AHC:Balkanised France

With a PoD between 1100 and 1453, balkanised France into at least three different countries. Go ahead!
 
Last edited:
With a PoD between 1100 and 1453, balkanised France into at least three different countries. Go ahead!

Okay. So, Charles the Bold manages to not antagonize the Habsburg with his haughty manner; the Emperor does not flee (!) and there is an earlier marriage between the two houses and the Charles becomes the ruler of the Kingdom of Burgundy.

With Habsburg support, the anti-Charles alliance doesn't work out, Lorraine is brought to heel as is Switzerland. Although not the most fertile guy, Charles strikes it rich, and his son (Philip, of course) is born, securing the succession.

Burgundy actively works to destablize the French throne, with the result the Provence ends up becoming and independent political entity (also securing the survival of Occitan to the modern day).

Another route: The Normans don't conquer England and turn their strength and attention towards France. They manage to secure the entirety of the coast, and maybe even spread into the lowlands. Although they aren't able to gain the throne, they act to destabilize it, and act as power brokers (becomine something again to Clann Douglas in Scotland). If a *Comman Weal emerges in France, they King is beaten and become as weak as the OTL Holy Roman Empire; France decays from that point onward.
 
Totally irrealistic, Dan.

An earlier alliance with Frederick III of Habsburg would change nothing since this emperor had almost no means and no power.

Frederick could not decide alone to make Charles king : he needed the approval of a majority of the imperial Diet. And the majority opposed the overambitious Charles becoming king in the HRE.

Charles was unable to beat the swiss, si he would not have defeated a coalition of swiss, lorrains and other allies opposing his ambitions in Lotharingia.
 
Totally irrealistic, Dan.

An earlier alliance with Frederick III of Habsburg would change nothing since this emperor had almost no means and no power.

Frederick could not decide alone to make Charles king : he needed the approval of a majority of the imperial Diet. And the majority opposed the overambitious Charles becoming king in the HRE.

Charles was unable to beat the swiss, si he would not have defeated a coalition of swiss, lorrains and other allies opposing his ambitions in Lotharingia.


Well, the crowning was scheduled to happen, until Frederick III fled, apparently due to his anger over Charles' haughty attitude. This would seem to indicate that Frederick did, in fact, have the power, or had secured the power at the very least.

Also, the alliance I mentioned, was OTL; and, you are right, Charles was unable to overcome his opponents. However, in an ATL where he had better relations with the Habsburgs, things could well have done differently. In addition to the rebels of Lorraine and the Swiss (largely spurred on by the King of France), Charles also had to deal with Sigismund, a Habsburg, who was angered by Charles refusal to sell him back lands in Alcsase. Better relations with the Habsburgs would had stopped that latter conflict, and may have helped his overcome his opponents.

So, as you can see, its not unrealistic at all. Possibly a bit unlikely, knowing what we know of Charles' character, but not unrealistic.

But, very well, if you still disagree with that: A different sperm reaches the egg that would be Charles the Bold. This alternate *Charles is a poliitcal genius, as well as being compitent on the military field. He manages to play England, France and th Habsburgs off one another, secured a Kingdom for himself, and manages to produce several doughty sons to carry on in his stead.
 
A more successful English leadership (or less successful French) one during the 1430s-'50s, leading to the situation stabilising in a partition: Henry VI & heirs rule in & north of the lower Loire valley, the Dauphin Charles & his heirs rule to the south of that, and Burgundy is de facto -- and maybe even de jure -- separate as well.
 
It much less a matter of leadership than a matter of means.

France had much more means than England. After 1429-1431, England´s massive presence was doomed. One of the other reasons being that the Lancastrians did not behave as another rival french dynasty but as englishmen defending the continental ambitions of their english king.

Given the demographies, either the Lancastrians accepted to be assimilated, or they ended being rejected.
 
