Talk:Hail Mighty Joan

This page is to discuss possible ways that Joan of Arc might have not been killed, and how it would have impacted the world. Please comment! Falconier111 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Possibilities At Present:
 * Burgundy did not split with France
 * The French army was somehow larger and/or better-armed than in OTL
 * The English didn't adopt the longbow from the Welsh
 * Improbable IMO - if they hadn't their longbow, they'd never come into the situation owning half of France. England's population was much smaller.--Max Sinister 22:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Normans adopted its use from the Welsh, perhaps by Joan of Arc's time the French had been able to introduce it as well.--TEAKAY 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that they would have adopted the longbow simply because the English used it; the aristocratic French usually held peasant longbowmen in disdain. Perhaps a way Joan tips the war France's way is introducing longbows into her army?Falconier111 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds interesting. If she did that, and won with it enough, would the other French generals still not do likewise?  Longbowmen needed more training than the French crossbowers, Joan of Arc would have to find some way to effectively do that for her own archers... Would she start up training camps for it?
 * Getting off topic but likely important for after, what about at the end of the whole war and Joan is both famous and alive? She wore mens clothing and at her trial that fact had brought up some sort of 'biblical clothing law'.  If France was at peace at the end of the war with England, would Joan of Arc's continued wearing (she would probably keep dressing the same right?) of mens clothes bring up religious hububs?--TEAKAY 21:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If Joan comes out of the war as a hero, she would carry a lot of weight in the French government because of her reputation. Perhaps, if she makes it known she thinks it necessary, she could manage to arrange for some training camps to be set up, especially if she sends her own soldiers there first. Maybe she extracts some English longbowmen trainers or something like that as part of a peace treaty?
 * Well, after the war is over and done with, Joan might become hugely popular; way too popular for something as trifling as some priest or other deciding that she didn't dress properly. They might be willing to overlook almost any character flaw of hers, as long as she heads French armies. On the other hand, they might decide she's a heretic because she behaves like a man and her voices might have come from the devil; maybe this creates a schism between the more orthodox Frenchmen and her close followers, leading to a "Key to the Illuminated Heretic" type scenario. Falconier111 13:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * She would probably have no trouble injecting the new contingent into the formal French armies, but I have doubts about how much weight in the government those other than Charles would permit her.
 * Don't want to make the social conventions too modern, but Joan could have become some sort of proto-women's liberation... I don't think it would happen but it was just something that occurred to me.
 * That schism makes me wonder about the possibility, she was really devout, of course probably more towards the ideals than the institutions of Catholicism. How big of a fuss would Joan of Arc likely cause in response to her own country labeling her a heretic after all she'd done for them?  The churches were very rigid and may not see that condemning Joan could possibly cause her to lead that schism and a subsequent civil war.  If that began, England may think to restart the war-though they only didn't stop the Hundred Years War because they would have lost face, they may not be interested right away in doing it again.  Would Joan's Voices tell her to try to change the church's stance?  I really don't have a clue.
 * I haven't found much on that 'Key to the Illuminated Heretic' book, what kind of changes did it predict?
 * Back to Joan leading the civil war, considering how calm and collected she was during her OTL trial, I guess she might not get angry at even her own country's churchs' accusations enough to do such a thing.--TEAKAY 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember, Joan was considered the savior of France by the populace, and was especially popular among the soldiers. If she was declared a heretic by the Church, they might feel torn; will you side with the Church you have known so long, or with Joan of Arc, the leader who saved France from the ravages of the English and might be a saint in her own right? Civil wars are caused by stuff like this. If it happened, she wouldn't try and cause the war herself; her followers (by rescuing her from the hostile clergy and attacking those who supported the clergy over Joan) would do that for her, while she would end up leading them in the field. The English, who would be both drained from the war and afraid of Joan, probably would not try to interfere, but if they did, they would side with the clergy over as avid an Anglophobe as Joan of Arc.
 * By the way, "Key to the Illuminated Heretic" is an alternate history short-story that won some awards up in Canada. It's POD is that Joan is never fully brought to trial; she instead sits around in jail for thirteen years, and after her release ends up starting a new form of christianity and rebelling against Charles. Here is a link to the online text: http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0743498976/0743498976___1.htm . Falconier111 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten how easily the leader/icon of a revolution can be the last person to actually participate in one. So if Joan was then the (possibly reluctant) leader of this possible civil war, could the clergy be convinced to change their judgment with a new government?  Or would a new Christian sect form without Joan having any active role?  If one did form, then I think we'd have to worry about the regular Roman Catholic nations calling for a crusade against the heathen state.  If Joan's armies were successful enough, it could be that France's civil war could possibly become Napoleonic (although then if a Napoleon-like character eventually rose up for the 1800's, it would then be called Joannic(?))-way way ahead of myself now.--TEAKAY 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if Joan leads her (probably) inferior forces to victory over French armies, many of the other states of Europe would be intimidated - if this young peasant girl could defeat two powerful kingdoms in a row, who knows what she might do to (insert country here)? Few would be willing to fight the person who single-handedly defeated England, one of the most powerful nations in Europe at the time. The papacy would try to broker some kind of agreement - but only after a dramatic victory over more zealous christians, or a meeting with the Pope himself (she was famous for her ability to impress people and convince them she was holy). Also, when it is all settled and her forces have come out on top, what will the government be like? Will she put Charles back on the throne? Or would her followers go ahead and crown her? Falconier111 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Would she accept the throne? She may keep supporting Charles and he could "again" betray her and ruin everything.  If this is to be avoided for certain I think Charles may have to die, perhaps 'accidentally' by Joan's rioting forces.
 * Or he could declare support for Joan, though then the political situation could get really confusing: The king supports Joan's position but the clergy do not, so they go over the king's head and order the official French generals to continue against Joan, forcing some of them to choose sides, further confusing the official French forces and perhaps giving Joan the disporportional victories she needs to scare the rest of Europe. If Charles kept backing Joan, the clergy might have done away with him (did they resort to those things often?) or they could have imprisoned him and subsumed his power, AND if word of THAT got out, it would undoubtably help Joan even more, though at that point I'm starting to think we're making too much luck.
 * Ok, so she first repulses and conquers England; then- what's the right word? reclaims/usurps(?) France. Control would probably be consolidated for a couple years while negotiations for peace(?)/recognition(?) were made with continental Europe.  The Scots and Welsh are French allies, what's the state of Ireland?  Only parts of it were under British control at the time right?  The Celts would probably just take those lands back and stay out of the larger picture for some time.--TEAKAY 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that would really jumble things up. I agree that, if Charles and Joan teamed up, the clergy wouldn't be able to fight back their combined forces. However, where would that leave Joan in the hierchy after the wars are settled? Would she be Commander-in-Chief or something? I bet that a lot of generals would blame her for the civil war, even if they were on her side. And then we have the issue of religion; how should she organize the new church?
