French Conquer England in 1215

[Errnge]

As it says on the tin.

The First Baron's War was an uprising in England that resulted in the invasion of England by Louis VIII of France and Alexander II of Scotland from 1215-17.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barons%27_War

Louis VIII (then a prince) occupied London, and was proclaimed king by the English barons. He also received support from the King of Scotland in return for possession of his claims in the North (Northumbria, Cumbria).

So, what does it take for the French prince and soon to be king of France to win? A successful siege of Dover? John simply to live longer, thus those who hated him to not shift their allegiance to his son?

If Louis won, and became the King of France and England, this would undoubtedly rock western history! Scotland would dominate the north of the island as a French ally, and France would rule the rest of the island from Paris. More French would come to influence England and its language, similarly as to what happened 150 years earlier in the Norman invasion. Could the French hold England? If they do, how does this affect the balance of power in Europe?

It's a very juicy piece of AH that I think has largely been ignored, and is certainly worth discussion.

 

[Errnge]

Nothing? No thoughts?

 

[Pericles]

The English would be assimilated into France probably. Ireland and Scotland might be better off.

 

[LSCatilina]

My two cents.

I doubt Capetians would have been able to hold all of England, not talking about Great Britain.

The existence of a de facto (if not de jure) *Northern England is quite likely, eventually while an absorbtion by Scotland could be possible.
Hiberno-Norman Ireland is to be expected.

Furthermore, Capetians will have to deal with a different feudal situation than in France where the royal power was widely accepted by great nobles after Bouvines.
They'll probably have to battle politically, if not military against the great nobles houses : remember that Philip II Augustus forced Franco-Norman houses to split their holdings in France and England in order to prevent to much interference. With both kingdoms technically united, there's quite to bet that these houses will try to get their nobiliar power back.

Assuming Capetians manage to fight back what could turn in another Baron's War (that would be more easy than for John Lackland as Kings of France would benefit from France as rear base), it would be at the expense of southern expension : the Kingdom of Aragon is likely to be sucssessful in putting the County of Tolouse and OTL Languedoc within their crown as they tried to do OTL. That means a land between Garonne and Rhone river as well Mediterranean shore escapes French influence for a long time.
Big butterflying to expect : no Angevine dynasty in Naples by exemple.

More economical and commercial power for a Franco/English kingdom : the control of Channel is going to get some kings really rich. As an earlier, rich and populated Atlantic power, Discovery of Americas is going to make some kings really happy in XV/XVI centuries if it happens more or less as OTL (possibly earlier, without Hundered Years War)

Finally the choice of northern expansion for France instead of southern is going to make conflicts with HRE more lasting. Alliance with a scandinavian power is likely, a stronger alliance with Poland as well.
Scotland is going to be a p**n in the a*s. Better keep a Northern England buffer region, even if not integrated de facto in the Dual Kingdom.

English culture is going to be seriouslt threatened at long term : I don't think it could disappear but it's possible it would be the same as Breton IOTL.

 

[Corjomc]

Kill off Merry Ol' before she gets rolling?

The effects on colonization and the Protestant Reformation

An independent Wales?

English Liberation Army?

Do Scotland and France eventually turn on each other?

Perhaps Huguenots are exiled there and the Island rebels at some point

 

[Albeques]

I think France could hold England, the thing to remember is that the English nobility didn't really see themselves as all that different from the French until the Hundred Years War, so there wouldn't really be a culture problem there, as far as Wales and Ireland, I don't see them being independent England had already subjugated a lot of their forces, best case scenario is they become vassal duchies or something. What I would be curious about is would Louis accept the Magna Carta? and what happens in stead of the Hundred Years War, does Burgundy and France still fight, and if so what are the chance of the Holy Roman Empire becoming involved because they feel threatened.

 

[Matteo]

My two cents.

I doubt Capetians would have been able to hold all of England, not talking about Great Britain.

