AHC: Keep England's Continental Possessions
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
It does not matter how much Edward's claim is syrengthened the French do not want him as their King
Well, of course not. But what of that ? The Anglo Saxons did not want William of Normandy as their King, either. Much good that did them.
Except William was capable of forcing it, Richard III wasn't, France isn't nearly as easy to pacify as England was, especially since there is no way to decapitate the opposition in the way William did in England.
Eh. How does Ric. III figure in this ? He certainly would have been capable of it, and of any decapitations needed, given the opportunity. But I think maybe you mean Ric II ?
And, if Ric II was not capable (which I think is moot), certainly his successor Hen V was very capable, because he did exactly that. Hen VI was crowned King of France at Paris. Whether the French liked it not.
Of course, that pesky girl then messed it all up, but that may be regarded as the work of God, not man. She even said so herself.
(For that matter, the French did not want Louis XVIII as their King. But they got him anyway). I very much doubt that the argument "But the people do not want him" would have made much sense to a mediaeval war lord..
And, if Ric II was not capable (which I think is moot), certainly his successor Hen V was very capable, because he did exactly that. Hen VI was crowned King of France at Paris. Whether the French liked it not.
Of course, that pesky girl then messed it all up, but that may be regarded as the work of God, not man. She even said so herself.
(For that matter, the French did not want Louis XVIII as their King. But they got him anyway). I very much doubt that the argument "But the people do not want him" would have made much sense to a mediaeval war lord..
Last edited:
I think Bouvines would be the critical PoD. But, for Bouvines to work out differently, it needs someone other than John! Either Richard or Henry the Young King survives.
A different Bouvines makes a lot of butterflies, not just in France. Probably no Magna Carta, Otto maybe remains HRE. Burgundy is stronger, and maybe France balkanizes.
And maybe that nasty wart Eugerrand do Courcy gets his come uppance. I never did like that man.
A different Bouvines makes a lot of butterflies, not just in France. Probably no Magna Carta, Otto maybe remains HRE. Burgundy is stronger, and maybe France balkanizes.
And maybe that nasty wart Eugerrand do Courcy gets his come uppance. I never did like that man.
katchen
Banned
A more radical POD might be possible 150-200 years earlier. All that has to happen is for an alcoholic's liver to hold out and keep him alive for another year.
Ogadei Khan lives until 1242. As a result, Subotai and Batu Khan carry on the Mongol conquest beyond Hungary. They meet little or no resistance in the Holy Roman Empire because the Holy Roman Emperor's forces are encamped at Rome, so Batu goes to Rome and forces the submission of both the heavily outnumbered forces of Frederick II Babarossa and the Imperial Roman forces (with a hung College of Cardinals). In the meantime, Subotai with over 75,000 troops invades France and catches King Louis XI who is at war with the English King Henry III in what would OTL lead to King Louis's victory in the Saintogne War. The Mongols destroy and annihilate the badly outnumbered French knights, killing Louis Capet ITTL. Henry, who would have had to submit and offer fealty to King Louis anyway OTTL knows when he is hopelessly outmatched and offers fealty to Subotai instead.
At this point, word finally reaches Subotai and his commanders that Ogadei has passed away. The Mongols prepare to withdraw to Karakorum for the Kuriltai. Subotai grants Henry all of France that Louis ruled plus what Henry already rules (basically everything except for Rousillon, Langedoc and Provence, though Henry will get fealty from Langedoc in return for toleration of Catharism from Langedoc's lords). In return, King Henry agrees to send a force of 15,00 knights under Hugh de Lusignan, half of his force, plus whatever French forces survived the Mongols, back with the Mongols to Karakorum detailed to serve under Subotai. Some of them will eventually return to Europe having learned a great deal of the ways of the East including the Mongol ways of war. And his fealty means that he can call upon the Golden Horde as allies, which may serve England in good stead later on, even though the Mongols are withdrawing (temporarily, they say).
