Angevin Empire reconquest possibility?

Between Louis VIII's death in 1226 and 1234, Henry III of England had an opportunity to reconquer some or all of the lands that had been lost by his father, John Lackland. Ultimately, Henry waited too long and his campaign was a costly failure. The questions I ultimately have are:

1. Could Henry have seen more success if he had acted sooner or acted differently - marching from Brittany into Normandy instead of from Brittany into Poitou?

2. How much of Normandy, Anjou and Poitou could Engish forces have realistically recaptured and held?

3. How long could any reconquered lands have been held for?

4. Who could hold them better - Henry III or Richard of Cornwall?
 

libbrit

Banned
Its worth remembering that the whole concept of an Angevin `empire` is very modern. Most nobles and royals of the time, even those nobles ruling the various parts of the Angevin Empire, would have only have had a vague concept of being in, what to them was probably more accurately called a `sphere of influence` of the English crown, rather than an empire-such was the way with medieval oaths of fealty etc-The English king for centuries swore fealty to the French king for Normandy, or Aquitaine, etc. They werent part of the kingdom of France.

So its hard to see where the impetus for a reconquest would come from-national identity and nationalism as we know it didnt really exist.
 
Its worth remembering that the whole concept of an Angevin `empire` is very modern. Most nobles and royals of the time, even those nobles ruling the various parts of the Angevin Empire, would have only have had a vague concept of being in, what to them was probably more accurately called a `sphere of influence` of the English crown, rather than an empire-such was the way with medieval oaths of fealty etc-The English king for centuries swore fealty to the French king for Normandy, or Aquitaine, etc. They werent part of the kingdom of France.

So its hard to see where the impetus for a reconquest would come from-national identity and nationalism as we know it didnt really exist.

Even absent nationalism, gaining more lands/wealth/glory would provide quite a strong impetus for reconquest, at least for Henry and the nobles who'd stand to benefit in these regards.
 
Would Henry succeed in such an undertaking though? From what we know of him, he didn't seem at least in my opinion to be al that militarly bright as it were
 
Its worth remembering that the whole concept of an Angevin `empire` is very modern. Most nobles and royals of the time, even those nobles ruling the various parts of the Angevin Empire, would have only have had a vague concept of being in, what to them was probably more accurately called a `sphere of influence` of the English crown, rather than an empire-such was the way with medieval oaths of fealty etc-The English king for centuries swore fealty to the French king for Normandy, or Aquitaine, etc. They werent part of the kingdom of France.

So its hard to see where the impetus for a reconquest would come from-national identity and nationalism as we know it didnt really exist.

Ont the sphere of influence of the english crown. Just the sphere of influence of the dynast who happened to be king of England.

There was in fact more influence of the continental principalities held on the continent by Henry II on England than influence of the english kingdom on the french principalities held by the Plantagenet. What must be taken into account is that the population of the continental principalities held by Henry II was bigger than the population of the kingdom of England.
Most of the english nobility originated from the continent.

Not very long ago, so me french scholars sarcastically described England as a french colony that évoluée wrongly while others argue that the Plantagenet defeat in the HYW was what finally prevented France from becoming the world superpower that would have sha perd the world the way Britain did from the mid 18th to the early 20th century.

Things began changing only after the Plantagenet had been expelled from most of their continental principalities and stood much more on their english resources and manpower.

And the problem is that what made the new force of the kings of England in their attempts on continental principalities also was what doomed their political goal on this continent.

They had traditional claims of a feudal rival lord but they acted and were perceived acting as a foreign enemy.

In the 13th century, it was just not the right time. The resources of France were so much more important than England's that England had no possibility to win a war on the continent against France.

It needed a technological/tactical revolution to counterbalance the enormous superiority in resources that the french king enjoyed, plus incredible military incompetence on the french side.

When the french under Charles V adapted sound tactics and reasonably clever command, the game was over for the king of England and the french easily reconquered all then had ceded at Bretigny, mobilizing only light resources.

However brilliant and lucky were Henry V and his brother Bedford (and then were indeed both), even with the french forces divided by a civil war and crippled by an often poor command, the french were able to roll back the english. What is extraordinary is not that the y did it but that It took them so long to do it.

Though enjoying technical superiority, great military leadership, great luck due to recurrent incompetence and civil war on the french side, the king of England finally lost because he was it was 98% impossible for him to won lastingly.
 
Last edited:
Ont the sphere of influence of the english crown. Just the sphere of influence of the dynast who happened to be king of England.

There was in fact more influence of the continental principalities held on the continent by Henry II on England than influence of the english kingdom on the french principalities held by the Plantagenet. What must be taken into account is that the population of the continental principalities held by Henry II was bigger than the population of the kingdom of England.
Most of the english nobility originated from the continent.

Not very long ago, so me french scholars sarcastically described England as a french colony that évoluée wrongly while others argue that the Plantagenet defeat in the HYW was what finally prevented France from becoming the world superpower that would have sha perd the world the way Britain did from the mid 18th to the early 20th century.

Things began changing only after the Plantagenet had been expelled from most of their continental principalities and stood much more on their english resources and manpower.

And the problem is that what made the new force of the kings of England in their attempts on continental principalities also was what doomed their political goal on this continent.

They had traditional claims of a feudal rival lord but they acted and were perceived acting as a foreign enemy.

In the 13th century, it was just not the right time. The resources of France were so much more important than England's that England had no possibility to win a war on the continent against France.

It needed a technological/tactical revolution to counterbalance the enormous superiority in resources that the french king enjoyed, plus incredible military incompetence on the french side.

When the french under Charles V adapted sound tactics and reasonably clever command, the game was over for the king of England and the french easily reconquered all then had ceded at Bretigny, mobilizing only light resources.

However brilliant and lucky were Henry V and his brother Bedford (and then were indeed both), even with the french forces divided by a civil war and crippled by an often poor command, the french were able to roll back the english. What is extraordinary is not that the y did it but that It took them so long to do it.

Though enjoying technical superiority, great military leadership, great luck due to recurrent incompetence and civil war on the french side, the king of England finally lost because he was it was 98% impossible for him to won lastingly.
Indeed. In terms of population, which generally linearily translates to tax revenue and army size, the French had more than thrice the English and Welsh populations before the HYW. Once the English were kicked out of the continent, it was irrealist for them to ever reconquer anything on the mainland. The only reason the French didn't invade England after the fall of Calais was that either the English were their allies, or the English allies outnumbered the French allies sufficiently in manpower that no matter how the French would need to spare too many resources to win the war on the continent from an invasion of England.
The HYW only took place because the English had Aquitaine. Why did they still have Aquitaine ? Because the French hadn't completely kicked English asses before 1258. There are in terms of probability way more chances that the Angevin remains in France would be smaller than OTL than larger. So, a reconquest of it all ? Near-ASB.
 
Top