim to the french crown can now be passed by a woman, they will inherit the burgundian one. They can use the catholics during the wars lf religion to support their rights on France
I was about to bring up this point also. With Henry VIII removed from the throne and the politics that came with him wanting his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, it can be a case that an Anglo-French Monarchy remains Catholic. I believe the biggest factor for England becoming Protestant in our time is that the King became a Protestant. In our timeline, the fear the Mary I would take the crown after Edward VI died and turn the country back to Catholicism happened. Mary I reign, however, was far too short (5 years) to make any lasting change and was followed by Protestant, Elizabeth I, who was 44 year reign solidified England as a Protestant country.
“We few... we happy few... we... band of brothers... for he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother!” Probably the most famous line ever uttered in a theatrical historical drama about the Hundred Years’ War. Thank you Mr. Shakespeare! Rest in peace!
I don't think Anglo-French country would be destined to split up, in just 400 years Normans made English have about 60% of vocabulary from French starting with just the court, proportion 17 million Frenchman to 3 million English also suggests to one thing- merger of the two identities with heavier French influence. I can totally see one king down the line introducing policies to make this easier Also, Anglo-French would have population rivalling nearly Germany+Spain combined and they weren't combined for 100 years after this scenario so continental dominance would be feasible IF centralization in France occurred. Otherwise, without centralization and cultural assimilation next ages would be spent on minority trying to control majority which would end up in both England and France handicapped. I think however centralized common-identity rule is more likely since nobody likes to shoot themselves in the foot and in this case colonialism isn't as strong since the best player achieved hegemony and where you go from there- China had this problem up to the modern times
tbf i dont think he is talkin about spoken english, just dictionary vocabulary, which is still a feat, and yeah we still use mostly germanic words but latin vocabulary in spoken english is still pretty big, for instance this paragraph here has at least more than 12 latin words in it
China was controlled by bureaucrats and had no need for excess luxury's they had everything that's why they didn't go colonial Western Europe had merchants and nobles who wanted more money and prestige so I think colonialism would still occur
people want quick, simple, humorful education if they're not obsessed with geography/ when they become obsessed, they dip to this channel for their knowledge.
The French opening battles with cavalry charges that failed because of bad going was sort of a trope throughout the mid-to-late middle ages, not just in the Hundred Years' War but also the Battle of the Golden Spurs.
What if the Magna Carta was never signed? What if the Raid on Harper's Ferry actually succeeded? What if Richard the Lionheart survived? What if the Meiji Restoration failed?
Richard I was more concerned with the continent then England. John was looking after England then. The only thing is that the Aquitaine would of been part of the Rule of the Plantagenant for longer.
The Magna Carta was only the3rd item of human and Civil Rights legislation in England, so if not signed, something else would have come quickly anyway. If you know the history, it started with William the Conqueror being incensed and increasingly violent to the Anglo-Saxons, because of their insistence on Anglo-Saxon common-law (1041), giving them certain rights consistently.This still wasn't stamped out by the time of the next king, who was Henry 1, who equally incensed, agreed to sign the charter of liberties (1100), hstupidly, hoping, that would be a pacification and he could continue to be as autocratic as before.Technically this is more important than the Magna Carta(1215), because it was the 1st part of ratified sophisticated human rights legislation, in human history and started the persistent expectation of adherence, and a The doubling of the scale of expectation, compared to the Anglo-Saxon law, before it.The Magna Carta isn't so different from the Charter of liberties, the main reason why Magna Carta is so important is because King John (the next king) was so brutal and was violating everything in the Charter of liberties, that everyone refused to give him taxes unless he agreed to sign not only the Magna Carta, but would have a certain number of nobles sitting with him at intervals to ensure it was being adhered to. This essentially signifies when Parliamentary and constituent based democracy began.After this, you got the Habeus corpus(1679) and the English Bill of Rights(1689) to finally put monarchy to bed because It began proper constituent democracy, under all circumstances.|Essentially, you can see each item of legislatiion, closing up loopholes that kings were attempting to Exploit, to get out of previous promises, until it was decided that Kings were not worthy any more.
Yeah, but a really large percentage of that silver went directly to the netherlands in this world the expenses would be smaller and Spain would just hoard it's enormous treasury thus mantaining the price of silver and becoming even more RICH. Most people laugh at the spanish crown for their expenses but the netherlands was one of the richest regions in the world and the spanish kings were desperate to mantain It.....that desperation was the one that bankrupted Spain.
Keizer Van Enerc God is always true. And His word always holds. Whatever He says is truth. If He says that those who believe in Him will be saved then it’s true. if He says hell is real then it’s true. But Jesus remains the blessed hope of all that believe. And that it is true.
"Whats he like?" "God?" "Yeah" "Lonely, but funny, he's got a great sense of humor, take sex for example, there's nothing funnier than the face you humans make mid-coitus" "Sex is a joke in heaven?" "Its kind of a joke down here as I understand it!" *Bethany and The Metatron, Dogma*
The Lord Darcy books by Randall Garrett are set in an alternative 1960s where the Plantagenet King rules England, France, and Americas, and is also the Holy Roman Emperor. It helps that the laws of magic have been discovered, and magic has become scientific. Great fun.
As an Norman, all I see there is the ultimate victory of the Vikings over the world :D More seriously, the Plantagenêt originated from Anjou, but by the time they put their hands on the Norman assets, Normandy and England had become some of the most profitable lands in Europe, thanks to Rollo's descendents. Anyway, thanks for this really interesting point of view !
@@jdlc903 Yes. For example, William the Conqueror ordered a complete survey of the land he had just conquered. This survey produced the _Domesday Book_
If England had won the Hundred Years War, the English world would have most likely been relegated to a secondary level and French would have dominated. In the historical sense, we can't really tell the impact because the alliances formed tryng to maintain the balance of powers would have been different.
the englsh already spoke French at that time so it make perfect sense if, France and england union would look pretty much like Scottish and english union in 1603 they'd speak close language, with discting dialects but it will be dominatd by france, which is biggest population, biggest language and it would have had cultural effects as a century later, it mater, it will be the great protestant reformation so england would have stilll been catholic
@@gutsjoestar7450 Edward III replaced French for English and if the legacy of Henry V leads to an Anglo-French monarchy southern France would eventually evolve in to a separate Nation. So this north Atlantic monarchy would have an English character
One of your best videos! I really enjoyed how your sense of humor came out. The more wide open the possibilities of the time lines are, the more your personality shows. It's good to mix the formula up sometimes, you know? Lol. Great video! Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!
A channel about speculative history and cartography? with a host who has a love of history and a collection of fantasy novels?! UA-cam recommendations have done it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Instant sub!
Out of all those things we have to give up I’d say French cuisine is the one I hate to give up the most so I’m pretty alright with that, perhaps if there was a Celtic cultural revival in France as there was in Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries we could see a great resurgence of the Breton language in this alternate timeline
Immortal Flamingo not exactly, one problem with his idea that England would become completely French is that the examples given where of absolutely huge nations being conquered, when the Anglo-Saxons conquered England they where quite outnumbered and subjugated many Britons and didn’t outnumber them till years and years later, and yet never lost their culture, same with the Danes in northern England, who continued to speak Old Norse and practice paganism to some extant even when outnumbered by the English like 10 to 1, also the normans in England, they kept their French culture for a long long time and didn’t give it up till a king who wasn’t raised in the royal French ways came to power
I have always enjoyed your videos and interesting play-out of history, even including quirks of your pronunciation: you seem to have consistently pronounced “l” as in Spanish or Welsh “ll”, a phoneme which I, a language lover, have always unsuccessfully tried to master. Jokes aside, thank you for you devotion.
The fun fact is that the British government chose Ottawa, at the time a small town named Bytown, precisely because it was far from the great centers like Montréal, Québec City or Toronto.