Guys

How about a settlement ~1360 where Edward III renounces his claim to the French throne but is recognised as ruler of Aquitainia as an independent state from France along with Brittany as an English protectorate. Also he get a sizeable fiscal settlement in return for the liberty of King John. [Instead of OTL John dying in captivity and the money being raised for his ransom instead helping to revitalise the French economy and monarchy]. As a result there is a period of peace but with France impoverished and also disrupted by plagues of unemployed mercenaries.

Later conflicts and attempts by Paris to centralise power and its rivals to defy them leads to Burgundy and Flanders and possibly also Langudoc becoming fully independence of the central French government as well as Aquitania maintaining its status, whether still in union with England or not.

Steve
 
Thons basically what Edward III obtained at the treaty of Bretigny.

And France reconquered almost all lost territories in about 10 years with only a few thousand men.

In this age, you are talking about Japan conquering China.
 
Thons basically what Edward III obtained at the treaty of Bretigny.

And France reconquered almost all lost territories in about 10 years with only a few thousand men.

In this age, you are talking about Japan conquering China.

Matteo

I think you're replying to me? From what I've read there was nearly an agreement on the terms I mentioned. However Edward started to get greedy and thinking of also regaining Normandy, Maine and the like. This delayed matters until John died in captivity. Things then fell apart and the war resumed but there had been no agreement and the money being raised for John's ransom went to reorganising the French army. Also after Poiters Edward had rather taken his foot off the peddle and spent a lot of time partying rather than perusing the war, thinking it had been pretty much won. This helped the French position recover.

If Edward had pushed his advantage to get an agreement before John died but not been so greedy then he could have had a formal peace which, while the French monarchy would no doubt tried to challenge it later, would have been more difficult to change.

Steve
 
Steve, you can't get anything you want in exchange for an hostage, even if this hostage is a king.

There is a price over which the other part won't deal.

Remember Charles V and Francis I over Burgundy.

Even of John II had lived longer, France's rulers would not have let themselves paralyzed forever.

The key points are :
- France was fighting on its soil and had much more resources than England,
- and besides Edward III had not behaved like a french noble reclaiming the principalities of his french angevin ancestors but as a foreigner using violence against the locals. What he did in Normandy just before the battle of Crécy did much to undermine any serions claim to the french throne and any serious chance to have the locals say "hey ! We like this guy who is the descendant of out formal and legal angevin-norman rulers."

What I mean is that John II would have been discarded if and when France needed to discard him.
 
Philip Augustus needs to be killed off but at the same time we have to stop the Angevins taking over France. Maybe Bouvines would do it?
 
Philip Augustus needs to be killed off but at the same time we have to stop the Angevins taking over France. Maybe Bouvines would do it?

You can do just about anything to Philip without worrying about the Angevins taking France - no claim to the French throne by Richard or John (or Henry Fitzempress).

And unlike Crusader Kings, they can't just make one up.
 

katchen

Banned
What WOULD the Cathar lords have had to have done to keep Langedoc free of Catholic oppression? Invite the Muslims in and ostensibly convert to Islam?
 
How about this:

Charles of Flanders lives a bit longer leading to Dietrich/Thierry being married to Matilda of England uniting Flanders with Normandy
Eleanor of Aquitaine is born male and so less linked into France
The Anjous remain minor nobles
France undergoes several weak monarchs to the extent that France Proper is (re)absorbed into the Holy Roman Empire (the Crown of West Francia becoming another Imperial title/crown) , Aquitaine is an independent kingdom, and Brittany gains independence under Norman-Flemish-English orbit.
 
France undergoes several weak monarchs to the extent that France Proper is (re)absorbed into the Holy Roman Empire (the Crown of West Francia becoming another Imperial title/crown) , Aquitaine is an independent kingdom, and Brittany gains independence under Norman-Flemish-English orbit.

That would require the HRE to be in a position to absorb France. How?

Even if the Hohenstaufen or whoever have things go swimmingly, that just means they can get their own house in order.
 
That would require the HRE to be in a position to absorb France. How?

Even if the Hohenstaufen or whoever have things go swimmingly, that just means they can get their own house in order.

Well it was just a quick off the top of the head scenario.
Perhaps there's a remnant France here then.
 
Top