AHC: Lasting Angevin Empire

I would think Aquitaine is the worst bit to get rid of - it's historically and legally distinct from France, and has a lot of local loyalty. It also reaches South and East with its own vassals in feudal agreements.
 
IIRC, Philip already had title "King of Spain" but this did not necessarily mean a complete uniformity of all administrative institutions within the kingdom. OTOH, AFAIK, Phillip was at least working toward that goal.
Well, just to be pedantic, there wasn't a Kingdom of Spain yet anymore than James I of England VI of Scotland (and I of Ireland) had a Kingdom of Great Britain. Notably in the Catholic League's secret Treaty of Joinville Phillip wasn't called King of Spain but of Castile, Aragon, etcetera.
 
If you want a lasting Angevin Empire, you somehow need to get rid of Prince John, as he was the one who was mostly responsible for pissing away England’s French possessions.
 
Well, just to be pedantic, there wasn't a Kingdom of Spain yet anymore than James I of England VI of Scotland (and I of Ireland) had a Kingdom of Great Britain. Notably in the Catholic League's secret Treaty of Joinville Phillip wasn't called King of Spain but of Castile, Aragon, etcetera.

Being pedantic is fine: quite often terminological sloppiness results in confusions and misunderstandings. Yes, formally, Spain as a single unified state came into being de jure only after the Nueva Planta decrees of 1707, in other words, after the Hapsburgs.
 
If you want a lasting Angevin Empire, you somehow need to get rid of Prince John, as he was the one who was mostly responsible for pissing away England’s French possessions.

And you need to get rid of his elder brother who destroyed most of what his father did and squandered all money he could squeeze out of his subjects. John inherited mess and crisis.
 
And you need to get rid of his elder brother who destroyed most of what his father did and squandered all money he could squeeze out of his subjects. John inherited mess and crisis.
Absolutely. It's interesting that the popular view of all the Richards seems opposite to what they were actually like!
 
In regards to the whole uniformity thing, France itself wasn't that uniform. And this is centuries later:

shepherd-c-146-147.jpg
 
Woah, another thread that I can be contrarian in!

Typically, my suggestion is to take advantage of the disempowered minorities who, to an extent had become quite loyal to the Angevin - notably the Gascons, Normans, and later on of course, the English.

Effectively you need to do what all conquerers do, from Alexander through Rome - settle large numbers of loyal subjects in small cities to ensure you have a strong "middle class", in this case an army of professional soldiers, bureaucrats, merchants and others.

Plus, you'd want these cities to control the rivers, which for the time are the great arteries for this Empire, rather than N-S roads. However, there are cities that area already in these positions (Paris, Bordeaux, etc) - in which case you need to effectively set up "English/Gascon/Norman" quarters in cities that control the most important locations outside of actual castles.

If you can have those loyal minorities effectively control the economics of the realm, then there is a benefit to both those minorities in learning local languages, but also those locals learning English as a working language - which helps breach the idea of a seperate France, whilst not pissing off what is the working power base of the Angevin.

The most interesting possibility of this is that those minorities, or at least the minor English nobles in this "middle class" of lower gentry and merchants will certainly want to have the same privileges as their counterparts in England, which IMO will lead to a number of regional Parliaments. London, Bordeaux, Paris, Toulouse being possible splits - dividing mainland France into at least 3 Parliaments with conflicting agendas, and the English one (and another for Scotland and English if they are ever conquered). This is a bit of a mess, but if they take the roles of Imperial Circles the HRE would develop later then they make the governance of this Empire much easier.

As to a capital? No idea. I'd say London is the most secure, leaving "Toulouse" a bit distant from the Crown, making Bordeaux a better option for control.

A problem with what I've outline however is that doing ll this does weaken the crown - which makes me think that you'd see those Quarters being directly the possession of the Crown, or pay taxes directly to the Crown. (Huh, Crown Quarters might work as a name).

Aaanyway, thought dump done. Feel free to tear me apart.
 
Woah, another thread that I can be contrarian in!

Typically, my suggestion is to take advantage of the disempowered minorities who, to an extent had become quite loyal to the Angevin - notably the Gascons, Normans, and later on of course, the English.

How exactly the Normans ended up as disempowered if most of the English nobility had been the Normans?

Effectively you need to do what all conquerers do, from Alexander through Rome - settle large numbers of loyal subjects in small cities to ensure you have a strong "middle class", in this case an army of professional soldiers, bureaucrats, merchants and others.

