These Hills Sing of Saxon Kings

[Justin Pickard]

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

Similar. Although mine seemed to just explode within about eight years' time. To be sure it was always an uneasy union, but my version just sort of... blew up?

Which is entirely acceptable. After all, does history remember the Ambrosian Republic, Estland, Halicz-Wołyń, or the Principality of Ruthenia?

[Merrick]

Good to see this one still going, and looking forward to the map!

Regarding France sans HYW, I think it could go either way. The kings have more resources and fewer distractions than OTL (and what king ever didn't want to bring the nobles to heel), OTOH there's no external threat to justify centralisation and there's much less of a feeling that the traditional governmental structures had failed.
Typically medieval kingdoms without an external enemy to distract them fall to infighting - depending which faction (king, nobles or commoners) comes out on top, France could go the way of OTL's England, Spain, Germany or Poland. (I wouldn't stretch the HRE parallels too far, though, compared to the post-1200 HRE France has two huge advantages in that the crown isn't elective and the royal lands give the crown a resource base independant of either the nobles or the merchants. Plus, unlike OTL's HRE, the kings aren't wasting their substance trying to rule Italy).

If France is intact when the Renaissance arrives, then decentralised or not it will be the most powerful state in Europe (it has much the largest population, to start with, especially since Spain is still divided). A more peaceful history will likely mean more urbanism, so more trade and still more wealth (especially since Flanders and the Rhine trade is prospering) - which will make it a player in the colonial game. I just can't see France (with money, people and an Atlantic coast) not taking a share of the New World, unless it is so weak that it is virtually being partitioned by the neighbours.

[Thermopylae]

@JP

I didn't mean that my Bohemia-Poland only lasted eight years, I mean that it lasted a little over a hundred years, and in the last eight years it imploded.

Originally Posted by Merrick

Good to see this one still going, and looking forward to the map!

Thank you!

Regarding France sans HYW, I think it could go either way. The kings have more resources and fewer distractions than OTL (and what king ever didn't want to bring the nobles to heel), OTOH there's no external threat to justify centralisation and there's much less of a feeling that the traditional governmental structures had failed.

Which would lead to sustained decentralization, yes.

Typically medieval kingdoms without an external enemy to distract them fall to infighting - depending which faction (king, nobles or commoners) comes out on top, France could go the way of OTL's England, Spain, Germany or Poland. (I wouldn't stretch the HRE parallels too far, though, compared to the post-1200 HRE France has two huge advantages in that the crown isn't elective and the royal lands give the crown a resource base independant of either the nobles or the merchants. Plus, unlike OTL's HRE, the kings aren't wasting their substance trying to rule Italy).

Fall in to infighting? Well when the Aquitaine/Champagne "axis" was around, there was a sort of "cold war", where basically the nobility (who were united by family ties and alliances) had the king by the neck, and they basically ran things. But besides that not all that much.

ITTL, they did have a brief Italian distraction (securing Naples for a cadet-line to the throne). And they are probably going to get even more distractions now that Aragon has fallen into the French sphere of influence.

If France is intact when the Renaissance arrives, then decentralised or not it will be the most powerful state in Europe (it has much the largest population, to start with, especially since Spain is still divided).

More poweful even than TTL's England? I suppose so. More urbanization and population being the cause...

A more peaceful history will likely mean more urbanism, so more trade and still more wealth (especially since Flanders and the Rhine trade is prospering) - which will make it a player in the colonial game. I just can't see France (with money, people and an Atlantic coast) not taking a share of the New World, unless it is so weak that it is virtually being partitioned by the neighbours.

The problem with colonialism with a decentralized state is that eventually you're going to need to draw manpower from the duchies/counties, while making them more or less directly subservient to the crown. Not how feudalism never really came with the Europeans to America.

Once profits started coming in from the New World, the nobility might tussle with the king for a greater chunk of said profits.

Maybe I've got it completely wrong here...

[Justin Pickard]

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

I didn't mean that my Bohemia-Poland only lasted eight years, I mean that it lasted a little over a hundred years, and in the last eight years it imploded.

I knew that.

*whistles innocently*

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

Hmm? Revolutions? What revolutions?

