Unification of Britain in the 14th century and greater success in the HYW

Well, personally I have no problem adjusting the scenario to work with the HYW ending with stabilization of the Treaty of London status quo. The Angevin Empire restored as a functional state extended to the rest of the British Isles is a worthwhile outcome. All it takes is the British Kings deciding (or being driven to acknowledge) that the Edwardian-plus settlement is good enough for them, and all of France is beyond their grasp (or their ability to swallow). The main problem in this case would be the eternal revanchism of Valois France never stopping to try conquering Angevin France. Half of France would still give the Valois enough resources to make the HYW an eternal war, or at least a recurrent one flaring up n a major way every generation or so. In order to make the Angevin Empire secure in these circumstances, you need to destroy France as a political entity. It can be done. The means I'd use, for various reasons, is to let a successful HRE gobble the other half of France, and implement a permanent partition.

In another thread, I described the scenario of the Angevin Empire and the Hohenstaufen HRE becoming parallel success cases and the twin hegemons of Western Europe. Let it apply here, and be adjusted with an Angevin-Imperial partition of France, Iberia going Charles V's way, and an Angevin-Nordic union. Unlike an eternally revanchist Valois France, a successful mega-HRE that consolidates and expands to be Charles V's empire on steroids is going to be so vast and with so many pressing strategic concerns on multiple fronts (Eastern Europe through Germany and Central Europe, the Med through Italy and Spain, the Muslim threat, colonialism) that they are likely to be content with letting the Angevin Empire be independent in its British Isles-Scandinavia-Western France turf. The area is going to be relatively peripheral to their interests. Sure, you might get an overly ambitious Emperor once every century or two that decides his destiny is to be the unifier of Western Christendom, but most HRE rulers may well decide the status quo is good enough for them, Since they have to deal with Islam, Russia, and the Byzantine Empire, coexistence with the Angevin Empire may often be convenient for them. Of course, in this scenario the Angevins and the Imperials are going to be the main agents of European colonialism, and hence be global rivals. Much like it happened IOTL, however, this rivalry may well express itself mainly in the colonial theater, and only affect Europe with limited and not so destructive occasional 'cabinet wars'. Of course, in these circumstances, the AE and the HRE are not going to be in the same weight class. Rather, the AE is going to be the plucky underdog and the HRE the 800-libs gorilla, the Japan to the HRE's China.

With the European empires becoming so large and diverse, we may surely expect at least the two Western ones to evolve in a federal direction and some kind of Parliament/Estates General/Imperial Diet representation being established. As a matter of fact, my scenario does assume the Hohenstaufen HRE takes this direction (by premodern standards of course) as part of its consolidation and evolution process. As it concerns the Angevin Empire, there is no special good reason to assume it does not replicate the broad political evolution of the English system at least to Tudor/Stuart standards, only expanded to the British Isles, Scandinavia, and Western France at large. Both empires are still going to pursue a legal merger of their territories and the creation of a unified Parliament/Diet for their whole realms as a matter of efficiency. Devolution is mostly going to be applied in the administrative field and the creation of a tiered federal representation system. What course the eventual rise and evolution to liberal democracy would take in Western Europe is anybody's guess. Industrialization is going to make it inevitable, but it is not going to be especially likely before that. The 18th and 19th century revolutions were scriped to some serious degree, but the British Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and the Dutch Revolt were accidents of history that may easily be averted or suppressed.

In the cultural field, I expect European empires to pursue linguistic unification (of the elites in premodern times, the masses at large with industrialization) as a dire necessity of cohesion and efficiency. For the HRE the imperial lingua franca is almost surely to be Middle Ages Latin. For the Angevin Empire it is gonna be English all the same, although an even more complex case of Romance-Germanic hybridization due to the influx of Western French and Scandinavian elements. The religious landscape of Europe is surely gonna be different, since to succeed the HRE needs to eliminate the power of the Popes and restrict the political independence and the wealth of the Church back to its pre-Gregorian Reform levels. This is surely going to butterfly away the Reformation as we know it. If something similar occurs at all, it is because the Angevin Empire pulls a Henry VIII to affirm its independence from an Imperial-controlled Church. However, chances are the Church evolves in a decentralized direction with a series of 'national churches' controlled by local bishops under the control of the monarchs and loosely bound by Councils, and the Great Schism is successfully healed with the removal of the Papacy stumbling block.

