You don't need to knock them down. You just need a ladder, and the cover of darkness.
Born a King; The Life and Times of John the Posthumous
- Thread starter Space Oddity
- Start date
You don't need to knock them down. You just need a ladder, and the cover of darkness.
Just remember reading about a lot of really inconclusive campaigns in which not a lot happened unless the weaker side could be baited into a pitched battle.
1337-8: Flanders
1337-8: VAN "THE MAN" ARTEVELDE
"...Sometimes, history lifts up a man from obscurity to become one of the linchpins of an age. We know nothing in truth of Jacob van Artevelde before his sudden entry into Flemish politics, though a thin patina of nationalistic myth has been created to cover this gaping void, birthing the figure of "the Wise Brewer of Ghent". In truth we have no reason to imagine that Jacob was a brewer at all--by most accounts his money was in the weaving industry, like most of his fellow city fathers[1]. Likewise, the image of Jacob as a populist reformer is largely legendary--like many wealthy merchants, Jacob was eager to see his children join the ranks of the nobility, working to get his son a knighthood and his daughter a noble marriage. But as opposed to Louis Dampierre, he was a realist who put the interests of Flanders first. 'If we do not have the friendship of England, then we die,' he reportedly said, 'for it is by their wool that we live.'[2] This was Artevelde's maxim and it was what guided his thinking when he came to power during the uprising...
"Despite the little we know about Artevelde, it was clear he was a man of substance prior to this, for he was one of Ghent's five elected captains. And it is also clear he was a man of very firm character, for from this position he was able to easily dominate the government of Ghent as events unfolded so that within a handful of weeks he, and not the Count, was its lord and master[3]... Entering into talks with Ypres and Bruges, Jacob laid the foundation for an alliance that would dominate Flemish politics for decades to come. Meanwhile, in Ghent itself, he created a personal bodyguard that would swiftly become Artevelde's enforcers there. It was a dictatorship based on force and charm, not unlike the Dogeship of Simon Bocanegra that would begin a year later[4], and like that one, it would likely have failed swiftly had not the situation been as grim as it was. But the failure of Louis Dampierre's rule had been so complete--so against the interests of the Flemish that they were willing to consider anything...
"According to many sources, van Artevelde envisioned an alliance with England from the first. This may be so--as he would swiftly prove, Jacob van Artevelde was not a man of limited ambition or imagination. However, at this stage, political realities constrained him--while the Flemmings had rebelled against the Count, they still were unwilling to consider a true break with France. For now, the order of the day was neutrality--though Flanders was a part of France, it would take no part in this war, and would indeed continue to conduct business with England[5]. Edward's emissaries, eagerly looking for markets for wool, took the deal eagerly...
"Throughout all this, Count Louis was a cipher. Artevelde controlled the government, and while the Count was allowed to sign and approve its actions, they did not originate from him. It was of course, an unsustainable state of affairs, and ultimately the Count ended it through a deception. Secretly sending a missive to his wife, he had her send a message to him claiming that she was deathly ill, and begging him to come to her bedside. Louis swiftly left Flanders for France, never suspecting that he would never return[6]. Artevelde, once it became clear that the Count had lied, dug in, and prepared for a French response..."
--This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century, Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)
-------------------------------------------------------
[1] This is OTL, including the dubious nickname.
[2] Jacob reportedly stated similar views IOTL.
[3] Jacob's shadowy path to power appears to have been roughly similar IOTL.
[4] More on this in a later update.
[5] Jacob was a bit more active in seeking an alliance IOTL, where a path towards his goal was a bit more obvious, if somewhat tortured--by encouraging Edward III to declare himself King of France, he could have Flanders pledge fealty to him. Of course, as ITTL, this took some time to build towards, and so, as in this one, neutrality was the initial order of the day.
[6] Louis used a similar stratagem to escape the rebels IOTL. Yes, even when his plans worked, they tended to be rather pathetic.
"...Sometimes, history lifts up a man from obscurity to become one of the linchpins of an age. We know nothing in truth of Jacob van Artevelde before his sudden entry into Flemish politics, though a thin patina of nationalistic myth has been created to cover this gaping void, birthing the figure of "the Wise Brewer of Ghent". In truth we have no reason to imagine that Jacob was a brewer at all--by most accounts his money was in the weaving industry, like most of his fellow city fathers[1]. Likewise, the image of Jacob as a populist reformer is largely legendary--like many wealthy merchants, Jacob was eager to see his children join the ranks of the nobility, working to get his son a knighthood and his daughter a noble marriage. But as opposed to Louis Dampierre, he was a realist who put the interests of Flanders first. 'If we do not have the friendship of England, then we die,' he reportedly said, 'for it is by their wool that we live.'[2] This was Artevelde's maxim and it was what guided his thinking when he came to power during the uprising...
