Born a King; The Life and Times of John the Posthumous
- Thread starter Space Oddity
- Start date
1323-6: Flanders
1323-1326: THE GOLDEN LION OF FLANDERS AND NEVERS
"Louis Dampierre would succeed to the Counties of Nevers and Flanders in the course of a single year, following the deaths of his father and grandfather. Young, handsome, and above all a dedicated Francophile, he would come to rule in Flanders a land that had frequently seen itself as a realm apart from France--even an enemy to France. The results would be explosive.
"In less than a year of Louis becoming Count of Flanders, revolts had started. Part of this was due to the exceptionally poor harvest that year, but another cause was the Count's severe raising of taxes in the cities, threatening the livelihood of the entire region. It was the first worrisome sign of Louis' great flaw as a ruler, an inability to understand the needs of the greatest province under his command. He would not even come to Flanders until the beginning of 1324, at which point the rebellion was well established, under the leadership of Willem de Deken, the mayor of Bruges, and formerly well-to-do smallholders like Jacques Peyte and Nicholas Zannekin. Lacking an army, Louis attemped negotiation, promising to deal with the rebels' complaints. A rough treaty was made, and the matter seemed to be resolving.
"Then the very next year, Louis destroyed whatever good will remained by hamfistedly attempting to arrest six Bruges' burghers. The rebels took to arms again, managing to seize the Count himself. For the next six months, he was their captive, with Flanders under the rule of Louis' uncle Robert--by this time, almost wholly in the rebels' camp. For a brief time, with France preoccupied by matters with England, it truly looked as if victory was in the rebels' grasp.
"Instead it all slipped away. England's swift defeat was followed by excommunication for the rebellious Flemings. While Charles of Valois' death kept him from bringing his plans to 'break this rabble lot' to fruition, his son's speedy ascent to the office of Regent kept the threat up. Louis was released shortly before Christmas, and following this, swore to forgive Bruges and the rebels. The ban was lifted. Another treaty was put in place, with both sides swearing to keep it.
"It would last just over a year.[1]"
This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century, Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] And yes, this is all roughly OTL. Louis of Nevers truly was terrible at handling Flanders.
"Louis Dampierre would succeed to the Counties of Nevers and Flanders in the course of a single year, following the deaths of his father and grandfather. Young, handsome, and above all a dedicated Francophile, he would come to rule in Flanders a land that had frequently seen itself as a realm apart from France--even an enemy to France. The results would be explosive.
"In less than a year of Louis becoming Count of Flanders, revolts had started. Part of this was due to the exceptionally poor harvest that year, but another cause was the Count's severe raising of taxes in the cities, threatening the livelihood of the entire region. It was the first worrisome sign of Louis' great flaw as a ruler, an inability to understand the needs of the greatest province under his command. He would not even come to Flanders until the beginning of 1324, at which point the rebellion was well established, under the leadership of Willem de Deken, the mayor of Bruges, and formerly well-to-do smallholders like Jacques Peyte and Nicholas Zannekin. Lacking an army, Louis attemped negotiation, promising to deal with the rebels' complaints. A rough treaty was made, and the matter seemed to be resolving.
"Then the very next year, Louis destroyed whatever good will remained by hamfistedly attempting to arrest six Bruges' burghers. The rebels took to arms again, managing to seize the Count himself. For the next six months, he was their captive, with Flanders under the rule of Louis' uncle Robert--by this time, almost wholly in the rebels' camp. For a brief time, with France preoccupied by matters with England, it truly looked as if victory was in the rebels' grasp.
"Instead it all slipped away. England's swift defeat was followed by excommunication for the rebellious Flemings. While Charles of Valois' death kept him from bringing his plans to 'break this rabble lot' to fruition, his son's speedy ascent to the office of Regent kept the threat up. Louis was released shortly before Christmas, and following this, swore to forgive Bruges and the rebels. The ban was lifted. Another treaty was put in place, with both sides swearing to keep it.