 * About the British Isles, I see France occupying England, with Wales and Scotland remaining stauch allies. Ireland draws back into itself, returning to its pre-English form. An intresting possibility here is if French popularity causes Joan's new religion to become hugely popular in the Isles, making this new faith - Arcism? Jehannianity? What do you think it should be called? I don't know - a power to be reckoned with.
 * Then we have the issues of writing new religious scriptures, establishing a new church system, how they look at other religions such as Judaism and Islam, and maybe even pilgrims from other countries. In other words, this will get pretty complicated. Falconier111 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think Commander-in-Chief would be the most likely result. Her high-level leadership/holyship would be quite something.  Once the war for England and the stabilising of France was complete I think that the situation may have settled down enough for the disgruntled generals to calm down-they did win after all.  Arcism sounds awesome, though the regular catholics may deride 'Arcism' as 'Anarchism', but that accusation sounds pretty neat too.  So Joan and Arcism enthrawl the Welsh and Scots, perhaps leading to their 'holyish' alliance.
 * Arcism's organisation...well, Joan claimed to be as any old graced by god christian, I can imagine that perhaps regarding changes, Arcism is more tolerant, has fewer arcane laws, and is more equalitive (that is so not a real word!). I don't know much about how religions get organised and structured though.  It could be a powerful influence beyond France's borders on the continent, may cause greater damage to the Holy Roman Empire's power.  If the HRE gets destabilised enough and seccessions and civil wars occur (perhaps/likely after Joan's life) France may then intervene and set up vassals and satellite states.  A short war with Burgundy beforehand to absorb the kingdom too.
 * Yep, it's getting compex--TEAKAY 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * About her position, what I want to know is: where does she lie in the feudal system? I read somewhere she was made a lord during her service in OTL; does she become a baron of some kind in conquered England? Does she marry, if so, who, and how would it affect her power? Myself, I just can't see her getting married to anyone, but maybe she is forced to marry into the royal family as a way to consolidate their power?
 * As for the way Arcism is organized, I can't imagine it would be too different from the old Roman Catholic structure. After all, she didn't cause the schism on purpose, let alone because she destested the Church establishment. However, the presence of Joan as the founder would alter Arcism on a basic level, making it (as you said) less xenophobic, more understandable to the peasants, and I think the word here is "egalitarian", kudos to me if I spelled it right. Joan would be forced into sainthood during her own life, even though she probably would protest it, and maybe even be called a prophet after her death.
 * The effect on the Papacy would be astounding. It's authority would be damaged by the very existence of a successful heretic faith in Europe. By the time Martin Luther comes around, the Pope would have way less ability to condemn him. Heck, he might even be an Arcist himself! And speaking of countries around France, I bet that Arcism would spread into areas in northern Spain and western Germany. It would definitly accelerate the HRE's decline, leaving Germany open for French expansion. I can't remember; what was the status of Spain right now? if it's still mostly fragmented, then she can also start to march south. Falconier111 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I just added some stuff on the main page, including Arcism spreading down into Aragon. Do you think that would be likely? Falconier111 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry sorry about the delay, exams are crazy things
 * Joan almost seems to exist outside conventional feudalism. It almost seems that ruling over a territory after the wars would be contradictory to her nature, leading an army was different.  I agree that it is highly unlikely she would marry, she may not even be forced because of her spiritual position, what kind of man could be considered worthy of marrying a holy person anyways?  About consolidating their power, I guess she might accept being integrated in every legal way (excluding name perhaps to keep the connection between Joan and Arcism) to the Valois family and still in charge of the entire army.
 * Kudos is rightfully yours for spelling 'egalitarianism'. Your description/prediction of Arcism is logical-especially the sainthood part.
 * The Italian Wars were soon to occur as well right? They were pretty much instigated by Charles' grandson, Charles.  Would Arcist France still be interested in invading Italy for a foothold to launch attacks against the Turks?  It may play out very similar to OTL or the League of Venice may attract more members who are against Arcism.  France at that time may even be too occupied with the UKISW making raids and demanding the English throne.
 * About Arcism spreading to Aragon, I don't have much understanding on its religious absorbtion. Perhaps one of Charles' daughters married into the Aragon family.  Maybe.
 * I read the article and it's good, has real attention to detail, the complexity of this era's politics are a bit overwhelming at times.--TEAKAY 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. My exams are in a couple of weeks, so I have good time, but when I get there...
 * I got the whole Countess thing from reading in a couple of places how Joans family were made Lords in OTL, and I thought that that might apply to her in ATL as well, especially after she takes England for the French and sets up the UKISW in the rest of the British Isles (I'll talk more about them later). Then again, I'm not saying thats what she wants to do... though no doubt the peasants (if they're Arcist) would love her whole bunches for her holiness and humanitarianism.
 * And that brings up another question I didn't think of until now; how do the French govern England? It would be feudal, obviously, but where will they get all the landless knights and minor nobles to split it up between? Only a certain amount of people would be willing to leave their home estates, even for larger manors, and there are only so many brothers/sons/uncles to take over for them. Maybe they'll let English knights continue to rule their lands if they swear allegiance to Charles, or maybe even let their best peasant soldiers become knights, as Joan's case may have softened those boundaries. Even if the first one is way more likely, I like the implications of the second one...
 * The Italian Wars? Oh God no! I'd rather not have that orgy of blood and violence staining my pristine timeline. Besides, the first one comes around in 1494, so we've got a while to go.
 * About Aragon, I'm not saying the suddenly stood up and said "Screw you, Pope, we're all Arcists now! In your face!" What I was trying to say was that Arcism happened to bleed over into Aragon a lot stronger than anywhere else, and converts are showing up in the Aragonese possesions of Naples and Sicily. Now that I think about it, that passage is pretty unclear, and needs a little fixing. Falconier111 02:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can imagine England would be governed using both those methods, possibly the peasant knights would be made more numerous since they could be more trustworthy than English knights (it could be said that since they had switched allegiances at all, they aren't trustworthy). It could also help Francaphonise England a bit, maybe make English cuisine more alive (if one were to beleive the stereotype).
 * Oops, I didn't mean to insinuate that you implied that about Aragon, yeah that religious bleedover is quite possible.
