#ofc we can't predict anything for sure but that's exactly the point

[wonder-worker]

was edward IV considering waging war with France when he died?

Hi! From what I understand*: no, he probably wasn't considering it.

The Treaty of Arras, resulting in the deprivation of his annual pension from France, appears to have provoked a visceral reaction in him: contemporaries report both anger and melancholy. In February, Parliament granted him a subsidy 'for the hasty and necessary defence' of the realm', money was demanded from the clergy, and he took measures to strengthen the fortresses in the Calais Pale. He also tried to stir Brittany against France by promising to send them 4,000 archers for three months - though it must be said that there was no mention from Edward regarding a proposed English invasion of France during that time. He was clearly angered, but it's difficult to know if he was genuinely considering waging full-scale war, or if it was an impulsive overreaction or sudden need for defense (perhaps both), or merely a tried-and-tested ploy to get money, which he had a track record of doing in the 1460s and which would have been needed now that his French pension was cut off.

(Fun fact: this entire drama resulted in the creation of 'The Promise of Matrimony' in 1483, the first known piece of printed political propaganda in English history.)

In any case, whatever his original intentions, Edward IV evidently seems to have decided to prioritize his continued peace with France by the end of his life. As Charles Ross says:

"If an immediate attack upon France was seriously contemplated for a time, the mood did not last long. By March (1483)**, when relations at sea between France and England had deteriorated badly, there are clear signs that Edward had changed course and was making every effort to preserve the truce with France."

There was a mission from the Garter King of Arms to France in February, likely connected to this. More strikingly, by the time Edward fell sick, he was actively making efforts to put an end to seizures and reprisals against French shipping - which, if we judge how French actions intensified after his death, seem to have been fairly successful.

Long story short, if Edward IV actually considered waging war against France in the beginning of 1483, he seems to have soon changed his mind and decided to prioritize his truce with them.*** Unfortunately, we'll never know how it would have gone down had he lived for a few years longer.

Because Edward IV died so soon after, and the situation remained unresolved, the Treaty of Arras is often magnified by historians as a sort of definite endgame of his foreign policy. Imo, this is a rather dramatic and retrospective reading of the situation. His foreign policy had worked reasonably well (or at least, to his satisfaction) up till that point. Arras certainly was a major setback and deeply aggrieved him - but the fact remains that had he lived longer, this is unlikely to be anything other than a temporary setback for both him and England**** (a trend that was fairly common across the reigns of many other medieval rulers). In this case, we already know for a fact that the conflict between France and Burgundy had by no means died down after Arras: it was, in fact, just as bad. Maximilian continued to desperately appeal to Edward IV for aid mere weeks after signing the Treaty (which Edward would have probably given had he not died soon after) and would later appeal to Richard III as well. So it's not like Edward or England lost their leverage. More importantly, Louis XI himself would die just a few months after Edward, leading to a major change in the structure of European politics, and we don't know how this situation would have unfolded had Edward still been alive at the time. Nor do we know how it would have unfolded had England's domestic situation remained stable for his successor after his death (aka: had his brother not decided to usurp the throne from his preteen nephew and kickstart yet another civil war within his own dynasty). He died at an impasse, and I think that more than anything should be emphasized - but by no accounts should it be taken to mean that he left his heir in a singularly complicated foreign situation. He didn't - at least, not compared to the vast majority of his predecessors - and at any event, like I mentioned, the situation in wider Europe was also rapidly changing at the time. Nor was England "isolated": among others, they did have a treaty with Brittany, and more importantly, there were strides towards a greater alliance with unified Spain: negotiations for a betrothal of his daughter Katherine to Isabella and Ferdinand's heir had been ratified in 1482***** and were ongoing (or already completed, I'm not sure) when he died, leaving the door wide open for a closer alliance that would be pursued by future English rulers, particularly since we know Spain was on the lookout for allies against France during that time as well and did view England as a potential ally.

*Correct me if I'm wrong **Ross says "1482" in his biography, but that's probably a typo considering he was talking about events after the Treaty of Arras. ***It's often said that Richard III inherited a "naval war" with France from his brother, but as we can see, he didn't. He inherited naval tensions (the word choice is important) which Edward IV was already working on putting an end to. The escalation of these tensions was very much Richard's own decision. ****England also seems to have been included in the Treaty of Arras (at Louis XI's "pleasure" lol), though I don't know in what capacity, it was likely window-dressing, so don't quote me on this. It may have been in a similar capacity Charles the Bold was technically "included" in the Treaty of Picquigny. *****I think it was Spain who proposed the betrothal, though I'm not sure so don't quote me on that.