Ogadei Khan lives until 1242. As a result, Subotai and Batu Khan carry on the Mongol conquest beyond Hungary. They meet little or no resistance in the Holy Roman Empire because the Holy Roman Emperor's forces are encamped at Rome, so Batu goes to Rome and forces the submission of both the heavily outnumbered forces of Frederick II Babarossa and the Imperial Roman forces (with a hung College of Cardinals). In the meantime, Subotai with over 75,000 troops invades France and catches King Louis XI who is at war with the English King Henry III in what would OTL lead to King Louis's victory in the Saintogne War. The Mongols destroy and annihilate the badly outnumbered French knights, killing Louis Capet ITTL. Henry, who would have had to submit and offer fealty to King Louis anyway OTTL knows when he is hopelessly outmatched and offers fealty to Subotai instead.
At this point, word finally reaches Subotai and his commanders that Ogadei has passed away. The Mongols prepare to withdraw to Karakorum for the Kuriltai. Subotai grants Henry all of France that Louis ruled plus what Henry already rules (basically everything except for Rousillon, Langedoc and Provence, though Henry will get fealty from Langedoc in return for toleration of Catharism from Langedoc's lords). In return, King Henry agrees to send a force of 15,00 knights under Hugh de Lusignan, half of his force, plus whatever French forces survived the Mongols, back with the Mongols to Karakorum detailed to serve under Subotai. Some of them will eventually return to Europe having learned a great deal of the ways of the East including the Mongol ways of war. And his fealty means that he can call upon the Golden Horde as allies, which may serve England in good stead later on, even though the Mongols are withdrawing (temporarily, they say).
Now I'm /really/ confused. What is this 150-200 earlier than ?
Henry III (1207-1272) is at war with Louis XI (1423 - 1483 ) ? Where did Louis get the time machine? Did you mean Louis IX ?
And by the reign of Hen III the northern fiefs had already been lost to Phil. Augustus.
And how did the Mongols cross the Channel ?
Where did Henry get 15000 knights. At the ratio of 8:1 , that would be an army of around 120000 men, huge by mediaeval standards.
Did the Mongols employ or understand such feudal concepts as fealty ? And what does Hen III swear fealty unto ? It cannot be England. Guienne ? The Isle de Paris ? France ? In which case Subotai must be crowned as King of France , as a /Christian/ king
And what does the baronage of France have to say about all this? The fealty of mediaeval barons could not just be sold off. They had to agree to a change of lord .
And all this in a year ?
Henry III (1207-1272) is at war with Louis XI (1423 - 1483 ) ? Where did Louis get the time machine? Did you mean Louis IX ?
And by the reign of Hen III the northern fiefs had already been lost to Phil. Augustus.
And how did the Mongols cross the Channel ?
Where did Henry get 15000 knights. At the ratio of 8:1 , that would be an army of around 120000 men, huge by mediaeval standards.
Did the Mongols employ or understand such feudal concepts as fealty ? And what does Hen III swear fealty unto ? It cannot be England. Guienne ? The Isle de Paris ? France ? In which case Subotai must be crowned as King of France , as a /Christian/ king
And what does the baronage of France have to say about all this? The fealty of mediaeval barons could not just be sold off. They had to agree to a change of lord .
And all this in a year ?
Last edited:
There are troops other than those with Frederick in the Empire. That's going to tie the Mongols up for a little while. Not sure how long, but certainly at least a few months.
75,000?! If memory serves, RGB has mentioned in other discussions on Mongol campaigning that the Mongols in the West were rather depleted by this point. I'm not sure that they're going to be able to do Germany and France in a year quite this easily.
That might do it. Who would have succeeded him ?
EDIT: Presumably his son Louis who was born in 1187. So 13 in 1200 . His minority might delay things, but Louis was a fairly competent fighter in his own right, once he grew up.
EDIT: Presumably his son Louis who was born in 1187. So 13 in 1200 . His minority might delay things, but Louis was a fairly competent fighter in his own right, once he grew up.