 * About Spain, if Aragon were to become Arcist, that would probably foul up the eventual marriage for the joining of the Castile-Aragon kingdom if Arcism is still truly seen as heathen. Might Ferdinand marry into the French monarchy instead?  Or would Castile perhaps decalre war on Aragon as a heathen state to gain its territory by force?--TEAKAY 17:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * About the peasant knights, how would that affect class boundaries? If it's possible to work your way up through the ranks in the army without high birth, that would probably destabilize the feudal system even further. The Black Death had already more or less crippled it, so it can't be long before it sinks down to knighting scientists, like they do in England (not to imply that's a bad practice, just to show you the comparison). However, at least for now power will remain largely in the hands of nobles; but just for now.
 * Knowing how the Spanish tried to annihilate any non-Catholics they encountered (Muslims, Jews, Aztecs, etc.), I doubt that Arcism would be an endearing trait to the Castilian royals. But a Aragonese marriage into French royalty has two interesting results;
 * If France and Aragon can unite through that marriage, that means another incredible boost in French (and Arcist) power. Such rapid growth would just be too threatening for the rest of Catholicism to accept phlegmatically. If the successor Pope declares a crusade against the Arcists, that would be a huge undertaking. Would the Catholics (probably in the form of Austria, Castile (would they marry into Portugal instead?), and Venice, add any I missed for future reference) be willing?
 * That would mean Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire wouldn't have come around, and god knows how that would effect the Habsburgs and their power. How would him not ascending to the throne of both Spain and the Holy Roman Empire effect the world?
 * That's all I can put in for now. Falconier111 19:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So if that knighting of peasants goes through, and is coupled with Arcism's greater egalitarianism, could it cause a sooner rise of republicanism? Or cause it to occur in France before North America? (if it even happens in North America)
 * I think one reason Portugal wouldn't accept a union with Castile because of the invasion Castile made in the 1380's-which they apparently still celebrate the victory of. Portugal always seems very independent.
 * If the union of Aragon and France occurred in the early 16th centruy and the Pope called a crusade for it, that would be about the time the League of Cambrai was OTL formed by France, the Papacy, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire against Venetian expansion. So would perhaps France and Venice agree to work together against the crusade?  And with the animosity forming with the UKISW, would the UKISW take advantage of the crusade and invade? Or would they agree to help France if they were given control of England, OR would they possibly just help because they were allies?  By this time would France have breakaway kingdoms from the HRE to help out?
 * This crusade could be close to that stain of blood and violence, or tie into it. Also, Portugal may have gotten into the war as an attempt to reinstate England and the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance.
 * So if this crusade goes down, France would probably have to either fight and win real good, or it would lose its Balearic Islands, Sicily, and Sardinia. It could end up being a very large war.
 * What were the Habsburgs all about anyways? I read but don't understand what they accomplished.--TEAKAY 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno about republicanism arising in France (remember, it's still pretty aristocratic - after all, these peasant knights are being made hereditary nobles, not elected governors); but I do think more class mobility would be allowed. Eventually, class barriers would break down but that is an eventually. It ain't happening now; if we get to the 1600's, then we can consider adopting it.
 * Oh, North America would be settled alright, but the USA would certainly not come into existence. After all, where did the founding fathers get the basics of the constitution from? The English, for the most part. They might break free eventually, but they probably wouldn't prosper like the US did. Though I'm not saying it's impossible; if you told a European in 1750 that some American colonies would break off from the British, replace them as the world's greatest superpower, and eventually get around to saving England's a**, they would have laughed in your face.
 * Well, I got the Portugal/Castile idea from a timeline on AlternateHistory.com ("Imitation is the greatest form of flattery"); I dunno about its authenticity. You're probably right on that point. But if French Aragon starts to threaten the entire peninsula, the Portuguese might side with the Castilians to resist them. Or with the French against their old enemies in Castile; I really don't know.
 * Yeah, I can see a series of semi-crusades against Arcist states (As much political as religious this time, and Catholic countries could switch around sides a bunch. Probably.) happening instead of the OTL Italian wars. I think that a Franco-Venetian alliance sounds good, and we can have the UKISW, Arcist revolutionaries in the HRE (not sure about breakaway kingdoms, but possible), and perhaps a couple of minor Catholic countries eager to join the winners make one huge alliance against the League of Cambrai. I doubt the French/Venetian/Irish (might as well call UKISWites that, 'cause that's what lots of them are) could annihilate the combined might of Catholic Europe, but a standoff seems likely. That would solidify Arcist power, but it wouldn't do much for Arcist Expansion into other parts of Europe.
 * Well, the Habsburgs didn't do much at all, but thats because they were all royalty. For hundereds of years, just about every monarch in Europe was related through the Habsburgs and all their marriages, and the Habsburgs themselves were the HRE/Austrian monarchs until WWI (which somewhat was established by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who was the maternal grandchild of Ferdinand and Isabella). With a smaller and less powerful Habsburg family, Europe would have had almost none of the same kings as in OTL, which would have led to a totally different history.
 * Columbus: me, I think Isabella would have accepted his proposal, even without Aragon under her control. Castile and Aragon still functioned as closely allied states at this time, so she was making the decision for Castile as much as Spain. Castile might try to expand into Central America to make up for its lack of Aragon, and maybe the superpowerful French could end up supplying the Aztecs against the Castilians (almost typed Spanish there!). Could an alliance grow out of that?
 * One last thing; how do the Muslims and Arcists react and respond to each other? I have absolutely no idea. Falconier111 20:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about jumping to conclusions on the republicanism.
 * In North America, would the colonizing by France and the Irish be more equal than OTL France and Britain? Or would France have less interest overseas since they have to deal with the Catholics?
 * The Anglo-Portuguese alliance is the longest served alliance in history, that and the invasions by Castile made me think that Portugal would not unite with Castile but still technically fight on their side. It always seemed odd to me that it was the only part of Iberia not unified with the rest.  So what I think is that Portugal would perhaps make a defence/war pact with Castile regarding France but not agree to marrying the kingdoms together.
 * So after this Anti-Arc War/Crusade, or whatever other name sounds good, Arcism is here to stay but isn't likely to get much farther in Europe, is France in particular able to divert its attention elsewhere, maybe attempt to establish colonies on the other side of the Mediterranean and North America, or will it struggle with trying to gain more power on the home continent? Again I start to worry about the Irish intending to claim England (as repayment for their great effort in the war?)