The existence of a de facto (if not de jure) *Northern England is quite likely, eventually while an absorbtion by Scotland could be possible.
Hiberno-Norman Ireland is to be expected.

Furthermore, Capetians will have to deal with a different feudal situation than in France where the royal power was widely accepted by great nobles after Bouvines.
They'll probably have to battle politically, if not military against the great nobles houses : remember that Philip II Augustus forced Franco-Norman houses to split their holdings in France and England in order to prevent to much interference. With both kingdoms technically united, there's quite to bet that these houses will try to get their nobiliar power back.

Assuming Capetians manage to fight back what could turn in another Baron's War (that would be more easy than for John Lackland as Kings of France would benefit from France as rear base), it would be at the expense of southern expension : the Kingdom of Aragon is likely to be sucssessful in putting the County of Tolouse and OTL Languedoc within their crown as they tried to do OTL. That means a land between Garonne and Rhone river as well Mediterranean shore escapes French influence for a long time.
Big butterflying to expect : no Angevine dynasty in Naples by exemple.

More economical and commercial power for a Franco/English kingdom : the control of Channel is going to get some kings really rich. As an earlier, rich and populated Atlantic power, Discovery of Americas is going to make some kings really happy in XV/XVI centuries if it happens more or less as OTL (possibly earlier, without Hundered Years War)

Finally the choice of northern expansion for France instead of southern is going to make conflicts with HRE more lasting. Alliance with a scandinavian power is likely, a stronger alliance with Poland as well.
Scotland is going to be a p**n in the a*s. Better keep a Northern England buffer region, even if not integrated de facto in the Dual Kingdom.

English culture is going to be seriouslt threatened at long term : I don't think it could disappear but it's possible it would be the same as Breton IOTL.

The royal power in England was stronger than in France before the Magna Carta. England was the country who firstly developed institutions and tools of the royal state power. French capetiens did copy later many institutions and organizations created by Henry II Plantagenet.

So if the king of England is a frenchman, there will of course be resistance and unrest. But most barons in England were normans, that is normans from Normandy.

It is quite easy to have barons remain loyal : you either obey or you will lose all your possessions. The capetians themselves had a long-established experience of defeating rebel barons on their royal domain.

I don't see why taking control of England would be at the expense of southern expansion. For this to happen, you would need reigning in England to be more costly than not holding it. This is rather counter-intuitive given England's ressources. When William the conqueror became king of England, this did not weaken his position in Normandy and in France, nor his ability to exert power and influence in France.

Historically, Aragon's attempts to take control of the county of Toulouse was decisively defeated in 1213 at the battle of Muret.

And you're forgetting that holding the crown of England and France together implies total control on Flanders and all what was going to become the (future Valois and Habsbourg) Netherlands, thanks to the legal and military power of the french king on the continent and to the wool of the english king.

 

[JedidiahStott]

What of succession law. Salic law in France not so in England. Unless England adopts Salic law the union would only last until 1316.

 

[The Professor]

What of succession law. Salic law in France not so in England. Unless England adopts Salic law the union would only last until 1316.

That's a HYW invention when the French nobles had a choice between Salic Law or an English King.
Put another way if Phillip II dies without sons then a nephew by one of his half sisters will reign (excluding the then-current technically elective principle of course).

 

[JedidiahStott]

Not entirely.

When Louis X died in 1316, Joan of Navarre, his daughter by his first wife, was passed over in favour of Louis's brother Philip V.

It is said that the Estates General invoked Salic Law to justify this.

Admittedly, there were suspicions that Joan's mother had been yonderly, but in law Joan was legitimate, and in those pre-DNA days, no-one could say other wise

On the other hand, whether the English would be very keen on Queen Joan is probably debatable, and even if they were, Philip would probably have had a sharp, shiny argument in his favour. Inter arma enim silent leges.

 

[LSCatilina]

The royal power in England was stronger than in France before the Magna Carta. England was the country who firstly developed institutions and tools of the royal state power. French capetiens did copy later many institutions and organizations created by Henry II Plantagenet.

