I think the victory of Rene d'Anjou in Barcelona and surviving Charles the Bold(and has a son) can cause French Balkanization, but not necessarily Balkanization but they would lose their Mediterranean and Burgundian territories.
Balkanised France
- Thread starter Kaurne
- Start date
I think the victory of Rene d'Anjou in Barcelona and surviving Charles the Bold(and has a son) can cause French Balkanization, but not necessarily Balkanization but they would lose their Mediterranean and Burgundian territories.
So, by 'taking advantage of the situation' could we have at the peace talks after Bouvines have France lose land to Flanders and Boulogne, and have John reclaim all the lands he once held in France.
Doing this makes John a lot more popular with the barons at home.
The War of Champagne Succession erupts, and without Philip Augustus to support Theobald IV, and also without Holy Roman Emperor Frederick (Otto IV remains on the throne) The war goes on a lot longer, though I am unsure of who wins - would it be possible that John would support, even covertly, the rebels?
Meanwhile, Louis VIII is having trouble keeping stability in France, as most of the nobles are unruly and are reluctant to accept his rule. He doesn't have the time or support to try and reclaim Johns lands in France, or help out with crusades against the Cathars. During this period, and supported by the crown of Aragon, the Count of Toulouse starts to show more and more independence while Catharism spread - and it spreads for longer, as the Albigensian Crusade doesn't begin as soon, if at all.
Eventually, the upper and middle classes turn to Catharism as well, as Toulouse becomes de facto independent.
Meanwhile, John has problems holding onto Aquitaine - the nobles don't like him and keep trying to revolt
Thats as far as I've got. How is it?
Also, who inherited Aquitaine after the death of Eleanor? Did it go straight to the English crown?
Unless you hadn't guessed, I'm planning to write a TL on this, so please make helpful suggestions
Doing this makes John a lot more popular with the barons at home.
The War of Champagne Succession erupts, and without Philip Augustus to support Theobald IV, and also without Holy Roman Emperor Frederick (Otto IV remains on the throne) The war goes on a lot longer, though I am unsure of who wins - would it be possible that John would support, even covertly, the rebels?
Meanwhile, Louis VIII is having trouble keeping stability in France, as most of the nobles are unruly and are reluctant to accept his rule. He doesn't have the time or support to try and reclaim Johns lands in France, or help out with crusades against the Cathars. During this period, and supported by the crown of Aragon, the Count of Toulouse starts to show more and more independence while Catharism spread - and it spreads for longer, as the Albigensian Crusade doesn't begin as soon, if at all.
Eventually, the upper and middle classes turn to Catharism as well, as Toulouse becomes de facto independent.
Meanwhile, John has problems holding onto Aquitaine - the nobles don't like him and keep trying to revolt
Thats as far as I've got. How is it?
Also, who inherited Aquitaine after the death of Eleanor? Did it go straight to the English crown?
Unless you hadn't guessed, I'm planning to write a TL on this, so please make helpful suggestions
Eliminate Henry II and with him the Angevin Empire.
Philip's crucial gains were al made at the Angevins' expense, and without them France probably goes on much as in 1150, with the big feudatories staying all but independent. Philip may try to expand his authority at the expense of those adjoining the Ile de France, but if he persists they are liable to gang up against him.
As an extra, have Eleanor of Acquitaine marry the heir to the County of Toulouse, which makes a more formidable southern state.
As a French, I don't really like the idea of having my country Balkanized...
Yet, since I know French History well, I know several scenario were France could have Balkanized.
A defeat and death of Philip Augustus at Bouvines seems too late in my opinion. Philip Augustus was an awesome king as he managed to make France from a Feudal Coalition to a somewhat unified Kingdom under the crown : you still had great lords such as the Dukes of Burgundy, the Counts of Flanders, or the Dukes of Britanny, but the French King had become stronger than them all. Plus, it's thanks to Philip Augustus the French heir to the crown did no longer require to be crowned during their father's lifetime. Thus, with the death of Philip II, the new king would still be Louis VIII.
Louis VIII was not an incompetent : while he ruled shortly (3 years, he died of dysentry during the Albegisian Crusade), he was a capable soldier and a good administrator. Plus, he was wedded to Blanche of Castille, who was his best advisor and quite competent. And the future Saint Louis IX was already born at that time, so strong Capetian Kings are still to come, and thus France is going to stay strong.
Also, I think you are overestimating John Lackland a bit. By the time of Bouvines, he had already fled back to England, having been scared at the Battle of the Roches-aux-Moines. In my opinion, the English Barons are probably already pissed off with him.