 * So with fewer Habsburgs linking Europe's royalties, that means that it would be even more of a powder keg, negotiations may be less developed from missing family ties. More wars in Europe then?  That would potentially weaken the nations and atrophy their colonial influence.
 * I don't argue that Colombus would get his trip around the world. The French supplying the Aztecs sounds neat, but they probably would still collapse just from the diseases and foreign powers messing up the politics of the region.  They'd last longer though right? Perhaps the early 1600's before the ultimate fall.  About the alliance you mentioned, do you mean one between the French and Aztecs?
 * Moslems and Arcists... I don't know, I think maybe the Moslems would view the Arcists as little different than Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics... The Arcists may not be so critical of the Moslems though seeing as Arcism is more open... Yeah I don't know. --TEAKAY 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that France and the UKISW would function much like OTL England and France (they both had to deal with Catholics in OTL, and look what it did to them), but I bet Castile would be less powerful than OTL Spain. Without the extra Aragonese resources, they probably wouldn't be able to muster as much manpower as the Spanish did, making it more difficult to hold on than in OTL. I'm not saying that they won't succeed, at least not in the beginnning; I think they'll be able to conquer most of their OTL empire. But the other nations will be able to defeat them on the field more often, and will slowly gobble up Castilian territory.
 * I dunno about the Anglo-Port alliance. It wasn't that old then - it had lasted longer than most treaties, of course, but still - and the Portuguese wouldn't be likely to act on that alone. Still, they may see it as an opportunity to gain Papal prestige, or discourage a Castilian invasion, or something.
 * About French power, probably both - they don't have to focus on one or the other. Remember, they did both in OTL. I think they would find the Americas easier to expand into than Europe, because all they need is for the Catholic powers to try and gang up on them like they did in that war (I like the Catholics calling it "the Heretic's War" and that spreading to the Arcists, but I don't know). They would probably even nicer to the Native Americans than in OTL, thanks to the more populist aspects of Arcism, but might be more ardent in their conversion efforts. Irish efforts would be more intense, however, because they would be trying to push their power up past that of the French. I see the inevitable schism between France and the UKISW ignited by disputes over both England and the colonies in the new world.
 * About the Habsburgs, I suppose. I'm no expert on the subject, just thought i'd throw that thought out there.
 * Yeah the Aztecs would fall like in OTL, but probably slower. Also, the likelyhood of a successor state with French support barring access to North America is also possible.
 * Sorry about the delay. Family matters; I couldn't get to the computer. Falconier111 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a great understanding of the effects of Catholics on England and France, what did it do to them?
 * It's probably true that Portugal wouldn't go it alone but if they got in on the Heretic's War at the start, and saw it wasn't really going anywhere, they could be among the first to ask for peace.
 * The New World borders for France and UKISW I think are interesting to imagine but really the specifics and names would be up in the air wouldn't they? ;P
 * Mexico WAS once a French vassal-type empire once wasn't it? Maximillian or something was the installed king's name, but that was long after the Spanish had invaded, the 1860's and it didn't last long.  Would Castile still take Mexico or would France be able to set up that successor state before it had a real chance?--TEAKAY 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I know that Protestantism came hard to England, with religious civil wars raging for centuries, while French Catholics would revolt once in a while against non-catholic goverments. We never actually got around to defining what happened to them under Arcist rule, so lets just pretend we knew everything all along and make up an explanation. Two good ones I can think up are A). whatever conversion methods Arcists use are better than any other religions' in history, or B). there is a Catholic underground, it is just biding it's time. Each has interesting applications.
 * I agree with you on Porugal. Still, what would happen to mainland Castile? The French have far more manpower (and Irish sea power, I'll get to that later) and have the Pyrenees to delay any attacks into Aquitaine, while they also have Aragonese armies to hold the Castilians down as the French armies move south. How will they come out? I'd prefer them not to be Arcist, because that would upset the balance of power too much, but I await your ideas.
 * Yeah, the American colonies would be quite a bit different in this regard. I'd think we should just give territory names something that sounds logical, either New (random place in old world)or describing whats in the territory itself. After all, that is what they did in OTL. On that topic, what do you think the Americas would be called once they know it is separate? I think that Amerigo Vespucchi would still be the first to declare them new continents, but they be named after someone else.
 * About Max, he was installed by Napoleon III, but that was long after independance from spain - and besides, he was a Habsburg, so he probably wouldn't exist in ATL. Anyway, Castile would probably be strong enough to capture a lot of Aztec land, but the French might be able to build a vassel-state-thing out of the peoples that used to be under the Aztecs to limit expansion. Also, the Castilian defeat in the Heretic war might mean that the Portuguese will be able to take more of South America.
 * On to the UKISW. As an island country with with multiple overseas territories in Wales, Scotland, and the New World, it would have to have an excellent navy, and you can bet the French would lay the foundation for that. As they don't even have the English Channel to protect them from France, they would take their navy even more seriously than Britain because they might rely on it in a Franc-Irish war to keep reinforcements out of England. While they are allied, at least, that might mean France will specialize more on their army.
 * We should divide this up. It's getting hard to edit. Falconier111 20:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A Catholic underground is likely the most probable, of course receiving aide from the Catholic nations. If the Arcist governments could portray the underground as being violent and fundementalist(if fundementalism was considered an insult at the time), it could help in keeping them down.
 * So, with Castile pretty much out flanked and Irish ships commanding the Atlantic, I suppose Castile would feel threatened and its communication to the New World would be intentionally hindered. It may be slightly manipulated by France with these threats to be more permissive to French ambitions in Europe and abroad. I'm not sure.
 * For naming the Americas, they could be called Colombia and or call it Atlantis-but that sounds a bit too archaic to be reasonable. BUT, there were legends of western continents, I read that the Norse had called them Greater Ireland or Hvítramannaland->Hitramanaland (White Man's Land). These names to me sound like interesting possibilities. Giovanni da Verrazzano was exploring for the French, perhaps the French insist on calling it Giovania 0_o... or something
 * Would central america then be named like North and South Mexico, in the south with the Castilians and the French in the North? And Portugal owning more/most of South America?
 * The French navy would likely benefit from occupying England with its shipwrights, perhaps the French and Irish navies are matched and this contributes to balancing the power between them and avoiding a war.--TEAKAY 18:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * About the Catholics, that seems to be more likely than anything else, except we should replace "Fundamentalist" with "impersonal" or "intolerant" or something.
 * Yeah, Castile is sort of screwed at the moment. It's sandwiched between the hostile French and unfriendly Portuguese in both the Continent and the new world, and since it probably took the brunt of French might during the Heretics War, it couldn't hope to maintain its position of power in the new world - unless...