Well, that's quite possible, and your point has merit, but there is no guarantee that the Angevin Empire is going to be their top priority target, since the HRE shall also have to deal with Russia, the Byzantines, and Islam. Past a point, there shall be colonial expansion as well. I bet that at least Islam and colonialism shall take precedence on the AE, which fits a relatively peripheral geopolitical niche for the strategic interests of the HRE. Getting higher in the priority scale would require the AE going out of its way to antagonize the continental hegemon, as admittedly Britain has been doing these last few centuries. At most, I can certainly see the HRE going out of its way to conquer Western France, kick the Angevins off the continent, and unify continental Western Europe under its flag. Otherwise, the main issue of contention between the AE and the HRE is going to be colonial rivalry, since ITTL the two empires are going to act the entire global drive of European colonialism between themselves, apart from Russia may do in its niche of course. At most, the Byzantines may emulate the Islamic sphere of influence in the Indian Ocean.



Valois France collapsing and breaking apart as a result of losing the HYW and the Angevin territories to Britain is certainly a valid and quite likely possiblity, but it won't be the end or the whole of the story. History tells us that such isolated power vacuums do not stand for long, since geopolitics abhors them. Almost inevitably they are going to end in the area pulling itself back together, or a stronger external agent conquering it. Therefore, we may expect a choice between a) the Angevin Empire conquering and absorbing the rest of France b) Capet France pulling itself back together and resuming the cycle of wars with Britain c) the HRE managing to centralize thanks to the absence of French opposition and absorb a weak Capet France d) a combo of a+c, the Polish Partition option.

In fact, chances are that with with France drastically weakened by losing the HYW, the Angevin territories, and subsequent internal strife, the Habsburg (or any other ATL German/Italian power filling their role) shall be able to centralize the HRE, replicate Charles V's drive to bind Germany, Italy, Iberia, and Hungary together, and bring it to fulfillment. With a powerless France, the opposition of the Ottomans and particularist German/Italian principalities does not seem anywhere close to enough to stop the centralization process if the unifying agent has something close to the Habsburg resources. Due to its different strategic role, the Angevin Empire alone does not seem up to the task of fulfilling the same anti-hegemonic role as the Valois monarchy, not without controlling most of France. Assuming the Reformation still occurs, it seems the Habsburg Empire shall be able to rein in the process to its advantage, be it by suppressing it in its territory or by taking its lead and imposing a general reform of the Church to the Popes.

In the end, it's going to end with the Angevin Empire and the Habsburg Empire facing each other someplace in the depth of divided France, the same strategic outcome as the parallel rise of the AE and the Staufen HRE, albeit with a different path. The main differences shall be: the HRE shall be busy consolidating itself, building a colonial empire (including North Africa), and kicking out the Muslims out of the Balkans and the Med for at least a century or two. It won't include the PLC, at least not at the beginning (unless the Habsburg are very successful bribing the Polish magnates for the Crown of course), although it may easily end up partitioning it with Russia the usual way if it experiences the usual decay process. The Reformation may well occur in a similar way, although its outcome may vary between a division of Western Europe between a Catholic HRE and a Protestant AE, or a general reform of the Church that heals the split. The Dutch Revolt as we know it in all likelihood won't occur, although the Low Countries at large may well become a fiercely contested area between the two neighbor empires.



History has plenty of examples of successful states enacting linguistic unification of sizable areas, even very large ones. The trick seems to impose a state-wide lingua franca for the ruling elites, which demonstrably was within the power of a successful premodern state, and surviving till industrialization, which again has plenty of historical examples. Then public education and the mass media shall do the work of expanding universal fluency of the elites' language to the masses, marginalizing the other ones.



Sorry if I was unclear, but when I spoke of 'national' churches I meant them in an imperial, not ethnic, sense. In other words, one for the HRE, one for the AE, one for Russia, one for the Byzantines. Much the same polycentric way the Orthodox (or Episcopal) Church evolved, only expanded to Christendom at large in a world where removal of the Papal stumbling bloc allowed to reconcile the Great Schism. The various churches are administered by the local bishops, may have their Patriarchs, obey the bidding of their respective monarchs, and acknowledge no supreme authority in the religious sphere but the Ecumenical Councils. Alternatively, you may indeed have a Catholic HRE, an Anglican AE, and an Orthodox Russia and Byzantines. The European empires do not really need a strong Papacy to whip themselves up in an ideological fervor for the Crusades once they have sufficiently got themselves into shape. Their rulers, Patriarchs, and bishops can do the trick just as well. 