Well, one can debate whether some of them were 'only' peasant revolts (and let's face it, everyone's had at least one of those) but I've read books arguing from a pseudo-Marxist point of view that all the earlier rebellions - the Jacquerie, the Huguenots, etc etc - were all similar expressions against the injustices of the French royal system. The argument being that the final revolution only succeeded because the army decided to switch sides and thus not simply mow down the revolutionaries

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Justin Pickard

I knew that.

*whistles innocently*

[Flocc] The Great Satan strikes again! [/Flocc]

[Justin Pickard]

Originally Posted by Thande

Well, one can debate whether some of them were 'only' peasant revolts (and let's face it, everyone's had at least one of those) but I've read books arguing from a pseudo-Marxist point of view that all the earlier rebellions - the Jacquerie, the Huguenots, etc etc - were all similar expressions against the injustices of the French royal system. The argument being that the final revolution only succeeded because the army decided to switch sides and thus not simply mow down the revolutionaries

That might be fun, actually. If you are thinking to cast France as alt-Habsburgs, then why not have some Protestant-types causing trouble in one of the outlying regions? This threat could be what's needed to centralise the French kingdom.

Originally Posted by Thande

[Flocc] The Great Satan strikes again! [/Flocc]

*throws down a smoke grenade and escapes in the confusion*

[Douglas]

If anyone sounds like alt-Hapsburgs in this timeline, its the English royals...

[Thermopylae]

@FENK

Really? Most they've done is acquisition Holland/Zeeland/Flanders/Brabant via bloodlines. The rest has been conquered. Unless you're thinking along different lines...

@Thande

Peasant revolts? Oh, yeah those are bound to happen, and are bound to be just as successful. Although Justin's idea of an alt Wars of Religion-type event centralizing the French state may be plausible, especially since France is more decentralized than they were IOTL (think like when the Counts of Toulouse were supporting the Cathars in all but name.)

[Merrick]

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

Which would lead to sustained decentralization, yes.

What do you mean "decentralisation" here? A decline in the strength of the monarch wrt the higher nobility, so that the various duchies/counties become largely autonomous states, or a general devolvement of governance so that minor lords, market towns and even peasant communes have significant local authority? I know it's stretching things to see France turning into a sort of mega-Switzerland, but if neither the kings nor the magnates make an effort to concentrate power how far down the chain will it go? (And if the trade guilds/urban councils/whatever end up effectiviely making their owm laws and collecting their own taxes, how long before they decide they don't need a noble class?)

Fall in to infighting? Well when the Aquitaine/Champagne "axis" was around, there was a sort of "cold war", where basically the nobility (who were united by family ties and alliances) had the king by the neck, and they basically ran things. But besides that not all that much.

Fair enough. I was trying to think of a medieval kingdom which had got through 100 years OTL without a major foreign war or large-scale civil disorder and coming up blank. In a "France of Duchies", human nature and history suggests the magnates will start fighting each other if the central government is too weak to control them - or that one or more of them will try to set up as independent princes as the Dukes of Burgundy did OTL. In a truly delocalised France I'd expect the neighbours to start nibbling on the borders once they realised that neither the king nor the magnates was able to defend them. Of course, this could turn out to be a mistake...

ITTL, they did have a brief Italian distraction (securing Naples for a cadet-line to the throne). And they are probably going to get even more distractions now that Aragon has fallen into the French sphere of influence.

True, though we haven't really seen the effects as yet (no real conflicts with Castile, the Empire or the Italians, though those may come later).

More poweful even than TTL's England? I suppose so. More urbanization and population being the cause...

According to Wikipedia, France had 15 million people in the late fourteenth century (a quarter of the population of Europe), rising to 20 million by the mid sixteenth. England had 2.5 million in the aftermath of the Black Death, rising to 5.8 million by 1600. Even throwing in Ireland, Flanders and better governance overall won't make up for that. Of course if England has a centralised monarchy and a solid taxation system it may have more available power than France - it depends how much money the French provinces let the central government have and how much (say) Aquitaine, Tolouse and Provence consider a dispute with England in Flanders to be Artois's problem - but in the long term all that economic muscle is going to tell. The only way any other country can put a dent in France is if some of the provinces ally with the invader against the central government (cf Burgundy in the HYW) or at least stay neutral.

