If Henry V had no died so young in 1422, could he have successfully held together an Anglo-French empire greater even than the Angevin Empire?

Mar 2016
403
Australia
#1
Since the primary causes of the dissolution of the Angevin Empire in the early-13th century were a much-hated and unwise English monarch (John I) and an aggressive and ambitious French monarch (Philippe-Augustus) wouldn't have existed in the 15th century, could such an ambitious restructuring of Western European geopolitics have succeeded under a strong king like Henry V, or would he (or his successor) eventually be overwhelmed by ambitious nobles in both realms?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#2
If he would have lived longer and had competent successors, I suspect that Yes, he could have held together an Anglo-French empire. However, please keep in mind that due to France's much larger population, the court might eventually feel pressured to move to France. In turn, this could mean that this empire becomes a Greater France and that England gradually ends up being Gallicized.
 
Jun 2017
2,509
Connecticut
#3
If he would have lived longer and had competent successors, I suspect that Yes, he could have held together an Anglo-French empire. However, please keep in mind that due to France's much larger population, the court might eventually feel pressured to move to France. In turn, this could mean that this empire becomes a Greater France and that England gradually ends up being Gallicized.
Yeah I agree, yes but France becomes the core due to it's much larger size, similar to how the Stuarts were Scots but England was the larger and more important holding so the Stuarts went there. Entirely different example due to inheritance versus conquest and a less absolutist system but there is a trend where if party A conquers a larger country B, country B becomes the center of everything.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#4
Yeah I agree, yes but France becomes the core due to it's much larger size, similar to how the Stuarts were Scots but England was the larger and more important holding so the Stuarts went there. Entirely different example due to inheritance versus conquest and a less absolutist system but there is a trend where if party A conquers a larger country B, country B becomes the center of everything.
I don't see how exactly this contradicts anything that I wrote here.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
13,494
SoCal
#6
It doesn't supporting your argument about how in these scenario's the larger entity absorbs the smaller regardless of who did the conquering/where the conqueror came from.
You really should add a couple of dashes ( "--" ) after the word "doesn't". I was initially confused by what you meant but then I got it. The "doesn't" really does need to have a couple of dashes after it.
 

Similar History Discussions