With a PoD no later than 1453, make sure the King of England keeps at thievery least Normandy and Anjou. Bonus points if the King of England keeps Aquitaine. extra bonus points if France is Balkanised or the King of England becomes the King of France. And PoDs before the HYW would be preferred. Go ahead!
AHC: Keep England's Continental Possessions
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
September, 1416 - Charles, youngest brother of Dauphin Louis, falls in the Seine. He catches a cold which he never shakes and dies two months later from some sort of respiratory illness.
May 21, 1420 - Treaty of Troyes signed as in OTL. But with no Dauphin is disinherit, it is far less contentious.
February, 1422 - With no Dauphin Charles to rally around there is no Siege of Meaux and Henry V does not contract dysentery there.
August 31, 1422 - Henry V does not die at age 36 leaving his infant son as King, because he never got dysentrry at Meaux.
October 21, 1422 - Charless VI of France dies in Paris
1423 - Henry V of England is crowned King Henri II of France.
1423-26 - Various revolts by French nobles are put down with the aid of Philip the Good of Burgundy.
1445 - Henry V and II dies at age 59. Henry VI and III is crowned King at age 24. He is infirm, but unlike OTL where the Wars of the Roses were the result of his issues and the worsening situation in France, all that energy is sent across the Channel to secure the new realm.
I'm not sure who he marries - someone else can make a suggestion - but with that simple death there would be no Tudors, an a unified England and France.
May 21, 1420 - Treaty of Troyes signed as in OTL. But with no Dauphin is disinherit, it is far less contentious.
February, 1422 - With no Dauphin Charles to rally around there is no Siege of Meaux and Henry V does not contract dysentery there.
August 31, 1422 - Henry V does not die at age 36 leaving his infant son as King, because he never got dysentrry at Meaux.
October 21, 1422 - Charless VI of France dies in Paris
1423 - Henry V of England is crowned King Henri II of France.
1423-26 - Various revolts by French nobles are put down with the aid of Philip the Good of Burgundy.
1445 - Henry V and II dies at age 59. Henry VI and III is crowned King at age 24. He is infirm, but unlike OTL where the Wars of the Roses were the result of his issues and the worsening situation in France, all that energy is sent across the Channel to secure the new realm.
I'm not sure who he marries - someone else can make a suggestion - but with that simple death there would be no Tudors, an a unified England and France.
Maybe Charles dies a few years later then, perhaps even around when Troyes is signed.
Shouldn't it be the other way around? In the 1259 Treaty of Paris, England lost all its northern possessions but kept Aquitaine.
OTL, a big contribution to the loss of English/Angevin possessions in France collapsing was that they were inherited first by Richard the Lionheart, then by John Lackland. Richard was charismatic and a strong military commander, but he was an irresponsible spendthrift who emptied the treasury, and then John managed to alienate most of his vassals at the same time he needed their good-will for the financial and military support he needed to pay Richard's debts and defend his continental possessions from Philip Augustus.
The middle brother, Geoffrey of Brittany, seems like he'd be a better be than either to manage the kingdom responsibly. Geoffrey also seems to have had a strong personal relationship with Philip which might have delayed Philip's attempts to push the Plantagenet out of France, and he had a son who could have displaced John in the succession. However, Geoffrey predeceased his father (due to either a jousting accident or a sudden illness, depending on which chronicler you believe). If we switch the deaths of Geoffrey and Richard, the Angevin position probably becomes a lot stronger.
The middle brother, Geoffrey of Brittany, seems like he'd be a better be than either to manage the kingdom responsibly. Geoffrey also seems to have had a strong personal relationship with Philip which might have delayed Philip's attempts to push the Plantagenet out of France, and he had a son who could have displaced John in the succession. However, Geoffrey predeceased his father (due to either a jousting accident or a sudden illness, depending on which chronicler you believe). If we switch the deaths of Geoffrey and Richard, the Angevin position probably becomes a lot stronger.
I'm not really convinced of that. Yes, Richard spent money like it was going out of style, but he was also a very good general. Geoffrey was nothing special that I'm aware of.
And since Richard and Philip had initially been on good terms but that soured, I'm not sure that Geoffrey would do better here.
But let's say Geoffrey does do better. Then what?
I'm not really sure that England's kings and their domain in northern/western France is going to last unless the French monarchy is crippled somehow. Philip and Louis (VIII) dying young seems like it might help that a lot - it certainly raises the question of who takes the throne, which probably isn't going to be straightforward.
And since Richard and Philip had initially been on good terms but that soured, I'm not sure that Geoffrey would do better here.
But let's say Geoffrey does do better. Then what?
I'm not really sure that England's kings and their domain in northern/western France is going to last unless the French monarchy is crippled somehow. Philip and Louis (VIII) dying young seems like it might help that a lot - it certainly raises the question of who takes the throne, which probably isn't going to be straightforward.
What about just keeping Calais? I mean it was England's longest lasting continental possession. Or a deal for Aquitaine? Perhaps Aquitaine is invested to the Prince of Wales, who pays homage to the King of France? Because those two would be the easiest. France would have to be severely weakened to give up Normandy, considering how close it was to Paris.
I haven't been able to find a lot of detailed historical information about Geoffrey's talents and ruling style. I'm mainly going off the notion that if he were anywhere near as bad as John, there's be some pretty clear indications to that effect. He was depicted very favorably in A Lion in Winter, but that's a work of fiction and I don't know how well their characterization of Geoffrey was rooted in reality.
I agree about Richard's military talents; he was certainly able to hold things together well during his lifetime, and things only fell apart when John was suddenly left to clean up Richard's messes without Richard's ability. Geoffrey could certainly have done a lot worse than Richard if his relationship with Philip had also soured, if Geoffrey lacked Richard's military talents and didn't have compensating abilities in other areas.
