Cardinal Richelieu Is Murdered By An Assassin 1624

Point of Divergence ... The year is 1624, and Cardinal Richelieu is on a high. Having just been promoted to Cardinal two years before, he has received a letter giving him even greater news. His monarch, King Louis the XIII, is making him his Chief Minister. Essentially, he has been put in charge of France and all its vast resources. Richelieu sees for himself advancement, titles, and esteem.

Walking through the halls of his residence, Richelieu barks orders to his many servants and advisors, demanding the best for the reconigtion of his title. He spends the day doing so, and retires for the evening in his chambers, comfortable in the knowledge that tomorrow his rule of France can begin.

He awakes in a cold sweat later in the night. He can feel a presence in the room, but cannot say from where. He opens his mouth to shout for his servants, but a hand clamps hard on his mouth. Richelieu struggles, but to no avail. He feels a sharp pain in his back, then another. The hand clamps tighter as he struggles to scream, and he tastes blood on his tongue. As he descends into blackness, the last thought he has is how shameful it is to get what he wanted and to not be able to wield the power.

The next morning, a servant enters the room to find Richelieu sprawled on the bed, blood covering his mouth and robes. She runs screaming for a physician. The entire household is in a panic as the King's Royal Physician arrives with a sizable amount of guards. After an examination of the body, he concludes Richelieu was stabbed by a dagger twice. The first stab did not damage any vital organs. However, the second punctured a lung, and he died choking on his own blood.

The King orders a thorough investigation. Servants are dragged into the torture chambers and put to rack and wheel till death, protesting their innocence. However, these torments come to naught. No one is able to shed light on the identity of the assassin. Richelieu's corpse is given all honors and services, then is buried in a grave under an elaborate monument. His dreams of being Chief Minister of France like himself, dust.

If this scenario came to pass, how does it impact the future of France and Europe?
 
Point of Divergence ... The year is 1624, and Cardinal Richelieu is on a high. Having just been promoted to Cardinal two years before, he has received a letter giving him even greater news. His monarch, King Louis the XIII, is making him his Chief Minister. Essentially, he has been put in charge of France and all its vast resources. Richelieu sees for himself advancement, titles, and esteem.

Walking through the halls of his residence, Richelieu barks orders to his many servants and advisors, demanding the best for the reconigtion of his title. He spends the day doing so, and retires for the evening in his chambers, comfortable in the knowledge that tomorrow his rule of France can begin.

He awakes in a cold sweat later in the night. He can feel a presence in the room, but cannot say from where. He opens his mouth to shout for his servants, but a hand clamps hard on his mouth. Richelieu struggles, but to no avail. He feels a sharp pain in his back, then another. The hand clamps tighter as he struggles to scream, and he tastes blood on his tongue. As he descends into blackness, the last thought he has is how shameful it is to get what he wanted and to not be able to wield the power.

The next morning, a servant enters the room to find Richelieu sprawled on the bed, blood covering his mouth and robes. She runs screaming for a physician. The entire household is in a panic as the King's Royal Physician arrives with a sizable amount of guards. After an examination of the body, he concludes Richelieu was stabbed by a dagger twice. The first stab did not damage any vital organs. However, the second punctured a lung, and he died choking on his own blood.

The King orders a thorough investigation. Servants are dragged into the torture chambers and put to rack and wheel till death, protesting their innocence. However, these torments come to naught. No one is able to shed light on the identity of the assassin. Richelieu's corpse is given all honors and services, then is buried in a grave under an elaborate monument. His dreams of being Chief Minister of France like himself, dust.

If this scenario came to pass, how does it impact the future of France and Europe?

If Richelieu is put out of the picture (even if a ninja assassin killing him in his sleep seems borderline ASB to me), then the Devout Party of Queen Marie de Medici is up, with its leaders beign Berulle and Marillac. Their goal was mainly internal reform, with the objective of legal unification and enhancing of the royal prerogative, with no will to intervene in foreign affairs, especially when it involves Habsburgs beating up heretics. France would be less powerfull diplomatically, but building up more power (as, for example, Marillac did push for law very similar to the later Navigation Acts).
 
If Richelieu is put out of the picture (even if a ninja assassin killing him in his sleep seems borderline ASB to me), then the Devout Party of Queen Marie de Medici is up, with its leaders beign Berulle and Marillac. Their goal was mainly internal reform, with the objective of legal unification and enhancing of the royal prerogative, with no will to intervene in foreign affairs, especially when it involves Habsburgs beating up heretics. France would be less powerfull diplomatically, but building up more power (as, for example, Marillac did push for law very similar to the later Navigation Acts).

So a more powerful centralized France not intervening in foreign affairs (sort of like Louis XV's reign between the Regence and the War of the Polish Succession)?
 
If Richelieu is put out of the picture (even if a ninja assassin killing him in his sleep seems borderline ASB to me), then the Devout Party of Queen Marie de Medici is up, with its leaders beign Berulle and Marillac. Their goal was mainly internal reform, with the objective of legal unification and enhancing of the royal prerogative, with no will to intervene in foreign affairs, especially when it involves Habsburgs beating up heretics. France would be less powerfull diplomatically, but building up more power (as, for example, Marillac did push for law very similar to the later Navigation Acts).
I think that might be a good thing actually,considering that the various wars conducted during the 17th century actually netted France very little gain in terms of territories gained vs the amount of money and men spent on the wars to get them.The problem with France during the 17th was that while they can win wars,they cannot properly exploit them because the government just runs out of money just when they were winning.
 
