I've always had a soft spot for Pedro the Cruel (aka Pedro the Just) of Castile. His victory over Henry of Trastamara would have monumental consequences both for Iberian Kingdoms and for Europe in general (I will list some of them further down).
While there are a few threads on the forum discussing the possibility of his victory over Henry they are all rather short and usually either discuss earlier PoDs (e. g. Joan of England surviving and marrying Pedro) or more decisive battle of Najera (with Henry being killed or captured in battle). The former is definitely plausible, but would alter 1350s and 1360s quite a bit, while the later doesn’t strike me as all that consequential (after all in 1367 Henry has a son as well as two brothers who could potentially lead the Trastamara party to victory even without Henry).
IMHO the main reason for Pedro losing the Castilian Civil War were not particular mistakes on his part or successful moves on Henry’s, but rather the military dominance of du Guesclin’s routier army over Castilian one. So, if we want Pedro to retain his throne, we need to either occupy or counterbalance routiers until the Caroline Phase of the Hundred Years’ War starts. The latter was successfully done IOTL with the help of Edward the Black Prince in 1367, but the relations between Pedro and Edward quickly deteriorated mainly because Edward didn’t receive his pay as per treaty of Libourne and thus Pedro was left to his own devices in 1368-1369 and was defeated and killed. Presumably Pedro didn’t pay Edward simply because he was unable to raise such an enormous sum.
The PoD I present is Pedro marrying Philippa of Clarence as part of negotiations with English. Philippa is the eldest granddaughter of Edward III and has just reached marriageable age in 1367. IOTL, she married Edmund Mortimer but of course king of Castile is a way more prestigious match (there are conflicting records about when exactly Philippa was betrothed to Edmund IOTL, but for the purpose of this PoD let us pick the latest option 1368).
Pedro on the other hand is in his thirties, has not legitimate issue and both his wife and his beloved mistress are dead since 1361.
The purpose of the marriage is twofold: firstly, to bring Castile closer to England and secondly to be a neat way to subsidize Edward’s expedition. I am not sure how large Philippa’s dowry was IOTL, but presumably if she has a royal marriage, it definitely should be quite large. So Edward’s army can at least partly be subsidized with his niece’s dowry.
I am not sure if such an arrangement is plausible, but if it does happen consequences are massive. Presumably if the relationship between the Black Prince and Pedro is unstrained (or at least is significantly better than IOTL), the second invasion of Henry and de Guesclin would seem futile and probably doesn’t happen. In 1369 the Caroline Phase begins (even if IOTL Charles V summoned Edward because he already realized that Castille would fall to Henry, which is debatable, ITTL Charles presumably understands that Edward would help Pedro no matter what and thus he might as well go on with his plan). Thus, Henry would have very little military support and will stand no chance against Pedro and his allies.
Possible consequences of the PoD:
1. Castille itself has a radically different social structure.
a. IOTL Henry and his heirs had to give out large parts of royal domain for their supporters from lesser nobility that formed new aristocratic elites (since pedristas were active until mid-1380s Trastamaras needed their continous support for an extended period of time and thus royal domain suffered greatly). Quoting from Teofilo F. Ruiz-Spain's Centuries of Crisis 1300 - 1474:
The new dynasty came to power having given lavish grants and titles to supporting nobles, and territorial concessions to their royal allies in France and the Crown of Aragon. Henry II’s initial hold on the crown was a tentative one. New men came to the fore demanding a share of the victory, and the king also granted them substantial privileges and lands. Historians have long argued that the first decades of Trastámara rule witnessed the disappearance of the old nobility, a nobility dating to the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, and its replacement by a new nobility. In reality, the transformation was signaled by the rise to prominence of lesser branches of the great old noble houses, with a few new lesser nobles rising to very high status. This promotion in rank was tied to the granting of large estates and to extensive royal privileges. Such erosion of the royal domain and authority had, in turn, disastrous consequences for Castile over the next hundred years. Not unlike France or England in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the rise of the nobility led to waves of violence and instability. Securely grounded in their new economic power and high standing, the Castilian nobility challenged royal authority and even coveted, as was the case in the reigns of John II and Henry IV, the control of the Crown.