"It would last just over a year.[1]"
This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century, Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] And yes, this is all roughly OTL. Louis of Nevers truly was terrible at handling Flanders.
Last edited:
Nope. Robert may have been a flaky adventurer, but he wasn't utterly inept.
All hail the glorious Anglo-Bavarian empire!
(Or perhaps I look a bit too far ahead)
So, that's all the ongoing collapse of public order in Flanders gets out of you people?
Trust me, this is going to be very significant.
Well, Flanders is one of those awkward places where it could fall under HRE or under French jurisdiction... a breakdown of public order is bound to cause geopolitical ripples.
And for historical materialists like me, there's the class angle... a revolt -- and future revolts -- made mainly of smallholders and burghers has a lot of different potential outcomes, especially given its proximity to a highly-urbanized region (the Low Countries/Rhine) and a political formation where cities were historically strong (the HRE, which within itself technically had both the Italian cities and the eventual Hansa)....
And for historical materialists like me, there's the class angle... a revolt -- and future revolts -- made mainly of smallholders and burghers has a lot of different potential outcomes, especially given its proximity to a highly-urbanized region (the Low Countries/Rhine) and a political formation where cities were historically strong (the HRE, which within itself technically had both the Italian cities and the eventual Hansa)....
1326-7: England and France
1326-7: ALL OVER BUT THE SHOUTING
"In London, the effect of the short war was electric. The arms of England has been so utterly humiliated that none could recall the like--not even Bannockburn had seen so poor a showing. Edward raged against his brother's vanity and stupidity, which had provoked an out and out war even as Edward had tried to pour oil upon the waters with further peace offerings. The Lords and Commons raged against Hugh the Elder, claiming the Earl of Winchester[1] had neglected to send reinforcements that could have saved the Earl of Kent--Winchester raged back that he had had neither the money, the time, nor the spare men, especially for "so poor a cause". The matter of Scotland and Edward's "shameful truce" with Robert the Bruce[2] was brought up by various lords dispossessed of their Scottish lands--Edward insisted that it had been forced on him by treacherous followers and a lack of funds brought on by Parliament. Accounts of miracles circulated at the tombs of his late first wife, and Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, especially remarkable for the latter, who had hardly been a notably pious man in life[3]. Edward and the Despensers were held in such low regard 'dogs in the street were better thought of', Froissart would declare, years later--an attempt to kill the King and his favorites by necromancy was even recorded.
"Any hopes of aid from the Emperor were gone--Louis would not expend political capital on a lost cause, especially when he was vulnerable in other matters. All that could be done was hope that the French would be relatively lenient in the peace. Fortunately, the Earl of Pembroke's previous suggestions that the King was now willing to pay homage had been listened to, though the man's unfortunate death the previous year during his mission[4] did not lend itself to a speedy resolution. After lengthy negotiations, a compromise was agreed upon--the Prince of Wales would be invested as Duke of Aquitaine, go to France and pay homage to King John, after which the restoration of England's Gascony possessions would be affected, save for the Agenais. It was, from Edward's point of view, a near total collapse. France not only recieved its wished for homage, but Gascony had been stripped of its most defensible frontier. And yet seeing as the possibility of losing it all hanged over his head, it was all he could do.
"Edward, Prince of Wales, arrived in France in early 1327 to pay homage for his father, with instructions from his father to be certain to pay homage only, not to pledge fealty. It seemed a simple matter..."
--A Magnificent Counterfeit: the Life and Reign of Edward II of England, Jason Soames 1994
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Hugh the Elder was made Earl of Winchester in 1322, both IOTL and ITTL.
[2] IOTL and ITTL, following the unraveling of his 1322 campaign, one of Edward's subordinates entered into unauthorized peace discussions with the Bruce. While said subordinate was executed when this was discovered, Edward did agree to a thirteen year truce. IOTL, it was ultimately not followed.
[3] The Earl of Lancaster's astonishing cult is IOTL as well.
[4] IOTL, he died in 1324, during the necessary diplomatic mission there. It was... an awkward situation.