"Despite the little we know about Artevelde, it was clear he was a man of substance prior to this, for he was one of Ghent's five elected captains. And it is also clear he was a man of very firm character, for from this position he was able to easily dominate the government of Ghent as events unfolded so that within a handful of weeks he, and not the Count, was its lord and master[3]... Entering into talks with Ypres and Bruges, Jacob laid the foundation for an alliance that would dominate Flemish politics for decades to come. Meanwhile, in Ghent itself, he created a personal bodyguard that would swiftly become Artevelde's enforcers there. It was a dictatorship based on force and charm, not unlike the Dogeship of Simon Bocanegra that would begin a year later[4], and like that one, it would likely have failed swiftly had not the situation been as grim as it was. But the failure of Louis Dampierre's rule had been so complete--so against the interests of the Flemish that they were willing to consider anything...
"According to many sources, van Artevelde envisioned an alliance with England from the first. This may be so--as he would swiftly prove, Jacob van Artevelde was not a man of limited ambition or imagination. However, at this stage, political realities constrained him--while the Flemmings had rebelled against the Count, they still were unwilling to consider a true break with France. For now, the order of the day was neutrality--though Flanders was a part of France, it would take no part in this war, and would indeed continue to conduct business with England[5]. Edward's emissaries, eagerly looking for markets for wool, took the deal eagerly...
"Throughout all this, Count Louis was a cipher. Artevelde controlled the government, and while the Count was allowed to sign and approve its actions, they did not originate from him. It was of course, an unsustainable state of affairs, and ultimately the Count ended it through a deception. Secretly sending a missive to his wife, he had her send a message to him claiming that she was deathly ill, and begging him to come to her bedside. Louis swiftly left Flanders for France, never suspecting that he would never return[6]. Artevelde, once it became clear that the Count had lied, dug in, and prepared for a French response..."
--This Tumultuous Age: The Revolts and Upheavals of the 14th Century, Elizabeth Eckermann (1976)
-------------------------------------------------------
[1] This is OTL, including the dubious nickname.
[2] Jacob reportedly stated similar views IOTL.
[3] Jacob's shadowy path to power appears to have been roughly similar IOTL.
[4] More on this in a later update.
[5] Jacob was a bit more active in seeking an alliance IOTL, where a path towards his goal was a bit more obvious, if somewhat tortured--by encouraging Edward III to declare himself King of France, he could have Flanders pledge fealty to him. Of course, as ITTL, this took some time to build towards, and so, as in this one, neutrality was the initial order of the day.
[6] Louis used a similar stratagem to escape the rebels IOTL. Yes, even when his plans worked, they tended to be rather pathetic.
Last edited:
Yeah, as much as I like this TL, the emphasis on personalities makes NBtTR my favorite TL on this site bar none.
1337-1340: A Lot of Places, Really.
1337-40:THE AMAZING ADVENTURES OF HUMBERT THE DAUPHIN, PART 1; CRUSADING NEEDS MONEY!
"For most of his contemporaries, the Dauphin[1] Humbert II was ultimately an afterthought. German Emperor Louis of Bavaria had flirted with crowning him King of Arles at one point, but this was more due to the excellent strategic position of his realm and the prestige of his family more than any particular virtue of Humbert's[2]. The court he created upon the inheritance of the Dauphinate from his brother swiftly developed a reputation for frivolity and waste, though the small size of it kept this fact from particularly impressing others. If fate had been a little kinder to him, he would almost certainly be forgotten save for those interested in the genealogies of minor nobles. But fate was not kind to Humbert--his only child, a son, died at the age of two, fixing Humbert on two ideas that would cause him to leave an undeniable mark on history. First, to take up the cross and go on a Crusade in the Holy Land. Second--and this idea was linked to the first--to sell his inheritance, title and all. He would achieve both[3], and because of this, leave a greater shadow on history than many other, better men.
"This would not be because Humbert was an especially successful crusader--the account of his fitful wanderings in the East that he wrote has been declared 'a fascinating record of failure and incompetence'. But Humbert's lack of success was typical of the era--indeed, from 1341, until 1352, the Dauphin managed to involve himself in virtually every major crusading effort in the Holy Land, and quite a few minor ones, Flood's proverbial 'man who chanced to be there'. It is because of this--that he managed to be everywhere, and more importantly, that afterwards, he wrote it all down--that more than a few historians have noted to write of the Crusades in the mid-fourteenth century is to write of Dauphin Humbert...
"Of course, as Humbert had learned by previous efforts[4], crusading was an expensive undertaking. His earlier attempts had impoverished a man who was not rich and ruined his credit. This was the primary reason for his desire to sell the Dauphinate, though his lack of a clear heir provided another motivation. Unfortunately for Humbert, his first potential buyer was not interested in the Dauphinate--at least not at the price Humbert was offering it. This was a shame, for Robert of Naples[5] was an obvious choice, thanks to his substantial holdings in Provence, and familial connection to Humbert[6]. His second offer, to John of France[7], was likewise refused--John, whose sentimental attachment to his Angevin kin was legendary, felt obligated to try drive the price down for Robert.