Unlike the cases of Alexander and the Rome, most of the land in Angevine empire belonged to somebody and king could not just start your resettlement program on the lands of his vassals. The next obvious question is who are these "loyal subjects" and how to distinguish them from not too loyal ones? Anyway, direct parallels between the Antiquity and Medieval societies are risky, at best.

Then, the whole "middle class" idea sounds a little bit anachronistic. You are talking XII century, it is still a "lance-based" warfare and "professional soldiers" are the knights (with their followers) who are not a "middle class". Maintaining a significant standing army was a very expensive thing even few centuries later. One of the 1st standing armies of the late Middle Ages were French compagnies d'ordonnance (still lance-based) established at the end of the 100YW. By 1445, France had 15 compagnies, for an army of 9,000 men, of which 6,000 were combatants and 3,000 non-combatants. France was probably the richest state of that time and a special tax was introduced to provide maintenance of that army.

AFAIK, Henry II could not get beyond "scutage", money paid by the English barons who did not want to fight in France. Obviously, this was not a solid or predictable financial base and, anyway, it was working only in England.

For your schema you'll need seriously revolutionize XII century warfare, making it infantry-heavy, and to provide Henry with a reliable source of money to finance this "super-new model". :)
 
How exactly the Normans ended up as disempowered if most of the English nobility had been the Normans?

Under Plantegnet Rule, and only really the Nobility. I'm talking the demographic as a whole. Compared to the importance of the Cosmopolitaine under Valois they were less well off. Other than that I was stringing cultures of use together, so my bad!

Unlike the cases of Alexander and the Rome, most of the land in Angevine empire belonged to somebody and king could not just start your resettlement program on the lands of his vassals. The next obvious question is who are these "loyal subjects" and how to distinguish them from not too loyal ones? Anyway, direct parallels between the Antiquity and Medieval societies are risky, at best.

Oh, certainly. It'd have to involve the confiscation of lands from those who refused to swear fealty, and then taking every opportunity to do so. As to whom, it would (in theory, maybe less so in reality) be those minorities that the King saw as loyal, the Gascons, Normans, English - but with their loyalty encouraged by the fact that they'd have a higher level of freedom and wealth in these settlements than as serfs, and free from seigneurial privileges if they were free peasants.

As for identification? I'll admit that it isn't easy, but as I'm putting forward creating a Free Class, or "Middle Class" analogue, you could do a number of things to ensure it. One is offering to soldiers that served, followed by a system of sponsorship. I.e. you sponsor someone wanting to join, so on and so forth, with a system of shared culpability. Its a possible way to build this group, but I wasn't trying to be so explicit. I was referring to having a demographic that is freer than peasants and fulfils roles similar to burghers, mercenaries/professional soldiers, magistrates, etc, with the benefits of those positions being an incentive for loyalty.

I agree that the parallels can't be directly applied as the systems involved are different, but I was trying to communicate the idea QUICKLY, if imprecisely.

Then, the whole "middle class" idea sounds a little bit anachronistic. You are talking XII century, it is still a "lance-based" warfare and "professional soldiers" are the knights (with their followers) who are not a "middle class". Maintaining a significant standing army was a very expensive thing even few centuries later. One of the 1st standing armies of the late Middle Ages were French compagnies d'ordonnance (still lance-based) established at the end of the 100YW. By 1445, France had 15 compagnies, for an army of 9,000 men, of which 6,000 were combatants and 3,000 non-combatants. France was probably the richest state of that time and a special tax was introduced to provide maintenance of that army.

It was totally anachronistic, but was meant as a way to outline a space between peasants and nobles.

That style of warfare may be largely true for France, but in England that had been changing quite a bit. Mercenaries and Familia Regis were increasingly more important. This idea of the Familia Regis and Mercenaries forming a backbone of Royal Power IOTL led to standing armies, majorly expanding this as a process of securing Royal Power in France and England seems perfectly reasonable.

Now, the problem with mercenaries is still a problem, but I could see value in Plantagnets supporting Anglo-French mercenaries being able to make money abroad - in exchange for charters and status, even agreements to never fight against the Crown, but earn a stipend that even applied when they had no other work, but also having the mercenaries provide a small cut (say 5-15%) to the Crown. Basing these companies in Crown Quarters would create plenty of jobs for locals and imports from smithing, bringing in grain, etc - which should more than pay for the stipend when the contract cuts are taken into account. (Whether that works is debatable). That this may well be based on consolidating large numbers of Routiers may not be popular, but if it prevents them looting the countryside of France, then its a good change.

AFAIK, Henry II could not get beyond "scutage", money paid by the English barons who did not want to fight in France. Obviously, this was not a solid or predictable financial base and, anyway, it was working only in England.