 * Here's an idea, and please tell me to scratch it if it is too ridiculous; During the Heretics War, the UKISW humiliates Castile's navy and France annihilates its army, but is prevented from actually doing anything to the Castilians by the much more demanding Italian and German fronts. At the end of the war, Castile has lost most of its European power while leaving their innermost territories untouched. After the war but before Castile can recover, Portugal invades and marches through Leon. In a panic, the Castilian nobles evacuate Iberia and sail to their colonies in the Americas, where they set up a new, Mestizo government. Back in Europe, the French mobilize and move out from Aragon, but don't advance far before they meet the Portuguese, who now move against the Spanish Moors and take Granada. I know it probably sounds crazy, but it does make for an intresting timeline, hmm?
 * About the New World, I think that a pseudo-Iron Curtain would be down between the Arcist and Catholic countries, so a Florentine's name might not hold much water in Paris or Dublin. I think they'll just all agree to name it Occidentalia, after the Latin word for "west".
 * South America would be mostly Portuguese, including not only Brazil but probably Argentina, Peru, and all those other countries in that area. As for Mexico, there would probably be a single Castilian Mexico, but everything north of that would be French/Irish. California, for instance, would be more likely French than Castilian.
 * By this time in the Holy Roman Empire, everything along and west of the Rhine should be in full Arcist rebellion against the HRE. Im not sure where to go with this one, though. Falconier111 05:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It does sound interesting, it does sound crazy, but I think such things may have happened in the past where the nobels lost the homeland but continued ruling the colonies(though probably never in colonies so far away). Their escape from Europe, evading Irish/French ships and pirates, would be exciting.
 * So they would rule from Mexico. With the nobels on the continent, the power of Castile's Mexico could be better centralised and so probably a larger Mexico controling Central Occidentalia(?).  With Cuba and Hispaniola too.  Independence would be especially difficult for Mexico to get when the monarchs have nowhere else to go.  Sounds very neat to me.
 * So the New World is divided by Portugal, Castile-in-exile, France, and UKISW... Oh, and the Russians... would probably show up eventually, though there weren't permenent settlements in Alaska until the late 1700's.
 * Also, with Castile weakened from no Aragon and now technically no Castile, the OTL agreement between Spain and Portugal *here* (dividing the planet into Spanish and Portugese hemispheres for colonisation) would have been discarded by Portugal at the start of its invasion, or never agreed upon.
 * For the Arcists in the HRE, they may be in a long state of chaos since the outcome of the Heretics War caused Arcism's spread to pretty much stop in Europe. Would France be confident enough to proclaim that they recognise those western areas as independent (if that is what those areas declared) Arcist states?  Of course, I think the HRE would have had to have been good at negotiating and compromising for it to have lasted as long as it did.  Perhaps it allows the western portions to be Arcist if they continue to repect the Emperor, as a secular leader or something?  What is likely?--TEAKAY 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * About the Castilians in Central America, I don't really think there will be a revolution like the one we know. It might eventually end up somewhat like England, with Castilians instead of Normans and Mestizos instead of Saxons. I like the idea of some limited warfare in the New World during the Heretic's War with the French seizing Hispaniola or something. Also, you're probably right about the Russians, I don't think they've even made it halfway across Siberia yet.[[Image:Hail_Mighty_Joan_Americas_1500s_svg.png|thumb|My concept of what the Americas look like now; sorry about the paint job, I suck at photoshoping stuff]]
 * Another question - do you think Holland would have started expanding yet? I included that on the map, but I don't know if it belongs there.
 * About Arcists in Germany, that was probably the most heated battleground in the Heretic's War, with the superpowerful France and massive HRE clashing amongst religious uprisings on both sides (so I'd think), the HRE would be tired of pacifying that area's peasants. After a little while, they'd decide to just let them break off from direct Catholic authority as long as they remain loyal to the Emperor. The Holy Roman Empire was actually a Secular German Confederacy, after all. Falconier111 04:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That Castile-Mestizos situation sounds interesting.
 * About the map, a lot of timelines here don't have ANY maps so you shouldn't worry about excellence, people are greatful to have SOME sort of geographical idea of the situation.
 * The Dutch had a late start in the America's OTL, maybe because of their domination by Spain and the Habsburgs, so it's probably fine for them to have colonies already.--TEAKAY 03:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as an advance warning; the 1500's are not my specialty. In fact, all I really know about them is that Luther came around and that the Italian wars happened. You're probably going to have to lead the way for a little while until we get into an area I know well. Still, Wikipedia is my ally, and I do have some fodder to fire out
 * With a little extra study, I see that the map is way ahead of its time. I think a good time period for it would be 1650 or so.
 * Apparently, the Barbary pirates attacked France in 1519, shortly after the Heretic's War in this timeline. Perhaps the French could have used this as a way to try to diffuse tensions in Europe by attempting to get all Catholics to attack the Muslims, instead of the Arcists. I don't think they'd be up to winning it, though, though it might mean that Granada falls to the Portuguese, as I imagine it was rather ignored during the rest of the period.
 * On Portugal, now that they have all of Iberia minus Aragon under their control, ought to be more powerful than in OTL. In 1578, the Portuguese were so badly defeated in a war in Morocco that the Spanish Habsburgs invaded Portugal and took it in. With an army that much larger, they might win the campaign, installing a semi-puppet in Northern Africa. Or, they might still be defeated, and after almost a century perhaps the French might be willing to try to conquer them just like Spain...Falconier111 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try my best then, I'm not exactly affluent in the Middle Ages either.
 * If France was successful in rallying support against the Ottmans, that could wear them down to help Portugal in Morocco
 * The war was also heavily driven by Sebastian of Portugal who's mother was the daughter of Habsburg Charles V so he would perhaps not be born. The Portuguese though were getting nervous about Ottoman expansion and the Moroccan king |Abu Abdallah Mohammed II Saadi asked then for help so I guess the war would occur anyways.
 * I think that the Portuguese would then be at 1:1 and suffer a less catastrophic defeat.
 * The end result I see would be that Portugal would be strong enough to avoid an invasion by France (since with fewer Habsburgs France would probably be the only one to try claiming Portugal's thrown). With Portugal not being subjugated by Habsburgs like OTL and as of yet not invaded by France, Portugal's colonies would be less vulnerable to Dutch and Irish attacks (as they were in OTL by English and Dutch).
 * Reasonable?--TEAKAY 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Very.