I think that might be a good thing actually,considering that the various wars conducted during the 17th century actually netted France very little gain in terms of territories gained vs the amount of money and men spent on the wars to get them.The problem with France during the 17th was that while they can win wars,they cannot properly exploit them because the government just runs out of money just when they were winning.
The thirty years' war netted France Alsace and the Three Bishoprics, as well as Roussillon and part of Flanders. Franche-Comté was acquired in the Dutch war.
 
The thirty years' war netted France Alsace and the Three Bishoprics, as well as Roussillon and part of Flanders. Franche-Comté was acquired in the Dutch war.
I don't think they worth the cost and that France would have potentially gained far more land later on if they spent they improving the economy and THEN try to fight a war.Every time they fight a war,they gain a tiny amount of land,but ended up antagonizing a lot of neighbors in the process.Now if they take a lot of land in one war,then that's a different matter.
 
The thirty years' war netted France Alsace and the Three Bishoprics, as well as Roussillon and part of Flanders. Franche-Comté was acquired in the Dutch war.
In 1648, France bagged in part of Alsace and had his de facto annexation of Metz, Toul and Verdun formally recognized. Not so much of land. All the later 17th c. annexations (Roussillon, Artois, Free County etc) would likely be decided by other men than Berulle or Marillac, dead at this point. The "fog of alt-history" stops us. The only short-term consequence is no direct french intervention in the 30YW.
 
In 1648, France bagged in part of Alsace and had his de facto annexation of Metz, Toul and Verdun formally recognized. Not so much of land. All the later 17th c. annexations (Roussillon, Artois, Free County etc) would likely be decided by other men than Berulle or Marillac, dead at this point. The "fog of alt-history" stops us. The only short-term consequence is no direct french intervention in the 30YW.
It has to be taken into account that Louis XIII had resented his mother quite a lot and would likely make sure any minister he takes would not be tied to her.
 
New France won’t likely get its early support. Also A bit of practical political theory (raison d’etat etc.) is likely to be delayed.

It might be that France doesn’t get a First Minister in the way that Richelieu made it, or you might get something like the Cabal Ministry forming in France which could be interesting, especially if the Regency still occurs.
 
It has to be taken into account that Louis XIII had resented his mother quite a lot and would likely make sure any minister he takes would not be tied to her.
He both liked and resented his mother. OTL, Richelieu came very near to the end of his career in 1630. It could very easily have gone another way, especially without Richelieu's personnality.
Who would be the alternate chief minister if Richelieu died?
Marillac is the most likely candidate : he was Superintendent of Finances, then Keeper of the Seals, meaning he has experience in both Finances and Justice administration. He is supported by Marie de Médicis, like Richelieu was, and quite respected, even by his adversaries. OTL, his reform (the Code Michau) was never really put into application, even when officialy accepted.
 
Butterflying away Richelieu could have had
profound consequences for GERMAN history.
Let me explain-

Richelieu for many years- instead of the actual King, Louis XIII- ran France. I don't
know why Louis put up with this but I'm
guessing- & I could be wrong but bear with
me- that Louis was either a) weak & thus
easily manipulated, or b)lazy, & thus quite content to sit back & let someone else do the heavylifting. He certainly did not seem to be a strong, decisive character. Thus, I doubt he
would have done what Richelieu did- align
Catholic France with the Protestant side in
Germany in the TYW. Without France(which
first helped out Gustav Adolphus & then in-
tervened directly with troops)the TYW would,
I think, have ended differently. Ferdinand II-
aided of course by Wallenstein- would have
succeeded in re-conquering most, if not all,
of Germany for the Catholic Church. The
HRE would also have been more powerful
than he'd ever been before. This then just
might have enabled Germany to be unified
sooner than it was IOTL(certainly I think
changing the outcome of the TYW butterflies
away Westphalia, which divided Germany up
into more than 300 states). And if Germany
is created earlier...

I know that "the great man school of history"
has fallen into disfavor nowadays but none-
theless, you can see what an important figure Richelieu was by trying to imagine
European history without him.
 
Last edited:
Butterflying away Richelieu could have had
profound consequences for GERMAN history.
Let me explain-

Richelieu for many years- instead of the actual King, Louis XIII- ran France. I don't
know why Louis put up with this but I'm
guessing- & I could be wrong but bear with
me- that Louis was either a) weak & thus
easily manipulated, or b)lazy, & thus quite content to sit back & let someone else do the heavylifting. He certainly did not seem to be a strong, decisive character. Thus, I doubt he
would have done what Richelieu did- align
Catholic France with the Protestant side in
Germany in the TYW. Without France(which
first helped out Gustav Adolphus & then in-
tervened directly with troops)the TYW would,
I think, have ended differently. Ferdinand II-
aided of course by Wallenstein- would have
succeeded in re-conquering most, if not all,
of Germany for the Catholic Church. The
HRE would also have been more powerful
than he'd ever been before. This then just
might have enabled Germany to be unified
sooner than it was IOTL(certainly I think
changing the outcome of the TYW butterflies
away Westphalia, which divided Germany up
into more than 300 states). And if Germany
is created earlier...

I know that "the great man school of history"
has fallen into disfavor nowadays but none-
theless, you can see what an important figure Richelieu was by trying to imagine
European history without him.

I remember the very first *ACTUAL history of Richelieu said of him in the intro "that for his rule, people feared more the sound of the swishing of the cardinal's robes than the sound of the king's boots. People rose and heads rolled at his command... He had three great enemies the nobles, the Huguenots and the Habsburgs. And by the time he died, he had seen the France which he had turned from being the toy of jumped up lackeys and chambermaids humiliate all of these."

*As opposed to fictional history like "The Three Musketeers"
 
Top