If we assume Geoffrey was competent but nothing special across the board, that makes him a significantly worse military commander than Richard, but a much better intriguer and politico than John and a better fiscal manager than either. My gut feel is that he still gets outmaneuvred by Philip and winds up losing some territory, but not as badly as John did IOTL.
What were the limiting factors in England holding territory on the continent long-term? Was it just the legal and political awkwardness of one King owing homage to another for large secondary holdings, or was their more to it than that?
I agree about Richard's military talents; he was certainly able to hold things together well during his lifetime, and things only fell apart when John was suddenly left to clean up Richard's messes without Richard's ability. Geoffrey could certainly have done a lot worse than Richard if his relationship with Philip had also soured, if Geoffrey lacked Richard's military talents and didn't have compensating abilities in other areas.
If we assume Geoffrey was competent but nothing special across the board, that makes him a significantly worse military commander than Richard, but a much better intriguer and politico than John and a better fiscal manager than either. My gut feel is that he still gets outmaneuvred by Philip and winds up losing some territory, but not as badly as John did IOTL.
What were the limiting factors in England holding territory on the continent long-term? Was it just the legal and political awkwardness of one King owing homage to another for large secondary holdings, or was their more to it than that?
So long as the feudal system was maintained, there were no _legal_ limitations.
The homage done by (for example) the Dukes of Normandy (who happened to also be Kings of England) , to the Kings of France (feudal overlords of Normandy), was for their Normandy lands only. This was , in essence, an agreement to send a certain number of knights to aid the feudal lord, when called on to do so. And to pay various sums of money on specific occasions (the marriage of the lord's eldest daughter, for example). The required knights could even be hired mercenaries, so in effect it was a sort of lease agreement.
Such homage always specifically excluded /liege/ homage , which was personal and bound man to man
In theory, so long as the feofee (eg King Richard) sent men as required, paid the feudal dues etc, then he could maintain his freehold indefinitely. In practice, it was not hard for an overlord who wished to dispossess a vassal , to find some excuse for claiming a breach of feudal duty. Such a charge was tried by the lord's court. Not usually an unbiased venue. In such a situation, it soon came down to clash of swords Might is right, and mightier is rightier.
And that, as far as I understand, tended to come down to which side the sub-vassals took. If Richard/John/Geoffrey's vassals in Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine backed him against Philip, he's in a pretty strong position. If, on the other hand, a lot of them take their King's side over their Duke (as happened IOTL), then things are likely to go Philip's way.
My question is why they'd tend to take one side over the other. John's high taxes and ham-fisted political style was certainly a major factor. I'm wondering what the other major factors there would have been if we replace John with someone more competent.
The awkwardness of dealing with an overmighty vassal (from the POV of the French monarchy) - no French king is going to be entirely comfortable with the Plantagents counting as such whether they're kings of England as well or no.
Division of focus, were they the Kings of England or the greatest feudal Duke of France?
Yes. Since mediaeval kings , by and large, had no standing armies of their own, they relied for military force on calling out their vassals. That was the very nature of feudalism.
So Phillip of France called out his vassals to send knights to aid him to force his rebellious vassal (the Duke of Normandy, aka King of England) into submission. Not responding to such a summons was itself rebellion.
When a vassal received such a summons he in turn summoned his sub-vassals, to make up the numbers he had to send (because he didn't have a standing army either). In theory, and law, the Duke of Normandy's English vassals (those who held lands from him as King of England) did not get involved at all. Certainly John could not compel his English subjects to assist him in France. (There is an absolutely fascinating exception to this, which awaits a modern day Maitland to explore, which relates to those in the North of England, who held by drengage - the whole question of tenures by drengage and thegnage is most unjustly neglected, but that is for another day). However, there were always ambitious men willing to voluntarily come along for the battle, on the basis that the lord would look after them once he won (from the forfeited estates of those who picked the wrong side)
In the situation under discussion, a critical point was that many (perhaps even most) of the great vassal held lands under both both John and Phillip. In feudal theory, they could have (and should have) sent contingents to both . In practice Phillip broke the rules and upped the ante by demanding that vassals offer him /liege/ homage. Liege homage was a much bigger deal than fealty. Liege homage, which seems natural to us nowadays, but was not so much so then, demands a personal loyalty to one lord, excluding all others. A bob each way was no longer an option.
The result was the lords who held under both overlords had to make a choice . Go the whole hog one way or the other. The choice, by and large, came down to an assessment of who was going to win. Arguably, if it had been Richard instead of John, quite a few might have decided differently.
Last edited:
Strictly, the King of England did not hold anything of the King of France. It was simply that the same human being happened to be at once King of France , and Duke of Normandy (and Aquitaine, Comte d'Anjou etc), the latter holding of the King of France.
IT becomes easier if you think of feudal states as being like modern corporations. The man who happens to be President of Acme Corp may well hold shares also in Bloggs Corp. That is not the same thing as Acme Corp itself holding shares in Bloggs Corp.
English Common Law held, right up to the 19th century, that the King had two bodies - a natural body and a Corporate body. It even invented a whole corpus of law around the notion of the Corporation Sole. 18th century law books discuss it at great length . Even though the only examples they could find were the King and the Chamberlain of London (Bishops were somewhat the same , but different, one of those delightful technicalities that Common Law loved)
Have Joan of Navarre marry Edward III and ally with Poland-Hungary, the alternate Edward the Black Prince marries a Polish Princess in exchange for a claim to Provence and support for Polish-Hungarians in Silesia.
Last edited:
Of course, much of the French inheritance is gone by the time of Edw III . Normandy, Poitou, Anjou, Touraine.