 * So, both kinds of Christians combine to sail against the Ottomans. This could become a huge war, east versus west, focused in the Balkans with possible land grabs in Morroco, Sicily, Anatolia, and perhaps even in the Iberian and Italian peninsulas and the Holy Land. Still, I wouldn't think so, because Ottoman naval superiority would make it hell for French/Portuguese/Irish/etc. armies going through the Mediterranean. It would only be Venice and the HRE that would really be able to throw their troops at it, and they probably wouldn't want to for very long. On second thought, I think this huge Turko-Christian war thing would be unfeasable.
 * Meanwhile, in Occidentalia...
 * By now, it's about 1580, correct? That means the Castilians have connquered the Inca and established a nice chunky territory in the new world. With their government much closer at hand, they would end up less exploited and neglected than in OTL, leading to a more stable New Castile. The benefits from those early years of chaos after Portugal invaded are appearing, with more stable and experienced men taking power.
 * Gotta stop now, more a little later. Falconier111 19:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, I'm back.
 * The Portuguese are reaching the height of their power right now, even in their weaker OTL counterpart; they have colonies everywhere from Macau to Brazil and hold large territories in five continents. They can probably bully most of Castile's southern settlers out and claim everything except for Columbia and Venezuela, which fits in with the map. That makes their colonial empire huge, and being the Portuguese, they'll gravitate towards getting more colonies. In a while, they might hold India as well as parts of China and even some of the Polynesian islands. Of course, France or Ireland or Venice (after the Heretics war, I see them in full control of northern Italy) might get jealous and team up with the other two to take Portugal out
 * And while we're on the subject, I have an intriguing idea. Say that Venice, from its position of power in Italy and it's alliance(?) with France, ends up taking all of Italy. Perhaps in this possible Porto-Venetian war, they gain a whopping chunk of land in southern Spain with a long Atlantic coast. Interested in expanding on Portuguese weakness outside of Europe, they begin to found Occidentalian colonies in the name of Venice...
 * I mean, it isn't as improbable as it probably sounds. It had previously colonized Aegean islands on a similar scale; now that they are huge, they might be able to travel that distance. Though the Venetian navy was pretty crappy in this period, it wouldn't take much reforming to turn it back into a colonial empire.


 * Jeez, Hail Mighty Joan has come a long way in almost two months. We have a roughly proteset Christian religion that predated Luther by a century, a superpowerful France with Iberian holdings that splits Great Britian with the Irish, Portugal uniting Iberia (except for Aragon) while Castile is now in the new world, and almost no Hapsburgs. How things have changed! Falconier111 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can't see Catholic/Arcist fleets having too much fun in the Mediterranean, France has a stronger presence there than before but would still have trouble breaching the east. I'd say that the land grabs in the west are do-able... I think the Ottomans were still having success in the Balkans at the time, so we could have HRE-reinforced Austrian armies pushing them back with some failed French amphibious landings across the Adriatic (The French still have Naples right?).  It could be a moderately long war-gunpowder units are becoming prevalent; the Catholic/Arcists need to take them seriously because the Ottomans have had more experience with gunpowder.
 * About Venice's extra-Mediterranean empire, I don't know, They seemed to be more adept in the shallower seas and not really interested in the distant oceans. Is this before or after the war with the Ottomans?  I guess if Portugal was weakened enough from its effort in the war, while Venice contributed little, Venice may try to expand into Portuguese holdings with France hardly minding a bit.  Venice's interest in reaching beyond the Mediterranean seems a little tenuous to me.  But of course with them getting a hold of the rest of rich northern Italy... anything's possible.
 * If Venice waited a bit longer for France and the UKISW to build up again I guess the three could pound Portugal and Venice could get oversea colonies fast by way of peace treaty, France and the UKISW would get some South Occidentalia. New Castile could jump on board if they got to take back some territory in Occidentalia (Would they try hard to reclaim old Castile? Sending things back to the way they were doesn't appeal to me as much, how long has the royal family been living in 'Mexico'?), the Dutch taking the opportunity as well to expand in the East Indies--TEAKAY 03:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the huge delay. Finals, then a family death... it's been a rough couple of weeks.
 * I like your projection of this new war, it makes excellent sense. At this time, I'd bet that France still holds Naples and Sicily, but I doubt it would be as strong as in the past. Basically, Italy is divided between Venice, which holds pretty much everything north of Florence, and France, due to their Aragonese inheritance. However, as the Ottomans have the navy to cut off their Italian territories, there might be a breakup of French power, resulting in a bunch of little city-states dominated by Naples and perhaps Palermo. The idea of the Pope somehow gaining hold of those is wicked cool but impossible, so I may through that idea in the trash can.
 * I see your point about Venice. I'd bet that the Venetians would be actually occupied with keeping Northern Italy firmly under their control. Also, I think that we can assume that the age of enormous landgrabs on the Continent is over, as even total losers of wars seem to be able to negotiate their way out of trouble. Either way, they wouldn't be able to advance very far against the Ottomans right now, though, as they're at the peak of their military power (this is around the time of Malta, right?). The Austrians may be able to advance pretty far into the Balkans and seize some valuable land, but that would be it.Falconier111 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for your loss (the intension is more sincere than typed letters can be), getting back into the old school cycle is giving me trouble too.
 * About those city-states that form when France faulters, they could still have agreements or alliances with France, that would help decrease the likely-hood of the Pope thinking he can take them, if he chose to, he'd be killing the good done by their working together in the war against the Ottomans (what will the war's name be anyways?). The Venetians may also be a counterweight to keep this more independent Italy fractious longer, in the end it makes me wonder if they would aid or fight the uniting of Italy if they weren't in charge of it.
 * About Malta, I think that may have been in the 1550's, reading some more Ottoman history, it says that in the 60's they began declining because of the growing might of the western countries and the new trade routes were really hurting the Ottoman economy. A recent line of weak sultans were also to blame.  What I think we can pull off is that that line of sultans can be replaced with a stronger one for ATL so that their first decline starts soon after that war with the Arcist/Catholics.  They lost little land but for the Balkans, but are now declining for sure.  I suppose the Ottomans having started going downhill 20 years later than OTL could expect to be stronger for when that (would you agree that it always seems inevitable?) World War One comes.  Of course, with so much intervening time until then, things can go in any direction.