Before I start ranting about what I think, I want to make the point that I really do respect you/whatifalthist. I can see why you made the arguments you did and I respect your opinion (even though I don’t really agree with it). So here are my opinions being vomited out into the world: 1, England controlled Bordeaux, and thus, controlled the lucrative Bordeaux Wine Trade 2, England would probably keep their capital in London, because when Henry II controlled the western seaboard of France, there was no problem keeping the capital in London. Plus London was a far larger mercantile centre, it benefitted hugely from the Wool trade with Flanders and the Low Countries. Paris was not the same jewel of the kingdom as London was. 3, Thus I believe that France would be subjugated quite similarly to how Wales were in our timeline. Marcher Lords in Normandy and Gascony pushing their borders further to the east and south. Something similar to Gwynedd might happen, with England taking control of the northernmost and central parts of France. The French would be crowned kings but never anointed, swearing fealty to England in principle but not in practice. They’d survive in southern France for at least the following 2-3 decades. English settlers would move in and eventually become the majority. 4, The argument that a smaller country would be assimilated into the larger country, for me at least, doesn’t really make much sense. Alexander’s conquests or those of Genghis Khan weren’t the same as the English conquest of France would be. The Middle Ages was very much a time when the country’s prestige was more important than its actual size/population. Take Normandy’s conquest of England for example. William the Conqueror had built up an inescapable reputation that drew huge amounts of mercenaries to him. England was seen as the more “important” country in that time period. Their longbowmen were feared across Europe and their parliamentary system was completely foreign to other Kings in Europe. When Henry V died he left not a sole regent but instead one for England and one for France. Principally, the Duke of Bedford was in charge of both countries, but his absence from England meant that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester could rule as Regent in England. I think they’d spend years pacifying the French but afterwards turn back to England. England and London, had prestige, which was something that France lacked. Plus it doesn’t always happen that a smaller country gets assimilated, take British India or Spanish Mexico as examples. 5, The three estates, the Nobles, the Traders/Townsmen, and the Clergy aren’t the same in all countries. For example, in France, as stated in the video, the Nobles had immense power over French politics. Plus English political psychology wouldn’t allow it. The regency that Henry V left didn’t include any clergymen at all and certainly no lowborn traders. Nobles were far wealthier and way more influential than the townsmen and traders. The clergy could challenge the nobility, but the need to be conciliated with his nobles oftentimes made the king side with his nobles. 6, Henry VI would still(probably) be an awful king, and much more autonomy and self-rule would be granted to the nobles. This would be a bad precedent to set, and could challenge the kings right to rule. A Henry III-esque civil war might occur, and the Kings of England would probably have to grant a large amount of rights to their nobles. 7, I just want to chime in and say that I agree with ‘Leonardus Karolus Iulius Tantius’. I also think that they’d stay Catholic. I think that if England won the Hundred Years’ War, they’d split England and France. (Sort of what William the Conqueror tried to do by giving his oldest son Normandy and his second son England) Maybe the duke of Bedford would become king and Henry VI would continue his rule in England. Maybe they’d hand the French crown over to the Duke of Burgundy, an ally who was already French.
I strongly disagree. The arguments you give for england to assimilate france dont seem relevant to me. Territories governed by alexander or gengis never were culturally assimilated. The idea that english settlers would spread english culture in france while french population was like 2 or 3 times the english one at this times is pretty laughable to me. Also the all stuff is that english monarchs start claiming the crown because they were of french ascent and strongly influenced by french culture. They might have came back to a french cultured court after the conquest since they started considering english an official language only by the 15th century. Especially since Paris was actually a way bigger city than london at the time (2 times bigger i think). And like : "England and London had prestige, something france lacked". Ok france never lacked any prestige and certainly not during middle ages. Elder daughter of the church, descendants of carolingians, home to most crusader kings, biggest western city outside italy by far, most spoken language in european court when latin start declining. On the other hand you have england who just got governed by ... normans and angevins coming from france. Yeah sure prestige is on the english side, you might have thought you were during the victorian age man but that's middle ages we re talking about.
Julien Wantz, I know we are talking about the Middle Ages. The prestige is surely on England’s side. This is not the Renaissance, Paris wasn’t a home of poets and artists yet. All the arguments you gave, the Carolingians and Home of most crusader knights. That is true for France, not Paris. London was the mercantile centre of Northern Europe. Kings were crowned there. Paris on the other hand wasn’t even the place where French kings were crowned. That honour fell to Rheims. French culture wasn’t yet the dominant court language. Since Edward III, the English nobles saw themselves more as English than as French. France itself was also lacking in prestige compared to England. We are talking about the prestige of these places in the eyes of English nobility. And this is the 15th century so the argument about it being the official language needs clarification. English kings swore their coronation oath in English since Henry IV. The endless wars with France brought about a wave of Francophobia in England. Edward III was the first English king to claim the Crown of France. He did so not by his paternal ancestors, but rather through his maternal grandfather. Also it is important to remember that the Normans weren’t wholly French. Genghis didn’t manage to assimilate his conquered populace because he ruled by fear. Alexander the Great didn’t rule Persia long enough to assimilate the local populace. Also Alexander’s conquests did become Hellenised, though with local traditions still present at times.
@@fahlinoz7259 normans were not french but by a weird turn of events ended up introducing tons of french words in the english language, not norse ones. But whatever keep the british pretending they never were under french influence. French was the official court language in england since norman conquest, only by the end of 14th century became english official as well, so 3 century of elites speaking french against almost 1 century of finally speaking english (with a lot of french vocabulary) again. If english crown was powerfull enough to fight for the french crown it s because they got land on the continent because french/frankish families took the english crown. As for the lineage, yeah he wasn't fully french obviously but until tudors raised to power, english dynasties were actually cadets branch of the plantegent house, so claiming their legitimacy from a french house. As for your persistance to maintain london was more important than paris, i beg to disagree "Paris became a center for the creation of illuminated manuscripts and the birthplace of Gothic architecture. Despite civil wars, the plague, and foreign occupation, Paris became the most populous city in the Western world during the Middle Ages" and Paris was almost double london size. Maybe english saw london as more presitgious at that time, pretty sure rest of europe didn't. What is english prestige at that time? What were they famous for? Longbow archers, wool trade and fighting the scots?
Julien Wantz, A city’s prestige isn’t based on its population. My argument is rather simple, because the capital is where the monarch is, London would obviously be the capital. They were crowned there. Paris wasn’t home to French coronations. Rheims was. French kings didn’t even live in Paris, oftentimes living by the Loire in Orleans. The Plantagenêts where initially Angevin(deriving from Anjou, France), but they claimed their legitimacy from Henry II’s mother’s side. Empress Matilda was a granddaughter of William the Conqueror. Not all English dynasties were cadet branches of the Plantagenêts. For example, the Bigod family was the descendants of a Norman knight, the de Vere family hailed from Normandy, etc. Also the English had Richard the Lionhearted, Henry IV, Edward III etc. England’s kings were often-times Warrior-Kings, whilst French Kings almost never were. London’s importance can be seen directly in English administration at the time. London had it’s own laws, mayors.
0:45 French Guiana as part of the English Empire? I guess the size of the France Antarctique was exaggerated and the map doesn't show Equinoctial France (both in modern Brazil). Still, good map and great video!
I recently found out from ancestry records that i have 4 archers that fought in France and 1 Knight that fought in France in the Hundred Years Wars..............So thanks for the video
You could have Henry V live who already the crowns of England and France under his belt. This is the easiest pod. It also means he can raise Henry VI to be a competent heir.
I think you forgot culture and linguistic in medieval France those times. Up to Joan of Arc (who wasn´t from Arc), it was much more probable some individual felt him/herself more as Burgundian, Norman, or Poitevin than "French" and that there were linguistic barriers (Provencal, Dauphiné, Bretagne...). Also, as Dukes of Normandy the king of England, Wales, and France could also take his metropolis in Caen or some other important city.