"In London, the effect of the short war was electric. The arms of England has been so utterly humiliated that none could recall the like--not even Bannockburn had seen so poor a showing. Edward raged against his brother's vanity and stupidity, which had provoked an out and out war even as Edward had tried to pour oil upon the waters with further peace offerings. The Lords and Commons raged against Hugh the Elder, claiming the Earl of Winchester[1] had neglected to send reinforcements that could have saved the Earl of Kent--Winchester raged back that he had had neither the money, the time, nor the spare men, especially for "so poor a cause". The matter of Scotland and Edward's "shameful truce" with Robert the Bruce[2] was brought up by various lords dispossessed of their Scottish lands--Edward insisted that it had been forced on him by treacherous followers and a lack of funds brought on by Parliament. Accounts of miracles circulated at the tombs of his late first wife, and Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, especially remarkable for the latter, who had hardly been a notably pious man in life[3]. Edward and the Despensers were held in such low regard 'dogs in the street were better thought of', Froissart would declare, years later--an attempt to kill the King and his favorites by necromancy was even recorded.
"Any hopes of aid from the Emperor were gone--Louis would not expend political capital on a lost cause, especially when he was vulnerable in other matters. All that could be done was hope that the French would be relatively lenient in the peace. Fortunately, the Earl of Pembroke's previous suggestions that the King was now willing to pay homage had been listened to, though the man's unfortunate death the previous year during his mission[4] did not lend itself to a speedy resolution. After lengthy negotiations, a compromise was agreed upon--the Prince of Wales would be invested as Duke of Aquitaine, go to France and pay homage to King John, after which the restoration of England's Gascony possessions would be affected, save for the Agenais. It was, from Edward's point of view, a near total collapse. France not only recieved its wished for homage, but Gascony had been stripped of its most defensible frontier. And yet seeing as the possibility of losing it all hanged over his head, it was all he could do.
"Edward, Prince of Wales, arrived in France in early 1327 to pay homage for his father, with instructions from his father to be certain to pay homage only, not to pledge fealty. It seemed a simple matter..."
--A Magnificent Counterfeit: the Life and Reign of Edward II of England, Jason Soames 1994
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Hugh the Elder was made Earl of Winchester in 1322, both IOTL and ITTL.
[2] IOTL and ITTL, following the unraveling of his 1322 campaign, one of Edward's subordinates entered into unauthorized peace discussions with the Bruce. While said subordinate was executed when this was discovered, Edward did agree to a thirteen year truce. IOTL, it was ultimately not followed.
[3] The Earl of Lancaster's astonishing cult is IOTL as well.
[4] IOTL, he died in 1324, during the necessary diplomatic mission there. It was... an awkward situation.
OTL when Edward went to France to pay homage he ended up staying, as I recall, at least until Isabella and Mortimer were ready to return. Obviously it can't be exactly the same because Isabella is dead, but obviously something is going to happen. Something big.
With Flanders all messed up, a boy king of France and a young Edward, Prince of Wales, together, it should be very interesting to see what that something is.
With Flanders all messed up, a boy king of France and a young Edward, Prince of Wales, together, it should be very interesting to see what that something is.
Hey, it's only sending a fifteen year old to deal with a ten year old. What could possibly go wrong?
1326-7: France
1326-7: PHILIP OF VALOIS TAKES THE HELM, AND DOESN'T
"Historians have been unkind to Philip and his regency, largely at the prompting of his harshest contemporary critic--King John himself. 'A very poor fellow in most matters' sniffs John in one letter to his son-in-law... 'and utterly undeserving of the great trust that was vested in him.' 'It is no wonder that [[John of Valois]] is so unworthy a man, and so ruled by women, for his father was the same,' he notes in another one. 'I am very ill-served by my family, for those problems of mine that do not stem from my cousins, they stem from my brother, Philip of Valois, and his wretched son,' he supposedly said to Jean Froissart[1], a theme on which he later enlarged...
