Age of the Angevins

A scenario that I've worked on and off on throughout the last couple of years involves two key P.o.D.s from our timeline.

The first P.o.D.

What if Richard the Lionheart of England dies in 1186 instead of his younger brother Geoffrey?

In this Alternate Time Line Geoffrey becomes King of England in 1189 when King Henry II dies (he died in 1189 in OTL). As a result of this I have England becoming more involved with European affairs and exploration of the world.

I have an English settlement on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States by 1238. Also England lends more support to Aragon and that country takes over the entire Iberian Peninsula and part of Northwestern Africa.

The Second P.o.D.

What if Alexios II Komnenos or Alexius II Comnenus Emperor of the Byzantine Empire managed to avoid being assassinated in 1183 and this led to the death of Andronicus Commenus who was the real voice behind the throne. Alexius II goes on to consolidate his power and position. As a result the Byzantine Empire is not plagued by in-fighting and tyrannical Princes and proves to be more successful than in OTL.

Any thoughts, comments, ideas, etc... that people want to share would be greatly appreciated.
 
Both PODs are really interesting. Regarding the first one, in OTL Geoffrey and his wife Constance, Duchess of Brittany, had two children who survived infancy. The elder was Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany. The younger was Arthur, Duke of Brittany. So in your ATL there is the possibility of Arthur becoming King of England.

King Philip Augustus of France would go to war with Geoffrey I of England for the Angevin lands in France.

An English settlement on the Eastern seaboard of the United States by 1238 is very intriguing.
 
I have an English settlement on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States by 1238.

This seems to me difficult to obtain by the sailing tech of the day and age; either you'd have to go island hopping in the North Atlantic which would mean a cut off settlement by the time of the Little Ice age or go by the passage winds in the central Atlantic which makes for a voyage into the unknown in a nutshell.
But it could of course be interesting and the first could be pulled off by some arrangement with the King of Norway > Kingdom of England-Norway?

And it wouldn't be on the seaboard of the United States (although I do know what you mean ;) ) :D
 
Island hopping and treaties

Island hopping is exactly what I had in mind in order for the current ships of this time period to reach the eastern seaboard of the "New World". I have the ships first heading north of Scotland to where present day Faroe Island is located.

From there some sail Northeast and others Northwest. The one's going Northeast find some islands north of Norway but are turned back because of the harsh artic conditions. The ships heading Northwest find the island of "Iceland", then "Greenland", and finally hit the Northern part of the "New World" in what would be the Northeastern part of Canada in our world.

As for the war with France I was sorely tempted to have France wiped out by the English initially. But then cold logic reared up and I was forced to concede that having England control so much territory was to far of a stretch. So I took another route and went with a treaty between Phillip and Geoffrey that involved settling the land disputes.

In OTL Geoffrey was a highly intelligent individual and probably would have made one of the best leaders of the world we would have ever seen. I think that he would have opted for a slow withdrawl from mainland Europe to avoid fighting expensive wars with France.

The way things currently stand, I have France regaining all of their Northern, Western, and Southern territory minus the area of Brittany in the extreme Northwest of France. I believe that Geoffrey would have maintained that area because he grew up there and there would already be an established beach head in case a war with France occurred.
 
Island hopping is exactly what I had in mind in order for the current ships of this time period to reach the eastern seaboard of the "New World". I have the ships first heading north of Scotland to where present day Faroe Island is located.

From there some sail Northeast and others Northwest. The one's going Northeast find some islands north of Norway but are turned back because of the harsh artic conditions. The ships heading Northwest find the island of "Iceland", then "Greenland", and finally hit the Northern part of the "New World" in what would be the Northeastern part of Canada in our world.

Ehem - Faeroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland was part of the Kingdom of Norway at this time. As was the Orkney's and Shetland Islands.
Hence my Kingdom of England-Norway?
 
Oh dear Lord, an Angevin Empire TL! I've waited so long! Thank you!