You confuse two things there : royal power, and acceptance of this royal power.
During Philipp II reign, the royal power was far more accepted than it was during John rule. As Louis VII would be becoming king by the grace of barons and Magna Carta that could theorically limit his powers, the Capetians would have an hard time to make their power as accepted in England than it was in France.

So if the king of England is a frenchman, there will of course be resistance and unrest. But most barons in England were normans, that is normans from Normandy.

They were as much Normans of Normandy than Irish American are from Ireland.

It is quite easy to have barons remain loyal : you either obey or you will lose all your possessions. The capetians themselves had a long-established experience of defeating rebel barons on their royal domain.

The Capetians would have been kings of England because of a civil war made by England's great houses. Do you think they can afford to say "hey, fuck you, it's not as you can make another civil war against me"?

Louis VII is simply going to have the same situation in England that his ancestors had in France in the XI century.

I don't see why taking control of England would be at the expense of southern expansion. For this to happen, you would need reigning in England to be more costly than not holding it. This is rather counter-intuitive given England's ressources. When William the conqueror became king of England, this did not weaken his position in Normandy and in France, nor his ability to exert power and influence in France.

As far as I know, William the Conqueror didn't tried to double its territory in France, being quite too busy with keeping his english throne.

For England's ressources : a major cause of the war of English nobles refused military and financial request of John. They didn't wanted to pay for a war in France and aren't going to accept Louis VIII doing the same much more.
A good part of these ressources are likely going to be used in England for paying loyalties, secure royal presence as Capetians did in France (construction of castle, by exemple).
Personal union are maybe fun and instant in Paradox games, but in a more realistic course of events, there will be a cost.

You talk about being counter-intuitive if the conquest costed more than immediate benefit : as we're talking about southern expansion in Languedoc, it was actually more costing than anything at first for Montfort, then for Louis VII/Louis IX with the majority of the land standing in their pre-crusade owners.

Conquest was less about "woo, shinies" and financial budget than land, enforcing authority, preventing rival to appears.
And the total absence of mediterranean policy of Capetian kings (it appeared only during Louis IX, precisely because he had an access to sea, not the other way), it is more likely that ATL Louis VIII just make the choice of focusin on England.

But, okay, let's admit that he goes south. It's not going long before such a streched empire, from York to Narbonne began to crumble : the great curse of western medieval empire is simple, when you have an huge realm (HRE, by exemple) you'll have ruler ending by running to a corner to another, unable to fight a revolt 400 km south before the north began to rebel itself, draining ressources and finally forcing to abandon much more than you would have be forced to in first place.

So, I agree and reformulate : if Louis VIII or Louis IX gain some sense, they wouldn't try to expand in South.

Historically, Aragon's attempts to take control of the county of Toulouse was decisively defeated in 1213 at the battle of Muret.

Not at all : while Aragon was defeated in 1213, it keep supported financially and military languedocian nobles (while not directly).
The claims Aragon made were definitly (at the exception of Montpellier) by the Treaty of Corbiel in 1258.

Given how the Baron's Crusade against Albigensis failed OTL, leading Louis VII to finally intervene, seeing how Louis VIII is going to be busy enough with England, Aragon is going to have free hands on OTL Languedoc.

And you're forgetting that holding the crown of England and France together implies total control on Flanders and all what was going to become the (future Valois and Habsbourg) Netherlands, thanks to the legal and military power of the french king on the continent and to the wool of the english king.

No. Total control over Flanders would have meant that Kings of France and England would have Count of Flanders themelves : don't push the Capetian wank too much already.
And while Flanders enjoyed good economical and diplomatical (mostly because of the threat that representated the power growth of french kings with England, they're not going to be particularly pleased with their role of exclave when the Capetians would have more interest to develop wool industry on lands they actually control as Normandy.

Valois, Hapsburg rise to power is likely to be butterflied with such POD.