Pedro unlike Henry is a legitimate king and thus doesn’t need such drastic measures to obtain necessary support.
b. In the first half of XIV century one of the main pillars of royal power was municipal nobility (or more precisely non-noble municipal knights). At first kings bought their support against magnates by granting municipal knights’ extensive privileges, but since the latter felt constant pressure by disenfranchised bourgeoisie, they continuously welcomed royal entrenchment in cities and thus by 1340s urban centers were under firm royal control. Once again, quote from Teofilo F. Ruiz-Spain's Centuries of Crisis 1300 - 1474:
In less than 50 years the non-noble knights monopolized municipal offices in most Castilian cities, bought most of the land around the cities, and gained control, as they did in Burgos and Avila, of the most important ecclesiastical benefices. In return the king hoped for, and often received, their military support against the magnates and access to the cities’ fiscal resources. Moreover, as the non-noble knights gained control of their respective cities, they came into conflict with those below them. Pressured from below by the disfranchised petite bourgeoisie, the non-noble knights welcomed royal interference in the affairs of the cities and, by the 1340s, the takeover of municipal administration by royal officials (the regimiento) became a political reality. For a brief period, royal control of the urban centers became one of the most significant gains of the Castilian monarchy, but then the disorders of the late fourteenth century weakened royal control anew.
IOTL many cities supported Pedro against Henry and thus were severely punished by victorious Trastamaras which greatly weakened both cities themselves and royal control over them.
Thus, if Pedro retains his throne Castile is a lot more centralized with a strong royal power based on resources from a reasonably large royal domain as well as prosperous cities under firm royal control which is a stark contrast to magnate-dominated early Trastamara Spain.
2. Pedro IOTL had a firm alliance with Portugal. His uncle Pedro of Portugal helped him in his wars against both Peter of Aragon and Henry of Trastamara. When Pedro of Castile was slain, it was Portugal that was the main base for anti-Trastamara action in Iberia. Ferdinand of Portugal, Pedro of Castile’s cousin waged several wars against Trastamaras (first claiming the crown of Castile in his own right, later supporting John of Gaunt’s claim).
Pedro of course is a very strong clamant to Portuguese throne in his own right, but he can further cement his claim by marrying Beatrice of Portugal to his son (who presumably should be born in early to mid 1370s roughly similarly to OTL Roger Mortimer birth date and thus ideally match Beatrice).
Moreover, before Trastamara coup Portugal and Castile had the same allies and aligned economic interests (both benefited greatly from maritime trade between Northern Europe and Mediterranean, both had Genoa as a most important trade partner and England as a main ally outside of Iberia). IOTL when Portuguese interregnum happened the nobility was split with a significant portion of it supporting Trastamara claim. It were municipal elites of 4 main Portuguese cities (Lisbon, Porto, Coimba and Evora) that bankrolled anti-Trastamara faction. The main reason for these was economic (i. e. retention of profitable maritime trade with Genoa, England etc.) as well as desire to cancel Ferdinand’s pro-noble reforms (which were conducted in order to fund extremely expensive campaigns against Castille).
If IOTL Pedro continues to rule Castille, Portuguese municipal elites have no reason to dislike the union with neighboring kingdom (because Ferdinan’s reforms would be unnecessary and Castile and Portugal economic and political interest would continue to be closely aligned) and thus we can encounter Castilian-Portugese union in 1380s.
3. Pedro had an advantage in the War of Two Peters against Peter of Aragon. Presumably if Henry of Trastamara is no longer a threat, he can continue pressing Aragon for economic, political (most important one being the termination of Trastamara support) and perhaps even territorial concessions (getting back Alicante, Elche and Orihuela as part of kingdom of Murcia)
4. If Pedro marries Philippa, presumably John Gaunt and Edmund Langley would have alternative brides. IOTL the marriages happened to establish a claim over kingdom of Castile. ITTL Pedro would have legitimate heirs related to English royal family without such a match and thus daughters of Peter with at best debatable legitimacy are not ideal brides for English prices. Does anybody have suggestions who John and Edmund would marry in such a scenario?
5. Perhaps the most consequential consequence of the PoD is alternative Caroline Phase of HYW. The battle of La Rochelle that crippled English fleet IOTL was won by Castilian navy. If Castile continues to be an English ally, Castilian navy either doesn’t participate or participates on English side. Thus, English are able to get significant reinforcements to Poitou and Saintonge as well as £12,000 that were supposed to be used to pay for service of local troops (IOTL this booty fell to the hands of Castilians). This potentially a least allows English to retain control over Poitou, Saintonge and Angoumois and perhaps even reverse some French gains made in previous years.
Moreover with English fleet still dominating the waters around France, the main reason for the disastrous Great Chevauchee of 1373 is gone. ITTL, it makes a lot more sense to bring reinforcements by see, as was done in previous years.
Thus, the Caroline Phase of HYW can be radically altered in 1372-1373, perhaps to the extent of it being a draw rather than decisive French victory.