Though I have to say, arctic warrior has it right about the colonies - those islands belong to Norway, as do the Orkney Islands and Western Isles of Scotland, at this point, and the Norwegians, scenting an English scheme, would refuse the English all docking rights. Without the mercantile framework of Elizabethan/Stuart England, colonies would have to be run by the crown rather than adventurous businessmen, too, and before the big colony boom at around 1640, monarchs really were surprisingly against making colonies - they really didn't seem worth the effort. Also, as this is before Marco Polo's stories have reached England, there'd be little desire to reach China (the Indus), the real reason behind forming colonies. And finally, early colonies need a LOT of constant replenishment and if you can't have ships sailing the Atlantic at least once a year (which in this TL you can't, not in 1238 anyway) then the colonies are doomed to failure. Really, there's a reason why no proper American colonies existed until the 17th century...Before that and the colonies are distinctly waivering on ASB.
 
Last edited:
all valid points

I would like to thank everyone for the feedback thus far.

In regards to the English Settlement being cut off due to the Little Ice Age, I do not know how much of an issue this would be, or if there would even be an issue at all. There is no exact start date, or consenus among scholars, about the start of the Little Ice Age (LIA). You did have glacial advance in North America and naturally pack ice. But the increase in pack ice starts at about 1250 which is 12 years after the colony was founded. Of course one could argue that 1046 was also the date the LIA started because the climate change was starting to be noticed. There is also the year of 1150 as a potential start date.

I'll be honest and say that I am nowhere near an expert on the LIA. Based on what I've read online from various webpages the major effects of the LIA did not start until the mid 1350s or 1450s. So again I am not sure how this would impact the events in my timeline, especially if there is no agreed start date on the LIA or early effects of the LIA.

Maybe I'm running in circles here. In my opinion I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence to pick a year that the LIA would start having effects in my timeline. Any date chosen is going to have consequences for my timeline. If I start the LIA early then the events in my timeline are already going to be changed. If I start the LIA at a later time, the plausibility of the events in my timeline occuring may be reduced.

I don't know, I'm tempted to ignore the issue, but that might run the risk of making the timeline ASB and I sure as hell want to avoid that.

What do you guys think? Should the LIA be a factor or not? The evidence is sketchy, but at the same time ignoring the LIA all together might not be the best idea. :confused::confused::confused:


In regards to the Mongols, I have them getting dealt with by a joint Byzantine Empire and Khwarezmian Empire army.
 
I would advise you not to ignore the Little Ice Age (LIA) because to do so would put you into ASB territory. Beside it reached its coldest levels during the 16th and 17th century when there was European settlement in North America.

The LIA would not have stopped ships sailing across the North Atlantic to and from the English Settlement during the months from May to September.
 
You shouldn't ignore the LIA. Even if there is no fixed start the last ships reached the settlements in southern Greenland about 1410 - the Eastern Settlement.
Communications with the Western Settlement - Nuuk Fiord area had been lost about 1350 due to the pack ice and attacks by the Skrealings. But at this year it was found to be abandoned.
The Catholic Church was present in Greenland the first bishop Erik Gnupson Upsi was taking up office 1121.
1407 is a man burned accused of witchcraft and the last wedding is reported to have taken place 1408 and the last ship is reported 1410.
Greenland was a freestate till 1261 when it became part of the Kingdom of Norway. 1389 it came to the Kingdom of Denmark.

The next visitor to the west coast of Greenland is Frobisher 1578.
But by then better ship type - the Caravel had been taken into use.
An earlier expedition by Caravel had been the Pothorst expedition - joint Danish-Norwegian/Portuguese 1478 that reached Greenland but couldn't land due to the pack ice.

With this info in hand my estimate would be that any settlement to the west would be inaccessible from about 1410 to the adaption of the Caravel 14XX which would mean about 60-70 years. As in the case of Greenland you'd have to have something worthwhile to maintain the communications across the "frozen" pond.
And then there is the question of scurbia etc. during the long voyage.

Island hopping through the Norwegian empire would not be a possibility unless an agreement is reached with the Norwegians and due to the Church being present - the bishop Upsi is recorded to have visited Vinland - you couldn't just sneak it around!
 