 

[LSCatilina]

That's a HYW invention when the French nobles had a choice between Salic Law or an English King.

Either time travelling XIV French nobles managed to get IX Frankish lawmen write this "De terra salica nulla portio hereditatis mulieri veniat, sed ad virilem sexum tota terræ hereditas perveniat" (No woman would inherit of any part of salic land, but that all the land goes to males), either it was indeed something existing which was extract from immediate and applied to crown laws. In this case, it's more an interpretation of Salic Law (whatever abusive or not) to Crown Laws rather than an invention of the whole same Salic Law.

 

[JedidiahStott]

Not all of what we now call 'France', though, surely? For Aquitaine must have been descensible through the female line, else Eleanor could never have brought it to Henry.

Perhaps the question was not so much what the Salic law enjoined, but whether the Salic Law applied to the territories of the Isle D'France ?

 

[LSCatilina]

Not all of what we now call 'France', though, surely? For Aquitaine must have been descensible through the female line, else Eleanor could never have brought it to Henry.

Alienor of Aquitaine : XIII century
Interpretation of Salic Law regarding inheritency as male primogeniture : XIV century.
The comparison is a bit irrelevant, at least on a chronological point of view.

BTW, love the "what we call "France"" part. Makes me thinks of Monthy Pyton sketch with "the 'so-called' Mao Zedong"

 

[JedidiahStott]

Granted, but if Aquitaine was descensible through the female line in XIII , then , absent a change in the law, which would have been a matter of record, it must have been so in the XIV also. After all, it is only a hundred years difference, and what's a hundred years .

EDIT : Burgundy also, for it came to Marie of Burgundy. And Navarre of course . Which is what I mean by "what we now call "France". 600 or so years ago the term "France" would have meant something different to what a modern person means.

 

[LSCatilina]

Granted, but if Aquitaine was descensible through the female line in XIII

It wasn't : you just didn't had a rule about it, in other words, more or less each situation was exceptional. A same line can have a women inherit the title, his daughter only transmit, and the other one that couldn't do anything.

absent a change in the law, which would have been a matter of record

Ah, there's the issue I think. You see, in Middle Ages, the main judicial source was the custom (oral or written). Contrary to the law that is fixed and definitive, custom could change, cause of the context, balance of power.
Medieval laws, as a fixed and definitive rule appears with the influence of the study of Justinian Code in the late XII century,

and what's a hundred years .

Middle Ages weren't stuck in sort of Groundhog Day. Things changed, than changed back, or evolved differently.

 

[JedidiahStott]

Ah, there's the issue I think. You see, in Middle Ages, the main judicial source was the custom (oral or written). Contrary to the law that is fixed and definitive, custom could change, cause of the context, balance of power.
Medieval laws, as a fixed and definitive rule appears with the influence of the study of Justinian Code in the late XII century,

No. Quite the reverse in fact. What you are speaking of is what in England was called the Common Law. In France, various coutumes ( eg coutume d'Normandy, which was, unsurprisingly, very similar to the English Common Law).

Now, one of the fundamental points of the Common Law was that it was ( and is) unchangeable. It was the law, as it had been since time immemorial, and as it always would be. The only way to avoid it was for Parliament, or the Estats General ( or their predecessors) to pass a statute, which overrode the Common Law. But that, by definition , is what lawyers term Matter of Record. The law does not, can not, change on a whim or to suit someone's convenience. Ever. It was not until much much later, when the purity of the Common Law was corrupted by nonsenses like the Code Napoleon that the law became a transitory thing.

Custom may indeed change but if it does it is no longer law. If a party in a suit relied on custom, and it could be shown that the custom had EVER changed he was non suited.