"Humbert refused to be discouraged, and next offered his lands to the Pope. The Papacy was undeniably interested--after all, their present home of Avignon was essentially borrowed from Naples[8]. But once again, the price proved the sticky part, and the prospective sale fell through. Things were looking increasingly grim for Humbert, who had outstanding debts to worry about on top of impractical dreams, when finally, the Lord saw fit to answer his prayers and provide a buyer. In 1337, Philip of Valois, the Duke of Anjou, offered to purchase the Dauphinate for his eldest son, John, in return for a substantial sum that would, with the assistance of Papal funding, finance many years of crusading[9]. Philip's motives were, as usual a blend of the practical and the religious--the recent stillbirths of a son and grandson had convinced the Duke of a need to get his spiritual house in order, while increasing difficulties with his royal brother-in-law had convinced him of the need of his line to acquire a sovereign title. The resulting arrangement between Humbert and Philip was as complicated a one as that medieval bureaucrat could create when given a chance--John of Valois was named as Humbert's heir, with as many functions of the Dauphinate's government as could be were to be transferred to the young prince's "representatives" while the Dauphin was abroad[10]...
"...All this hinged on Humbert actually receiving Papal approval as a crusader, a thing that was not necessarily certain. Pope John's view of crusades and crusaders was on the whole dim; his views on Humbert and Philip were not an exception to this. If anything, they were exemplars--on at least one occasion he referred to the pair of them as "infants". And yet, ultimately, he agreed to it. Humbert always gave credit to "the hand of God" in this--more likely, it was because this was seen by many prominent rulers, including both the Emperor and the King of France, as a way to avoid a disputed succession in the volatile region. Whatever the cause, Humbert now had the spiritual and financial backing of the Papacy in his crusade. Sending a message to many longtime companions and fellow crusading enthusiasts to join him in his grand endeavor, he embarked for Sicily in 1338 to await them.
"He was arrested almost immediately upon his arrival to the island.
"The Kingdom of 'Sicily Beyond the Lighthouse' was, as was so often the case for the troubled island nation, in tulmult. The gifted Frederick III was dead, his place taken by his reportedly simple-minded son, Peter II. Its rival, Angevin Naples, had moved from hostility to active war. The Lipari Islands had been taken by Neapolitan forces, who were now planning an invasion of the island proper[11]. Humbert was heavily suspected of being an agent of the Angevins--his ties to the Papacy were no help, as the Sicilians relations with the See of St. Peter were still fairly poor. Humbert wrote to the Pope, the Emperor, the King of France and the Duke of Anjou to beg for their assistance--the Pope and the Emperor ignored him, the King of France seems to have encouraged the Sicilians to imprison him for longer[12], and the Duke of Anjou wrote an impassioned argument for liberating the Dauphin that the court ignored. In the end, Humbert's freedom was only achieved after a year of imprisonment, and seems to have been affected by a combination of Humbert's piety impressing King Peter and the court deciding he was, rather than a spy for France or Naples, the man of little importance he appeared to be.
"Leaving Sicily, Humbert moved on to Naples, and then Venice, trying to hire ships to take him and the motley army of crusaders he was once again assembling to Cyprus. This alone would take months--the resulting voyage to Cyprus would seem him arrive in August of 1340. He would swiftly learn that Leon IV, the Armenian monarch that he was hoping to support was dead, and had been for over a year, having been killed by an angry mob for his support of the Latin Church[13]. The barons had chosen a new king, Guy de Lusignan, Leon's cousin, and a former regent of Cyprus. The newly anointed Constantine II[14] was badly in need of support--Humbert and his forces were hailed as deliverers, and accompanied the King to Cilica.
"It was the beginning of a very frustrating five years for Humbert."
--While the Savior Wept: Crusading in the 14th Century, by Barbara Morell, 1983
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The term "Dauphin" initially referred to two distinct titles, the County of Viennois and the county of Auvergne, both of which had dolphins on their coats of arms. It was initially a nickname, but eventually became a formal title.
[2] This was true IOTL as well. Humbert was just a pawn in the medieval game of life.
[3] He would also do this IOTL, though at a significantly later date.
[4] Both IOTL and ITTL, Humbert put himself quite heavily in debt by preparing to go on a crusade that never actually happened.
[5] Robert was Humbert's first choice IOTL as well, but simply wasn't that interested.
[6] Humbert was Robert's nephew-in-law, as well as a relative on his mother's side. Sadly, counting on family feeling from a man with as many relatives as Robert was a bad play.