Point taken. Your argument has merit, although I think it warrants a few remarks. The Staufen super-HRE is certainly going to seek territorial continuity once its absorbs Iberia, but this seems an unavoidable and major problem for the AE only if it controls most or all of Middle Ages France. If its dominion is more or less limited to the traditional Angevin territories, the HRE may get the territorial continuity it seeks by absorbing non-Angevin France. At most, only Aquitaine is really likely to become a contested territory between the two empires if the Imperials seek a near-optimal degree of continuity. In addition, the Low Countries may easily become a contested area b/c of its strategic and economic value. Besides these two areas, I doubt the HRE elites are going to be overly concerned about ownership of Northwestern France or the British Isles for that matter, unless the AE goes out of its way to make itself so much of a problem for the HRE that the Imperials decide it absolutely has to be conquered or at least wholly expelled from the continent.

Admittedly Russia shall need at least a couple centuries to kick out the Tartars, seize their booty, and grow into its potential. It is never going to be too late for a Byzantine revival if the HRE decides it is high time to kick the Muslims out of the East Med, focuses its might to the task, and realizes the best way to reorganize the area is through a local ally/client rather than direct control b/c of cultural differences and distance from its Western/Central European core. In such a case, a Byzantine revival/revitalization becomes the natural option, be it through a pro-HRE Greek dynasty or the Latin Empire 2.0 (admittedly one of these options seems rather more problematic than the other, so I hope the Emperors can be mindful of the lessons of the Fourth Crusade). The Turks never were so powerful that their rise to hegemony in the East Med niche to replace the Byzantines was inevitable and irresistible if they face sufficient resistance. Admittedly, past a point the BE grew too weak for that, but with sufficient European assistance, it is another matter entirely. This seems even more feasible if the HRE and the BE can cooperate and exploit Timur's rampage to kick the weakened Turks out of Anatolia once Timur's empire inevitably collapses.



And here we switch to consider the case of the super-HRE being built according to the Habsburg template. First, a great deal of justification for Charles V to decide the division of his empire was the amount of opposition he faced thoroughut his reign. If such opposition lessens and he experiences greater success, he may easily change his mind, esp. if dynastic butterflies ensure he has less surviving heirs. Fact is, most of such opposition came from Valois France. If that state is broken and powerless, Charles shall inevitably be much more successful. The other enemies did more or less did everything they were able. It is not like the Ottomans or the anti-Habsburg German princes or Italian city-states can pull more troops or money or better generals out of their butt to replace French resources. Also b/c the Ottomans face a multi-front fight of their own thanks to Persia. As it concerns the AE, they shall be in a position to replace France only if they control most or all of its territory and resources. Otherwise, England/Britain never had the strategic position to project force in the depth of the continent to oppose potential hegemons w/o the support of another land-based great power. The Ottomans are too peripheral to play that role. By ~1530, the English/British didn't even have the long-range naval power to project in the Med, and since their previous strategic focus would have been France, they are unlikely to develop it earlier than OTL.

The resources of the particularist German and Italian principalities are finite and w/o sufficient external support, they shall fail against an Imperial power base comparable to the Habsburg one. Not to mention that historically their divisions meant at least a significant chunk of them chose to side with the upcoming hegemon and profit from its success. The power of the Papacy was always meaningless w/o sufficient external backing and it was seriously weakening by the 16th century. Charles V was able to sack Rome w/o too much trouble. Iberia historically accepted Habsburg rule for a long time and only got seriously upset once the strain of fighting the European wars proved too much in ~1640. Poland and Hungary historically showed very little interest for events in Western Europe. The HRE can therefore afford to leave them alone for a while and focus on fighting its established enemies and consolidating its grip on the core of its empire. Alternatively, if the Ottomans have been able to penetrate in the Balkans, the Poles and Hungarians shall be busy fighting them and in such a case they shall glad to get Imperial assistance. The Hungarians willingly accepted Habsburg rule and a bond with Germany b/c of the Ottoman threat. The Swiss were a minor flare-up in the 15th century and went away for good to hole up in their mountains once they suffered their first major defeat. Just anticipate that by a few decades (as it very easy to accomplish with a stronger or luckier Habsburg) and they vanish entirely from notice.