All these consequences seem rather juicy, but I am not sure if the marriage of Pedro and Philippa is all that plausible. What do you guys think? (of course if you have comments on consequences of PoD rather than the PoD itself, I would be happy to hear those too).
While there are a few threads on the forum discussing the possibility of his victory over Henry they are all rather short and usually either discuss earlier PoDs (e. g. Joan of England surviving and marrying Pedro) or more decisive battle of Najera (with Henry being killed or captured in battle). The former is definitely plausible, but would alter 1350s and 1360s quite a bit, while the later doesn’t strike me as all that consequential (after all in 1367 Henry has a son as well as two brothers who could potentially lead the Trastamara party to victory even without Henry).
IMHO the main reason for Pedro losing the Castilian Civil War were not particular mistakes on his part or successful moves on Henry’s, but rather the military dominance of du Guesclin’s routier army over Castilian one. So, if we want Pedro to retain his throne, we need to either occupy or counterbalance routiers until the Caroline Phase of the Hundred Years’ War starts. The latter was successfully done IOTL with the help of Edward the Black Prince in 1367, but the relations between Pedro and Edward quickly deteriorated mainly because Edward didn’t receive his pay as per treaty of Libourne and thus Pedro was left to his own devices in 1368-1369 and was defeated and killed. Presumably Pedro didn’t pay Edward simply because he was unable to raise such an enormous sum.
The PoD I present is Pedro marrying Philippa of Clarence as part of negotiations with English. Philippa is the eldest granddaughter of Edward III and has just reached marriageable age in 1367. IOTL, she married Edmund Mortimer but of course king of Castile is a way more prestigious match (there are conflicting records about when exactly Philippa was betrothed to Edmund IOTL, but for the purpose of this PoD let us pick the latest option 1368).
Pedro on the other hand is in his thirties, has not legitimate issue and both his wife and his beloved mistress are dead since 1361.
The purpose of the marriage is twofold: firstly, to bring Castile closer to England and secondly to be a neat way to subsidize Edward’s expedition. I am not sure how large Philippa’s dowry was IOTL, but presumably if she has a royal marriage, it definitely should be quite large. So Edward’s army can at least partly be subsidized with his niece’s dowry.
I am not sure if such an arrangement is plausible, but if it does happen consequences are massive. Presumably if the relationship between the Black Prince and Pedro is unstrained (or at least is significantly better than IOTL), the second invasion of Henry and de Guesclin would seem futile and probably doesn’t happen. In 1369 the Caroline Phase begins (even if IOTL Charles V summoned Edward because he already realized that Castille would fall to Henry, which is debatable, ITTL Charles presumably understands that Edward would help Pedro no matter what and thus he might as well go on with his plan). Thus, Henry would have very little military support and will stand no chance against Pedro and his allies.
Possible consequences of the PoD:
1. Castille itself has a radically different social structure.
a. IOTL Henry and his heirs had to give out large parts of royal domain for their supporters from lesser nobility that formed new aristocratic elites (since pedristas were active until mid-1380s Trastamaras needed their continous support for an extended period of time and thus royal domain suffered greatly). Quoting from Teofilo F. Ruiz-Spain's Centuries of Crisis 1300 - 1474:
The new dynasty came to power having given lavish grants and titles to supporting nobles, and territorial concessions to their royal allies in France and the Crown of Aragon. Henry II’s initial hold on the crown was a tentative one. New men came to the fore demanding a share of the victory, and the king also granted them substantial privileges and lands. Historians have long argued that the first decades of Trastámara rule witnessed the disappearance of the old nobility, a nobility dating to the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, and its replacement by a new nobility. In reality, the transformation was signaled by the rise to prominence of lesser branches of the great old noble houses, with a few new lesser nobles rising to very high status. This promotion in rank was tied to the granting of large estates and to extensive royal privileges. Such erosion of the royal domain and authority had, in turn, disastrous consequences for Castile over the next hundred years. Not unlike France or England in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the rise of the nobility led to waves of violence and instability. Securely grounded in their new economic power and high standing, the Castilian nobility challenged royal authority and even coveted, as was the case in the reigns of John II and Henry IV, the control of the Crown.