 * Another thing I wonder is for the upcoming colonisation of India. With the balance of power not so clear between France and the UKISW, India would be another hit to their alliance if they fight over it.--TEAKAY 13:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * About Italy, that seems highly likely. These Southern Italian city-states could end up as a boiling pot where France, the Pope, Venice, and maybe the Ottomans or Portuguese jockey for influence through their favored cities. No one could hope to unite it, because everyone else would combine to beat them down. I think it's a little early to talk about the unification, but now that Venice is an established land empire they would be far less likely to allow it.
 * As for the war's name, how about something to do with a united Crusade? Or maybe "the Ottoman War" or something like that. I don't really know.
 * Now that we're entering the age of colonialism and the Mediterranean has settled down, we should switch our focus to the rest of the world, as you were suggesting. As it looks like the European powers have been absorbed with their own wars, this would be a good time for Castile-in-Exile to seize a little extra land, maybe by absorbing that post-Aztec thing the French set up or claiming some extra Caribbean islands. That way, they can hope to compete with everyone else when they turn their focus back out of the Continent.
 * India looks like the best place for a split. I think France is at a low ebb after they lose Naples and Sicily, while the UKISW is the only colonial power not to get involved in that war. I bet that things would end up a lot like they did in OTL, with the Irish taking over for the British. While the Irish might be less numerous and have fewer weapons the the Brits, the drain of the loss of southern Italy will bring them down to their level. I forsee the UKISW victorious and the dissolution of that weakened old alliance treaty, with a possible following war over England. This could be the spark that ignites the British Empire; or the Irish one, anyway.
 * One last question. Remember that Portuguese-Castilian marriage alliance thing I mentioned a while back? In that timeline ("Always carry a gun" on Alternatehistory.com, just for the sake of reference), the Portuguese-Castilian state declares itself "Spain". Do you think our Portugal would do the same? Falconier111 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Ottoman War sounds good because there may be 'the Second Ottoman War' in the future, names like second/third/fourth *** War always sound good for wars between 1500-1900.
 * For Castile-in-Exile, at this time the Caribbean islands would be the most profitable gains, though they would need to make sure they maintained their navy for the landings. Most of northern Mexico at this time is just desertous, there are minerals, but they weren't really exploited for a while.  Castile would likely take just a bit of land from the French puppet state just to show they can.  The puppet state might be able to expand into California though.  I just think it would be neat for the post-Aztec state to survive, absorbing the Apache tribes as well, could be an interesting culture combo.
 * The formation of an ATL 'British' Empire seems plainly likely if the UKISW succeeds in India, maybe there can be some colony disputes with Australia between them too. If the Irish get England, would they make it the United Kingdom of Ireland England Scotland and Wales (whoo, what a mouthfull)?  Or would they say that it was too long a name to be taken seriously?
 * About Portugal/Spain... I don't know, did Castile just do it because they had most of Iberia? If it is that likely then I suppose it would happen *there*.  With Spain and the British Empire forming, it almost seems like things are drifting closer to OTL (sometimes that's neat anyways).--TEAKAY 02:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * About Castile-in-Exile, just about everything you said seems right. The Mesoameriwank inside of me keeps telling me that it'll absorb elements of Aztec and Mayan culture, but that's really impossible. Fact is, they'd likely find a way to focus Catholicism even more than in OTL, wiping out the beginnings of Voodoo and such. As I typed that, an idea came to me - what if Castile starts making colonies in Africa? It's been a century or so since they came to the New World, they've had enough time to firmly root themselves in, while Africa would be a great place to expand into for sources of raw material and labor. You know, if that sounds good, it feels like they're developing a colonization complex.
 * About the Aztec-Apache fusion, I doubt its feasability, but not it's coolness; an "Apateca" would be awesome. If anything, the Aztecs might make the Apache into a warrior caste, after a fashion, or the Apache would end up as an aristocracy. Maybe both. From there, they might be able to break free of French control and make themselves into a local power, or become France's biggest and best colony. The idea of French using the Apache in the same way the British used the Sikhs makes me all excited down there.
 * If the Irish succeed in India and win England, they still might call it Great Britian or the British Empire; after all, these are the 'British' Isles we're talking about. However, Ireland would be the base of it, not England. I like the idea of UKIES - the United Kingdom of Ireland, England, and Scotland, assuming Wales is excluded because of its relative unimportance - but they'll probably just start calling them British.
 * Strange, ain't it? For all the wierdness we've had going on for a couple of hundred years, everything is starting to look like OTL again. Still, we've got enough different to make any historian look twice.Falconier111 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For Castile, I completely overlooked the fact that they would keep spreading Catholicism, I guess the original Castilians were the most assertive of catholic nations because they had had to work so hard to remove the Moslems and the resulting heretics from Iberia or something. I suppose the religious tensions in Central Occidentalia would continue to cause trouble for centuries more.
 * Castile-in-Exile making colonies while sort of being a colony themselves seemed strange to me- BUT THEN, I remembered that America kind of did it with Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, the Philippines (for a bit), Japan (kinda), the Panama Canal, Guam, etc. etc. etc. African colonies seem reasonable, a colonisation complex looks logical too since they made those expansions in South Occidentalia even while in exile. Oh, what exactly is Castile-in-Exile calling themselves now?
 * For Apateca, since their survival seems so fragile with 'dos cahrayzee Castilians out for expansion, I guess their becoming France's best colony would work once they got trade and such secured in California (what would a more/good French sounding name for California be?). They'd likely run into trouble with the Irish settlements when-Wait... what kind of history would the "Irish 13 colonies" get?  Would you say that something resembling the US is pretty much inescapable?  OTL The British at a point tried to restrict American expansion westways before they declared independence... So...hm, well, staying Euro-centric (or centric anything really) always gets hard with multiple colonising powers and globalising technology.  If there gets to be an Apateca-'United States of Occidentalia' o_0 expansion conflict at the centre of the continent... or maybe they together manage to form a co-operative type alliance... oh and then there's that Quebec type colony France has, they'd probably lose it soon after the 'British' Empire arises.  And there's also that Texas-Louisiana territory there, would Apateca absorb it or would it flip flop regarding loyalty with Irish expansion?
 * Oh man, getting in depth with North America even this much means who knows how much has got to be synthesised for the rest of the world!
