Help with beginning of 13 century wafare

[aegis03florin]

I don't remember if you had actual mercenaries (As in, "a professional soldier whom behaviour is first driven not by be part of a political communauty; but by greed", or as Contamine says "having the triple qualities of specialist, apatrid and venality") at Bouvines, tough, critically regarding how Saxons reacted during the battle.

I'll try to search about it, but no promises : was it in English, French, Italian...?

At Bouvines, they were Brabancon mercenaries (lead by Hugue de Boves). Also, they were English ones led by William Longsword (including some knights - lances for sell).

As for militias.... I do not remember. Initially I've considered that I've see it in "Encounter Between Enemies: Captivity and Ransom in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem" By Yvonne Friedman but I was wrong... Sometimes religion orders pay for ransom, but for nobles ones...

Maybe I've got the confusion as there are mention that in HYW the foot soldiers were ransomed as well frequent as the knights + the fact that militias were organized by professions and, sometimes, the town payed for their campaign. I've supposed that the town/guilds payed also for ransom... but I think that they were their families

 

[LSCatilina]

Also, I had Philip Hurepel married to Joan of Flanders

For reasons aformentioned, I don't think that's really possible, unfortunatly.

I've built all the campaign around the idea of Philip and Joan marriage

Ah...

[Awkward silence]

Can be still done if for example Philip II give the ward of Joan to Yolande, her aunt and the wife of his cousin, Pierre of Courtenay?

That would be weird : custody was given to Philipp II was suzerain's duties, and getting rid of this wouldn't look especially good.
Not that the king would have interest doing so : having the custody of Jeanne allowed him to control Flander's succession after all.

I'm planing a Capetian Flanders - Hainaut -Lotaringia and Philip Hureppel was the one I've chosen...

I'd say it's too ambitious, as for what matters swallowing it up all at once, and going against Phillipian geopolitics (that favoured going against Plantagenets, and that would be even more so with a Louis VII having an even better claim on Brittany, Anjou, Normandy, Aquitaine and England than IOTL)

You'd have better chances, IMO, with a marriage with a surviving Marie (daughter of Ferrand and Jeanne) with Robert d'Artois, with Flanders turning into a Capetian apanage.

As for Hainaut...it's possible it would be part of the package, but would require a really successful war and would certainly antagonize much more HRE than IOTL (which would require, in turn, neutralizing deeply enough Plantagenets to stand this).

 

[Falastur]

Roughly, the latter. Altough you didn't needed to be knight to recieve a ransom (remember that knight is, even at this time, only one of the lowest nobiliar positions. It arguably began to merge at the end of the XIIth century with the association knight = any fighting noble).
Every noble that defeated (personally or trough his servicied people) could ask for himself (and their own suzerain asking for a part, see below)

That said it was the best way of knights to gain quickly a good sum that they couldn't beneficiy from their own lands.

Codification of the ransoms didn't happened before the XIVth, but it's possible that Philip II could have taken a part on the ransom profit : maybe not 1/3 as in the XIVth...But a part.

I know I'm a bit late to the party here, but it's worth pointing out: when a major prisoner was taken (Kings certainly, and important Dukes or other men likely to warrant a large ransom) then the King tended to 'buy' the rights to the ransom off the knight who captured him. I say 'buy' with inverted commas as it wasn't so much a purchase as compensated theft. The knight would generally get no choice in the matter or chance to barter; the King would just give them a pocket full of gold and tell them "your prisoner is now mine". What's more, the sum they tended to give them was often meagre compared to what the ransom might fetch, though it would still be better than the ransoms for common lords, and it was at least cash in hand, whereas ransoms could take years to organise.

 

[LSCatilina]

What's more, the sum they tended to give them was often meagre compared to what the ransom might fetch, though it would still be better than the ransoms for common lords, and it was at least cash in hand, whereas ransoms could take years to organise.

Then again, I'd point that taking prisoner someone implied the possibility to maintain a certain way-of-life. A petty knight couldn't have done so while he could technically have held a great noble : he simply wouldn't have the money for. It generally prevented too great disrepencies on ransom system.

Hence why I precised that

If a knight took Otto as a prisoner (which isn't really going to happen, but I'm using a clear exemple), he would probably give his custody to Philipp II, and while not recieving any ransom, a prize from the king : such as a pension, land, etc.