Pedro unlike Henry is a legitimate king and thus doesn’t need such drastic measures to obtain necessary support.
b. In the first half of XIV century one of the main pillars of royal power was municipal nobility (or more precisely non-noble municipal knights). At first kings bought their support against magnates by granting municipal knights’ extensive privileges, but since the latter felt constant pressure by disenfranchised bourgeoisie, they continuously welcomed royal entrenchment in cities and thus by 1340s urban centers were under firm royal control. Once again, quote from Teofilo F. Ruiz-Spain's Centuries of Crisis 1300 - 1474:
In less than 50 years the non-noble knights monopolized municipal offices in most Castilian cities, bought most of the land around the cities, and gained control, as they did in Burgos and Avila, of the most important ecclesiastical benefices. In return the king hoped for, and often received, their military support against the magnates and access to the cities’ fiscal resources. Moreover, as the non-noble knights gained control of their respective cities, they came into conflict with those below them. Pressured from below by the disfranchised petite bourgeoisie, the non-noble knights welcomed royal interference in the affairs of the cities and, by the 1340s, the takeover of municipal administration by royal officials (the regimiento) became a political reality. For a brief period, royal control of the urban centers became one of the most significant gains of the Castilian monarchy, but then the disorders of the late fourteenth century weakened royal control anew.
IOTL many cities supported Pedro against Henry and thus were severely punished by victorious Trastamaras which greatly weakened both cities themselves and royal control over them.
Thus, if Pedro retains his throne Castile is a lot more centralized with a strong royal power based on resources from a reasonably large royal domain as well as prosperous cities under firm royal control which is a stark contrast to magnate-dominated early Trastamara Spain.
2. Pedro IOTL had a firm alliance with Portugal. His uncle Pedro of Portugal helped him in his wars against both Peter of Aragon and Henry of Trastamara. When Pedro of Castile was slain, it was Portugal that was the main base for anti-Trastamara action in Iberia. Ferdinand of Portugal, Pedro of Castile’s cousin waged several wars against Trastamaras (first claiming the crown of Castile in his own right, later supporting John of Gaunt’s claim).
Pedro of course is a very strong clamant to Portuguese throne in his own right, but he can further cement his claim by marrying Beatrice of Portugal to his son (who presumably should be born in early to mid 1370s roughly similarly to OTL Roger Mortimer birth date and thus ideally match Beatrice).
Moreover, before Trastamara coup Portugal and Castile had the same allies and aligned economic interests (both benefited greatly from maritime trade between Northern Europe and Mediterranean, both had Genoa as a most important trade partner and England as a main ally outside of Iberia). IOTL when Portuguese interregnum happened the nobility was split with a significant portion of it supporting Trastamara claim. It were municipal elites of 4 main Portuguese cities (Lisbon, Porto, Coimba and Evora) that bankrolled anti-Trastamara faction. The main reason for these was economic (i. e. retention of profitable maritime trade with Genoa, England etc.) as well as desire to cancel Ferdinand’s pro-noble reforms (which were conducted in order to fund extremely expensive campaigns against Castille).
If IOTL Pedro continues to rule Castille, Portuguese municipal elites have no reason to dislike the union with neighboring kingdom (because Ferdinan’s reforms would be unnecessary and Castile and Portugal economic and political interest would continue to be closely aligned) and thus we can encounter Castilian-Portugese union in 1380s.
3. Pedro had an advantage in the War of Two Peters against Peter of Aragon. Presumably if Henry of Trastamara is no longer a threat, he can continue pressing Aragon for economic, political (most important one being the termination of Trastamara support) and perhaps even territorial concessions (getting back Alicante, Elche and Orihuela as part of kingdom of Murcia)
4. If Pedro marries Philippa, presumably John Gaunt and Edmund Langley would have alternative brides. IOTL the marriages happened to establish a claim over kingdom of Castile. ITTL Pedro would have legitimate heirs related to English royal family without such a match and thus daughters of Peter with at best debatable legitimacy are not ideal brides for English prices. Does anybody have suggestions who John and Edmund would marry in such a scenario?
5. Perhaps the most consequential consequence of the PoD is alternative Caroline Phase of HYW. The battle of La Rochelle that crippled English fleet IOTL was won by Castilian navy. If Castile continues to be an English ally, Castilian navy either doesn’t participate or participates on English side. Thus, English are able to get significant reinforcements to Poitou and Saintonge as well as £12,000 that were supposed to be used to pay for service of local troops (IOTL this booty fell to the hands of Castilians). This potentially a least allows English to retain control over Poitou, Saintonge and Angoumois and perhaps even reverse some French gains made in previous years.
Moreover with English fleet still dominating the waters around France, the main reason for the disastrous Great Chevauchee of 1373 is gone. ITTL, it makes a lot more sense to bring reinforcements by see, as was done in previous years.
Thus, the Caroline Phase of HYW can be radically altered in 1372-1373, perhaps to the extent of it being a draw rather than decisive French victory.
All these consequences seem rather juicy, but I am not sure if the marriage of Pedro and Philippa is all that plausible. What do you guys think? (of course if you have comments on consequences of PoD rather than the PoD itself, I would be happy to hear those too).