The problem with colonialism with a decentralized state is that eventually you're going to need to draw manpower from the duchies/counties, while making them more or less directly subservient to the crown. Not how feudalism never really came with the Europeans to America.

Well, sixteenth century style colonialism doesn't need much manpower - the initial conquistadors were all pretty much private enterprise. And feudalism was more-or-less dead before the Age of Discovery started. But once the colonies reach any sort of size, they need administering, and guarding, and persuading to send the money home rather than just hold on to it and declare de facto independence. And if the various factions at home are too busy holding knives to each other's throats (a big revenue stream could seriously unbalance the status quo) to actually support the colonial effort, it will suffer.

Once profits started coming in from the New World, the nobility might tussle with the king for a greater chunk of said profits.

Oh yes. And the merchants will want it for themselves and whoever's in charge overseas will be dreaming of making himself Duke of Canada or Count of Louisiana. That much money, outside the traditional fiscal channels, can buy a lot of power.

Maybe I've got it completely wrong here...

I don't think so. My only real quibble is that you've got the biggest, richest and potentially most powerful country in Europe just sitting there - for about a century - and no-one tries to do anything with it or take advantage of its weakness. I can buy a Louis the Lazy, but a whole dynasty of them?
OTOH your Middle Ages seems to be a more peaceful one than OTL. Maybe I'm just cynical.

[Thermopylae]

What do you mean "decentralisation" here? A decline in the strength of the monarch wrt the higher nobility, so that the various duchies/counties become largely autonomous states, or a general devolvement of governance so that minor lords, market towns and even peasant communes have significant local authority? I know it's stretching things to see France turning into a sort of mega-Switzerland, but if neither the kings nor the magnates make an effort to concentrate power how far down the chain will it go? (And if the trade guilds/urban councils/whatever end up effectiviely making their owm laws and collecting their own taxes, how long before they decide they don't need a noble class?)

Decentralization, as in not much more centralized than when Richard Lionheart was king of England, sans Angevin power bloc.

Fair enough. I was trying to think of a medieval kingdom which had got through 100 years OTL without a major foreign war or large-scale civil disorder and coming up blank. In a "France of Duchies", human nature and history suggests the magnates will start fighting each other if the central government is too weak to control them - or that one or more of them will try to set up as independent princes as the Dukes of Burgundy did OTL. In a truly delocalised France I'd expect the neighbours to start nibbling on the borders once they realised that neither the king nor the magnates was able to defend them. Of course, this could turn out to be a mistake...

They have basically been involved with nothing since the 1390s. (Italian war ended 1382) Which, you’re right, really is a bit far-fetched. I may go back, tinker a little bit, add a minor skirmish or two with the HRE.

The problem with nobles declaring independence is that they need to be strong enough on their own to beat back the monarchy and his cronies. The only ones who could potentially do that ITTL are Brittany (which was absorbed into the realm. There’s something to write about that I forgot to mention), and Burgundy (whom, as I forgot to mention, in lieu of the Low Countries have acquisitioned Provence and the lands of the Dauphine).

True, though we haven't really seen the effects as yet (no real conflicts with Castile, the Empire or the Italians, though those may come later).

You have convinced me to add some more conflicts in. The Italian situation is just to precarious in the first half of the 1400s.

According to Wikipedia, France had 15 million people in the late fourteenth century (a quarter of the population of Europe), rising to 20 million by the mid sixteenth. England had 2.5 million in the aftermath of the Black Death, rising to 5.8 million by 1600. Even throwing in Ireland, Flanders and better governance overall won't make up for that. Of course if England has a centralised monarchy and a solid taxation system it may have more available power than France - it depends how much money the French provinces let the central government have and how much (say) Aquitaine, Tolouse and Provence consider a dispute with England in Flanders to be Artois's problem - but in the long term all that economic muscle is going to tell. The only way any other country can put a dent in France is if some of the provinces ally with the invader against the central government (cf Burgundy in the HYW) or at least stay neutral.