Just have Henry the Young King survive and have a surviving son with his wife and have Philippe Augustus not born, the same might happen with Edward III marrying Joan of Navarre.
If Philip is not born , then Louis VII Has no male heir (Philip was the only son). Assuming the Salic Law is held to (it is early days, admittedly), then the next heir would be Robert II Count of Dreux, grandson of Louis VI . Assuming that his father, Robert I's older brothers either die young as OTL< or enter the church as OTL (Henry , archbishop of Reims).
What little I can find on Robert II suggests that he was fairly competent. Quite possibly even more so than Philip , because of a few more years of experience. So flicking Philip might not make much difference.
A surviving Henry jeune might make a difference. Or not. He has not had a good press from historians. And, like John, he seemed to make a lot of bad decisions, and alienate a lot of people. Nor does he seem to have been as good a soldier as Richard.
What little I can find on Robert II suggests that he was fairly competent. Quite possibly even more so than Philip , because of a few more years of experience. So flicking Philip might not make much difference.
A surviving Henry jeune might make a difference. Or not. He has not had a good press from historians. And, like John, he seemed to make a lot of bad decisions, and alienate a lot of people. Nor does he seem to have been as good a soldier as Richard.
There wasn't salic law at that time and salic law was implemented to prevent Joan of Navarre from ruling France due to doubts to her legitemacy.
Henry the Young King had the Opportunity to be the King of France in the same way as Edward III (if he marries Joan of Navarre) because he married the daughter of the King of France, he could rule France by the right of his wife.
Well Salic law certainly existed at the time. It dates from the time of the Salian Franks, and Clovis I around 500 AD. And was endorsed and emended by no other than Charlemagne. The application to Joan of Navarre was simply because the death of John I was the first time there had been a succession crisis since the beginnings of the Capet dynasty. The question simply hadn't arisen, but the law was well known to the lawyers.
The reality of the world being what it is, I suspect that any marriage between the heirs of England and France would need to be enforced at the swords point.
And she was only four years old when John I died, so her succession would have to be dependent on the championship of one or more of the great French magnates. Not to mention that she was generally considered illegitimate! A child, bad enough "Woe to the realm whose King is a child "; a girl child, worse; a putative girl child - the only reason she would get magnate support would be if one of the magnates intended to marry her off to his son.Which means no marriage to Edw III .
Oh. I see. Henry jeune /did/ marry a sister of Philip Augustus. But the marriage was barren. And she was a younger sister, so even if Salic Law be ignored she would not inherit France. And Henry jeune could not marry her older sister since they were both daughters of his own mother , Eleanor of Aquitaine! That would be too big a dispensation even for a helpful Pope.
Not going to fly, for either scenario, I'm afraid.
The reality of the world being what it is, I suspect that any marriage between the heirs of England and France would need to be enforced at the swords point.
And she was only four years old when John I died, so her succession would have to be dependent on the championship of one or more of the great French magnates. Not to mention that she was generally considered illegitimate! A child, bad enough "Woe to the realm whose King is a child "; a girl child, worse; a putative girl child - the only reason she would get magnate support would be if one of the magnates intended to marry her off to his son.Which means no marriage to Edw III .
Oh. I see. Henry jeune /did/ marry a sister of Philip Augustus. But the marriage was barren. And she was a younger sister, so even if Salic Law be ignored she would not inherit France. And Henry jeune could not marry her older sister since they were both daughters of his own mother , Eleanor of Aquitaine! That would be too big a dispensation even for a helpful Pope.
Not going to fly, for either scenario, I'm afraid.
Salic law was not the point since it originally concerned private property, not crowns and politics.
The french nobles, urban elites and jurists invented political salic law when they needed to : in order to prevent a foreign king becoming king of France.
But the point is that the french crown was at that time elective. The french king just made sure his firstborn son would succeed to him by having him elected before his own (the father) death.