" 'I hold that it is the greatest ill that has been done to this kingdom, that we had Gascony in the palms of our hands, and we returned all but a portion of it, all at the insistence of my brother, who trusted in the lying tongues and endless flattery of the English. It was a wicked and a wrongful thing he did then, and we have suffered for it, these past forty years.' So he said--or so Froissart has him say to the Duke of Normandy in one of the most-quoted passages in the Chronicles. Too many people take the King of France at his words. There was, after all, little chance that Philip, a powerful feudal magnate in his own right, would contribute to the utter defeat of one of his fellows even (or perhaps especially not) if that fellow was the King of England, anymore than his predecessors would have.
"Indeed, Philip's handling of the peace negotiations of the War of Saint-Sardos were generally well-praised at the time, as was his finally settling certain money matters of the Queen Mother's that both his father and Philip of Poitiers had allowed to drag on. Where Philip the Tall and Charles of Valois had both had a worrying tendency to 'play the king', Philip of Valois was humble, considerate and thoughtful, a man who listened to the opinions of others--perhaps sometimes a bit too much.
"It is most likely the source of John's disdain--aside from his notable troubles with Philip's son--was largely based on one incident, one of the most famed in history. In early 1327, Edward, Prince of Wales arrived to pay his homage as was agreed, in what was to be his first meeting with his cousin. The young Prince arrived to pay his homage bearing a sword and with a helmet upon his head[2]. While Philip prepared to ignore this breach of custom, John was livid, and demanded that Edward remove the offending items. The Prince refused. John then told Philip that he should order the Prince of Wales seized for this--Philips responded by declaring that he would not do this, because Edward was a prince, the son of a king, and John's own near kin, and if John were to make such orders when he grew to be a man for such petty reasons, he would lose honor in the eyes of all men. John sullenly went along with the Regent's response, and accepted Edward's homage, albeit with notably bad grace (which appears to have allowed the young Prince to escape the entire matter of fealty). However, it is clear from John's own words on various occasions, he never forgot this incident--the first notable occurrence to show John's famously imperious personality..."
The Blood Royal: A History of the House of Valois, by Robert Gregory (1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Famed historian, and incorrigible medieval gossip hound and celebrity hanger-on. Just imagine this version of him and John schmoozing over wine. It will cheer you up.
[2] This is a major etiquette breach in these matters. And one that Edward did IOTL when he paid homage to Philip.
"Historians have been unkind to Philip and his regency, largely at the prompting of his harshest contemporary critic--King John himself. 'A very poor fellow in most matters' sniffs John in one letter to his son-in-law... 'and utterly undeserving of the great trust that was vested in him.' 'It is no wonder that [[John of Valois]] is so unworthy a man, and so ruled by women, for his father was the same,' he notes in another one. 'I am very ill-served by my family, for those problems of mine that do not stem from my cousins, they stem from my brother, Philip of Valois, and his wretched son,' he supposedly said to Jean Froissart[1], a theme on which he later enlarged...
" 'I hold that it is the greatest ill that has been done to this kingdom, that we had Gascony in the palms of our hands, and we returned all but a portion of it, all at the insistence of my brother, who trusted in the lying tongues and endless flattery of the English. It was a wicked and a wrongful thing he did then, and we have suffered for it, these past forty years.' So he said--or so Froissart has him say to the Duke of Normandy in one of the most-quoted passages in the Chronicles. Too many people take the King of France at his words. There was, after all, little chance that Philip, a powerful feudal magnate in his own right, would contribute to the utter defeat of one of his fellows even (or perhaps especially not) if that fellow was the King of England, anymore than his predecessors would have.
"Indeed, Philip's handling of the peace negotiations of the War of Saint-Sardos were generally well-praised at the time, as was his finally settling certain money matters of the Queen Mother's that both his father and Philip of Poitiers had allowed to drag on. Where Philip the Tall and Charles of Valois had both had a worrying tendency to 'play the king', Philip of Valois was humble, considerate and thoughtful, a man who listened to the opinions of others--perhaps sometimes a bit too much.