Duly noted.

Well, sixteenth century style colonialism doesn't need much manpower - the initial conquistadors were all pretty much private enterprise. And feudalism was more-or-less dead before the Age of Discovery started. But once the colonies reach any sort of size, they need administering, and guarding, and persuading to send the money home rather than just hold on to it and declare de facto independence. And if the various factions at home are too busy holding knives to each other's throats (a big revenue stream could seriously unbalance the status quo) to actually support the colonial effort, it will suffer.

So what you’re saying here is that France is a powder keg, and more money is the spark.

In so many words…

Oh yes. And the merchants will want it for themselves and whoever's in charge overseas will be dreaming of making himself Duke of Canada or Count of Louisiana. That much money, outside the traditional fiscal channels, can buy a lot of power.

Whoever’s in charge overseas… Are you referring to company owners or colonial governors?

I don't think so. My only real quibble is that you've got the biggest, richest and potentially most powerful country in Europe just sitting there - for about a century - and no-one tries to do anything with it or take advantage of its weakness. I can buy a Louis the Lazy, but a whole dynasty of them?
OTOH your Middle Ages seems to be a more peaceful one than OTL. Maybe I'm just cynical.

You’re right. Needs more spice, and I am adding that ASAP.

General Announcement:

Shooting for a Saturday/Sunday update, gents.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

@FENK

Really? Most they've done is acquisition Holland/Zeeland/Flanders/Brabant via bloodlines. The rest has been conquered. Unless you're thinking along different lines...

They just seem poised to get a whole bunch more...English princesses must be rather desirable...a kingdom that has remained extremely stable for hundreds of years...

[Merrick]

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

Decentralization, as in not much more centralized than when Richard Lionheart was king of England, sans Angevin power bloc.

Well, in the twelth century local rebellions and private wars between magnates were a fact of life - I assume things have quietened down a little over the years

The problem with nobles declaring independence is that they need to be strong enough on their own to beat back the monarchy and his cronies. The only ones who could potentially do that ITTL are Brittany (which was absorbed into the realm. There’s something to write about that I forgot to mention), and Burgundy (whom, as I forgot to mention, in lieu of the Low Countries have acquisitioned Provence and the lands of the Dauphine).

So effectively there's a balance - the Crown is powerful enough to slap down individual uppity dukes, but not so powerful that a reformist monarch could hope to break the nobility as a whole.

So what you’re saying here is that France is a powder keg, and more money is the spark.

I'd call it a sleeping giant rather than a powder keg - and the Age of Discovery is a wake-up call. If the French have to sit and watch while the English and Iberians divide up the globe, I don't think they'll stay complacent about their institutions for long. And if France does get some profitable colonies, the profits are likely to overturn the balance between the Crown and the provinces - particularly if overseas revenues allow the King to raise an army without having to go cap-in-hand to the Dukes to fund it. Plus overseas expansion really requires a navy, and if military development is progressing as OTL, we're moving away from feudal levies and into the era of professional armies. A permanent Armee du Roi, paid for by the taxes of the provinces, is not something I'd like to see if I was a French Duke interested in preserving my privileges, but if the province have their own armed forces, how can the central government hope to control them?
The other possible balance-tipper is religion - if one or more provinces go Protestant, how does the King react? An HRE-style devolved solution centrifuges the kingdom further, but enforcing uniformity at swordpoint is hard to reconcile with preserve provincial privileges.

Whoever’s in charge overseas… Are you referring to company owners or colonial governors?

Could be either - given the weak Crown authority, I can see the Compagnie de Caribe becoming an administrative authority in the colonies (like the British East India Company OTL); alternatively, if the Crown (or the Dukes) are giving land grants in the New World, do the grant-holders become feudal vassals? After all, the governor of (say) a Caribbean sugar island is effectively a Count - he administers a region for the Crown. If the Count of Poitou or the mayor of Bordeaux is not subject to direct Crown control, why should the governor of Martinique be?

General Announcement:

Shooting for a Saturday/Sunday update, gents.