As for the war with France I was sorely tempted to have France wiped out by the English initially. But then cold logic reared up and I was forced to concede that having England control so much territory was to far of a stretch. So I took another route and went with a treaty between Phillip and Geoffrey that involved settling the land disputes.

In OTL Geoffrey was a highly intelligent individual and probably would have made one of the best leaders of the world we would have ever seen. I think that he would have opted for a slow withdrawl from mainland Europe to avoid fighting expensive wars with France.

The way things currently stand, I have France regaining all of their Northern, Western, and Southern territory minus the area of Brittany in the extreme Northwest of France. I believe that Geoffrey would have maintained that area because he grew up there and there would already be an established beach head in case a war with France occurred.

chessfiend

I'm not sure that a monarch, even a powerful one, would be willing to make such concessions while a weak one would find it even more difficult to try. Don't forget a lot of the problems between the two monarchies were that nobles had land in both areas and hence there was a lot of intrigue and confusion over lines of control. [This was also a problem in relations between England and Scotland a bit later]. To give up the vast areas controlled by the Angevins would mean causing problems for a lot of powerful nobles, and hence for the monarchs themselves. Also don't forget that the accessorial lands of the dynasty were in northern and western France. They can't really be thought of as an English dynasty and definitely wouldn't have viewed themselves that way. Their lands in France were far more important than those in England, Ireland and parts of Wales.

Also, as well as prestige, power and wealth was virtually centred on land in this time period. There was very little wealth and influence from trade or commerce. Northern France - as is now - contained some of the richest territory in Europe at the time and Aquitania is also important.

Another factor is that while there is a French monarchy, albeit weak at the time, there is relatively little of a French nation and a lot of strong regional identities.

As such I don't think it is an either or question. Couple easily see some fairly extended but often pretty irrelevant, conflicts which see the revival of a French monarchy, especially in the east of the kingdom but with regional identities keeping much of the north and west separate under an Angevin dynasty. Definitely can't see Gerald giving up such vast areas without a fight.

Steve
 
stevep has it right, though I think he misses the wider issue: unlike some countries of the era, the French already have an idea of what they constitute to be "France". While borders fluctuate here and there, and this is considered natural, losing large chunks of "France" is too much for them. That's not to say this couldn't happen, and a number of historical treaties show that French Kings did consign to England large portions of land. What didn't happen, however, was the English right to that land going unchallenged. The French would always find a reason to break their agreement, so long as they thought they had a chance of victory. In the same way, the English didn't stop invading France when they lost all their winnings until the 1500s. If you want to write a TL in which England ultimately settles its right to the Angevin Empire (admirable endeavour, by my reckoning :D), then you need to find the right way to derive an agreement between France and England over the territories. This is going to mean internecine conflict between France and England for a few centuries, during which borders will be in flux. The French aren't going to give up on those territories without a lot of fighting. On the other hand, this can be used to your advantage, as one badly-timed war for France can reverse any progress they make, so it's not all a case of pushing back England. I think really the only way you can have the sovereignty of the French duchies ultimately settled is to have a TL where, after maybe as much as 300-400 years the French haven't managed to restore control of the duchies, and then you need to make the French nobles start agitating for the King(s) to stop going to war with England over land they view as a lost cause. Until there is a lot of proof on the table that the French are just wasting lives and resources fighting over the Angevin lands, they aren't going to give up.

By the way, just quickly on the subject of the little Ice Age. Sure, don't ignore it. But it shouldn't be enough to interfere with colonialism. John Cabot's 1496 expedition to Newfoundland should make this clear: his men saw ice, but Cabot pressed on knowing the route to be quite sailable. There will always be problems, but nothing insurmountable. I believe that the Gulf Stream ensures a flow of water around the major Atlantic coast of Canada that breaks up all large ice accumulations there, and the ice in the north Atlantic would never spread south of about Greenland, the water just flows too much really. The main reason that the Thames used to freeze over was just the lack of water flow, the water stayed still for long enough to freeze. That said, I still question the ASB nature of early American colonies.
 
Top