[7] John was Humbert's first cousin through their respective mothers, though again, this isn't much help to a man with a large supply of relatives.
[8] Humbert did indeed try to sell it to the Papacy IOTL as well. Likewise, Avignon was not presently owned by the Papacy, instead being a Neapolitan possession that they were allowed to hold court in.
[9] Philip of course bought it for his grandson in the late 1340s IOTL, the reason that it became synonymous with the heir of France. Here, Humbert's a little more desperate, and Philip is a bit more eager.
[10] The sale involved quite a lot of juggling IOTL as well, to avoid the title going into abeyance.
[11] This was the case IOTL as well--Sicily and Naples spent most of the 14th century in various degrees of conflict.
[12] John's motives for this will be explored later.
[13] Leon was killed in a similar fashion in 1341 IOTL--Armenian Cilicia was a powder-keg for most of its existence.
[14] Guy was likewise Leon's successor under this name IOTL--he appears to have been the barons' second choice, but their first, his younger brother, pressed them to pick him.
"For most of his contemporaries, the Dauphin[1] Humbert II was ultimately an afterthought. German Emperor Louis of Bavaria had flirted with crowning him King of Arles at one point, but this was more due to the excellent strategic position of his realm and the prestige of his family more than any particular virtue of Humbert's[2]. The court he created upon the inheritance of the Dauphinate from his brother swiftly developed a reputation for frivolity and waste, though the small size of it kept this fact from particularly impressing others. If fate had been a little kinder to him, he would almost certainly be forgotten save for those interested in the genealogies of minor nobles. But fate was not kind to Humbert--his only child, a son, died at the age of two, fixing Humbert on two ideas that would cause him to leave an undeniable mark on history. First, to take up the cross and go on a Crusade in the Holy Land. Second--and this idea was linked to the first--to sell his inheritance, title and all. He would achieve both[3], and because of this, leave a greater shadow on history than many other, better men.
"This would not be because Humbert was an especially successful crusader--the account of his fitful wanderings in the East that he wrote has been declared 'a fascinating record of failure and incompetence'. But Humbert's lack of success was typical of the era--indeed, from 1341, until 1352, the Dauphin managed to involve himself in virtually every major crusading effort in the Holy Land, and quite a few minor ones, Flood's proverbial 'man who chanced to be there'. It is because of this--that he managed to be everywhere, and more importantly, that afterwards, he wrote it all down--that more than a few historians have noted to write of the Crusades in the mid-fourteenth century is to write of Dauphin Humbert...
"Of course, as Humbert had learned by previous efforts[4], crusading was an expensive undertaking. His earlier attempts had impoverished a man who was not rich and ruined his credit. This was the primary reason for his desire to sell the Dauphinate, though his lack of a clear heir provided another motivation. Unfortunately for Humbert, his first potential buyer was not interested in the Dauphinate--at least not at the price Humbert was offering it. This was a shame, for Robert of Naples[5] was an obvious choice, thanks to his substantial holdings in Provence, and familial connection to Humbert[6]. His second offer, to John of France[7], was likewise refused--John, whose sentimental attachment to his Angevin kin was legendary, felt obligated to try drive the price down for Robert.
"Humbert refused to be discouraged, and next offered his lands to the Pope. The Papacy was undeniably interested--after all, their present home of Avignon was essentially borrowed from Naples[8]. But once again, the price proved the sticky part, and the prospective sale fell through. Things were looking increasingly grim for Humbert, who had outstanding debts to worry about on top of impractical dreams, when finally, the Lord saw fit to answer his prayers and provide a buyer. In 1337, Philip of Valois, the Duke of Anjou, offered to purchase the Dauphinate for his eldest son, John, in return for a substantial sum that would, with the assistance of Papal funding, finance many years of crusading[9]. Philip's motives were, as usual a blend of the practical and the religious--the recent stillbirths of a son and grandson had convinced the Duke of a need to get his spiritual house in order, while increasing difficulties with his royal brother-in-law had convinced him of the need of his line to acquire a sovereign title. The resulting arrangement between Humbert and Philip was as complicated a one as that medieval bureaucrat could create when given a chance--John of Valois was named as Humbert's heir, with as many functions of the Dauphinate's government as could be were to be transferred to the young prince's "representatives" while the Dauphin was abroad[10]...
"...All this hinged on Humbert actually receiving Papal approval as a crusader, a thing that was not necessarily certain. Pope John's view of crusades and crusaders was on the whole dim; his views on Humbert and Philip were not an exception to this. If anything, they were exemplars--on at least one occasion he referred to the pair of them as "infants". And yet, ultimately, he agreed to it. Humbert always gave credit to "the hand of God" in this--more likely, it was because this was seen by many prominent rulers, including both the Emperor and the King of France, as a way to avoid a disputed succession in the volatile region. Whatever the cause, Humbert now had the spiritual and financial backing of the Papacy in his crusade. Sending a message to many longtime companions and fellow crusading enthusiasts to join him in his grand endeavor, he embarked for Sicily in 1338 to await them.
