Henry V of England, like Alexander the Great, conquered an empire while young, died young, and the empire came apart after his death. Asserting a colorable claim to the French crown, he invaded France and defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt. A settlement was reached whereby Henry married the daughter of Charles VI and was recognized as his heir. The envisioned arrangement was a French-English dual monarchy – two thrones/governments, one king (like Austria-Hungary much later). But Henry died in 1422, at the age of 35, while his and Katherine’s son was still an infant. The Valois, in the person of Charles VII with the help of Joan of Arc, won back the French throne, and England and France remain separate (and occasionally hostile) to this day. Henry, like Alexander, conquered an empire while young, died young, and the empire came apart after his death.
If Henry V had lived long enough to consolidate his state, would it have lasted? AFAIK, the Hundred Years’ War was never based on any idea that the English and the French were really one people, or that they should be one people, or that they would be better off under one king than two. It was about a pure, personal dynastic claim of the kings of England to the throne of France. Kings always want more to rule, but that is not necessarily a sound basis for a state. In this case, it would be a two-part federation with no clearly dominant half – France being the defeated party, but also much vaster and richer. Seems like an unstable arrangement, especially with a Valois Dauphin still alive to form a nucleus of opposition. Certainly France could not have been turned into one vast Ireland, its nobles were too powerful. The French language would continue to be the language of the people – and the Court; all the English nobles spoke French then. (The scene in Henry V where Henry makes faltering efforts to speak French to Katherine of Valois is just another instance of Shakespeare either showing ignorance or taking liberties. So, BTW, is his having to talk her around; Katherine had been eager to marry Henry for years before he invaded.)
If the union had lasted (at least until the emergence of nationalism in the 19th Century or whenever), how would that have affected the subsequent history of Europe? And especially the colonization of the Americas?
France probably would have still gained its independence. Things would have gone better for England domestically, though, because you wouldn’t have the problem of Henry VI’s minority, and the fight between the Dukes of Gloucester and Bedford over the regency. You also, of course, wouldn’t see the rise of the Tudors.
I hear he conquered an empire while young, died young, and the empire came apart after his death. Like Alexander the Great.
England was not yet united by a common language in 1422; William Caxton wrote in the latter half of the fifteenth century of a merchant traveling in Kent who was mistaken for a French speaker by a local farmwife. Many upper-crust Englishmen still thought of themselves as Frenchmen, or at least Normans.
The same sentiment existed to a much small extent in France.
Or a bigger one. France was still to a considerable extent a polyglot abstraction in the 15th century. While there were stirrings of proto-nationalism in both countries by the 14th century, it was still of a very vague sort.
The heaviest issue here is what would have happened to the history of nationalism and nation state. The 100 years war started, as the OP says, as a typical medieval conflict between two countries with medieval organization and then forced changes in both countries. Both countries took steps towards more centralization, monetarization of state affairs, professional army. In both countries, national ethos took leaps forward. No doubt other wars or events could have forced similar changes but they would have done it in different circumstances, with (slightly? Vastly?) different results.
This cuts to the heart of the matter because medieval dynastic entities were inherently unstable. A personal union would have seriously compromised both countries on their road to a new, stronger existence as a nation state. If succesful, wouldn’t the result be a combined weak state? Divided we stand, together we fall
There are tons of reasons why this new union could break. Henry has to die eventually. Burgundy changing sides was one of the decisive factors in deciding the war. Other neighbours would have supported an outside pretender at first opportunity.
The question of turning something to Ireland concerns really more England. The tradition of ruling England from French soil had been broken with the French 13th century conquests, but if the English crown had been able to re-consolidate their old position in western France, why not live there like Henry I or Richard I? Or even more, move to Paris, the undeniably most important city of the realm? Was the new English pride as an independent warrior people - as opposed to being William’s conquest - recent enough for them to settle again for a low status?
I think the assumption that if Henry had lived longer, France and England would have remained consolidated is a little suspect. It’s damned hard to consolidate a state in that way, and Henry V accomplished what he did partly because he was such a strong ruler, which can only leave a power vacuum of some kind after his death. The only instance that I can think of where a man conquers a large empire very young, lives a long time, and successfully passes power on to his children without (much) bloodshed or splintering the empire is Augustus Caesar, and he had a lot more infrastructure of rule than Henry did.
When Henry died his wife was 21 and had produced Henry 's heir, Henry VI. After Henry V’s death she produced five more living children, from which arose the Tudors - she seems to have been quite fertile. It is extremely likely that given another 25 years of life Henry V would have had more sons and I suspect a partition either by agreement or civil war would have been a pretty plausible outcome. At the very least I can predict vast appanages a la Henry II’s contentious brood.
It’s not just that he had more infrastructure – it’s that he didn’t really conquer and add all that much to the Roman territory as it already existed (basically, he converted some client kingdoms in the east that were already under de facto Roman control to outright provinces and pushed the frontier north to the Danube).