Philip Augustus was elected. But after him and until the end of the dynasty, it was no longer nor necessary nor possible to formally elect the king because Philip Augustus had made the king and the Capetian dynasty so powerful that nobody would have dared to challenge his succession to the throne.
But if the direct line went extinct at the end of the reign of Louis VII, then the onlu solution would have been to elect a new king.
Forget about Henry the younger. Marrying a daughter of Louis VII gave him no more right than any other husband of the other daughters of Louis VII.
The most probable successor would be a capetian : either from the other grandsons of Louis VI, or from the capetian dukes of Burgundy.
The french nobles, urban elites and jurists invented political salic law when they needed to : in order to prevent a foreign king becoming king of France.
But the point is that the french crown was at that time elective. The french king just made sure his firstborn son would succeed to him by having him elected before his own (the father) death.
Philip Augustus was elected. But after him and until the end of the dynasty, it was no longer nor necessary nor possible to formally elect the king because Philip Augustus had made the king and the Capetian dynasty so powerful that nobody would have dared to challenge his succession to the throne.
But if the direct line went extinct at the end of the reign of Louis VII, then the onlu solution would have been to elect a new king.
Forget about Henry the younger. Marrying a daughter of Louis VII gave him no more right than any other husband of the other daughters of Louis VII.
The most probable successor would be a capetian : either from the other grandsons of Louis VI, or from the capetian dukes of Burgundy.
Ah, no. Salic Law was most certainly not "invented when needed". It was an acknowledged and received body of law from the 6th century on. And royal succession was certainly within its ambit (not that royal succession was regarded as essentially different to private succession under feudal law).
The restriction on descent in the female line was well known in C12.
The Latin is barbarous, but the meaning clear. A woman could not inherit. Whether a male could inherit THROUGH a woman, might be argued. As it was, by the Angevins. And, it might be questioned whether France was indeed "de terra vero Salica". But the Law itself was not some frippery of the moment. Bracton himself was familiar with it (though perhaps did not entirely approve of it- he was at heart a civilian) . And feudal law was very exact on matters of heritance. The crown was a fief. Like any other fief. Rules of inheritance of fiefs could not just be made up on the spot.
To say that the Crown of France was elective in the 13th century is much as if to say the Crown of England is elective at the present day. Strictly speaking it is true. The election of Almighty God, whereby he gives his Anointed to the people. But, as the Royal Martyr said "England were never yet an elective monarchy, it were an hereditary monarchy this thousand years". So , likewise, France.
Nobles of France, and England, might be willing to bend the strict canons of descent when the nominal heir was manifestly unsuitable. But to speak of Philip Augustus being elected is nonsense. Philip was king by indubitable right of feudal law.
The restriction on descent in the female line was well known in C12.
From the Emendata of Charlemagne said:
The Latin is barbarous, but the meaning clear. A woman could not inherit. Whether a male could inherit THROUGH a woman, might be argued. As it was, by the Angevins. And, it might be questioned whether France was indeed "de terra vero Salica". But the Law itself was not some frippery of the moment. Bracton himself was familiar with it (though perhaps did not entirely approve of it- he was at heart a civilian) . And feudal law was very exact on matters of heritance. The crown was a fief. Like any other fief. Rules of inheritance of fiefs could not just be made up on the spot.
To say that the Crown of France was elective in the 13th century is much as if to say the Crown of England is elective at the present day. Strictly speaking it is true. The election of Almighty God, whereby he gives his Anointed to the people. But, as the Royal Martyr said "England were never yet an elective monarchy, it were an hereditary monarchy this thousand years". So , likewise, France.
Nobles of France, and England, might be willing to bend the strict canons of descent when the nominal heir was manifestly unsuitable. But to speak of Philip Augustus being elected is nonsense. Philip was king by indubitable right of feudal law.
Well, just check : the kings of France were elected by an assembly of the 12 most important nobles (half civilian nobles and half cleric nobles), not by God. This is a historical fact. And it was custom law.