Exactly, France was really not an uncontested kingdom, until 1190, with the unions with Philip 2nd. Even after this, there wasn't really a unified identity in the whole region, of what we consider current day France, Until generations later. It's bit of a joke that some try to consider France originating, with Clovis, because there is no Unified French identity there and that's what signifies a culture (a colllective identity, throughout a region, with each citizen claiming a commitment). It's even a stretch, to name France as a kingdom, upon the coronation of the King of the Franks in 987.
Very well done as usual! I just thought of an idea for one. What if no dark age ever happened? When would the Americas have been discovered. When would we have reached the moon? Not an easy one I suppose. after each dark age ends, there seems to be a period of growth, so how much time did we actually "lose" from each dark age. Including the post Roman dark age which was sort of a double dip dark age where they almost pulled out but plunged right back in. lol sorry for the long wind.
Amazing video. It brings me a lot. And this is very probably my favorite uchrony scenario. Thank you so much for your work and passion ! (Just one thing, Beijing/Khanbaliq is quiet far from it's real location on your map).
I still believe that the union with Scotland would have taken place because both England and France pursued that union in our own world. Mary, Queen of Scots is proof for that. So, in the world where England won the 100 Years War, Mary, Queen of Scots may not exist, but still there would be another Princess or Prince.
requonquista is different as, it's not really a war lasting 800 years it's a movement, a driving force, supported ny the church to take the iberian peninsula and make the kingdom of castile and aragin dominate these regions
I believe that this construction would fall apart before 1500. Dynastic randomness was a significant driver in Europe till the French revolution causing for example the Hapsburg domination (Ferdinand and Isabella didnt had an heir), the creation of Spain (Isabella didnt have a brother) , 7 years war (Maria theresa didnt have a brother) and the wars of the roses (henry the 6th was impotent). The moment a dynastic crisis comes the Anglo-French monarchy would split apart in a nasty civil war (Yorkist England and Lancaster France). A fast French victory would make more difference causing a permanent French control of the papacy and early dynastic union with Castille when Trastamara dynasty ended (church had large influence in contested succession)
My school age kids and I have enjoyed your videos for some time. However, your recent turn to harsh language such as “dick, shit, fuck”, etc. means I can no longer let them see your wonderful work. PLEASE refrain from this harsh language. Your tonality of voice, turn of phrase and scholarship has been, and continues to be excellent. Please return to your more scholarly style. It will do you great credit. All the Best, J
I still find it super weird that whenever a smaller country conquers a larger one it usually ends up being assimilated into the country they conquered so therefore losing in a way like why invade since it would end the same way if the larger one invaded you like sure it’s you in control and not them but their culture still consumes yours so is it really you in control?
The Hundred Years War started as French civil war between two powerful french families : The Plantagenêt family and the Valois family. It so happened that the Plantagenet family also controlled England.
A bit of pride for the British and French, look at these datas, according to a Japanese research firm, over 40% of the world’s inventions and discoveries are from the UK, the second nation is France with 24%, though, Britain and France are the only two nations in the history of the world to have invaded at least more than 80% of the world’s countries, France invaded more than 80% of the world’s countries (152 out of 195), Britain invaded more than 90% of the world’s countries (173 out of 195), though France is according to Wikipedia, the most successful military nation in world history with 1115 battles won with Britain 2nd with 1105 battles won, though, Britain has had the largest empire in world with a total land area with all empires combined with a total of 44 million km2, then the Mongol Empire with 33 million km2, the French colonial Empire with 32 million km2 and the Iberian Union with 27 million km2, France was the world’s superpower from 1680 (Louis XIV’s highest peak power across Europe and the world with the colonies) to 1815, Britain was the world’s superpower from 1815 to 1920. Britain will always remain the most powerful country on the seas, France second, though, France will always be the most powerful country on the lands. Of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50, more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10, making France the most successful military power in Europe and therefore in the world in terms of number of fought and won. God save the Queen and vive la France! 🇬🇧🇫🇷❤️
Le premier point me semble peut-être légèrement faux mais pour le reste ça semble être juste. Les italiens, les allemands ou les Amériques sont peut-être devant le royaume-uni et la France.
"Britain will always remain the most powerful country on the seas" BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The only sea the British are powerful on is the Channel. They are insignificant compared to the modern US Navy.
Which is why all this nonsense of "surrender, surrender" is quite revolting, especially coming from people whose countries have been rolled over by other... Anyway, thanks for the precuois data !
Have you read the accursed kings series ? It's historical fiction but its well sited and researched. It's a really great series about the events in France leading to the 100 years war.
one thing that might happen is that two distinct dialiects of english might form, High English , a francized, or anglo french language spoken by the upper classes, and Low English , a more Germanic dialect spoken by the lower class
To avoid misconceptions: The English King Edward III was of French ascendance, his family the house of Plantagenet had lands in actual France way before the hundred year war. When Edward III invaded Normandy at first his idea was to raid it as a way to pay his campain, his Victory at Crecy and Calais were inexpected, and the result is that he just took back his family's heritage (Aquitaine, Normandy, Anjou, Maine). The vision that French and English were hating each other because they were patriots or had a national feeling is total bullshit actually, even Henry V had French roots in his family tree, and if you take a look at the order of the Garter kinghts you'll see that they were in deed all in the same state and sometimes with obvious french names, even the motto of this order is still today writen in french. Ther was no big difference between the nobility each side, this is something to really figure before sticking modern concepts on this period. War was a political thing, a way to fix things out when diplomacy failed, it was a noble and mercenary thing, there was really no racial or ethnicity matter here. Most citizens and peasants were not concerned by kingdom and country affairs, and there was origin mixity in both armies, as an exemple in the English army there was a lot of Gascons from South west France, and the King of France had Scottish warriors in his army. The conscription idea came with Henry V, because he didn't have enough Knights left for his Campaign in France, so the idea was to massively recruit archers to counter the cavalry threat. The plan was never to make France part of England, the plan was to actually become King of France AND England. That's the thing,you need to understand the point of view of these people. If England had won France would never had become English, because there was no need for that be the king of two kingdoms was way better and prestigious than being a simple king, secondly the Pope may have condemned an annexion of France. If you think that destruction of France would have be possible, then you clearly put modern concepts over medieval era and this is a mistake. The English Kings were claiming there right of heritage over the crown of France, because they were rightfull in a way to do so, as being part of the same Family as the French kings (Edward III's mother was the daughter of the king of France). Another misconception is that the French sucked and lost every battles before Joan Of Arc came to save the country, well it is false. There is some victory dates aswell specially in the second part of the XIVth century where the king Of France nearly took back all that was lost after Crecy. There was in deed such badass people in the side of France too, i suggest you have a look to the life of "Jean De Vienne", "Bertrand Du Guesclin", "Jean Poton De Xaintrailles", "Etienne De Vignolles (La Hire)" this one was the chief of a troop named "Les Ecorcheurs" wich means "The Flayers" i let your imagination do the rest.
completly agree.A french youtuber make the same video 4 year ago ua-cam.com/video/RgAqKKKv-4M/v-deo.html . and he had preaty the same conclusion but he say the english will speak french in this world. It will not be the same french but it will be a french with more anglo saxon words but it will a French culture who lead england.
Ever play the Divergences of Darkness mod for Victoria 2? It has the Dual Monarchy of England and France and Anglo-French culture called Anglois in northern France, southern England and Aquitaine.
Funny. Reminds me of a line in a novel by Huysmans (là-bas) where a Parisian complains about winning the Hundred years war, reviling on Occitans and longing for a unified Nothern-France-England, a sort of Norman kingdom.