"He was arrested almost immediately upon his arrival to the island.
"The Kingdom of 'Sicily Beyond the Lighthouse' was, as was so often the case for the troubled island nation, in tulmult. The gifted Frederick III was dead, his place taken by his reportedly simple-minded son, Peter II. Its rival, Angevin Naples, had moved from hostility to active war. The Lipari Islands had been taken by Neapolitan forces, who were now planning an invasion of the island proper[11]. Humbert was heavily suspected of being an agent of the Angevins--his ties to the Papacy were no help, as the Sicilians relations with the See of St. Peter were still fairly poor. Humbert wrote to the Pope, the Emperor, the King of France and the Duke of Anjou to beg for their assistance--the Pope and the Emperor ignored him, the King of France seems to have encouraged the Sicilians to imprison him for longer[12], and the Duke of Anjou wrote an impassioned argument for liberating the Dauphin that the court ignored. In the end, Humbert's freedom was only achieved after a year of imprisonment, and seems to have been affected by a combination of Humbert's piety impressing King Peter and the court deciding he was, rather than a spy for France or Naples, the man of little importance he appeared to be.
"Leaving Sicily, Humbert moved on to Naples, and then Venice, trying to hire ships to take him and the motley army of crusaders he was once again assembling to Cyprus. This alone would take months--the resulting voyage to Cyprus would seem him arrive in August of 1340. He would swiftly learn that Leon IV, the Armenian monarch that he was hoping to support was dead, and had been for over a year, having been killed by an angry mob for his support of the Latin Church[13]. The barons had chosen a new king, Guy de Lusignan, Leon's cousin, and a former regent of Cyprus. The newly anointed Constantine II[14] was badly in need of support--Humbert and his forces were hailed as deliverers, and accompanied the King to Cilica.
"It was the beginning of a very frustrating five years for Humbert."
--While the Savior Wept: Crusading in the 14th Century, by Barbara Morell, 1983
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The term "Dauphin" initially referred to two distinct titles, the County of Viennois and the county of Auvergne, both of which had dolphins on their coats of arms. It was initially a nickname, but eventually became a formal title.
[2] This was true IOTL as well. Humbert was just a pawn in the medieval game of life.
[3] He would also do this IOTL, though at a significantly later date.
[4] Both IOTL and ITTL, Humbert put himself quite heavily in debt by preparing to go on a crusade that never actually happened.
[5] Robert was Humbert's first choice IOTL as well, but simply wasn't that interested.
[6] Humbert was Robert's nephew-in-law, as well as a relative on his mother's side. Sadly, counting on family feeling from a man with as many relatives as Robert was a bad play.
[7] John was Humbert's first cousin through their respective mothers, though again, this isn't much help to a man with a large supply of relatives.
[8] Humbert did indeed try to sell it to the Papacy IOTL as well. Likewise, Avignon was not presently owned by the Papacy, instead being a Neapolitan possession that they were allowed to hold court in.
[9] Philip of course bought it for his grandson in the late 1340s IOTL, the reason that it became synonymous with the heir of France. Here, Humbert's a little more desperate, and Philip is a bit more eager.
[10] The sale involved quite a lot of juggling IOTL as well, to avoid the title going into abeyance.
[11] This was the case IOTL as well--Sicily and Naples spent most of the 14th century in various degrees of conflict.
[12] John's motives for this will be explored later.
[13] Leon was killed in a similar fashion in 1341 IOTL--Armenian Cilicia was a powder-keg for most of its existence.
[14] Guy was likewise Leon's successor under this name IOTL--he appears to have been the barons' second choice, but their first, his younger brother, pressed them to pick him.
Last edited:
I did make up Humbert connecting himself to a semi-successful effort at a crusade to aid Armenian Cilicia that actually had people arrive there, but that didn't involve making up much. The actual crusade he was involved in was even stranger.
And yes, TTL's version of it will show up as well.
1337-8: England & Holland
1337-8: ADVENTURES IN WAR-PROFITEERING
"Any account of William de la Pole must begin with a certain stumbling block--we know very little of the man's origins. His parentage is uncertain, so that he springs into the history fully-formed, already in a partnership with his brother Richard, with whom he was a Deputy of the Royal Butler and later, a Chamberlain of Hull[1]...
"...In the years that saw the heady build-up to the Long War, William de la Pole's wool trade had made him by one account "the first man of Hull," and "second to no other merchant in England"[2]. While for some men that might have been enough, de la Pole had even grander ambitions--to make himself a great man of the realm, perhaps even a titled nobleman, and a crutch to kings[3]. He started in this business by loaning money to Edward II, and when the government of his son began, de la Pole transferred to loaning it to the Prince of Wales without a missed step. Over the next few years, he became not only one of the Prince's principle bankers, but one of his principle war contractors, selling the government wax, metal, tents, victuals and other such goods. He even had a war galley constructed for the English navy[4].
