Charles V of France dies in 1349

VVD0D95

Banned
I was reading through an article on Charles V of France, and saw that he fell ill in 1349, now he managed to recover and help turn the tide of the hundred years war for a time. What might've happened had he died of that illness in 1349? His brother Louis, would have been the heir then I think. What consequences might this have had for the Hundred Years War in general, and for france at large?
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Is it possible that the war goes more in England's favour without Charles there to help stabilize things?
 

VVD0D95

Banned
So if Charles V dies in 1349, he has died before his grandfather Philip VI, and before his father has become king, and even potentially before the acquisition of the Dauphine.

Let's say that, Philip still manages to acquire the province and instead gives it to John's son Louis, who I think was Duke of Anjou at this point, what other consequences might this make?
 

fhaessig

I think the most interesting question is what effect that has on Du Gesclin career. On the one hand, the new king will want a proven commander so would likely go to Bertand after higher borne proven incompetents, on the other hand, a lot of higher nobles were against Du guesclin, so he might not get command if the king is weak willed, on the third hand, if the king stands against nobles intrigue, he will still trust Bertrand even if Brittany is in semi rebellion. All that would have effects on the war.

And of course, no Charles V means no Charles VI, aka the mad king.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
fhaessig said:
I think the most interesting question is what effect that has on Du Gesclin career. On the one hand, the new king will want a proven commander so would likely go to Bertand after higher borne proven incompetents, on the other hand, a lot of higher nobles were against Du guesclin, so he might not get command if the king is weak willed, on the third hand, if the king stands against nobles intrigue, he will still trust Bertrand even if Brittany is in semi rebellion. All that would have effects on the war.

And of course, no Charles V means no Charles VI, aka the mad king.
Click to expand...

Okay interesting, so would Louis still marry the daughter of Charles of Blois?

Also, another question, if Edward III were to seek to see his son wed to someone now, who would the options be?
 
Last edited:

Alpha Trion

The death of Charles V in 1349 would have had significant consequences. In OTL, Charles’s strategy to avoid battles with the English proved pivotal in changing the tide of the war. In TTL, John II would still be defeated by an English invasion but would likely avoid being captured. In OTL, John’s capture actually worked out in favor of the French by giving them breathing room as well as making OTL’s Charles V regent. In TTL, John remaining in charge might result in Edward’s invasion army capturing Paris and Edward being crowned king of France in Reims. But even achieving these victories would not win the entire kingdom of France for Edward. England would still be suffering from a lack of both money and manpower. By most accounts, Edward was also suffering physically by the late 1350’s so I could see him signing a treaty with John with terms similar to OTL’s Treaty of Bretigny.

In TTL, Edward the Black Prince would still be given Aquitaine to rule while John II would have to contend with the mess that France would be in. I doubt John would handle ruling France as well as Charles did in OTL. France would likely remain in bad shape for the remainder of John’s rule, which could last longer (he was only 44 when he died in
1364) than it did in OTL. If he lives to around 1375, he gives the English more time to solidify their rule in Aquitaine. In TTL, it is still likely that Pedro of Castile will still lose his throne to his brother and come to the Black Prince for help. It is also possible that the Black Prince would avoid catching the illness that eventually killed him. Even if Aquitaine still revolts in TTL, it is likely John (and his heir Louis) would not be strong enough to take advantage of it.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Alpha Trion said:
The death of Charles V in 1349 would have had significant consequences. In OTL, Charles’s strategy to avoid battles with the English proved pivotal in changing the tide of the war. In TTL, John II would still be defeated by an English invasion but would likely avoid being captured. In OTL, John’s capture actually worked out in favor of the French by giving them breathing room as well as making OTL’s Charles V regent. In TTL, John remaining in charge might result in Edward’s invasion army capturing Paris and Edward being crowned king of France in Reims. But even achieving these victories would not win the entire kingdom of France for Edward. England would still be suffering from a lack of both money and manpower. By most accounts, Edward was also suffering physically by the late 1350’s so I could see him signing a treaty with John with terms similar to OTL’s Treaty of Bretigny.

In TTL, Edward the Black Prince would still be given Aquitaine to rule while John II would have to contend with the mess that France would be in. I doubt John would handle ruling France as well as Charles did in OTL. France would likely remain in bad shape for the remainder of John’s rule, which could last longer (he was only 44 when he died in
1364) than it did in OTL. If he lives to around 1375, he gives the English more time to solidify their rule in Aquitaine. In TTL, it is still likely that Pedro of Castile will still lose his throne to his brother and come to the Black Prince for help. It is also possible that the Black Prince would avoid catching the illness that eventually killed him. Even if Aquitaine still revolts in TTL, it is likely John (and his heir Louis) would not be strong enough to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

Okay interesting, what makes you think that John might avoid being captured in TTL?

And okay interesting, so if Edward III does still get a favourable settlement similar to Bretingy, and the Black Prince has more time to establish his hold there, I suppose another butterfly if one were so inclined is Henry the bastard dying at Najera, thus potentially preventing the revolts of Aquitaine, as Pedro might actually pay the black prince.

Also, is it possible that Edward III might make his son marry earlier?
 

Alpha Trion

With a POD happening in 1349, it is unlikely that if a battle of Poitiers were to happen seven years later, that the result would be exactly the same as OTL. John II might die in battle or the subterfuge that he used in OTL (dressing 19 of his personal guardsmen exactly like him) might actually work. As for Pedro, he never had the money to pay Edward in the first place and even if had the money, I doubt he would have paid his debts. Edward III could have married Edward sooner if certain negotiations had been successful. In 1340, Edward was in negotiations for the marriage of the Black Prince with Margaret of Lorraine; and in 1346 for a marriage with Eleanor of Portugal but both of those negotiations fell through.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Alpha Trion said:
With a POD happening in 1349, it is unlikely that if a battle of Poitiers were to happen seven years later, that the result would be exactly the same as OTL. John II might die in battle or the subterfuge that he used in OTL (dressing 19 of his personal guardsmen exactly like him) might actually work. As for Pedro, he never had the money to pay Edward in the first place and even if had the money, I doubt he would have paid his debts. Edward III could have married Edward sooner if certain negotiations had been successful. In 1340, Edward was in negotiations for the marriage of the Black Prince with Margaret of Lorraine; and in 1346 for a marriage with Eleanor of Portugal but both of those negotiations fell through.
Click to expand...

Okay interesting.

What makes you say pedro did not have the funds to pay Edward?

And okay as those two fell through who might be another option?
 

Alpha Trion

When Pedro signed the treaty of Libourne with the Black Prince, he promised England both financial and territorial compensation (Biscay) for helping him regain Castile. Yet, when he was back in power(and with both of Pedro’s daughters being held as hostages back in Aquitaine), Pedro told Edward that he had no money and that he could not give any lands in his kingdom without the permission of the people living in those lands. Put it this way, in a billion alternate universes, I doubt you would find a single Earth where Pedro kept his word to Edward :D.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Alpha Trion said:
When Pedro signed the treaty of Libourne with the Black Prince, he promised England both financial and territorial compensation (Biscay) for helping him regain Castile. Yet, when he was back in power(and with both of Pedro’s daughters being held as hostages back in Aquitaine), Pedro told Edward that he had no money and that he could not give any lands in his kingdom without the permission of the people living in those lands. Put it this way, in a billion alternate universes, I doubt you would find a single Earth where Pedro kept his word to Edward :D.
Click to expand...

Aha true enough, could the Black Prince not merely take loot from the battle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top