2:00 "England and France were by far the two most powerful and centralised countries in Christendom" France, sure, but England? Is this a joke? Of the top of my head, the Crown of Castile, The Kingdom of Poland, The Byzantine Empire, The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy of Moscovy would absolutely anhilate England in a war if they actually bordered it. (I'm not going to mention the HRE because it was by no means centralised at all). Also, France was also by no means centralised. Definitely nowhere as much as the Byzantine Empire. England didn't even manage to subdue Scotland of all places untill the 18th century. Its a miracle they were able so fight the 100 years war for as long as they did (it helps the fact that half of France was actually loyal to the king of England, but you decided to give France modern borders to make the war look more one sided than it actually was)
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 Lol, the English crushed Scotland all the time...in the wars of the roses, Edward Long shank...the English crushed them loads of times
@@Swift-mr5zi Okay but even if i granted you all of that, Scotland still maintained its independence until a SCOTTISH king inherited the English throne and merged his with theirs, which means every English King since descends from both the English King and Scottish Stuart kings. I would call that a win for the Stuarts more than any militaristic successes.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 The history of the aristocracy as an entity in and of itself is boring...the important parts of English history is whether the king in power worked in the interest of the English people or not...English pragmatism isn't a myth and the English weren't afraid of having Scottish or German kings if it meant a stop to civil wars. It was this flexibility that allowed England to remain a stable Kingdom, allowing it to go from 5x smaller than France to develop into a parliamentary democracy through protestant reformation, the civil war where parliament gained full power, agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and into the era of empire and modern England.
@@Swift-mr5zi what...what does any of that have to do with anything? you said england beat scotland militarily so they won over scotland in the end, but i said a Scottish king inherited their throne through his mother, merging both thrones under him
Seeing “French France” and “English England” gave me EU4 flashbacks
INSERT NAME HERE lol it’s so weird when I see Russian Russia
Hey mate I just started playing EU4. pretty lost, got any tips on how the commands work ? (As in what are the important things to know about moving troops, producing troops etc)
@@jameslegrand848 what videos by pravus gaming, zwelki(i think that's the name) eu4 is pretty hard to understand..but it's a fun game..took me a month to understand the basics
@@jameslegrand848 My recommendation is to find a playthrough of a nation and watch it while playing as the same nation. You'll learn the basics and it can help to play as a smaller nation first so that you have less to worry about
James Legrand | Took me less than 2 days for the basics. As I play Ironman, I learn new features. I think I’ve learned nearly everything now but idk.
The normans became english in order for the english to become french. Nice
The Normans were Scandinavians who became French then English.
@@gofish7388 only 3 culture swaps? Sounds like a pretty chill game of EU4
@@gofish7388 No first Normans was only a few and Guillaume the Conqueror the Norman brought thousands of Frankish soldiers as his army and they shaped the population of england that why brits have a DNA so close to the French/German people and that english is 50% french
@@ommsterlitz1805 English DNA is mostly Celtic. They are only 5% German. Most of the German DNA comes from the west. The French didn't really settle England. Which is why they speak English and not French.
The Normans immigrated en masse to a specific region of northern France. Those people were the ones who invaded England.
@@gofish7388
"The French didn't really settle England. Which is why they speak English and not French.
The Normans immigrated en masse to a specific region of northern France"
There is something like 155 words of Scandinavian origin in old Norman dialect, while a third to half of English vocabulary is said to have French origin.
You've got your theories all in reverse : the impact of Scandinavian cultural identity in Normandy was minimal, while the impact of French cultural identity in England was massive. You can't explain that with your theory.
These facts can only be explained with the idea that the Vikings were not that numerous when they settled in Normandy. They probably married the locals and adopted their culture. So much so that two centuries later when the battle of Hastings occured (quite some time after then) they would be ethnically not Scandinavians, they would have cultural traits related to French identity (language, customs, religion etc...) and, last but not least, they self-identifed as French (see the painting of Bayeux).
Considering all this, I think it's hard to call them anything else but "French", unless you have a purely ethnical definition of what "French" is, and somewhat believe that a group of 10 Scandinavians mixed marrying with a groupe of a 1000 French would make this group's ethinicity a Scandinavian one after two centuries of inter-marrying.
So even with a strictly ethnical definition of what "French" means, I would still argue they were French.
What is probably the case though is that the English elite had to deal with the dissonance of having to persuade the population that France was a threat while having a French invasion as a founding myth. So I get why they would go for the "William was actually a Viking" theory : it's probably easier to sell an Anglo-French rivalry to the English population with that in mind.
But if we are serious and unless we have an ad hoc definition of frenchness, then these guys do fit the definition of the word "French".
We could argue however that none of that make sense since the very notion of national identity was foreign to these times. Which means that these guys were neither French, English or Scandinavian or whatever because their "national" identity was first and foremost related to whatever lord of king they were subject to. These wars in those times were more noble house versus another noble house rather than nation versus nation.
I could get behind that framework.
Who else made this become a reality in EU4?
Me, but im making a mod that lets you form the Angevin Empire
Did a ck2 and transferred it
There is a mod for Victoria 2 that creates an alternate Victorian Era in which England won the 100 years war, very close to what he theorized in the video; given that much of the english monarchy was of french origin or culturally french-influenced, the unification of the two kingdoms boosted that even more, and thus both english and french cultures merged together to form the "Anglois" culture. It's called Divergences of Darkness.
@@obsrvdsplash115 Search vic 2 divergences of darkness github
Me. That's the first thing I did after watching this video
"between drawing this Part of the HRE and having a Life, I Chose having a Life"
I can respect that
😢
I can see why you waited till December to make this/release this as if u released it November all English men would of lost no nut November
and the Swedes ...
Yes and we all get a head start on destroy dick December
HaywireOfAlba can confirm
Bro this technically would ‘save austria’ as they wouldnt become as rich so wouldnt try to support such expansions,but might’ve united with the hungars due to a personal union that could’ve kept going or be reformed.
Tomas we would have
Also, I think a case can be made for the Anglo-French Monarchy of this timeline remaining Catholic. If you butterfly away Henry VIII and the political circumstances of the Anglican Schism, the English (in this case Anglo-French ) monarchy going Protestant shouldn't be taken for granted anymore. Also, the French monarchy of our timeline had lots of political reasons for converting to Protestantism, but it didn't happen (this didn't prevent them to trade and forge alliances with Protestant countries, though ).
Exualy be a good place for the southern french to build up a seperatist movement.
Aswell as the burgundian counts to become independent enought to join the holy roman enpire.
That pretty much leaves only young prussia, that smaller netherlands and the swedish empire protestant empire.
-
That means the 30 years war is those to.little continental states deffending againt the empires with sweden for back up. And maybe the ottomans if joing againt austria.
that's a very good point ......... it'd be interesting to think along those lines, for some time, and speculate .............. have you?
@@hazchemel Yes
Also if the anglo king turned protestant in this timeline, it will be free real-estate for the Habsburg : as claim to the french crown can now be passed by a woman, they will inherit the burgundian one.
They can use the catholics during the wars lf religion to support their rights on France
I was about to bring up this point also. With Henry VIII removed from the throne and the politics that came with him wanting his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, it can be a case that an Anglo-French Monarchy remains Catholic. I believe the biggest factor for England becoming Protestant in our time is that the King became a Protestant. In our timeline, the fear the Mary I would take the crown after Edward VI died and turn the country back to Catholicism happened. Mary I reign, however, was far too short (5 years) to make any lasting change and was followed by Protestant, Elizabeth I, who was 44 year reign solidified England as a Protestant country.
Nobody:
Me entering EU4 to make this a reality: **good day gentlement Im here to change the past**
*Eats Scotland as Denmark*
same
Eats Ottomans as Byzantines
*Gets wrecked by France*
Elan!
Technically the longest war was between the Netherlands and Scilly, but nobody got the memo.
Didn’t they forget that they were at war lol
Of the Spanish war against mapuches
1651-1986
@Vladimir Kozlovsky Not a war, we co exist.
The longest war was 800 years it was Iberian states vs the moors when they owned Iberia
You must be Normandy, since you already conquered my heart
Divergences of Darkness from Victoria II timeline explained
Omg how I hate to fight the Dual Monarchy
But Provence to France-Italy? Is this in the timeline?