Usually the "rights" still regularily corresponded to the part the king or the direct suzerain would have taken from the ransom (between 10% to 33%), or something like a pension which had the benefit of being a regular source of income.

 

[aegis03florin]

I know I'm a bit late to the party here, but it's worth pointing out: when a major prisoner was taken (Kings certainly, and important Dukes or other men likely to warrant a large ransom) then the King tended to 'buy' the rights to the ransom off the knight who captured him. I say 'buy' with inverted commas as it wasn't so much a purchase as compensated theft. The knight would generally get no choice in the matter or chance to barter; the King would just give them a pocket full of gold and tell them "your prisoner is now mine". What's more, the sum they tended to give them was often meagre compared to what the ransom might fetch, though it would still be better than the ransoms for common lords, and it was at least cash in hand, whereas ransoms could take years to organise.

Thanks for input!

 

[aegis03florin]

That would be weird : custody was given to Philipp II was suzerain's duties, and getting rid of this wouldn't look especially good.
Not that the king would have interest doing so : having the custody of Jeanne allowed him to control Flander's succession after all.

Hi LSCatilina, me again. I've read quite a bit this weekend about wardship and custody in medieval times...

britannica.com say :
"The right of wardship allowed the lord to take control of a fief and of a minor heir until the heir came of age. The right of marriage allowed the lord to have some say as to whom the daughter or widow of a vassal would marry. In France, for example, the lands of a minor heir were often administered by those who might later inherit them. Custody, on the other hand, went to someone who could not inherit the property and who would, therefore, have no interest in seeing the heir lose the land or die."
http://www.britannica.com/topic/wardship

Also, I found that there was a difference between being "custodian of the land and custodian of the body" (Widow and ward, The feudal law of child custody in Medieval England, by Sue Sheridan Walker).
In France, the king do not become automatically neither ward or custody of the minor. In England and Normandy start with Henry II.

Now, concerning Joan case. Wiki say :

"Joan's mother died in August 1204, and her father died the next year, leaving her a five-year-old orphan under the guardianship of Philip of Namur. He continued as regent as well, ruling in her name rather than her father's. Philip soon put his nieces in a difficult position. He became betrothed to a daughter of King Philip II of France, and gave the king custody of the two girls. During their time in France they became familiar with the Cisterian Order, probably under influence of Blanche of Castile, the future Queen consort of France.
Philip II in turn agreed to sell their custody to Enguerrand de Coucy, who probably planned to marry Joan when she came of age. But these plans fell through, and in the end she married Ferdinand, prince of Portugal in Paris in January 1212. He was the nephew of Joan's great-aunt-by-marriage Matilda of Portugal."

The french version say :

"Après la disparition du comte et de son épouse, les comtés de Flandre et de Hainaut sont administrés par un conseil composé du chancelier de Flandre, du prévôt de Lille et des châtelains de Lille et Saint-Omer. L'éducation de Jeanne et de sa sœur cadette Marguerite est assumée par leur oncle paternel Philippe Ier, comte de Namur3. Mais, dès 1208, ce dernier délègue cette charge au roi de France Philippe-Auguste4. Elles sont élevées à Paris, en compagnie du jeune Thibaud de Champagne3. Dès 1206, Philippe Auguste impose à Philippe de Namur de ne pas marier ses nièces sans son consentement. Deux ans plus tard, un accord est conclu aux termes duquel le roi de France s'engage à ne pas les marier avant leur majorité sans le consentement du comte de Namur, mais que ce dernier ne s'opposera pas au choix royal après leur majorité. Enfin, au cas où l'une ou l'autre des deux sœurs refuserait le candidat de Philippe Auguste, l'accord prévoit qu'elle serait remise au comte de Namur, et s'engagerait à servir le roi et à lui verser une compensation financière3.
En 1211, Enguerrand de Coucy propose à Philippe Auguste la somme de cinquante mille livres pour épouser Jeanne, tandis que son frère Thomas épouserait Marguerite. La noblesse flamande est hostile à ce projet. Mathilde de Portugal, comtesse douairière et veuve de Philippe d'Alsace, propose alors de marier Jeanne à son neveu Ferdinand de Portugal, (1188-1233) dit Ferrand de Portugal, pour la même somme".

---------------------------------

Well, from that I understand several things:
1. The initial custody was held by Philip of Namur, the uncle of Joan.
2. Philip Augustus do not had the wardship of Flanders or Hainaut.
3. Philip Augustus received the custody after a peace deal with Philip (who betrothed Marie of France in turn).
4. Philip Augustus planed to sell the custody to Enguerand de Coucy who planned to marry Joan when she come in age.