As for Otto IV, I don't think a victory at Bouvines would ease his situation. He was excommunicated, and he lead the attack at Bouvines... on a sunday! The day of the Lord! Philip Augustus could be seen to have fallen to Otto IV's treachery in that scenario, and the Pope isn't going to be happy : Christians were forbidden to fight on Sunday as it was the day of the Lord.
Now, if you want scenario where France get balkanized, here are a few ideas :
1) Have Louis III & Carloman II live longer and father sons to succeed them. While they co-ruled Western Francia (later France) together, Louis III was specifically charged with Neustria (Northern France) and Carloman II with Aquitaine and Burgundy (Southern France). Allowing them to live Longer and have sons could result on two French Kingdoms or more showing up.
2) Kill Robert II of France before the birth of one of his sons. Robert II was the only son of Hugh Capet, getting rid of him might get rid of the Capetians. Without Robert II, you have no clear successor to the throne and maybe an elective monarchy shows up, which could end dup leading to a somewhat HRE-esque France.
3) Have Philip II die before the birth of his son or be born as a girl. The succession in France would be quite unclear (Salic Law wasn't there before 1316, thus two hundread years later) at that point and there would be several candidates. These candidates would include :
-The count of Champagne Henri I, husband of Marie of France (first daughter of Louis VII), and after him his children.
-The count of Blois Theobald V, husband of Alix of France (second daughter of Louis VII), and after him his chidlren.
-Henry the Young King, husband of Margaret of France (third daughter of Louis VII).
-Richard the Lionheart, fianced to Alys of France (fourth daughter of Louis VII). He would require to be wedded to her of course.
-Count Robert of Dreux, younger brother to Louis VII (thus heir to the crown according to Salic Law) and his bloodline after him.
Yet, since I know French History well, I know several scenario were France could have Balkanized.
A defeat and death of Philip Augustus at Bouvines seems too late in my opinion. Philip Augustus was an awesome king as he managed to make France from a Feudal Coalition to a somewhat unified Kingdom under the crown : you still had great lords such as the Dukes of Burgundy, the Counts of Flanders, or the Dukes of Britanny, but the French King had become stronger than them all. Plus, it's thanks to Philip Augustus the French heir to the crown did no longer require to be crowned during their father's lifetime. Thus, with the death of Philip II, the new king would still be Louis VIII.
Louis VIII was not an incompetent : while he ruled shortly (3 years, he died of dysentry during the Albegisian Crusade), he was a capable soldier and a good administrator. Plus, he was wedded to Blanche of Castille, who was his best advisor and quite competent. And the future Saint Louis IX was already born at that time, so strong Capetian Kings are still to come, and thus France is going to stay strong.
Also, I think you are overestimating John Lackland a bit. By the time of Bouvines, he had already fled back to England, having been scared at the Battle of the Roches-aux-Moines. In my opinion, the English Barons are probably already pissed off with him.
As for Otto IV, I don't think a victory at Bouvines would ease his situation. He was excommunicated, and he lead the attack at Bouvines... on a sunday! The day of the Lord! Philip Augustus could be seen to have fallen to Otto IV's treachery in that scenario, and the Pope isn't going to be happy : Christians were forbidden to fight on Sunday as it was the day of the Lord.
Now, if you want scenario where France get balkanized, here are a few ideas :
1) Have Louis III & Carloman II live longer and father sons to succeed them. While they co-ruled Western Francia (later France) together, Louis III was specifically charged with Neustria (Northern France) and Carloman II with Aquitaine and Burgundy (Southern France). Allowing them to live Longer and have sons could result on two French Kingdoms or more showing up.
2) Kill Robert II of France before the birth of one of his sons. Robert II was the only son of Hugh Capet, getting rid of him might get rid of the Capetians. Without Robert II, you have no clear successor to the throne and maybe an elective monarchy shows up, which could end dup leading to a somewhat HRE-esque France.
3) Have Philip II die before the birth of his son or be born as a girl. The succession in France would be quite unclear (Salic Law wasn't there before 1316, thus two hundread years later) at that point and there would be several candidates. These candidates would include :
-The count of Champagne Henri I, husband of Marie of France (first daughter of Louis VII), and after him his children.
-The count of Blois Theobald V, husband of Alix of France (second daughter of Louis VII), and after him his chidlren.
-Henry the Young King, husband of Margaret of France (third daughter of Louis VII).
-Richard the Lionheart, fianced to Alys of France (fourth daughter of Louis VII). He would require to be wedded to her of course.