"It is most likely the source of John's disdain--aside from his notable troubles with Philip's son--was largely based on one incident, one of the most famed in history. In early 1327, Edward, Prince of Wales arrived to pay his homage as was agreed, in what was to be his first meeting with his cousin. The young Prince arrived to pay his homage bearing a sword and with a helmet upon his head[2]. While Philip prepared to ignore this breach of custom, John was livid, and demanded that Edward remove the offending items. The Prince refused. John then told Philip that he should order the Prince of Wales seized for this--Philips responded by declaring that he would not do this, because Edward was a prince, the son of a king, and John's own near kin, and if John were to make such orders when he grew to be a man for such petty reasons, he would lose honor in the eyes of all men. John sullenly went along with the Regent's response, and accepted Edward's homage, albeit with notably bad grace (which appears to have allowed the young Prince to escape the entire matter of fealty). However, it is clear from John's own words on various occasions, he never forgot this incident--the first notable occurrence to show John's famously imperious personality..."
The Blood Royal: A History of the House of Valois, by Robert Gregory (1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Famed historian, and incorrigible medieval gossip hound and celebrity hanger-on. Just imagine this version of him and John schmoozing over wine. It will cheer you up.
[2] This is a major etiquette breach in these matters. And one that Edward did IOTL when he paid homage to Philip.
What, that the son of a rather notoriously stubborn king who has never not been a king in his entire life is taking after his father?
Or was it the reference to decades of strife?
Last edited:
Ehh, not much. It's Navarre. They'd like John to come to Pamplona so they can do the whole shield thing one of these days, but they're willing to wait on it.
1327-8: Flanders
1327-8: THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING. AND THAT'S JUST THEIR TEETH! *RIM SHOT*
"By early 1327, the Peace of Arques was fraying. Louis of Nevers, with typical subtlety, asked for the previously lifted ban to be reapplied, a wish that was granted--the result was the already declining good will towards his government all but collapsed. In an atmosphere of increasing violence, Louis retreated to Ghent, his last remaining stronghold in the region. For the next few months he indulged in desultory efforts to reach an accommodation, and equally desultory efforts to try and gather an army of his own. Neither went anywhere, as the rebels rearmed themselves.
"In 1328, no longer convinced Ghent could hold against his foes, Louis rushed to Paris, and begged the Crown's aid in regaining control. Philip of Valois agreed to deal with 'these unreasoning brutes'[1], and set to work gathering an army. This proved to be an easy task--the prestige of the French Crown joined with the increasingly frightening social aspect of the rebellion worked to bring soldiers from across Europe. By June, an impressive force had been gathered, including many great lords, some of whom were not even French vassals. Louis was not among them. Young King John of France was, having insisted that he wished to see 'this great undertaking'--Philip reportedly had not been fond of this idea, but his brother, Charles of Alencon, and brother-in-law, Robert of Artois had supported this young monarch in this, and Philip ultimately agreed that it would be good for morale. The army was reportedly quite large, including by some accounts over two thousand knights.
"The French attacked along the river Lys, forcing the Flemings, under the leadership of Nicholas Zannekin, to divide their forces along the line to prevent a crossing. After three days of inconclusive skirmishing, the French attempted to lure the rebels out by burning the countryside around Tournai. While initially failed, reportedly Zannekin, seeing many of the knights had taken off their armor due to the heat, launched an attack. It started well, killing the Duke of Lorraine and the Count of Boulogne[2], and wounding several other lords severely, but the counterattack destroyed the greater part of the rebel army. Meanwhile, another attack launched elsewhere was an outright failure--reportedly, King John, who witnessed the whole thing, to his dying day considered the French defense one of the most perfectly conducted military maneuvers he ever saw.