"William's most significant service to the throne would prove to be a failure--he was a major player in (perhaps even the originator of) the scheme to finance the war with wool sales...[5] William and his partners in the English Wool Company--the most notable whom were his brother Richard, and London merchant Reginald Conduit[6]--promised to transport 30,000 sacks of wool to Holland and pay £200,000 into the government accounts over the next year[7]. It was an innovative plan that alas, failed to understand that the market would shift from scarcity to glut prices rather swiftly. It also overestimated the company's ability to transport the wool--by the beginning of 1338, rather than the planned 20,000 sacks, only 11,000 had arrived.
"This already difficult state of affairs was made worse by the arrival of Bishop Burghersh, fresh from his negotiations with the German princes. He immediately demanded that the merchants produce £258,000 to pay assorted bribes to the allies[8]. When they protested they could not and indeed that the sum he demanded exceeded the expected profits from the sale of the entire wool supply, he seized the sacks they had already gotten, and sold them. Sadly, the Bishop's underlings proved quite inept at this, he made only £37,000 from the entire series of transactions--less than a loan that the company had offered to produce[9]... Not for the last time, the war between England's financiers and its civil servants had ended to the discredit of both, and the weakening of England's status in the war against France..."
--William de la Pole, by Anatole Montemorency, Medieval Magazine Issue #114, 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This is likewise the case IOTL--William is a tremendously important person who left a fairly small paper trail until suddenly, he didn't.
[2] He was this rich IOTL as well. Obviously, being the richest merchant in Hull meant a lot in those days.
[3] Or so this writer feels. Just how grasping and ambitious William de la Pole is debated to this day--while that was undeniably PART of his make up, the fact remains that the Kings of England didn't exactly have to be pressed into loaning money from him, and seem to have sought him out.
[4] William did all this IOTL. He was virtually a one-man medieval conglomerate.
[5] Which I've detailed in the past, and thus won't detail here.
[6] Richard and Reginald were partners of the company IOTL as well.
[7] This was their promise IOTL. It was... well, optimistic. Just how optimistic will be shown.
[8] Ironically, Burghersh is in slightly better shape than OTL, where he owed slightly more, and by 'slightly more', I mean 'an extra 15,000 or so'.
[9] Burghersh's men have done slightly worse than OTL by a few thousand, though honestly, it makes little difference.
"Any account of William de la Pole must begin with a certain stumbling block--we know very little of the man's origins. His parentage is uncertain, so that he springs into the history fully-formed, already in a partnership with his brother Richard, with whom he was a Deputy of the Royal Butler and later, a Chamberlain of Hull[1]...
"...In the years that saw the heady build-up to the Long War, William de la Pole's wool trade had made him by one account "the first man of Hull," and "second to no other merchant in England"[2]. While for some men that might have been enough, de la Pole had even grander ambitions--to make himself a great man of the realm, perhaps even a titled nobleman, and a crutch to kings[3]. He started in this business by loaning money to Edward II, and when the government of his son began, de la Pole transferred to loaning it to the Prince of Wales without a missed step. Over the next few years, he became not only one of the Prince's principle bankers, but one of his principle war contractors, selling the government wax, metal, tents, victuals and other such goods. He even had a war galley constructed for the English navy[4].
"William's most significant service to the throne would prove to be a failure--he was a major player in (perhaps even the originator of) the scheme to finance the war with wool sales...[5] William and his partners in the English Wool Company--the most notable whom were his brother Richard, and London merchant Reginald Conduit[6]--promised to transport 30,000 sacks of wool to Holland and pay £200,000 into the government accounts over the next year[7]. It was an innovative plan that alas, failed to understand that the market would shift from scarcity to glut prices rather swiftly. It also overestimated the company's ability to transport the wool--by the beginning of 1338, rather than the planned 20,000 sacks, only 11,000 had arrived.
"This already difficult state of affairs was made worse by the arrival of Bishop Burghersh, fresh from his negotiations with the German princes. He immediately demanded that the merchants produce £258,000 to pay assorted bribes to the allies[8]. When they protested they could not and indeed that the sum he demanded exceeded the expected profits from the sale of the entire wool supply, he seized the sacks they had already gotten, and sold them. Sadly, the Bishop's underlings proved quite inept at this, he made only £37,000 from the entire series of transactions--less than a loan that the company had offered to produce[9]... Not for the last time, the war between England's financiers and its civil servants had ended to the discredit of both, and the weakening of England's status in the war against France..."
--William de la Pole, by Anatole Montemorency, Medieval Magazine Issue #114, 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This is likewise the case IOTL--William is a tremendously important person who left a fairly small paper trail until suddenly, he didn't.