-Count Robert of Dreux, younger brother to Louis VII (thus heir to the crown according to Salic Law) and his bloodline after him.
Kaurne said:
John might be able to reclaim some of it on paper, but in practice, he's going to have his own troubles.
Probably irrelevant to him. He has too many problems of his own.
Louis is probably in a stronger position than this unless you have some OTL loyal nobles decide that the Capets are overrated, which could happen - but you'd need a cause other than just deciding that they lost a battle so they must fall.
Needs more work, but you could construct a good timeline from this. But I think its more likely to mean that the historical triumphs of Louis (VIII and IX) fail than that France shatters - for that, you need Louis IX's heir to blow it. Or outside pressure. Ideally both.
I'm not sure exactly how it went legally, but in practice, it went to John and his descendants. The original plan was to give it to Richard, when Richard became king after Henry II's death, he had it and England.
According to Alison Weir's biography of Eleanor, Eleanor named Otto of Saxony her heir in 1196 - but I'm not sure how that worked out, since it remained in Plantagent hands.
Yorel, how old is Louis (IX) at this point?
France lost Flanders in Netherlands, I think the same could had happened to a part of Occitania or all of Occitania, I have a timeline where in Occitania is a part of Spain and Occitan becomes the Spanish language and Northern France or France proper is annexed by Holy Roman Empire, I just did this by having Eleanor married to Sancho and Matilda of England and Henry V have a son and have Sancho be an ally of Henry V's son.
Last edited:
Let me clarify - I am planning a TL where France lose at Bouvines, and I was wondering whether that could lead to a Balkanised France. If it doesn't or can't I can change plans, but I was just wondering. And by Balkanised, I mean like 3-4 states, not dozens.
As for Otto, I wonder how he could seek forgiveness. I know that he got excommunicated because he confiscated lands that he promised to the Pope. Maybe he could return them after Bouvines and seek forgiveness, to try and have his excommunication revoked.
Also, I know the land that the French king ruled was more centralised as a result of Philips actions, but I can imagine that the nobles in those lands try to take advantage of the new young king - enough so he can't afford to launch costly Crusadez or foreign expeditions
I thought that while John won't have the full support of his Barons, reclaiming the Angevin lands in France, even if he didn't really do that much, might let him avoid a baronial revolt lime in OTL
As for Otto, I wonder how he could seek forgiveness. I know that he got excommunicated because he confiscated lands that he promised to the Pope. Maybe he could return them after Bouvines and seek forgiveness, to try and have his excommunication revoked.
Also, I know the land that the French king ruled was more centralised as a result of Philips actions, but I can imagine that the nobles in those lands try to take advantage of the new young king - enough so he can't afford to launch costly Crusadez or foreign expeditions
I thought that while John won't have the full support of his Barons, reclaiming the Angevin lands in France, even if he didn't really do that much, might let him avoid a baronial revolt lime in OTL
Last edited:
The short answer: "Not immediately." The long answers have been posted already. A lot depends on what happens after Louis VIII.
Probably would take more than just that, but I'm not sure how much more. And its not as if it being on a Sunday hurt the winner - yes he wasn't excommunicated, but if fighting on Sundays is so bad...
Otto is in a pretty bad position, from what little I know.
Makes sense, at least for a while - if Louis looks vulnerable enough, people will want to use that for their own gain. Not balkanization, just the typical medieval problem of overmighty vassals.
They'll find something else to revolt over. John at most will come off - to quote myself from another thread - as a prick, rather than an incompetent prick.
That being said, that difference may mean he beats said baronial revolt. Maybe.
That other thread was me as well - sorry, and thanks for your input.
I have a pretty good idea of what happens now that France loses. I think I can Balkanise France with plausibility after a Bouvines PoD, partly by making Louis VIII's son be completely incompetent (though the English will see their own share of incompetence) and Otto will lose power, but the Welf dynasty will not be out of HRE politics permanently like in OTL.
John, while no more competent than in our history, will be a lot better regarded in future centuries, at least by the general consensus.
Eventually England has to pull out of Aquitaine and Brittany, as it simply can't hold on to them - this only takes about 40 years. Rifts in the English Royal Family result in Aquitaine and Brittany becoming independent As titles are spread among the sons. Louis IX is too incompetent to take control of them as his own nobles are in sporadic revolt, while the Cathars are gaining in numbers in the south. Eventually we will have a civil war as the Cathars go up against the Capetians - and I'm not sure who wins yet. Sound good?
Also, I will accept more detailed advice and corrections when I finally starts posting the TL - I will probably need it.