"The Battle of Tournai[3] all but crushed the rebellion in a single blow--what few forces were left were mopped up in a handful of skirmishes apparently barely worth a mention. Defeat was overwhelming--Willem de Dekken was dragged back to Paris to be executed, along with the armor of French knights the Brugeois had kept on their city gate since the Battle of Courtrai[4]. Ypres was forced to demolish its churchbell,and all three principal cities in the rebellion lost their walls. The series of deprivations and humiliations would continue well after Louis of Nevers returned to Flanders, with land and property seized and granted to loyalists. The young Count now felt secure in his rule of the bothersome domain, even if he had done little to make it so himself, and prepared for what he was certain would be the long calm period of his rule....
This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century, Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)
----------------------------------------------
[1] Reportedly, Philip's actual words describing the rebels IOTL.
[2] IOTL, only the Duke of Lorraine was killed, though the Count was severely wounded.
[3] IOTL, a similar battle became known as the Battle of Cassel.
[4] Courtrai, also called the Battle of the Golden Spurs, was one of the great humiliations of Philip IV's reign, and one of the few time a force of peasants defeated a force of knights in the Middle Ages.
"By early 1327, the Peace of Arques was fraying. Louis of Nevers, with typical subtlety, asked for the previously lifted ban to be reapplied, a wish that was granted--the result was the already declining good will towards his government all but collapsed. In an atmosphere of increasing violence, Louis retreated to Ghent, his last remaining stronghold in the region. For the next few months he indulged in desultory efforts to reach an accommodation, and equally desultory efforts to try and gather an army of his own. Neither went anywhere, as the rebels rearmed themselves.
"In 1328, no longer convinced Ghent could hold against his foes, Louis rushed to Paris, and begged the Crown's aid in regaining control. Philip of Valois agreed to deal with 'these unreasoning brutes'[1], and set to work gathering an army. This proved to be an easy task--the prestige of the French Crown joined with the increasingly frightening social aspect of the rebellion worked to bring soldiers from across Europe. By June, an impressive force had been gathered, including many great lords, some of whom were not even French vassals. Louis was not among them. Young King John of France was, having insisted that he wished to see 'this great undertaking'--Philip reportedly had not been fond of this idea, but his brother, Charles of Alencon, and brother-in-law, Robert of Artois had supported this young monarch in this, and Philip ultimately agreed that it would be good for morale. The army was reportedly quite large, including by some accounts over two thousand knights.
"The French attacked along the river Lys, forcing the Flemings, under the leadership of Nicholas Zannekin, to divide their forces along the line to prevent a crossing. After three days of inconclusive skirmishing, the French attempted to lure the rebels out by burning the countryside around Tournai. While initially failed, reportedly Zannekin, seeing many of the knights had taken off their armor due to the heat, launched an attack. It started well, killing the Duke of Lorraine and the Count of Boulogne[2], and wounding several other lords severely, but the counterattack destroyed the greater part of the rebel army. Meanwhile, another attack launched elsewhere was an outright failure--reportedly, King John, who witnessed the whole thing, to his dying day considered the French defense one of the most perfectly conducted military maneuvers he ever saw.
"The Battle of Tournai[3] all but crushed the rebellion in a single blow--what few forces were left were mopped up in a handful of skirmishes apparently barely worth a mention. Defeat was overwhelming--Willem de Dekken was dragged back to Paris to be executed, along with the armor of French knights the Brugeois had kept on their city gate since the Battle of Courtrai[4]. Ypres was forced to demolish its churchbell,and all three principal cities in the rebellion lost their walls. The series of deprivations and humiliations would continue well after Louis of Nevers returned to Flanders, with land and property seized and granted to loyalists. The young Count now felt secure in his rule of the bothersome domain, even if he had done little to make it so himself, and prepared for what he was certain would be the long calm period of his rule....
This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century, Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)
----------------------------------------------
[1] Reportedly, Philip's actual words describing the rebels IOTL.
[2] IOTL, only the Duke of Lorraine was killed, though the Count was severely wounded.
[3] IOTL, a similar battle became known as the Battle of Cassel.
[4] Courtrai, also called the Battle of the Golden Spurs, was one of the great humiliations of Philip IV's reign, and one of the few time a force of peasants defeated a force of knights in the Middle Ages.