Britain-France Union

I think he refers to the HRE post peace of Westfalia - so no Northen Italy at all except Trento and Trieste.

Well that's just not fun...

>Every war ever in western Europe involves Burgundy, which now stretches from the Channel to the Med
>Catalonia seeks a non-neighbouring nation as an ally to fend off Iberia and France
>England plus most of France= Warmonger, even more so if you really include all of Great Britain. Only the Krauts can match that much manpower in western Europe.

The only real stretch is Aragon-Italy, but even that is doable.

The map in is actually fairly decent - but I would end up putting Genoa, Provence, and the rest of the French Med provinces in with Aragon-Italia. I'd also give them old Genoese enclaves in Anatolia and Crimea.

The Anglais Kingdom should have Ireland, Wales, and Scotland in it as well, but would have lost portions of Southern France to the Aragonese and Burgundy-Lotharingia.

The HRE centralization could have happened, and yes that's with the various regions trying to rebel. In fact, at one point the HRE was fairly centralized, it just never recovered from a collapse of central authority and the Golden Bull of the 1300s didn't help increase it again.

I would give Scandanavia more of Finland and Prussia, as well as Neva and Kiel. I'd give back that other province in Germany to the HRE.

Lotharingia would have the norther parts of the Lowlands as well, and perhaps a bit more of Southern France near the old Duchy of Burgundy.

Spain (Castile + Portugal) looks good, although I'd consider giving them more permanent land in Northern Africa.

What you described is not an entirely unplausible result from a game of Europa Universalis.

>around
>>WW1
>United Scandinavia with the Baltic Coasts
If you can put it as a compromise between the Danish and the Swedish
Funnily enough, right before WWI was when Pan-Scandinavianism was at its strongest. Denmark and Sweden had even entered a monetary union between each other, which also happens to be the reason both countries use krona today.

>Britain-France Union
TOO OP, PLS NERF!

That said, let me use my airchair historian degree from the University of Wikipedia and my minor in /int/ernational Veeky Forumstorical-/pol/itical /bant/er to figure out how this would turn out. Let's assume this division of Europe arose out of various medieval events (like House Plantagenet winning the Hundred Years War and establishing their dual throne in Paris).

First of all, Spain-Portugal would have a huge lead in the colonial race, much like Spain and Portugal in our history. However, with both thrones united, this dominance would be even greater. It would remain separate from the Habsburgs though.

Given that Burgundy also remains a thing and the Burgundian Inheritance never happens, the Habsburgs don't gain as much control as they historically did by ruling effectively half of Europe in an anti-French personal union, but the HRE being more centralized still makes them incredibly powerful.

I would predict that Spain-Portugal would mostly be off doing colonial shit and attempt to use their wealth gained to reclaim Aragon. The Angevin Empire would probably seek to ally Aragon against Spain-Portugal, which would eventually spill over into colonial wars. The HRE, having no real means to establish colonies, would probably ally the Spanish against their greatest colonial adversary. Burgundy could go either way, either they retain good ties with the Plantagenets and fight against the rising tide of the HRE or they join the HRE to expand influence into France. I imagine they'd mostly do what the Dutch did historically though: remain neutral most of the time and sometimes join in for easy gainz here or there.

Scandinavia is a total wildcard.

The big blocks I would imagine arising would be
>Angevin, Aragon, Scandinavia and sometimes Burgundy
>Imperial, Spanish and sometimes Burgundy
Assuming the Ottomans still exist, they might be part of the Angevin block as well.

cont.

Then again, there are factors that could throw everything upside down.Religion is a big one. What if for example Scandinavia becomes protestant while the Angevins and Aragonese remain Catholic? What if the Holy Roman Emperor also becomes Protestant? That already drives the HRE and Scandinavia closer even though they're a 'logical' ally for the Angevins from a geopolitical perspective (to encircle the imperials).

Or what if the HRE remains elected? Then the HRE itself becomes the biggest wildcard on the continent, with all other powers trying to put their family members (or at least pretenders friendly to their cause) on the throne.

Colonies are also a big wildcard. What if the Angevins and Burgundians are on friendly terms (as they were historically) but suddenly the Burgundians decide to settle Canada, right next to the Angevin colonies? For both sides, backstabbing the other suddenly becomes a lot more enticing.