[2] He was this rich IOTL as well. Obviously, being the richest merchant in Hull meant a lot in those days.
[3] Or so this writer feels. Just how grasping and ambitious William de la Pole is debated to this day--while that was undeniably PART of his make up, the fact remains that the Kings of England didn't exactly have to be pressed into loaning money from him, and seem to have sought him out.
[4] William did all this IOTL. He was virtually a one-man medieval conglomerate.
[5] Which I've detailed in the past, and thus won't detail here.
[6] Richard and Reginald were partners of the company IOTL as well.
[7] This was their promise IOTL. It was... well, optimistic. Just how optimistic will be shown.
[8] Ironically, Burghersh is in slightly better shape than OTL, where he owed slightly more, and by 'slightly more', I mean 'an extra 15,000 or so'.
[9] Burghersh's men have done slightly worse than OTL by a few thousand, though honestly, it makes little difference.
1338: Scotland
1338: 'AND WHEN IN HELL YOU SIT, TELL THEM 'TWAS THE STEWARD SENT YOU.'
"By 1338, the English situation in Scotland, so recently restored, was close to disintegrating again. Funds and men had been diverted from the conquest to deal with the matter of France. Edward Balliol, the purported ally they were aiding was treated dismissively by the Prince who even ordered him about like a servant. Many of the Disinherited were losing faith with the English as a result of this, most notably the reliably unreliable Earl of Atholl. A siege of the Moravian[1] stronghold of Dunbar had been proposed under the Earl of Salisbury, but he was still gathering a rather underwhelming force at York, quarreling with the Percys and Nevills to give him more men, and waiting for the money to pay them all. About the only thing preventing a complete failure for the English was the divisions and rivalries of the Scots, who remained riven between the Moravian and Steward camps...
"John Stewart had emerged from the ongoing war and the recent Scottish council of notables as an increasingly major leader in his nation. Despite having bitterly offended the Murrays and Neil of Carrick, he had made allies, such as Sir William Douglas, the Knight of Liddesdale, a brutal, self-serving warrior who later generations of Scots would declare the "Flower of Chivalry"[2]. A man after the Steward's own heart, Douglas had solved the problem of his limited resources by keeping only small bands of men, who could be called together as needed, and spend the rest of their time harrying the English and Balliol supporters. The Steward, despite his far greater wealth, had adopted a similar system--indeed his network of allies had spread over much of Scotland over the ensuing months, giving even the Murrays a pause...
"In early February, the Steward called his forces together, and took Kinclavin Castle, to the north of Perth[3]. He followed this up by linking up with Douglas' forces, and invading Fife. This brought a protest from Salisbury, who claimed the Earldom of Fife from his abduction and marriage to its countess, but seemed to have done little to stir the Percys and Nevills to his side. Likewise, his protests to the Prince of Wales brought reprimands, as the Prince declared he was preoccupied with French raiders, and that Salisbury would have to do better[4]. Salisbury could not, at least not immediately, and instead did nothing as the Steward's forces took the tower of Falkland and Leuchars, then subjected St. Andrews to a brief and brutal siege. This was followed by an attack on Bothwell castle, recently rebuilt by the English. The garrison surrendered almost immediately, inspired by the Steward's brutal treatment of the St. Andrews' garrison. The fate of all these strongholds was the same--the Steward had his men raze them to the ground. Bothwell was so ruined that not even its foundations stood afterwards[5].
"News of this reached Prince Edward in Westminster, where he was already preparing for his Continental campaign. It almost inspired him to return to Scotland, despite the fact that this would almost certainly mean the dissolution of all his plans there. The only thing that spared him is the Steward's own lack of funds--he had his army disperse after Bothwell, though small raiding parties caused trouble throughout Galloway for the rest of the year[6]. As it became clearer that a marauding horde of Scots would not be descending on England soon, Edward recommitted to his European plans, while insisting that Salisbury should work harder to capture the Steward. Salisbury swore that he would, but swiftly found that the elusive Scot had once again gone to ground. By the end of the year, he and and his newly made joint commander, the Earl of Arundel[7] had found themselves beginning the very siege of Dunbar that had been initially planned in an effort to justify their campaign..."
--From A Very Quarrelsome People: A History of the Scots, by Mark Campbell Mackenzie (1970)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] A term used by this author and others for the Murrays and their supporters.
[2] Sir William Douglas wound up with a similar reputation IOTL. History can sometimes be shockingly kind to real bastards.
[3] Sir Andrew Murray lead a similar campaign in 1337 IOTL.
[4] Edward was just as preoccupied about the whole affair IOTL. He really just let Scotland fall to the wayside after his last campaign there.
[5] The Scots achieved similar victories IOTL and destroyed the castles as well. It really wasn't that difficult--the English were fatally overspread and under-supplied.