 * For UKIES, would their flag be indistinguishable then from OTL Britain?--TEAKAY 19:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Going about it the long way, it could be considered that France reformed its recruitment policies a while after England had so they had a paid standing army that was not just intended to protect the kingdom. With a larger population than England, France could have brought up a larger army to counter England's longbow sooner. Then Joan of Arc could potentially have had access to a larger force during the Compiègne skirmish.--TEAKAY 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but wouldn't that have effected the war earlier, and not play in too much during Joan's time? The new policies would certainly have boosted the French army and made the war much more difficult for the English, but the French often outnumbered the English anyway, and still were defeated (Agincourt is an example). By Joan of Arc, the difference would be negligible.Falconier111 19:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes true, I'm probably focusing too much on France's victory than Joan of Arc's survival. Maybe her lift of Orléans' seige could have been more appreciated and she was given command of a larger army and made a successfull sally forth at Compiègne's seige-or made a successful one with the numbers she had, or Charles VII DID think the ransom was worth the money and she returned to the battlefield, or she WAS able to escape one of those many times she tried. I doubt these are GREAT ideas but they couldn't hurt.--TEAKAY 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd think that Charles giving her army big enough to win at Compiègne after her performance at Orléans is the biggest posibility. I like the idea of Joan escaping better, though. That way, the French might be able to claim it was divine intervention, which could damage English moral even more than thinking they had burned a saint did in OTL and give her a way larger command in the French army. Afterwards, she could win a load of battles and greatly accelerate the French victory, all the while becoming adored by the French royalty.Falconier111 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If she managed to escape as late as possible, perhaps even between trial sessions (did the trial last more than a day? I don't know)the botched justice of her trial really would have embarrassed the English legal reputation too... though that in particular probably wouldn't have all that much effect on the war. She could have led a second successful siege against Paris, it may have quickened Burgundy's switching of allegiances to protect its expansions into Holland. If she commanded another few victories, would England try to form another truce? And would the French government be nervous enough about their luck to accept it? Giving England a chance to reorganize would be a bad idea.--TEAKAY 21:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

About England's legal reputation, who knows? If the English didn't trust their legal system, that would mean that their trials could be discredited more easily. This might lead to revolutionaries claiming that their trials were unjust, making it easier to stir up the masses into a rebellion. But that's assuming that the effects of Joan's failed trial last that long, and it still is a bit of a stretch. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. If Joan had managed to win several more important battles after her escape, the French wouldn't be nervous about their luck. Instead, they might be more concerned with cleaning up the wreckage of the war, or leery of something similar happening to them in England. Or, maybe not; a scenario where the French decide they want revenge on the English is also possible. Falconier111 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming from my above comment about Joan's civil war becoming successful and possibly turning expansionist(which right now to me, sounds good), I guess England may well be the first invaded, especially if the damage to England's legal reputation could be severe enough for additional revolutionaries to rise up and give support to Joan's invasion-if they were granted independent enclaves or vassalages. Until England was fully subdued (obviously with Joan leading), France would be on the defence against the other nations.  What would follow?--TEAKAY 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good - and thorough. She could adopt the idea of freeing all the peoples dominated by the English, and coordinate her invasion with a Welsh uprising, for instance, or a Scottish attack. Weakened by rebellions throughout, the English government, already weakened by their ultimate defeat in France, wouldn't stand a chance, and the British Isles would fall under direct French influence, if not outright control. In the meantime, though, she has the other Catholic nations on the Continent to contend with, and will have to negotiate something with them first. Once that is over with, she could turn her attention back to home. Falconier111 20:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Continuing from that other simultaneous and related thread above, once (maybe if) Europe accepts the new France, I don't know what exactly would follow. In the future would France take England's OTL success at colonisation?  Or would it be too engrossed in dealing with matters on the continent and drag England with it?  No England, no free speech, no British North America, no American revolution, no president Napoleon, no Emperor Napoleon.  Of course, equivalents could arrive, perhaps as a device to initiate a second phase of French expansion in Europe.
 * Wow, waaay too far ahead right now I am.--TEAKAY 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we might as well chart out a future while we're here. I doubt the feasibility, but what if Ireland managed to unite itself and turned into a military power? It could annex Scotland and/or Wales, using those lands and a French alliance to win some wars on a hostile continent, even if the pope decides he won't go all crusade on Joan's a**. Maybe it eventually becomes the equivalent of OTL England? Remember, we only have sixty years 'till Columbus discovers America for Spain (I think that would stay the same in ATL). Falconier111 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What would the united Ireland do to convince France to allow them to absorb France's allies? Maybe they eventually formed a union (led/initiated by which?):  The United Kingdom of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales


 * This UK of I, S,and W could take the place of the OTL English colonial empire, but with England itself under French control, and the French not able to feel as safe as England had because of the Channel, I think the UKISW would be slower at expansion. Any number of alternate routes of their colonial aspirations are possible.  Again, France would probably follow after the UKISW and the Spanish.  The Spanish expanded so well probably because they were a peninsula and had the Pyrenees protecting them from the rest of Europe-I remember reading that the Romans initially had a similar advantage of choosing when to leave their easily protectable borders.--TEAKAY 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I bet that Ireland, the Celtic nation least dominated by the English, would form the center of the UKISW. Scotland is also possible, though not as likely, though Wales is a definite no.
 * Also, I bet that eventually the UKISW and France would develop an animosity over who deserves control over England. However, that shouldn't come up until Arcism has aged several generations and lost its initial unity, but that's too far in the future. We should stick to what we have now, and save that for extensive use later. Falconier111 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think its about time for us to start putting the framework up in the wiki. We have enough material; we can continue to expand HMJ once we have all the events down pat. Falconier111 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Have one in mind?--TEAKAY 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean, putting up pages and stuff about events, people, etc. on the wiki. For instance, you're great with making images (your maps for AEtas ab Brian are beautiful); why not make some flags for France and the Celtic countries, and a couple of maps of what the British Isles now look like? I already have a France article up, though it has nothing on it right now; we can put up more articles like that and fill them up. I don't know about you, but I browse for interesting althist by hitting the "random page" button over and over again. With more and larger articles, we run a bigger chance of someone stumbling across this and deciding they like it.
 * While we're on the subject, would you happen to know how to make a category page? Falconier111 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The way you set it up is fine.--TEAKAY 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To anyone else out there with Ideas!: Ideas are great! type one down!--TEAKAY 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So, here is the story thus far; Joan escapes during her trial, and is hailed as blessed by God when she returns to the French. Over time, she wins a series of victories - the siege of Paris, for instance, and others - due to her leadership and her innovative tactics, including introducing longbows into some of her regiments, and she eventually drives England out of Aquitaine permanently. However, even among the country-wide celebrations, the clergy decides that Joan is a heretic, based on the "Devil's voices" she hears and how she acts like a man. Her followers save her from the clutches of the government, and she finds herself at the head of a rebel army, working to defeat the power of the church. How does this sound? If you have comments, please make them. Falconier111 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)