Adriano Zanata Or when Bohemia forms the HRE
Virgin EU4 scenario vs Chad Vic2 DoD
@@Muun-shine The thad Ck2 to vic2 mod
“We few... we happy few... we... band of brothers... for he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother!” Probably the most famous line ever uttered in a theatrical historical drama about the Hundred Years’ War. Thank you Mr. Shakespeare! Rest in peace!
I don't think Anglo-French country would be destined to split up, in just 400 years Normans made English have about 60% of vocabulary from French starting with just the court, proportion 17 million Frenchman to 3 million English also suggests to one thing- merger of the two identities with heavier French influence. I can totally see one king down the line introducing policies to make this easier
Also, Anglo-French would have population rivalling nearly Germany+Spain combined and they weren't combined for 100 years after this scenario so continental dominance would be feasible IF centralization in France occurred.
Otherwise, without centralization and cultural assimilation next ages would be spent on minority trying to control majority which would end up in both England and France handicapped.
I think however centralized common-identity rule is more likely since nobody likes to shoot themselves in the foot and in this case colonialism isn't as strong since the best player achieved hegemony and where you go from there- China had this problem up to the modern times
@Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolvocanoconiosis You mean the French would fuck our language even more? It wouldn't even be English at that point.
tbf i dont think he is talkin about spoken english, just dictionary vocabulary, which is still a feat, and yeah we still use mostly germanic words but latin vocabulary in spoken english is still pretty big, for instance this paragraph here has at least more than 12 latin words in it
China was controlled by bureaucrats and had no need for excess luxury's they had everything that's why they didn't go colonial
Western Europe had merchants and nobles who wanted more money and prestige so I think colonialism would still occur
@@Slapnuts9627if england won the hundred years’ war then french and latin influences on english would be even higher yes
how does this have less subscribers than alternate history hub when its more in depth and more detailed and better researched
You just explained why
@@Cos_Why_Not huh
@@Cos_Why_Not your reply doesn't make sense lmao
people want quick, simple, humorful education if they're not obsessed with geography/
when they become obsessed, they dip to this channel for their knowledge.
Literally all cody says is "i don't know" but it's faster
The French opening battles with cavalry charges that failed because of bad going was sort of a trope throughout the mid-to-late middle ages, not just in the Hundred Years' War but also the Battle of the Golden Spurs.
Very smooth way to include your kickass medieval sword in a video
Those pick up lines had me laughing so hard man. Imagine going up to some random girl and she things your off on crack or something.
What if the Magna Carta was never signed?
What if the Raid on Harper's Ferry actually succeeded?
What if Richard the Lionheart survived?
What if the Meiji Restoration failed?
Not the last one I need my weaboo wet dream
Richard I was more concerned with the continent then England. John was looking after England then. The only thing is that the Aquitaine would of been part of the Rule of the Plantagenant for longer.
The Magna Carta was only the3rd item of human and Civil Rights legislation in England, so if not signed, something else would have come quickly anyway. If you know the history, it started with William the Conqueror being incensed and increasingly violent to the Anglo-Saxons, because of their insistence on Anglo-Saxon common-law (1041), giving them certain rights consistently.This still wasn't stamped out by the time of the next king, who was Henry 1, who equally incensed, agreed to sign the charter of liberties (1100), hstupidly, hoping, that would be a pacification and he could continue to be as autocratic as before.Technically this is more important than the Magna Carta(1215), because it was the 1st part of ratified sophisticated human rights legislation, in human history and started the persistent expectation of adherence, and a The doubling of the scale of expectation, compared to the Anglo-Saxon law, before it.The Magna Carta isn't so different from the Charter of liberties, the main reason why Magna Carta is so important is because King John (the next king) was so brutal and was violating everything in the Charter of liberties, that everyone refused to give him taxes unless he agreed to sign not only the Magna Carta, but would have a certain number of nobles sitting with him at intervals to ensure it was being adhered to.
This essentially signifies when Parliamentary and constituent based democracy began.After this, you got the Habeus corpus(1679) and the English Bill of Rights(1689) to finally put monarchy to bed because It began proper constituent democracy, under all circumstances.|Essentially, you can see each item of legislatiion, closing up loopholes that kings were attempting to Exploit, to get out of previous promises, until it was decided that Kings were not worthy any more.
Didn't Spain cause hyperinflation by importing large amounts of gold and silver from America?
The America’s weren’t even discovered during the 100 Years War.
@@DerWeisskunig Spain didn't exist either, then.
Robert Miller
Yes, my bad, you were wrong about two things.
@@DerWeisskunig Since I wasn't talking about the Hundred Years' War, I don't think I was.
Yeah, but a really large percentage of that silver went directly to the netherlands in this world the expenses would be smaller and Spain would just hoard it's enormous treasury thus mantaining the price of silver and becoming even more RICH. Most people laugh at the spanish crown for their expenses but the netherlands was one of the richest regions in the world and the spanish kings were desperate to mantain It.....that desperation was the one that bankrupted Spain.
The whole world would be united under the British empire
The British still considered themselves French at the time. It would be the French empire.
ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!!
@@joshuamitchell5018 only the royalty and elite.
A French speaking British empire.
Nah
This absolutely is one of whatifalthist's masterpieces!
"It's just a prank bro" - God, literally always
Keizer Van Enerc Explain?
Keizer Van Enerc God is always true. And His word always holds. Whatever He says is truth. If He says that those who believe in Him will be saved then it’s true. if He says hell is real then it’s true. But Jesus remains the blessed hope of all that believe. And that it is true.
"Whats he like?"
"God?"
"Yeah"
"Lonely, but funny, he's got a great sense of humor, take sex for example, there's nothing funnier than the face you humans make mid-coitus"
"Sex is a joke in heaven?"
"Its kind of a joke down here as I understand it!"
*Bethany and The Metatron, Dogma*
This is definitely my favorite video because of your badass sword and medieval pickup lines
Who says the UN would be based in Veracruz? Havana, Barranquilla, and Ciudad de Panama are also great candidates in Latin America
Panana City is the best candidate
@@josefernandovillanuevahida8620 Perhaps, though I feel that Havana would be better, as this timeline is a bit iffy on the Cuban Revolution
@The Nova renaissance True
The Lord Darcy books by Randall Garrett are set in an alternative 1960s where the Plantagenet King rules England, France, and Americas, and is also the Holy Roman Emperor. It helps that the laws of magic have been discovered, and magic has become scientific. Great fun.
Also, Kingdom Come: Deliverance comment you're welcome.
This is legit one of you best and funniest videos. Especially the last couple seconds.
I'm growing rather fond of this new format. The window made a better backdrop but better audio this time.
Loved your Ethiopia video! Something AlternateHistoryHub was too incompetent to make a topic about!
Nanoo nub nub definitely. Whatifalthist is more creative than AlternateHistoryHub. This channel needs to be supported.
Forget St Joan dying early. What if Henry V lived longer?
This would be a better scenario
I think at the very least England would have fermented its control over Normandy
Thats a nice sword you have!
What if the Germanic post Roman kingdoms survived and were more influential?
Visigoths, Vandals etcetera would make Brexit happen even sooner.
Frankish kingdom survived
José Fernando Villanueva Hidalgo i think he meant survived and didn’t become latinized
We would have Wodan/Odin and Donar/Thor in our religion.
@@Spacefrisian They were Arian heretics. Not pagan. They had converted to Christianity a while ago.
''The Dutch revolt would likely not happen in this world''
Hold my stroopwaffel
As an Norman, all I see there is the ultimate victory of the Vikings over the world :D More seriously, the Plantagenêt originated from Anjou, but by the time they put their hands on the Norman assets, Normandy and England had become some of the most profitable lands in Europe, thanks to Rollo's descendents.
Anyway, thanks for this really interesting point of view !
Why was England and Normandy so profitable
@@jdlc903 Partly thanks to political organisation and management such as precise surveys, allowing for a larger taxable base.