[6] And here the Scots' divisions hurt them--Sir Andrew Murray's united command was able to keep the momentum going with an actual campaign in Galloway.
[7] IOTL, Arundel found himself made sole commander of the northern army in 1338 after previously being a joint commander. Here, Salisbury got himself a sole command thanks to his Scottish holdings and Edward really wanting more people with him in Europe, and then lost it by not performing miracles.
"By 1338, the English situation in Scotland, so recently restored, was close to disintegrating again. Funds and men had been diverted from the conquest to deal with the matter of France. Edward Balliol, the purported ally they were aiding was treated dismissively by the Prince who even ordered him about like a servant. Many of the Disinherited were losing faith with the English as a result of this, most notably the reliably unreliable Earl of Atholl. A siege of the Moravian[1] stronghold of Dunbar had been proposed under the Earl of Salisbury, but he was still gathering a rather underwhelming force at York, quarreling with the Percys and Nevills to give him more men, and waiting for the money to pay them all. About the only thing preventing a complete failure for the English was the divisions and rivalries of the Scots, who remained riven between the Moravian and Steward camps...
"John Stewart had emerged from the ongoing war and the recent Scottish council of notables as an increasingly major leader in his nation. Despite having bitterly offended the Murrays and Neil of Carrick, he had made allies, such as Sir William Douglas, the Knight of Liddesdale, a brutal, self-serving warrior who later generations of Scots would declare the "Flower of Chivalry"[2]. A man after the Steward's own heart, Douglas had solved the problem of his limited resources by keeping only small bands of men, who could be called together as needed, and spend the rest of their time harrying the English and Balliol supporters. The Steward, despite his far greater wealth, had adopted a similar system--indeed his network of allies had spread over much of Scotland over the ensuing months, giving even the Murrays a pause...
"In early February, the Steward called his forces together, and took Kinclavin Castle, to the north of Perth[3]. He followed this up by linking up with Douglas' forces, and invading Fife. This brought a protest from Salisbury, who claimed the Earldom of Fife from his abduction and marriage to its countess, but seemed to have done little to stir the Percys and Nevills to his side. Likewise, his protests to the Prince of Wales brought reprimands, as the Prince declared he was preoccupied with French raiders, and that Salisbury would have to do better[4]. Salisbury could not, at least not immediately, and instead did nothing as the Steward's forces took the tower of Falkland and Leuchars, then subjected St. Andrews to a brief and brutal siege. This was followed by an attack on Bothwell castle, recently rebuilt by the English. The garrison surrendered almost immediately, inspired by the Steward's brutal treatment of the St. Andrews' garrison. The fate of all these strongholds was the same--the Steward had his men raze them to the ground. Bothwell was so ruined that not even its foundations stood afterwards[5].
"News of this reached Prince Edward in Westminster, where he was already preparing for his Continental campaign. It almost inspired him to return to Scotland, despite the fact that this would almost certainly mean the dissolution of all his plans there. The only thing that spared him is the Steward's own lack of funds--he had his army disperse after Bothwell, though small raiding parties caused trouble throughout Galloway for the rest of the year[6]. As it became clearer that a marauding horde of Scots would not be descending on England soon, Edward recommitted to his European plans, while insisting that Salisbury should work harder to capture the Steward. Salisbury swore that he would, but swiftly found that the elusive Scot had once again gone to ground. By the end of the year, he and and his newly made joint commander, the Earl of Arundel[7] had found themselves beginning the very siege of Dunbar that had been initially planned in an effort to justify their campaign..."
--From A Very Quarrelsome People: A History of the Scots, by Mark Campbell Mackenzie (1970)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] A term used by this author and others for the Murrays and their supporters.
[2] Sir William Douglas wound up with a similar reputation IOTL. History can sometimes be shockingly kind to real bastards.
[3] Sir Andrew Murray lead a similar campaign in 1337 IOTL.
[4] Edward was just as preoccupied about the whole affair IOTL. He really just let Scotland fall to the wayside after his last campaign there.
[5] The Scots achieved similar victories IOTL and destroyed the castles as well. It really wasn't that difficult--the English were fatally overspread and under-supplied.
[6] And here the Scots' divisions hurt them--Sir Andrew Murray's united command was able to keep the momentum going with an actual campaign in Galloway.
[7] IOTL, Arundel found himself made sole commander of the northern army in 1338 after previously being a joint commander. Here, Salisbury got himself a sole command thanks to his Scottish holdings and Edward really wanting more people with him in Europe, and then lost it by not performing miracles.
Last edited:
To expand for others Murray comes from Moray which is Moreb or Muireb in Gaelic hence the Latinisation Moravia.
I mean, technically, John Stewart spent that entire section kicking English ass. It's just that Scotland's problems are... well, kind of significant.