For your schema you'll need seriously revolutionize XII century warfare, making it infantry-heavy, and to provide Henry with a reliable source of money to finance this "super-new model". :)

You're right. This isn't a whole copy and paste in one go sort of idea, it would have to be a target that is approached - if that means via financing mercenaries from increased taxes on French Barons, or generally increased revenues from recovery for both England and France from well, 100 years of war, and increased trade between England and France.

My intention is that these new urban areas and Crown Quarters would be local economic hubs in and of themselves in the long run, and profitable to boot. Now, they have significant costs if they're overwhelming mercenaries, but the concentration of wealth there makes it easier to tax, which would help the Crown increase its revenues.

As to revolutionising? I think this is the general path for a Plantagnet France, importing the strengths of their system in England, and improving on them in peacetime - and solving their problem of "Too Many Mercs in Our Land" by exporting them. Effectively some parallel to the Black Army of Hungary, the Swiss Mercenaries and the Landsknechts. We're on the cusp of this revolution at the end of the Hundred Years war - which is why I was reminded of Alexander the Greats polis', which were used to form the Phalanx, that periods version of the Pikeman.

I'll note : I've not got a PoD for victory, perhaps no Joan of Arc, or Crowning of the Dauphine, or something more accidental, having Joan patrol the walls and be taken out by a stray crossbow bolt that causes a collapse in morale, leaving the English able to take Orleans, and/or an accidental death for Maria d'Angou, potentially ending their financial support. This would hamstring Charles VII preventing his rise to throw out Henry VI, which combined with English control of Orleans should provide the boost to the English to ensure they'll co-ordinate and win.
 
Under Plantegnet Rule, and only really the Nobility. I'm talking the demographic as a whole. Compared to the importance of the Cosmopolitaine under Valois they were less well off.

You are talking about the XII century so Valois are rather irrelevant.


You're right. This isn't a whole copy and paste in one go sort of idea, it would have to be a target that is approached - if that means via financing mercenaries from increased taxes on French Barons, or generally increased revenues from recovery for both England and France from well, 100 years of war, and increased trade between England and France.

Increasing taxes on <any> barons (I'm not quite sure if they had been paying taxes) was a good recipe for a massive baronial revolt well before you have money and time to hire and train your mercenary army. Trade between England and France, if you are talking about the Angevine France is moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket: sum total is the same.

My intention is that these new urban areas and Crown Quarters would be local economic hubs in and of themselves in the long run, and profitable to boot.

You are in the Middle Ages which means that you can't just order to create a "Crown Quarter" in the town which is not yours. Ditto for the economic hubs: the cities had been quite jealous about their rights and these newcomers would have none (including rights to trade, rights to produce things, etc. because they are guarded by the local guilds). At best king may place there few (as in "very few") royal officials to carry the judicial duties (outside those to which the local baron is entitled) or oversee collection of the taxes. At least the 2nd category is doomed to be quite unpopular.


As to revolutionising? I think this is the general path for a Plantagnet France, importing the strengths of their system in England, and improving on them in peacetime - and solving their problem of "Too Many Mercs in Our Land" by exporting them. Effectively some parallel to the Black Army of Hungary, the Swiss Mercenaries and the Landsknechts. We're on the cusp of this revolution at the end of the Hundred Years war - which is why I was reminded of Alexander the Greats polis', which were used to form the Phalanx, that periods version of the Pikeman.

Sorry, but your ideas are completely anachronistic both in backward and forward directions.:cool:

Let's start with the technologically simplest model. It took centuries to create the Swiss tactics so Henry II must be transformed into the great military visionary. With a LOT of money if he wants to have a standing army of that type (which excludes earlier Swiss militias - they'd not serve his purpose). At least the early Landsknechts had been adopting the Swiss tactics but then they widely used the firearms, which means that the parallel is inapplicable. Both Swiss mercenaries and the Landsknechts required existence of the big pool of the free men. "Free" as both personally free and free from any other occupation. And they required a regular payment because if they did not, they'd compensate by looting the local population.

The Black Army is inapplicable due to the heavy reliance upon the firearms. But the problem remains: it was very expensive to maintain.

End of the 100YW is irrelevant time frame because by that time Angevine empire was just a vague memory.