 

[The Professor]

Either time travelling XIV French nobles managed to get IX Frankish lawmen write this "De terra salica nulla portio hereditatis mulieri veniat, sed ad virilem sexum tota terræ hereditas perveniat" (No woman would inherit of any part of salic land, but that all the land goes to males), either it was indeed something existing which was extract from immediate and applied to crown laws. In this case, it's more an interpretation of Salic Law (whatever abusive or not) to Crown Laws rather than an invention of the whole same Salic Law.

Not all of what we now call 'France', though, surely? For Aquitaine must have been descensible through the female line, else Eleanor could never have brought it to Henry.

Perhaps the question was not so much what the Salic law enjoined, but whether the Salic Law applied to the territories of the Isle D'France ?

Alienor of Aquitaine : XIII century
Interpretation of Salic Law regarding inheritency as male primogeniture : XIV century.
The comparison is a bit irrelevant, at least on a chronological point of view.

BTW, love the "what we call "France"" part. Makes me thinks of Monthy Pyton sketch with "the 'so-called' Mao Zedong"

Quite.
It's a part whether Salic Law applied to lands under the French crown or original Frankish territories - it's worth noting that the inheritance Aquitaine did not follow this (tho see the fief applicability issue); and interpretation of: ie is inheritance through women allowed, does it only apply to the crownlands or also to apanages and/or allodial fiefs; if the women is married does having a husband mean he gets it before her male uncles/cousins, etc etc.

It only became a hard and fast interpretation during the HYW where it was mainly about making sure the (now/newly) English Kings could not take the throne of France.

 

[kasumigenx]

Not at all : while Aragon was defeated in 1213, it keep supported financially and military languedocian nobles (while not directly).
The claims Aragon made were definitly (at the exception of Montpellier) by the Treaty of Corbiel in 1258.

Given how the Baron's Crusade against Albigensis failed OTL, leading Louis VII to finally intervene, seeing how Louis VIII is going to be busy enough with England, Aragon is going to have free hands on OTL Languedoc.

The Raimondins and the House of Barcelona both had claims to Provence which lead Provence to be partitioned to three, the Baux family stopped claiming after they were defeated in the Baux wars and recieved Forcalquier..but the House of Raimondins/Toulouse remained in an on and off opposition with the House of Aragon so I think a merger between the Houses of Toulouse and Barcelona would make things better.

 

[Matteo]

You confuse two things there : royal power, and acceptance of this royal power.

During Philipp II reign, the royal power was far more accepted than it was during John rule. As Louis VII would be becoming king by the grace of barons and Magna Carta that could theorically limit his powers, the Capetians would have an hard time to make their power as accepted in England than it was in France.

No, I do not confuse. You are in fact being imprecise. The french royal power was at least as much contested than the english royal power. There were baron's revolts against the french king, including against Philip Augustus in the first part of his reign, before he became overpowerful to be contested. In fact, before being overpowerful (to put it simply when Philip Augustus took control of Normandy, Maine and Anjou), the french royal power was more than contested : it was to a large extent ignored by the great vassals.

The Capetians would have been kings of England because of a civil war made by England's great houses. Do you think they can afford to say "hey, fuck you, it's not as you can make another civil war against me"?

Louis VII is simply going to have the same situation in England that his ancestors had in France in the XI century.

Well, he was called by the “nobility of England”, rather by the english nobility.

As far as I know, William the Conqueror didn't tried to double its territory in France, being quite too busy with keeping his english throne.

Of course not. He could not have before conquering England since he would have had to face a coalition of all his neighbours.

For England's ressources : a major cause of the war of English nobles refused military and financial request of John. They didn't wanted to pay for a war in France and aren't going to accept Louis VIII doing the same much more.

A good part of these ressources are likely going to be used in England for paying loyalties, secure royal presence as Capetians did in France (construction of castle, by exemple).
Personal union are maybe fun and instant in Paradox games, but in a more realistic course of events, there will be a cost.