This is very inaccurate and misleading. Rome was extremely efficient with political and cultural assimilation of the territories it conquered, a fact universally acknowledged by historians. After its fall, the linguistic landscape of Europe became dominated by areas with variants of Latin that diverged into separate languages because of political fragmentation (the Romance areas), places the Romans never controlled or got a different imprint by conquerors (the Germanic, Slav, Uralic, and Arab areas), or regions where the Romans were content to let Greek to be the equivalent of Latin b/c of its cultural prestige and regional Hellenization. The former Roman areas where pre-existing languages re-emerged after the donwfall of the Empire were few, far between, and peripheral (e.g. the Basque Country and Wales).

If Rome had stayed strong, absorbed all of Europe, and gone on a China-style trajectory up to modern times, it is all but sure enduring political and cultural unity of Europe-plus would have ensured enduring linguistic unity of standard Latin/Greek for the citizens of the Empire, with no more regional divergence than say variants of English in the Anglosphere. Conquered Germanics and Slavs would have been Romanized just as thoroughly and efficiently as the Celts and other Western European peoples. It would be Latin/Greek from the Atlantic (or in all likelihood the Roman New World) and the Sahara up to the steppes and the Middle Eastern deserts. Of course, standard Latin/Greek would have likely evolved over time (another iconic feature of the Roman civilization was their pragmatism and eagerness to adopt new ideas), so modern Latin in all likelihood would be rather more similar to Church Latin with a lot of borrowings and adaptations from various sources. Modern Greek would likewise be an evolution of Koinè Greek. It is also quite possible Latin and Greek would eventually merge into a hybrid language. Given the outstanding Roman success with making their empire a common cultural space by premodern means, it is all but sure that preservation of linguistic unity and its expansion to new conquests would have been easy for them.




The likely worst in terms of religious unity of Christendom in these circumstances is the various empires experience a lasting schism out of their need to preserve their political integrity and become rival denominations, much like historically happened to the Western/Latin, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches. An analogue of the Anglican Church is quite possible, an equivalent of Protestantism not so much in the absence of a carbon copy of the Reformation. Before Luther, major and/or lasting divisions of Christendom were as likely to happen, if not more so, about issues of authority (e.g. the Great and Western Schisms) as about issues of doctrine (e.g. the Monophysite and Arian schisms), and typically the latter only took root when they became entwined with the former. To succeed, the HRE needs to crush the power of the Popes and reverse the Western Church to the stance of subservience to the secular power it experienced before the Gregorian Reform. It was quite doable in the right circumstances. As Stalin quipped, the Pope never had much military power of his own, and his authority failed as much as it succeeded. if the Emperors manage to defeat all their other domestic enemies, the Pope is powerless, he can only submit (and become a thrall of the throne like the Orthodox patriarchs) or flee to another state (and see the Emperors set up a rival Pope, and the start of a schism).

One way or another, it is certainly possible that Christendom experiences a lasting division with an 'Anglican' Angevin Empire, a 'Catholic' HRE (or the reverse, depending on how the schism takes place), and Russia and the Balkans staying Orthodox. Of course, such division is by no means inevitable if the Church grows polycentric enough to adapt to political division without breaking, as the Orthodox did. E.g. if the Emperors suppressing the authority of the Popes leads to their lasting marginalization, the Western Church may shift to ta development path similar to the Orthodox one. Even more so if the Emperors find convenient to pursue reconciliation between the Western and Eastern Churches to expand their influence in the East Med and gain the cooperation of the Orthodox against Islam. The Popes were the main stumbling bloc for this, so the Emperors may well decide to throw a  weakened Papacy under the bus.



Early industrialization of France took place under an authoritarian regime close enough and in all evidence independently enough from the British first adopters that I remain skeptical. Political fragmentation being a prerequisite of innovation is a tiresome meme that is disproved by history as much as it is confirmed. Imperial Rome stayed quite culturally dynamic, esp. in the technological field, up to the point the Empire went in a death spiral, and of course progress becomes unlikely when you are experiencing a collapse. Its technological stagnation is a meme as false as the 'Dark Ages' one of no progress taking place between Ancient times and the Renaissance. Imperial China stayed as dynamic as the Euro-Med space up to the late Ming. The Islamic Golden Age took place under the aegis of the Caliphate. Sure, the Romans were not as creative with 'highbrow' culture as the Greeks, but who cares? Their outstanding talents as a civilization were different.