Now, as for the pikemen phalanx. Leaving aside Alexander and the Ancient Greeks as totally irrelevant, there was a more or less contemporary model which was successful for a while, Flemish. Their phalanx-based formations had been successful, when used properly, all the way to the Rosebeke but they were city militias (of the VERY RICH cities, especially Ghent), which was somewhat eliminating the cost issue but also means that they were not standing armies, that their usage was strictly regional and that their subordination was strictly to their own town. Then, of course, was a tactical issue: the phalanx infantry formation (unlike Swiss formations) meant the vulnerable flanks which means that enemy's stupidity, as in Battle of Courtrai, was a critical factor for the victory (it also meant that you always have to be in a safe position). Rosebeke ended with a wholesale slaughter and, basically, ended the system.

Not sure about which English system are you talking about because there was none during the life of Henry II and his immediate successors. IIRC, the English archers 1st time had been deployed in the big numbers only by Edward I and even then against the Scots (no armored cavalry, unprotected infantry gathered into big static masses).

Sorry, but I'm completely lost in your time frame: conversation was about the Angevin empire (which in OTL lasted until mid-XIII), not about the end of the 100YW.
 
Couldn't you take the qualification down to yeomen, meaning that an additional strata of English/Angevin people have to have a minimum of weapons, horses, etc ready in case of war?
 
Couldn't you take the qualification down to yeomen, meaning that an additional strata of English/Angevin people have to have a minimum of weapons, horses, etc ready in case of war?

Youmen (as a general class definition), as I understand, were a noticeable class in England but not in the French Angevin territories. But, anyway, their existence does not solve a problem of having standing army. Plus, regardless of Shakespeare, Walter Scott, Conan Doyle, etc. :)cool:), the English archers did not represent an independent military force: they were a part of a complicated tactical system which required presence of the sizable numbers of men-at-arms. Besides, as I keep repeating, the English archers were a thing of a future as long as we are talking about the Angevin time (Richard I had been using the crossbowmen in his wars).

As for other aspects of their usage, they obviously could not constitute an alternative armored cavalry (and in OTL their horses were used exclusively on the march) so you'd need "Henry II A Great Military Visionary" to create at least some semblance of the effective (as in "capable to act offensively") pike formations.

And, of course, there is always a problem with getting too much of your population military trained: as soon as you try to tax them, they may rebel. Or, keeping in mind social situation of the XII century, they may follow their lord in his rebellion (Wars of the Roses).
 
I finally understand why we're talking across purposes. In my mind I'd consider the 100 years war an extension of the conflict for the Angevin Empire, especially as the Plantagenets are a descendent house of the Angevin, whilst you're being stricter than I am.

Hence :

You are talking about the XII century so Valois are rather irrelevant.

I'm not, I'm talking 14th and 15th Centuries.

Increasing taxes on <any> barons (I'm not quite sure if they had been paying taxes) was a good recipe for a massive baronial revolt well before you have money and time to hire and train your mercenary army. Trade between England and France, if you are talking about the Angevine France is moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket: sum total is the same.

Well, economically that is nonsense. Creating stability between two regions (i.e. the end of a war), typically increases trade between them, even with the economics of the time, a peaceful, united, English channel serves two purposes. To facilitate trade between England and France, and to ensure port fees and tariffs can be levied on anyone passing through the channel.

Plus, there is SOME tolerance of tax increases. They key is that you can't increase it too much too fast. With England and France providing tax revenues, the individual increases can be quite small for quite a large increase in revenues.

You are in the Middle Ages which means that you can't just order to create a "Crown Quarter" in the town which is not yours. Ditto for the economic hubs: the cities had been quite jealous about their rights and these newcomers would have none (including rights to trade, rights to produce things, etc. because they are guarded by the local guilds). At best king may place there few (as in "very few") royal officials to carry the judicial duties (outside those to which the local baron is entitled) or oversee collection of the taxes. At least the 2nd category is doomed to be quite unpopular.

True enough. However whilst you're talking 12th century, I'm talking 15th. The decline of feudal power and its centralisation in the King.

-snipping most of this-

Sorry, but I'm completely lost in your time frame: conversation was about the Angevin empire (which in OTL lasted until mid-XIII), not about the end of the 100YW.

Again, as I said cross-purposes. I think it is reasonable to consider an English-Ruled France as effectively a Second, or Restored Angevin Empire. After all both houses in England and France are successor houses of those ruling in the 12th C .Angevin->Plantagenet, Capet->Valois.
 
I finally understand why we're talking across purposes. In my mind I'd consider the 100 years war an extension of the conflict for the Angevin Empire, especially as the Plantagenets are a descendent house of the Angevin, whilst you're being stricter than I am.

Look, definitions DO matter and by the time of the 100YW the Angevin empire was gone for more than a century. You can't just arbitrarily assign the names to the historic/geographic entities.
 
You probably have to have France completely divided between the Angevins and its neighbors for this to endure.
 
Top