You really don’t want it to happen, eh ? ;-)

The barons were overtaxed for the war on the continent, and a losing war. What they wanted was the end of overtaxing because of this endless war. They also wanted to get rid of king John who was clumsy and authoritarian.
One of the ways to reach both goals was to bring a capetian king on the throne. They could even expect more autonomy with a French king living most of his time on the continent.
If there is one same king, then no need to tax huge amounts of money in order to fight for wars between the 2 kingdoms. That’s economies of scales.

You talk about being counter-intuitive if the conquest costed more than immediate benefit : as we're talking about southern expansion in Languedoc, it was actually more costing than anything at first for Montfort, then for Louis VII/Louis IX with the majority of the land standing in their pre-crusade owners.

Conquest was less about "woo, shinies" and financial budget than land, enforcing authority, preventing rival to appears.
And the total absence of mediterranean policy of Capetian kings (it appeared only during Louis IX, precisely because he had an access to sea, not the other way), it is more likely that ATL Louis VIII just make the choice of focusin on England.

No, you did not understand what I meant. What I targeted as counter-intuitive was the fact that your argument did not fit to the case of England since England was a rich country. So I don’t think that Louis VIII becoming king of England would necessarily prevent or even delay expansion in southern France.

As far as the French Mediterranean policy was concerned, by definition the French king first of all needed to become powerful enough before considering projecting French royal power southwards. This was the case only when Philip Augustus swallowed and digested most of Plantagenet possessions in France.
When this happened, then the French king became the super power of western Europe. He could simultaneasly push towards Mediterranean as well as towards the HRE. Which he did historically. This was then not a matter of “or” but a matter of “and”.

But, okay, let's admit that he goes south. It's not going long before such a streched empire, from York to Narbonne began to crumble : the great curse of western medieval empire is simple, when you have an huge realm (HRE, by exemple) you'll have ruler ending by running to a corner to another, unable to fight a revolt 400 km south before the north began to rebel itself, draining ressources and finally forcing to abandon much more than you would have be forced to in first place.

So, I agree and reformulate : if Louis VIII or Louis IX gain some sense, they wouldn't try to expand in South.

Why unable ? Do you think it is impossible to send a lieutenant here and another lieutenant there ?

I think you are making a countersense when you’re stating that a kingdom stretching from York to Narbonne would necessarily crumble and end like the HRE. The HRE did not crumble because it was too big. It did because its system of power and specific historical conditions favoured its crumbling, and specifically because the emperor/king’s power became ever weaker and theoretical.
The same phenomenon happened to the kingdom of Francia occidentalis ruled by the Carolingians, though it was smaller than the HRE. In the 11th century, the French king was much weaker in France than the emperor/german king was in the HRE.
Then the French kings found a way to expand the royal power at the expense of the vassals’power. They reintroduced the notion of sovereignty.

Not at all : while Aragon was defeated in 1213, it keep supported financially and military languedocian nobles (while not directly).

The claims Aragon made were definitly (at the exception of Montpellier) by the Treaty of Corbiel in 1258.

Given how the Baron's Crusade against Albigensis failed OTL, leading Louis VII to finally intervene, seeing how Louis VIII is going to be busy enough with England, Aragon is going to have free hands on OTL Languedoc.

Yes of course. But the engagement of Aragon was much weaker after 1213. They could keep on claiming theoretically and paying for some resistance. They no longer were a match for the French kingdom.
For centuries after having lost the 100 years war, the king or queen of England kept claiming theoretically being also king of France. Pratically, it had no effect.

No. Total control over Flanders would have meant that Kings of France and England would have Count of Flanders themelves : don't push the Capetian wank too much already.

And while Flanders enjoyed good economical and diplomatical (mostly because of the threat that representated the power growth of french kings with England, they're not going to be particularly pleased with their role of exclave when the Capetians would have more interest to develop wool industry on lands they actually control as Normandy.

Valois, Hapsburg rise to power is likely to be butterflied with such POD.

I think you are arguing on formulation. You understand what I meant : Flanders, Brabant, Hainaut, …etc, would have been at the mercy of any kind of union between England and France.