You really think England could have dominated Europe when they couldn't even rule their own island?
This is the 12th Century we're talking about, not the 20th or even the 18th. The English didn't "rule their own island" because they hadn't felt the desire to get involved in far weaker countries' affairs, in the short time since England had established itself. But the Angevin Empire wasn't an English military conquest, it was a coming together of a kingdom and several sub-states of various sizes by virtue of Personal Union. The Angevin Empire didn't hold together for (the admittedly fairly short) time it existed because the English had garrisons there to keep it in line. It held together because every part of the Empire recognised the same monarch, even if through vassal rulers at times (Henry II's rule etc). Nationalism had not formed yet. Having the King of England rule your state did not constitute a national shame and cause the desire to overthrow a "foreign tyrant" to the Angevins. In fact, I've just read a book on the Angevin Empire, and government officials from Anjou, Maine and Normandy regularly appealed to the English to send officials to take part in their government, largely because local or even French (in general) people were seen to be too biased/involved in two-sided arguments or too bribable to be good administrators. What's more, the trade via sea-lanes was far more valuable than cross-border trade, and the Norman and Gascon middle classes preferred union with England because it was more profitable in encouraged trade. Heck, in 1450, at the start of the last English campaign to save the Duchy of Aquitaine,
the English landed because the Gascon middle classes sent a plea for the English to overthrow the new French government there and restore English rule. If Richard were to attack a largely undefended Kingdom of France in Philip Augustus' absence, any land he might gain in a peace treaty would not consider itself to be enslaved territory, it would do what every piece of land switching ownership in that period did. It would shrug its shoulders collectively, the local lords would pledge allegiance to their new ruler, and the people would continue considering themselves subjects of the King of France, via Richard as a vassal of the same King. They wouldn't be a trouble to pacify, because with no French nationalism, and with the land still technically being a French fief, they wouldn't consider their new ruler to be a travesty to their own honour and dignity. It wouldn't require any supernatural power from the English to hold down more territories, it would merely require Richard and his successors to be good Kings and not blow it by losing all their land to the Kings of France again, as IRL. If the Angevins continued to be successful then it would likely be a matter of time until the Kingdom itself would become theirs - a Kingdom with the vast majority in the hands of a single vassal usually finds that vassal coming to exert full control over the King until he either makes a mistake causing the loss of his crown, or a marriage alliance unites the two families. In such a circumstance, a united England-France
would unquestionably be Europe's strongest country, and so the English, through the assistance of, rather than in spite of, the French could conceivably dominate Europe. I don't see why there needs to be this assumption that if England has land on the continent, it does so as the foreign occupier. At every point until the end of the HYW, English lands in France were held as territories in union with England, and were garrisoned by loyal French troops, not the English.
Richard's family were from Anjou, and he viewed himself as a Frenchmen.
I largely agree with and thank you for your comment, Lysandros, but I don't agree with this bit. Richard didn't view himself as a Frenchman. He was brought up staunchly Aquitanian, and though as Duke of Aquitaine he came to disregard and diametrically oppose the otherwise ingrained Gascon concept of a weak Duke with fully autonomous and self-controlling vassals with no Ducal authority outside of three coastal cities, he otherwise saw Aquitaine as his heartland. Aquitaine's French status he viewed as purely incidental, and remember in this era, the south of France viewed itself almost as a separate entity from northern France, being the Langue d'Oc. Aquitaine resented Parisian incursions, and viewed itself with as much pride and independence almost as England from France. Under other conditions, it could have exerted as much independent spirit as Brittany, except that a weak Ducal rule and powerful vassal families tended to sabotage attempts to defend against royal invasions, and Aquitaine so frequently found itself in the royal domain anyway. If Richard - somehow - were to gain the throne of France he would likely remember his Aquitaine values, not to mention the fact that the Angevin Empire was a union of equals as much as anything, and it would shape his rule. If his successors shared his values, conceivably Aquitaine and Normandy would be freed from their French vassalage and would become equal partners to France and England, a la the Kingdom of Poland being equal to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. During the Angevin Empire, the Angevin domains really did exert a will to be fully autonomous and viewed as entities themselves, rather than just parts of France.
The Angevin Empire seems a more realistic option for an Anglo-French Union. <snip>
I like your ideas, Jape, and essentially fully agree with them, though I'm not sure the Angevin Empire would become "ultra-lose". There would be a problem initially with Henry II wanting to give his sons each their own lands, but from the ideas I read about in my book, it seems this was an idea which after Henry's death all involved came to realise the foolishness of. While Henry's sons won't be willing to give up their land, if (somehow) they either die off or their power is broken, I'd expect each of the lands to eventually either become like the French Dukes of the 1500s - independent in their own domains but tied infallably to the monarch, largely without the power to go their own way alone - or more likely I expect them to (somehow) be recollected to the royal demesne. But after this, ultra-lose I'm not so sure about. The HRE essentially happened because a literal plethora of miniature state rulers sprang up and then wholly failed to be contained by a succession of weak Kings who couldn't exert control. The Angevin Empire doesn't have that plethora of sub-rulers, nor the inheritance law to facilitate it, and essentially most of the union is under the direct control of the King himself. In such a system, more likely it would be like the UK with its Assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The King would provide direction, and while each state would go its own way on the finer points of the law and in which exact system it is administered, the King's control of politics, foreign policy, economics and such is going to prevent the constituent parts drifting. But yeah, otherwise I think I fully agree with you.
