13th Century English Revolution

Would it be possible for the rebellion led by Simon De Montfort to result in either a severely limited monarchy (with the king as a mere figurehead) or an outright Republic?
 
A republic in the 13th century is not possible in England. Making the King a figurehead with actual power in the hands of a Baronial Council is certainly feasible with a weak king like Henry III, but not as a permanent constitutional change. OTL Edward I would certainly have not abided by such control and would challenge it immediately. And he certainly would have found supporters among the nobility leading to another civil war. However, if ITTL Henry's successor is an easily controled weakling like OTL Edward II it could make Baronial control seem permanent. But still an illusion short of an elective monarchy or some way to ensure that only sots and imbeciles sit on the throne. Any capable and strong-willed monarch will find a way to assert himself and reestablish Monarchial rule.
 
In the 13C if a baron were powerful enough to reduce the king to such a condition, he would be powerful enough to depose the king and seize the throne for himself.

Why would nobles create a republic?
 
In the 13C if a baron were powerful enough to reduce the king to such a condition, he would be powerful enough to depose the king and seize the throne for himself.

Why would nobles create a republic?

Republicanism and hereditary nobility are not mutually exclusive.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
In the 13C if a baron were powerful enough to reduce the king to such a condition, he would be powerful enough to depose the king and seize the throne for himself.

Why would nobles create a republic?

To secure their own political power as a class through a limited franchise, without letting a pesky king use their royal prerogative to overrule them. And for someone like no real dynastic claim, such as Simon de Montfort, to achieve a position of influence. Republic need not mean democracy, and the Second Barons' War certainly seemed to be headed in the direction of a figurehead king if not a republic outright, if the Barons had won.
 

katchen

Banned
I suppose King John was hated enough to where the Barons, had they felt sure eonough of themselves, could have deposed John and established an elected monarchy similar to the Holy Roman Empire. IE. Parliament (the House of Lords) elects the King from one of their number whenever the King dies similar to the Holy Roman Empire. Or an English King could attempt to bring England into the HRE.
Or for that matter, Charlemange could have conqured the British Isles INTO the Holy Roman Empire if at some point he decided to march west before he marched east to the Oder. Saxon England was relatively weak in the 800s and could likely not have stood against Charlemange. Nor likely could Wales, Scotland or Ireland. The British Isles could wind p in the HRE via the Low Countries after Charlemange's death rather than part of France.
 
I suppose King John was hated enough to where the Barons, had they felt sure eonough of themselves, could have deposed John and established an elected monarchy similar to the Holy Roman Empire. IE. Parliament (the House of Lords) elects the King from one of their number whenever the King dies similar to the Holy Roman Empire. Or an English King could attempt to bring England into the HRE.
Or for that matter, Charlemange could have conqured the British Isles INTO the Holy Roman Empire if at some point he decided to march west before he marched east to the Oder. Saxon England was relatively weak in the 800s and could likely not have stood against Charlemange. Nor likely could Wales, Scotland or Ireland. The British Isles could wind p in the HRE via the Low Countries after Charlemange's death rather than part of France.

Did Charlemange have truly blue water capable ships available? Otherwise what you are suggesting would take far more time than Charlemagne would have to live. Consider the problems of trying to fight in the harsh terrain of Northern Saxon England, Scotland, Wales, and in terms of LOCs, Ireland.
 
A republic in the 13th century is not possible in England...

This. I must remind you, people, that in medieval times (whatever western or Islamic), the political reference weren't nationalism (for short of...well, existing) or state. It was religion and dynasties. Period.

You could, of course, takeover other dynasties but usually need at least the support of religion or a popularity for your side already established.

Its not as though there were no republics at the time.
Yes. Urban republics, little city-states that in the XIII century were territorialy as much important than a township. Socially, they were at best the result of alliance between local nobility (aristocratic or milites) and urban elites : however, it was more for southern Europe where north european communes were usually exempt of aristocratic social support.
How England appeared as a unified kingdom, with his administrative structure prevent to pass easily from kingdom to "hey, kings are useless after all". It would be like asking "Why the pope didn't converted himself to Protestantism, after all it existed", it's about not giving a damn about context.

And for someone like no real dynastic claim, such as Simon de Montfort, to achieve a position of influence. Republic need not mean democracy, and the Second Barons' War certainly seemed to be headed in the direction of a figurehead king if not a republic outright, if the Barons had won.

Overthrowing a king is bad enough. They served, in a feudal system, to legitimize the great feudal lords powers. Getting rid of him, even for becoming king yourself was giving room to your own vassals : "If he can do that, why can't I do the same for him"?

And of course, eventually, getting rid of feudal kingship would only open a can of worms with people taking advantage of this, other using a pretender to their own profit, and the general shitstorm that follows.

Another point : you seem to consider medieval aristocracy as an united brand. Simply said, they weren't. They can have similar general interests, but their own interests often (well, almost always) are contradictory.
Without king, the popular (by popular, I obviously mean milites, ministerii and commoner elites) support that Monfort managed to gather would probably vanish eventually.
Not only the legitimacy of feudal lords as such would have been hugely broken (prepare for a revolt making Jacquerie and Great Raising as models of ponderation), but even the personal support for Monfort would do as well, as the causes of reject of royal decision (and not reject of kingship) would eventually look less important and bad in regard of said shitstorm.

Oh, and of course, Monfort DID had a dynastic claim. Marrying, even secretly, the daughter of John Lackland, would give thim a tiny (really tiny) possibility (the english crown sucession being far less stable than french one, by exemple).

Finally, it would be Christmas for Louis IX of France and/or sucessors. Having the opportunity to looking good, helping his english vassal, plus the opportunity to meddle in English matters.

Did Charlemange have truly blue water capable ships available? Otherwise what you are suggesting would take far more time than Charlemagne would have to live. Consider the problems of trying to fight in the harsh terrain of Northern Saxon England, Scotland, Wales, and in terms of LOCs, Ireland.
Saying nothing about the most important question : why?
There was much more interesting targets at first, that weren't Christians (that would have more or less contradicted the legitimacy base of Carolingians) richer or more annoying (as Saxons).
For his sons, they were too busy with Vikings, Hungrians and...well, fighting each other to even considers having a foot on England.
 
A republic in the 13th century is not possible in England. Making the King a figurehead with actual power in the hands of a Baronial Council is certainly feasible with a weak king like Henry III, but not as a permanent constitutional change. OTL Edward I would certainly have not abided by such control and would challenge it immediately. And he certainly would have found supporters among the nobility leading to another civil war. However, if ITTL Henry's successor is an easily controled weakling like OTL Edward II it could make Baronial control seem permanent. But still an illusion short of an elective monarchy or some way to ensure that only sots and imbeciles sit on the throne. Any capable and strong-willed monarch will find a way to assert himself and reestablish Monarchial rule.
That problem could easily be solved by killing Edward I. It would not be outside the realm of possibility for Edward to die in one of the battles during the war, perhaps if Eversham somehow went the other way Edward might die along with many other royalist leaders while Henry III himself remains a captive of de Montfort's.
 
Top