@@FlorentPlacide and that's due to the Normans/plantagenet
@@jdlc903 Yes. For example, William the Conqueror ordered a complete survey of the land he had just conquered. This survey produced the _Domesday Book_
@@FlorentPlacide you know all your people (Normans) still own all the land in England
What if Irish home rule was implemented before ww1
If England had won the Hundred Years War, the English world would have most likely been relegated to a secondary level and French would have dominated.
In the historical sense, we can't really tell the impact because the alliances formed tryng to maintain the balance of powers would have been different.
the englsh already spoke French at that time
so it make perfect sense
if,
France and england union would look pretty much like
Scottish and english union in 1603
they'd speak close language, with discting dialects
but it will be dominatd by france, which is biggest population, biggest language
and it would have had cultural effects
as a century later, it mater, it will be the great protestant reformation
so england would have stilll been catholic
@@gutsjoestar7450 Edward III replaced French for English and if the legacy of Henry V leads to an Anglo-French monarchy southern France would eventually evolve in to a separate Nation. So this north Atlantic monarchy would have an English character
Not that you were soliciting for comments....but you're awesome, Brother. Thanks for your entertaining yet informative and well-founded content.
Yeah a new vedio
P. S. Greetings from Germany
One of your best videos! I really enjoyed how your sense of humor came out. The more wide open the possibilities of the time lines are, the more your personality shows. It's good to mix the formula up sometimes, you know? Lol. Great video! Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!
You should do, “What if Athens won the Pollupenesian war”
*Polleponesian*
Peloponnesian
I may not be a hard core history nerd, but I'm Dutch, so you bought enough good will to make me stay :P
Make a video on what if Patrick Buchanan won the presidential election of 1992??
Make a video on what if Patrick Stewart won the presidential election of 1992
Finally I have been waiting for a video about this alternate timeline for years I so happy right now
France ceasing to exist and England being even more amazing. Glorious.
France would still exist. Henry V's goal was not to destroy France, but to become its King.
england would litteraly become france lmao youd be speaking french
@@smal750 more likely over time the languages would merge
@@syvusvael
your langage has already merged with french what you talking about dumbass brigay😂😂😂
A channel about speculative history and cartography? with a host who has a love of history and a collection of fantasy novels?! UA-cam recommendations have done it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Instant sub!
Wait a minute, didn't you already make this scenario 4 years ago
He alternates new scenarios with remakes of his old stuff.
"To put a pike in Flanders" is still used in Spain to refer to something that is very expensive.
Out of all those things we have to give up I’d say French cuisine is the one I hate to give up the most so I’m pretty alright with that, perhaps if there was a Celtic cultural revival in France as there was in Britain during the 18th and 19th centuries we could see a great resurgence of the Breton language in this alternate timeline
Immortal Flamingo not exactly, one problem with his idea that England would become completely French is that the examples given where of absolutely huge nations being conquered, when the Anglo-Saxons conquered England they where quite outnumbered and subjugated many Britons and didn’t outnumber them till years and years later, and yet never lost their culture, same with the Danes in northern England, who continued to speak Old Norse and practice paganism to some extant even when outnumbered by the English like 10 to 1, also the normans in England, they kept their French culture for a long long time and didn’t give it up till a king who wasn’t raised in the royal French ways came to power
Great to FINALLY put a face with a voice! Great video
I have always enjoyed your videos and interesting play-out of history, even including quirks of your pronunciation: you seem to have consistently pronounced “l” as in Spanish or Welsh “ll”, a phoneme which I, a language lover, have always unsuccessfully tried to master. Jokes aside, thank you for you devotion.
11:48 Plantagenet america would be pretty cool ngl.
As a citizen of Ottawa I second that statement 😂
As a citizen of the US, Canada is rightful American clay
@@michaela2634 hope you’re joking 😂
The fun fact is that the British government chose Ottawa, at the time a small town named Bytown, precisely because it was far from the great centers like Montréal, Québec City or Toronto.
14:27 I love the way you describe the founder of my nation xD
Who is he
@@krushnaji4940 Clovis
3:58 but McClellan didn’t loose he merely failed to win
....
Oversimplified reference
Been waiting for this for a long time, thank you :)
Time for my 5th Angevin Empire play through on EUIV
This was one of you best videos!
Before I start ranting about what I think, I want to make the point that I really do respect you/whatifalthist. I can see why you made the arguments you did and I respect your opinion (even though I don’t really agree with it). So here are my opinions being vomited out into the world:
1, England controlled Bordeaux, and thus, controlled the lucrative Bordeaux Wine Trade
2, England would probably keep their capital in London, because when Henry II controlled the western seaboard of France, there was no problem keeping the capital in London. Plus London was a far larger mercantile centre, it benefitted hugely from the Wool trade with Flanders and the Low Countries. Paris was not the same jewel of the kingdom as London was.
3, Thus I believe that France would be subjugated quite similarly to how Wales were in our timeline. Marcher Lords in Normandy and Gascony pushing their borders further to the east and south. Something similar to Gwynedd might happen, with England taking control of the northernmost and central parts of France. The French would be crowned kings but never anointed, swearing fealty to England in principle but not in practice. They’d survive in southern France for at least the following 2-3 decades. English settlers would move in and eventually become the majority.
4, The argument that a smaller country would be assimilated into the larger country, for me at least, doesn’t really make much sense. Alexander’s conquests or those of Genghis Khan weren’t the same as the English conquest of France would be. The Middle Ages was very much a time when the country’s prestige was more important than its actual size/population. Take Normandy’s conquest of England for example. William the Conqueror had built up an inescapable reputation that drew huge amounts of mercenaries to him. England was seen as the more “important” country in that time period. Their longbowmen were feared across Europe and their parliamentary system was completely foreign to other Kings in Europe. When Henry V died he left not a sole regent but instead one for England and one for France. Principally, the Duke of Bedford was in charge of both countries, but his absence from England meant that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester could rule as Regent in England. I think they’d spend years pacifying the French but afterwards turn back to England. England and London, had prestige, which was something that France lacked. Plus it doesn’t always happen that a smaller country gets assimilated, take British India or Spanish Mexico as examples.
5, The three estates, the Nobles, the Traders/Townsmen, and the Clergy aren’t the same in all countries. For example, in France, as stated in the video, the Nobles had immense power over French politics. Plus English political psychology wouldn’t allow it. The regency that Henry V left didn’t include any clergymen at all and certainly no lowborn traders. Nobles were far wealthier and way more influential than the townsmen and traders. The clergy could challenge the nobility, but the need to be conciliated with his nobles oftentimes made the king side with his nobles.
6, Henry VI would still(probably) be an awful king, and much more autonomy and self-rule would be granted to the nobles. This would be a bad precedent to set, and could challenge the kings right to rule. A Henry III-esque civil war might occur, and the Kings of England would probably have to grant a large amount of rights to their nobles.
7, I just want to chime in and say that I agree with ‘Leonardus Karolus Iulius Tantius’. I also think that they’d stay Catholic.
I think that if England won the Hundred Years’ War, they’d split England and France. (Sort of what William the Conqueror tried to do by giving his oldest son Normandy and his second son England) Maybe the duke of Bedford would become king and Henry VI would continue his rule in England. Maybe they’d hand the French crown over to the Duke of Burgundy, an ally who was already French.
If France stays ‘alive’ in Southern France there might be a resurgence of Catharism
EDIT: grammar
I strongly disagree. The arguments you give for england to assimilate france dont seem relevant to me. Territories governed by alexander or gengis never were culturally assimilated. The idea that english settlers would spread english culture in france while french population was like 2 or 3 times the english one at this times is pretty laughable to me. Also the all stuff is that english monarchs start claiming the crown because they were of french ascent and strongly influenced by french culture. They might have came back to a french cultured court after the conquest since they started considering english an official language only by the 15th century. Especially since Paris was actually a way bigger city than london at the time (2 times bigger i think). And like : "England and London had prestige, something france lacked". Ok france never lacked any prestige and certainly not during middle ages. Elder daughter of the church, descendants of carolingians, home to most crusader kings, biggest western city outside italy by far, most spoken language in european court when latin start declining. On the other hand you have england who just got governed by ... normans and angevins coming from france. Yeah sure prestige is on the english side, you might have thought you were during the victorian age man but that's middle ages we re talking about.