Did you ever read any biography of Philip Augustus ? Did you only read something about what was called the fundamental laws of the kingdom of France ?
In England it was different because England was the personal conquest of William of Normandy.
But Philip Augustus was formally elected and crowned king when his father was still alive.
Still check and read about the salic law. The original salic law only concerned private property. The university of Paris just found it was a good solution to find a legal trick in order to formally justify the choice of the person they prefered as king.
You want counter-examples ? Brunnehilde and Fredegonde were regent and actual rulers of their rival frank kingdoms.
You want Edward III becoming king of France ? The only way is having him be seen as french by the french nobility. Have him live a good part of his childhood at the french royal palace, with his cousins. Have him be the favourite nephew of his uncles Philip VI and Charles IV.
For example have Philip VI engage one of his daughters. Have Charles IV (who was in the hand of his Valois uncle, which helped Philip VI of Valois who married one of the daughters of Charles IV have a strong support in 1328) have no surviving daughter marrying Philip of Valois.
This might then work. Given the strength of the french kingdom and the french king since Philip Augustus, the only way for a foreign king to keep big possessions in France was to be accepted as the legitimate king of France and to give the proof that he would give precedence to hte kingdom of France over his original kingdom.
France was 4 to 5 times as populated as England : this is the main point.
Did you ever read any biography of Philip Augustus ? Did you only read something about what was called the fundamental laws of the kingdom of France ?
In England it was different because England was the personal conquest of William of Normandy.
But Philip Augustus was formally elected and crowned king when his father was still alive.
Still check and read about the salic law. The original salic law only concerned private property. The university of Paris just found it was a good solution to find a legal trick in order to formally justify the choice of the person they prefered as king.
You want counter-examples ? Brunnehilde and Fredegonde were regent and actual rulers of their rival frank kingdoms.
You want Edward III becoming king of France ? The only way is having him be seen as french by the french nobility. Have him live a good part of his childhood at the french royal palace, with his cousins. Have him be the favourite nephew of his uncles Philip VI and Charles IV.
For example have Philip VI engage one of his daughters. Have Charles IV (who was in the hand of his Valois uncle, which helped Philip VI of Valois who married one of the daughters of Charles IV have a strong support in 1328) have no surviving daughter marrying Philip of Valois.
This might then work. Given the strength of the french kingdom and the french king since Philip Augustus, the only way for a foreign king to keep big possessions in France was to be accepted as the legitimate king of France and to give the proof that he would give precedence to hte kingdom of France over his original kingdom.
France was 4 to 5 times as populated as England : this is the main point.
Here is what is probably the authoritative work on the Salic Law. It does not seem to agree with you.
I think you are confusing attornment (which was part of the mediaeval succession process) .with the modern idea of election. When the men of the middle ages spoke of 'election' they meant it in the sense that theologians do - as in " Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." (Westminster Confessional). Not what modern folk mean by the word, someone being voted into power. God elected Princes. Not men.
The practice of "electing" the sons of Kings in their fathers lifetime was common. It was a role copy of the King of the Romans/ Holy Roman Emperor paradigm. "If the Emperor has his vassals recognise his son as his successor , maybe I should do the same". Difference was, that the HRE really /was/ elective.
I don't think this thread is about Edw III becoming King of France. It is about retaining the Angevin possession in the area now known as northern France.
I think you are confusing attornment (which was part of the mediaeval succession process) .with the modern idea of election. When the men of the middle ages spoke of 'election' they meant it in the sense that theologians do - as in " Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." (Westminster Confessional). Not what modern folk mean by the word, someone being voted into power. God elected Princes. Not men.
The practice of "electing" the sons of Kings in their fathers lifetime was common. It was a role copy of the King of the Romans/ Holy Roman Emperor paradigm. "If the Emperor has his vassals recognise his son as his successor , maybe I should do the same". Difference was, that the HRE really /was/ elective.
I don't think this thread is about Edw III becoming King of France. It is about retaining the Angevin possession in the area now known as northern France.