[Thermopylae]

Originally Posted by Merrick

Well, in the twelth century local rebellions and private wars between magnates were a fact of life - I assume things have quietened down a little over the years

Yes, it has quieted down much. I'd almost call it a sort of "stable stagnation", but I know there's a better term for it...

So effectively there's a balance - the Crown is powerful enough to slap down individual uppity dukes, but not so powerful that a reformist monarch could hope to break the nobility as a whole.

Correct, sir! And this will become apparent to you when you look at the map that I am about to post, the French king has a lot of manpower in his regions.

I'd call it a sleeping giant rather than a powder keg - and the Age of Discovery is a wake-up call. If the French have to sit and watch while the English and Iberians divide up the globe, I don't think they'll stay complacent about their institutions for long. And if France does get some profitable colonies, the profits are likely to overturn the balance between the Crown and the provinces - particularly if overseas revenues allow the King to raise an army without having to go cap-in-hand to the Dukes to fund it. Plus overseas expansion really requires a navy, and if military development is progressing as OTL, we're moving away from feudal levies and into the era of professional armies. A permanent Armee du Roi, paid for by the taxes of the provinces, is not something I'd like to see if I was a French Duke interested in preserving my privileges, but if the province have their own armed forces, how can the central government hope to control them?

So if I understand you correctly, once the King gets tons and tons of money and can both raise and sustain long-term his own private "Armee du Roi," that will have the anti-monarchial nobility up in arms? Or the individual Dukes get tons and tons of money and the King either goes out with a whimper or a bang?

This all leads to a question: Who would grant Charters to the companies? My thoughts are the King, as he already has the power of investiture of his Dukes, but I may be wrong.

So lets play out the scenario: French Civil War, I'd imagine a few Dukes might remain loyal, most would probably rebel (likely Brittany, Toulouse, Aquitaine, the real strong ones). The king would need to drag in his allies (more than likely Aragon and Sicily/Naples), MAYBE would find a sympathetic ear in England. Castile is probably dragged in on the nobles' side, the HRE may or may not join in (he may not want anything to do with it) for the nobility.

So say the king wins. What can we expect to see the French kingdom to look like? I would think centralization on an unprecendented scale, basically an absolute monarch.

And what of the nobility winning? I would think that France would basically become like the HRE, an almost perfect analogue to it, in fact.

The other possible balance-tipper is religion - if one or more provinces go Protestant, how does the King react? An HRE-style devolved solution centrifuges the kingdom further, but enforcing uniformity at swordpoint is hard to reconcile with preserve provincial privileges.

It wouldn't be so hard to enforce uniformity, but only if he sells himself as defending Christendom.

Could be either - given the weak Crown authority, I can see the Compagnie de Caribe becoming an administrative authority in the colonies (like the British East India Company OTL); alternatively, if the Crown (or the Dukes) are giving land grants in the New World, do the grant-holders become feudal vassals? After all, the governor of (say) a Caribbean sugar island is effectively a Count - he administers a region for the Crown. If the Count of Poitou or the mayor of Bordeaux is not subject to direct Crown control, why should the governor of Martinique be?

So any problems in France ought be felt tenfold in the colonies...

[Thermopylae]

Here it is. Europe, 1566 AD. Italy is slightly changed, those came from some TL additions (which I shall post soon-ish)

El Mappo!

[Thande]

Viva El Mappo! Viva Los Divisiones Internales! Viva Thermo!

[Thermopylae]

Originally Posted by Thande

Viva El Mappo! Viva Los Divisiones Internales! Viva Thermo!

Viva la Revolucion Cartographico!

Glad you like it!

Although, this does raise a rather large question: How do Poland/Lithuania/Russia procede? Both Jaigellonian Poland and unification of Russia have been butterflied...

[Merrick]

I like the map. Are the Gemayids (sp?) a Turkish dynasty?
And who is that mustard colour in the Holy Land? IIRC the Mamelukes never happened, so are they Ayyubids?

Originally Posted by Thermopylae

So if I understand you correctly, once the King gets tons and tons of money and can both raise and sustain long-term his own private "Armee du Roi," that will have the anti-monarchial nobility up in arms? Or the individual Dukes get tons and tons of money and the King either goes out with a whimper or a bang?