Julien Wantz,
I know we are talking about the Middle Ages. The prestige is surely on England’s side. This is not the Renaissance, Paris wasn’t a home of poets and artists yet. All the arguments you gave, the Carolingians and Home of most crusader knights. That is true for France, not Paris. London was the mercantile centre of Northern Europe. Kings were crowned there. Paris on the other hand wasn’t even the place where French kings were crowned. That honour fell to Rheims. French culture wasn’t yet the dominant court language. Since Edward III, the English nobles saw themselves more as English than as French. France itself was also lacking in prestige compared to England. We are talking about the prestige of these places in the eyes of English nobility. And this is the 15th century so the argument about it being the official language needs clarification. English kings swore their coronation oath in English since Henry IV. The endless wars with France brought about a wave of Francophobia in England. Edward III was the first English king to claim the Crown of France. He did so not by his paternal ancestors, but rather through his maternal grandfather. Also it is important to remember that the Normans weren’t wholly French. Genghis didn’t manage to assimilate his conquered populace because he ruled by fear. Alexander the Great didn’t rule Persia long enough to assimilate the local populace. Also Alexander’s conquests did become Hellenised, though with local traditions still present at times.
@@fahlinoz7259 normans were not french but by a weird turn of events ended up introducing tons of french words in the english language, not norse ones. But whatever keep the british pretending they never were under french influence. French was the official court language in england since norman conquest, only by the end of 14th century became english official as well, so 3 century of elites speaking french against almost 1 century of finally speaking english (with a lot of french vocabulary) again. If english crown was powerfull enough to fight for the french crown it s because they got land on the continent because french/frankish families took the english crown. As for the lineage, yeah he wasn't fully french obviously but until tudors raised to power, english dynasties were actually cadets branch of the plantegent house, so claiming their legitimacy from a french house. As for your persistance to maintain london was more important than paris, i beg to disagree "Paris became a center for the creation of illuminated manuscripts and the birthplace of Gothic architecture. Despite civil wars, the plague, and foreign occupation, Paris became the most populous city in the Western world during the Middle Ages" and Paris was almost double london size. Maybe english saw london as more presitgious at that time, pretty sure rest of europe didn't. What is english prestige at that time? What were they famous for? Longbow archers, wool trade and fighting the scots?
Julien Wantz,
A city’s prestige isn’t based on its population. My argument is rather simple, because the capital is where the monarch is, London would obviously be the capital. They were crowned there. Paris wasn’t home to French coronations. Rheims was. French kings didn’t even live in Paris, oftentimes living by the Loire in Orleans. The Plantagenêts where initially Angevin(deriving from Anjou, France), but they claimed their legitimacy from Henry II’s mother’s side. Empress Matilda was a granddaughter of William the Conqueror. Not all English dynasties were cadet branches of the Plantagenêts. For example, the Bigod family was the descendants of a Norman knight, the de Vere family hailed from Normandy, etc. Also the English had Richard the Lionhearted, Henry IV, Edward III etc. England’s kings were often-times Warrior-Kings, whilst French Kings almost never were. London’s importance can be seen directly in English administration at the time. London had it’s own laws, mayors.
Most entertaining history vid I've watched in a while
0:45 French Guiana as part of the English Empire? I guess the size of the France Antarctique was exaggerated and the map doesn't show Equinoctial France (both in modern Brazil). Still, good map and great video!
I recently found out from ancestry records that i have 4 archers that fought in France and 1 Knight that fought in France in the Hundred Years Wars..............So thanks for the video
You could have Henry V live who already the crowns of England and France under his belt. This is the easiest pod. It also means he can raise Henry VI to be a competent heir.
I enjoyed the subtle suggestion at 5:44 that the capital of Canadian America would be Chicago or Cleveland
I think you forgot culture and linguistic in medieval France those times. Up to Joan of Arc (who wasn´t from Arc), it was much more probable some individual felt him/herself more as Burgundian, Norman, or Poitevin than "French" and that there were linguistic barriers (Provencal, Dauphiné, Bretagne...). Also, as Dukes of Normandy the king of England, Wales, and France could also take his metropolis in Caen or some other important city.
Exactly, France was really not an uncontested kingdom, until 1190, with the unions with Philip 2nd. Even after this, there wasn't really a unified identity in the whole region, of what we consider current day France, Until generations later. It's bit of a joke that some try to consider France originating, with Clovis, because there is no Unified French identity there and that's what signifies a culture (a colllective identity, throughout a region, with each citizen claiming a commitment). It's even a stretch, to name France as a kingdom, upon the coronation of the King of the Franks in 987.
I like this format with you in it better than just images
Very well done as usual! I just thought of an idea for one. What if no dark age ever happened? When would the Americas have been discovered. When would we have reached the moon? Not an easy one I suppose. after each dark age ends, there seems to be a period of growth, so how much time did we actually "lose" from each dark age. Including the post Roman dark age which was sort of a double dip dark age where they almost pulled out but plunged right back in. lol sorry for the long wind.
Amazing video. It brings me a lot. And this is very probably my favorite uchrony scenario. Thank you so much for your work and passion !
(Just one thing, Beijing/Khanbaliq is quiet far from it's real location on your map).
I still believe that the union with Scotland would have taken place because both England and France pursued that union in our own world. Mary, Queen of Scots is proof for that. So, in the world where England won the 100 Years War, Mary, Queen of Scots may not exist, but still there would be another Princess or Prince.
i love how you literally threatened us with a sword to give you money in the end
We would be playing against the French in AoE2 campaings.
What books do you recommend covering the Hundred Years War?
"The hundred years war was the longest war in history"
What about reconquista, which lasted almost 800 years?
That was many separate wars for the same cause
this was not a war.
requonquista is different
as, it's not really a war lasting 800 years
it's a movement, a driving force, supported ny the church to take the iberian peninsula
and make the kingdom of castile and aragin dominate these regions
I believe that this construction would fall apart before 1500. Dynastic randomness was a significant driver in Europe till the French revolution causing for example the Hapsburg domination (Ferdinand and Isabella didnt had an heir), the creation of Spain (Isabella didnt have a brother) , 7 years war (Maria theresa didnt have a brother) and the wars of the roses (henry the 6th was impotent). The moment a dynastic crisis comes the Anglo-French monarchy would split apart in a nasty civil war (Yorkist England and Lancaster France). A fast French victory would make more difference causing a permanent French control of the papacy and early dynastic union with Castille when Trastamara dynasty ended (church had large influence in contested succession)
The hunderd years was was a short war the netherlands was at war with the silly isles for 335 years from 1651-1986
This is awesome!
My school age kids and I have enjoyed your videos for some time. However, your recent turn to harsh language such as “dick, shit, fuck”, etc. means I can no longer let them see your wonderful work. PLEASE refrain from this harsh language. Your tonality of voice, turn of phrase and scholarship has been, and continues to be excellent. Please return to your more scholarly style. It will do you great credit. All the Best, J
Homie you look just like I thought you would.
Respect.
I still find it super weird that whenever a smaller country conquers a larger one it usually ends up being assimilated into the country they conquered so therefore losing in a way like why invade since it would end the same way if the larger one invaded you like sure it’s you in control and not them but their culture still consumes yours so is it really you in control?
Reason being, by the time this happened, whichever party did the initial conquest had already reaped the benefits of said conquest, and died.
The Hundred Years War started as French civil war between two powerful french families : The Plantagenêt family and the Valois family. It so happened that the Plantagenet family also controlled England.