I have a pretty good idea of what happens now that France loses. I think I can Balkanise France with plausibility after a Bouvines PoD, partly by making Louis VIII's son be completely incompetent (though the English will see their own share of incompetence) and Otto will lose power, but the Welf dynasty will not be out of HRE politics permanently like in OTL.
John, while no more competent than in our history, will be a lot better regarded in future centuries, at least by the general consensus.
Eventually England has to pull out of Aquitaine and Brittany, as it simply can't hold on to them - this only takes about 40 years. Rifts in the English Royal Family result in Aquitaine and Brittany becoming independent As titles are spread among the sons. Louis IX is too incompetent to take control of them as his own nobles are in sporadic revolt, while the Cathars are gaining in numbers in the south. Eventually we will have a civil war as the Cathars go up against the Capetians - and I'm not sure who wins yet. Sound good?
Also, I will accept more detailed advice and corrections when I finally starts posting the TL - I will probably need it.
No need to apologize. I just still think the words apply - if I can't remember whether you've mentioned this before, I can't reasonably expect you to remember them.
And welcome.
I have a pretty good idea of what happens now that France loses. I think I can Balkanise France with plausibility after a Bouvines PoD, partly by making Louis VIII's son be completely incompetent (though the English will see their own share of incompetence) and Otto will lose power, but the Welf dynasty will not be out of HRE politics permanently like in OTL.
John, while no more competent than in our history, will be a lot better regarded in future centuries, at least by the general consensus.
Eventually England has to pull out of Aquitaine and Brittany, as it simply can't hold on to them - this only takes about 40 years. Rifts in the English Royal Family result in Aquitaine and Brittany becoming independent As titles are spread among the sons. Louis IX is too incompetent to take control of them as his own nobles are in sporadic revolt, while the Cathars are gaining in numbers in the south. Eventually we will have a civil war as the Cathars go up against the Capetians - and I'm not sure who wins yet. Sound good?
Also, I will accept more detailed advice and corrections when I finally starts posting the TL - I will probably need it.
Sounds like you have a solid enough idea to get rolling with. Looking forward to seeing how things shape out. This could have some MAJOR shifts to European politics - above and beyond the obvious, short term stuff.
Eventually England has to pull out of Aquitaine and Brittany, as it simply can't hold on to them - this only takes about 40 years. Rifts in the English Royal Family result in Aquitaine and Brittany becoming independent As titles are spread among the sons. Louis IX is too incompetent to take control of them as his own nobles are in sporadic revolt, while the Cathars are gaining in numbers in the south. Eventually we will have a civil war as the Cathars go up against the Capetians - and I'm not sure who wins yet. Sound good?
Also, I will accept more detailed advice and corrections when I finally starts posting the TL - I will probably need it.
Can I advise one thing early on? That you are careful about Aquitaine? As I have mentioned a number of times on a variety of different threads, including this one, Aquitaine was a mess in this era. The Dukes of Aquitaine controlled only three cities and barely any hinterland (I think those cities, IIRC, were Bordeaux, Bayonne and Dax). Though the Dukes could keep themselves in a fair amount of luxury, controlled major trading ports and did get some money from their vassals, they essentially had no control over those vassals in this era. There were several vassals of the Duke who actually controlled more land and money than the Dukes did. Traditionally as the years wore on, control over Aquitaine (temporary or permanent) was achieved by the Duke also having revenue and armies from another source - i.e. being King of France/England at the same time. What's more, the unruly vassals of the Dukes of Aquitaine weren't just powerful and unwilling to submit to the Duke's whims, they were scheming and vied for power and land, meaning they frequently warred each other and sought to manipulate the Dukes in this game. If you have Aquitaine become independent and separate from the crowns of England/France, you may substantially weaken the Duke himself to the point where, just as the plans for France to balkanise, Aquitaine itself loses coherence and balkanises as the Duke can no longer assert any control. After all, three cities consisting of not a wide country of peasant levies is not a great basis for an army, and rather like England during the anarchy (with its more than 1,000 illegal castles) and the profligate Knights' Territory castles, including their myriad illegal castles taxing trade on the Rhine, Aquitaine was littered with castles, many controlled by very minor petty lords and some belonging to the overmighty vassals with loads of castles to their name. With so many castles to reduce, the area is a nightmare to suppress and exert control over, because just who exactly can afford a campaign to siege literally hundreds of castles, and then keep hold of them afterwards? The vassals truly weren't above just tearing up a treaty to reoccupy a castle they had recently lost.