And finally, internal governance is a big problem. I'm assuming the Angevins are a big juggernaught only matched by the imperials, but to what extent is that true? Will Franco-English tensions remain? What about minority groups like the scots, the Bretons, and the Corsicans (if the Angevin Empire even includes those territories)? Will perhaps the Angevin Empire be an impotent heap of land that sits there and does nothing because it just can't get shit done due to internal strife? Would the king be hated in England if his capital is Paris? Would he be hated in France if his capital is London? Would he have a dual capital and try to dance on a cord like the Austro-Hungarian emperors of our history?

Nothing is certain, things are only plausible.

>the Scandinavians might find them a very, very useful ally

Why?

>HRE without the Netherlands
>France without Burgundy

You tried.

>Genoa, Provence, and the rest of the French Med provinces in with Aragon-Italia

no, would be more interesting if you put Genoa in Burgundy/Lotharingia, let the french part of British-French Union keep Provence and their other med provinces, and then give them colonies in Tunisia and Algeria respectively

If you wanna make it interesting for a more modern era alt history, you can't just think on the level of an internally european scale (though it should be admittedly first and probably also foremost)

Think of not only the potential colonial ambitions of each nation, but also what would be interesting realizations of those same ambitions (what's the eventual outcome of the Scramble for Africa, for example). When you consider those amibitions and the realizations thereof, think of how geopolitical borders within Europe might influence the extent of a nations colonial ambitions

And as mentions, consider internal governance as well, not just for the BFU, but generally for all these states due to them being multi-ethnic (which ethnic groups are culturally/legally more important than others within a state? Are any of the ethnic groups being put at a general advantage or disadvatnage?) It's not just the Scots, Bretons and Corsicans in the BFU, the HRE is a melting pot of mostly Teutonic/German ethnic groups with a scoop of Bohemians, Slovenes, and depending on how the map would look, maybe even some northern Italians. This actually raises the question: What about Hungary? Did Austria ever PU them?

And for that matter, who are the ruling dynasties in these different nations? Seeing as this is alt 20th century, but considering the unions you made in OP, I'd guess these are all parliamentary constitutional monarchies

So you want to move the divergences of darkness timeline forward to the 20th century basically? Based off OPs description it sounds like a DoD game played as Aragon.

>Britain-France Union.
Would either quickly be france + those islands up north. Most of the population is in france after all.
The british islands are bound to become a rather isolated hinterland. Local nobility would not accept that. England has no way in hell to keep control over france. It has more population and the stronger economy.

>Centralized holy roman empire
Including what exactly? The Czech? The BeNeLux? Italy? All those were not much sold in the idea of centralizing. So you pretty much get a german empire.

>Burgundy, which includes netherlands and belgium
How is that not gobbled up by either the union or the empire?

>United scandinavia with the baltic coasts
And Poland-Lithuania and the Russians would not fuck them up why? There's a reason why no skandi nation could hold the baltic coast...

>Spain-Portugal without catalonia
Why?
Catalonia would be easy pickings. Also Spain and Portugal could not stand each other much.
They cooperated, yes. But that's it.

>Aragon-Italy
Depends. How much of Italy?
All? just the south? The south could be kept under control via the church and the pre-mafia. The north? Nah not rural enough. Too many people compared to Aragon. Italy would very soon seek liberation.

I feel the Angevin capitol would be in Normandy somewhere, calling back to a group of people neither truly French nor English, but related to both.

Close enough to England by being just across the Channel, close enough to France by being on the mainland, a centralized location from which to govern efficiently. And with just enough historical justification to make both English and French feel like the other element of society isn't completely favored.

Burgundy's a useful buffer state to both powers.

Large enough to be a pain in the ass to conquer (since the effort required means that another great power can hit you while you're overextended), small enough not to be a threat to either great power.

I can see many routes wherein moderate amounts of diplomacy keep the Burgundian lands stable for a long time.

Yes, go play europa universalis 4.

>what is the North Sea
>what is Schleswig-Holstein

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. HRE doesn't like Burgundy. Scandinavia doesn't like HRE. Scandinavia ends up VERY interested in an alliance with Burgundy.

If the union fucks up too hard the revolution will turn into napoleon raping all of europe