A civil war is when a kingdoms population fights itself. French and English are not related so it wasnt a civil war
A bit of pride for the British and French, look at these datas, according to a Japanese research firm, over 40% of the world’s inventions and discoveries are from the UK, the second nation is France with 24%, though, Britain and France are the only two nations in the history of the world to have invaded at least more than 80% of the world’s countries, France invaded more than 80% of the world’s countries (152 out of 195), Britain invaded more than 90% of the world’s countries (173 out of 195), though France is according to Wikipedia, the most successful military nation in world history with 1115 battles won with Britain 2nd with 1105 battles won, though, Britain has had the largest empire in world with a total land area with all empires combined with a total of 44 million km2, then the Mongol Empire with 33 million km2, the French colonial Empire with 32 million km2 and the Iberian Union with 27 million km2, France was the world’s superpower from 1680 (Louis XIV’s highest peak power across Europe and the world with the colonies) to 1815, Britain was the world’s superpower from 1815 to 1920. Britain will always remain the most powerful country on the seas, France second, though, France will always be the most powerful country on the lands. Of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50, more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10, making France the most successful military power in Europe and therefore in the world in terms of number of fought and won. God save the Queen and vive la France! 🇬🇧🇫🇷❤️
You forgot the Russian Empire
Le premier point me semble peut-être légèrement faux mais pour le reste ça semble être juste.
Les italiens, les allemands ou les Amériques sont peut-être devant le royaume-uni et la France.
"Britain will always remain the most powerful country on the seas" BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The only sea the British are powerful on is the Channel. They are insignificant compared to the modern US Navy.
Which is why all this nonsense of "surrender, surrender" is quite revolting, especially coming from people whose countries have been rolled over by other... Anyway, thanks for the precuois data !
Laughs in American
Love your video :)
1:55 but the French didn't the english had Normandy and Aquitain.
9:14 those pick up lines are killing me
More likely: French as official language of any USA type state in this alternate timeline.
I subscribed because he brandished his weapon at the end
What if the Southern Song Dynasty survived?
Have you read the accursed kings series ? It's historical fiction but its well sited and researched. It's a really great series about the events in France leading to the 100 years war.
Love the sword! 😂
one thing that might happen is that two distinct dialiects of english might form, High English , a francized, or anglo french language spoken by the upper classes, and Low English , a more Germanic dialect spoken by the lower class
What if the Western Interior Seaway didn’t disappear?
6:28 the HRE cracked me up.
To avoid misconceptions:
The English King Edward III was of French ascendance, his family the house of Plantagenet had lands in actual France way before the hundred year war.
When Edward III invaded Normandy at first his idea was to raid it as a way to pay his campain, his Victory at Crecy and Calais were inexpected, and the result is that he just took back his family's heritage (Aquitaine, Normandy, Anjou, Maine).
The vision that French and English were hating each other because they were patriots or had a national feeling is total bullshit actually, even Henry V had French roots in his family tree, and if you take a look at the order of the Garter kinghts you'll see that they were in deed all in the same state and sometimes with obvious french names, even the motto of this order is still today writen in french.
Ther was no big difference between the nobility each side, this is something to really figure before sticking modern concepts on this period.
War was a political thing, a way to fix things out when diplomacy failed, it was a noble and mercenary thing, there was really no racial or ethnicity matter here.
Most citizens and peasants were not concerned by kingdom and country affairs, and there was origin mixity in both armies, as an exemple in the English army there was a lot of Gascons from South west France, and the King of France had Scottish warriors in his army.
The conscription idea came with Henry V, because he didn't have enough Knights left for his Campaign in France, so the idea was to massively recruit archers to counter the cavalry threat.
The plan was never to make France part of England, the plan was to actually become King of France AND England.
That's the thing,you need to understand the point of view of these people.
If England had won France would never had become English, because there was no need for that be the king of two kingdoms was way better and prestigious than being a simple king, secondly the Pope may have condemned an annexion of France.
If you think that destruction of France would have be possible, then you clearly put modern concepts over medieval era and this is a mistake.
The English Kings were claiming there right of heritage over the crown of France, because they were rightfull in a way to do so, as being part of the same Family as the French kings (Edward III's mother was the daughter of the king of France).
Another misconception is that the French sucked and lost every battles before Joan Of Arc came to save the country, well it is false.
There is some victory dates aswell specially in the second part of the XIVth century where the king Of France nearly took back all that was lost after Crecy.
There was in deed such badass people in the side of France too, i suggest you have a look to the life of "Jean De Vienne", "Bertrand Du Guesclin", "Jean Poton De Xaintrailles", "Etienne De Vignolles (La Hire)" this one was the chief of a troop named "Les Ecorcheurs" wich means "The Flayers" i let your imagination do the rest.
completly agree.A french youtuber make the same video 4 year ago ua-cam.com/video/RgAqKKKv-4M/v-deo.html . and he had preaty the same conclusion but he say the english will speak french in this world. It will not be the same french but it will be a french with more anglo saxon words but it will a French culture who lead england.
"long ago Europe lived together in harmony then everything changed when England attacked"
Ever play the Divergences of Darkness mod for Victoria 2? It has the Dual Monarchy of England and France and Anglo-French culture called Anglois in northern France, southern England and Aquitaine.
I play that mod as well
Funny. Reminds me of a line in a novel by Huysmans (là-bas) where a Parisian complains about winning the Hundred years war, reviling on Occitans and longing for a unified Nothern-France-England, a sort of Norman kingdom.
2:00
"England and France were by far the two most powerful and centralised countries in Christendom"
France, sure, but England?
Is this a joke?
Of the top of my head, the Crown of Castile, The Kingdom of Poland, The Byzantine Empire, The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy of Moscovy would absolutely anhilate England in a war if they actually bordered it. (I'm not going to mention the HRE because it was by no means centralised at all).
Also, France was also by no means centralised. Definitely nowhere as much as the Byzantine Empire.
England didn't even manage to subdue Scotland of all places untill the 18th century.
Its a miracle they were able so fight the 100 years war for as long as they did (it helps the fact that half of France was actually loyal to the king of England, but you decided to give France modern borders to make the war look more one sided than it actually was)
it didnt subdue Scotland AT ALL. it was more like they sat a Scottish king on the English throne
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 Lol, the English crushed Scotland all the time...in the wars of the roses, Edward Long shank...the English crushed them loads of times
@@Swift-mr5zi Okay but even if i granted you all of that, Scotland still maintained its independence until a SCOTTISH king inherited the English throne and merged his with theirs, which means every English King since descends from both the English King and Scottish Stuart kings. I would call that a win for the Stuarts more than any militaristic successes.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 The history of the aristocracy as an entity in and of itself is boring...the important parts of English history is whether the king in power worked in the interest of the English people or not...English pragmatism isn't a myth and the English weren't afraid of having Scottish or German kings if it meant a stop to civil wars. It was this flexibility that allowed England to remain a stable Kingdom, allowing it to go from 5x smaller than France to develop into a parliamentary democracy through protestant reformation, the civil war where parliament gained full power, agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution and into the era of empire and modern England.
@@Swift-mr5zi what...what does any of that have to do with anything? you said england beat scotland militarily so they won over scotland in the end, but i said a Scottish king inherited their throne through his mother, merging both thrones under him
Well ain't this a treat, I missed your face!
the longest war of all time is ACTUALLY the Dutch-Scilly war, thank you very much
And how long was that?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_and_Thirty_Five_Years%27_War
@@Flejmon cool
Why were the Dutch fighting the people from the scilly
"Charles the First was such a reckless dick that he had the mercantile classes rebel against him" ROFL!!!!!!!
This scenario is Heaven on Earth!!! 🏴🏴🏴
As a Franco-British guy I agree 🇬🇧🇫🇷👍
Citizens of Cadia Not for Catholics like me :(
@@emperorconstantinexipalaio4121 I'm Catholic too
Really? Not going to be happened with the existed of the ottoman
12:16 : Has Flanders ever been Protestant? That is new to me.