It may be better in this case to have, say, the Kings of England remain nominal Dukes of Aquitaine, with enough force to keep the Duchy in one piece but without the strength to subdue the area and thus make it a powerful basis for a strong militant England. Indeed, the overmighty Aquitaine vassals will act as a very good buffer to stop England being aggressive outside of Aquitaine and stop other states seeking to supplant England. Also, the merchants of the coastal cities of Aquitaine truly loved association with England as England was where they made most of their profit from, especially when Kings of England being Dukes of Aquitaine meant that trade tariffs between the two states were reduced - they regularly petitioned the Kings of England to return during the years of French control, asking them to reassert English control, indeed. Having a weak King of England exerting "just enough" control over Aquitaine to prevent Ducal authority from collapsing, and no more, may be your best way of stopping the region when independent from turning into a HRE-style mish-mash of tiny states and more powerful lords, but without an accepted overlord Emperor over them.
Thanks for the input - I will have Aquitaine remain part of England in name, but not much more. Presumably Brittany was centralised enough to allow an independent state, even if it is overly influenced by England. I love the idea or Occitania claiming control of Aquitaine once cannons become useful.
Well, him being around is probably good for Louis (the Lion, if I recall his epithet right).
If Louis lives as long as he did OTL, he'll have an heir of a reasonably safe age. That's better than no sons at all.
Yes. Unlike most of France, Brittany was one of the places that actually did, to more of less of a degree, attempt to claim that the Kings of France had no control over them - not that it ever really worked. They would be one of the prime places for declaring independence early, I believe.
Entirely probable. It's the myriad of castles in Aquitaine that make asserting control over the region virtually impossible. Once cannon come in, castles become far less defensible, are harder to rebuild once taken, and essentially it gets easier and easier for someone to actually make good territorial gains there. And of course, the troublesome vassals therein aren't really going to have the resources to raise lots of cannon and go on their own conquests - only to a very small degree, none of the vassals controls more land that the size of, say, Navarre or somesuch anyway - so they are really just going to keep playing their games of "who is the most powerful warlord?" and "court intrigue" until someone finally comes along, reduces their castles and forces them to submit.
How difficult would that be to do without cannons?
Asking here since it seems a good opportunity to discuss just how bad the situation is, in a situation where the King can focus on it without the distractions historically faced by those trying to tame the duchy.
Not impossible, but harder. Problem is there's this big concentration of castles in Aquitaine that I don't think compares to anywhere else in France, and certainly doesn't compare in terms of how many are under the Duke's control (i.e. virtually none of them). The vassals in Aquitaine were fiercely independent, not in that they thought the Duke was not their ruler, but that they saw no reason why they should have to listen to him. Duke in name only, essentially. Those vassals therefore would go down fighting to preserve their independence rather than giving in at the first sign of a ducal army. What's more, those castles of Aquitaine aren't all in easy places to siege - Aquitaine has some hilly areas in the south I believe, and was known for being very heavily forest-covered, which is not a great terrain for advancing armies. Also, sieges in this era simply could take months, and often it was more a question of sitting outside and waiting for the garrison to starve than reducing part of the walls. In a small outpost castle the garrison may only be 50-100 men or even fewer, and if they are expecting an attack they can simply stock food and sit there. Some castles were known to survive for a year under siege, though not specifically in Aquitaine. Then bear in mind that there are probably several hundred of these castles around and your army can likely only afford to siege two or three at once. Once you've reduced some castles, the Aquitanians then had the horrible tendency to simply reoccupy the same castles they had just given up in spite of any peace treaty and the situation becomes very hard to handle. Then add in on top of that that the most powerful families usually considered the Duke to be a pawn in their games of diplomacy. They would try to buy the Duke's loyalty, offer men for a campaign against a vassal they wanted reduced, and incite the Duke to campaign against them. Then, they would demand that land taken from that vassal be given to them instead, and would pull their troops (which were needed to actually hold the castles taken) from the Duke if he refused. The reason Richard I of England spent so little time in England was because he was constantly getting embroiled in these mind-games, and remember that Richard was the greatest general of his day and in 10 years of campaigning in Aquitaine (both as Duke and then King) he literally made pretty much no progress at all and lost every bit of land he gained. If you can't destroy the castles, it becomes a virtually impossible task. There's a reason why Aquitaine was the place in France that took longest to tame. I think even in the 16th century, when cannons were in and the English were long gone, the vassals there still hadn't been entirely subjugated. Basically, the area is just a mess, and the nobles there thrived on its reputation for being untameable and didn't want to support anyone moving in on them.