Pretty much. By the fifteenth century the feudal model is becoming increasingly outdated and the next question is whether France becomes a "modern" state - or several.
I see the power balance between the crown and the nobility as ultimately unstable - if the Crown's position improves (e.g. with colonial revenues and a standing army) it becomes easier for the King to enforce his will on the nobility and centralise power further. OTOH if the Crown's powers decline to the point where the King has to bribe the Dukes with concessions to get anything done, then everything slides down to an HRE-style break-up.

This all leads to a question: Who would grant Charters to the companies? My thoughts are the King, as he already has the power of investiture of his Dukes, but I may be wrong.

It's your France
Seriously, I have no idea and I see it becoming a matter of dispute between the Crown and the nobility - especially if the charters prove lucrative.

So lets play out the scenario: French Civil War, I'd imagine a few Dukes might remain loyal, most would probably rebel (likely Brittany, Toulouse, Aquitaine, the real strong ones). The king would need to drag in his allies (more than likely Aragon and Sicily/Naples), MAYBE would find a sympathetic ear in England. Castile is probably dragged in on the nobles' side, the HRE may or may not join in (he may not want anything to do with it) for the nobility.

It might not come to civil war - a dynamic, popular king might be able to bribe the dukes enough (fancy titles, lucrative monopolies, positions in the administration) that they accept their reduction from semi-independant lords to merely incredibly-wealthy-legally-privileged-landowners - particularly if the alternative is a civil war they can't win. And - like the Emperors OTL - a weak king might not notice what he was losing until it was gone.

So say the king wins. What can we expect to see the French kingdom to look like? I would think centralization on an unprecendented scale, basically an absolute monarch.

I think that's likely. A smart monarch might deliberately try to build up the bourgeoisie and the towns as a counterweight to the nobles, but effectively power will be concentrated in the King and royal officials who serve at his pleasure.

And what of the nobility winning? I would think that France would basically become like the HRE, an almost perfect analogue to it, in fact.

Most likely, though if you want an alternative, the sixteenth century OTL was the heyday of the "Noble Democracy" in Poland - if the nobles are mostly on the same side (against the king) they could decide, rather than split the country, to reduce the monarchy to a figurehead and take over the central administration themselves.

[Thermopylae]

Originally Posted by Merrick

I like the map. Are the Gemayids (sp?) a Turkish dynasty?

The Germiyanids are descended from the Beys of Germiyan (centered around Kutahya). The Ottomans were basically an offshot od them, so I figured the Ottomans would be butterflied away...

And who is that mustard colour in the Holy Land? IIRC the Mamelukes never happened, so are they Ayyubids?

Mamlukes never happen? They were basically enfranchized slaves who hijacked Ayyubid Egypt. Then they were replaced by the Bujri Mamelukes, which was essentially a gaggle of warlords (sometimes) paying lip service to a "Sultan".

All Mamluk means is "slave soldier", and I found it plausible that such a thing could still happen ITTL.

It might not come to civil war - a dynamic, popular king might be able to bribe the dukes enough (fancy titles, lucrative monopolies, positions in the administration) that they accept their reduction from semi-independant lords to merely incredibly-wealthy-legally-privileged-landowners - particularly if the alternative is a civil war they can't win. And - like the Emperors OTL - a weak king might not notice what he was losing until it was gone.

You're probably right, the only way it would really come to a serious Civil War would be religous matters, more than likely...

I think that's likely. A smart monarch might deliberately try to build up the bourgeoisie and the towns as a counterweight to the nobles, but effectively power will be concentrated in the King and royal officials who serve at his pleasure.

Ooh! Fun...

Most likely, though if you want an alternative, the sixteenth century OTL was the heyday of the "Noble Democracy" in Poland - if the nobles are mostly on the same side (against the king) they could decide, rather than split the country, to reduce the monarchy to a figurehead and take over the central administration themselves.

Something certainly to be considered.

All shall be revealed on Saturday/Sunday... *evil chuckle*

[DuQuense]

?Whats happening in Africa and the East Indies?

With no Norman French, and Holland being part of England, I assume a much more Germanic English language.