Concerning Philip Hureppel, he was married to Mathilde of Boulogne when she was very young (12 years old) and I do not found anywhere that his father, count Renaud, agree. Well, he was imprisoned...
---------------------------

In my timeline:
- Joan marry Philip Hureppel after she turn 16 (was not anymore a minor).
- Well, the Flemish do not liked and rebel. They are crushed at Voyennes (ATL Bouvines) and it will be Philip Hureppel who will have the mission to quell the oposition (with the help of his father).
- The other french nobles do not like either, but... they will leave with it. Philip Augustus can put them in line... The clergy is convinced about.

I can re-edit that Philip of Namur agree to this marriage before leaving for Constantinople. Philip of Namur do not marry Marie of France (to great age difference). Also Philip Augustus do not have the ward or custody (given to Yollande of Namur, the wife of Peter of Courtenay). Yollande and Peter will agree to the marriage.

So, what do you think about? Can this work ?

 

[LSCatilina]

2. Philip Augustus do not had the wardship of Flanders or Hainaut.

Actually, he did. While it wasn't a direct regency, mostly because of the resistance of Flemish urban elites, it was part of what Philippe de Naumur gave away.

3. Philip Augustus received the custody after a peace deal with Philip (who betrothed Marie of France in turn).

And after having paied an important sum, IIRC, that he took back as part of the Treaty of Pont à Vendin.

4. Philip Augustus planed to sell the custody to Enguerand de Coucy who planned to marry Joan when she come in age.

It's more or less (as Philippe may have seriously tought about doing this) the reverse : Enguerrand de Coucy wanted to marry Joan, but Philippe Auguste eventually preferred Ferrand, for various reasons : flemish nobles didn't wanted so, and Ferrand was tought to be more docile.

Eventually, such marriage could have been done, if you need it to happen.

Concerning Philip Hurepel, he was married to Mathilde of Boulogne when she was very young (12 years old) and I do not found anywhere that his father, count Renaud, agree.

Which is irrelevant as, as far as I know, Mathilde wasn't in custody of Philippe Auguste. Giving she wasn't minor, and that her father was imprisoned, she was tought to confirm herself to her union that was planned in 1210, with the agreement of her father.

I can re-edit that Philip of Namur agree to this marriage before leaving for Constantinople.

I suppose you meant Baldwin?

That's not really going to happen : giving away his heir to an half-bastard, which would have been the best way to mine even more his power in Flander, making Philippe Auguste an even clearer regent de facto, if not de jure.
Would he even accepted something going against his policy as we know it, it wouldn't have been accepted either by its nobility or urban elites.

Obviously giving Flander away is definitely not something even Philippe de Naumur, in spite of having the political sense of an oyster, would have done, especially when it come to marrying an half-bastard.

Heck, even Philippe Auguste wouldn't have tried to pull that, not without seeing the whole of Flanders burning up and whatever remains of the pro-Capetians faction melting right away. His goal is to neutralize Flander and to legally void the Treaty of Péronne, not to undergo a full-fledged war for that, on which he wouldn't benefit the legal rights he advanced for Plantagenets.

Again, if it wasn't even remotely prospected IOTL, it's probably for good reasons : such marriage would be really unlikely (while not technically impossible, granted)

Philip of Namur do not marry Marie of France (to great age difference).

I don't think the age difference would have been that of a problem (look at Buchard d'Avesnes).

Also Philip Augustus do not have the ward or custody

Capetians will move earth and sky until they managed to get it. The dangers about a unfavorable marriage (especially witn Plantagenets) are simply too great (or claims on Artois) for that Philippe simply gives up.
At best, Pierre de Courtenay, relatively close to Philippe, gives away the whole thing to the king. At worst...well, Capetians would just have to play Hervé de Donzy's claims.

In France, the king do not become automatically neither ward or custody of the minor.

Not automatically, but it does have more to do with the capacity of the king to enforce his possible claims (that were articulated, arguably, at this moment) than a legal vaacuum.
Basically, Philip's claims weren't that well established that he couldn't avoid making a deal. But it doesn't mean he couldn't have pressured his vassals into compliance, having the right for him.

In France, for example, the lands of a minor heir were often administered by those who might later inherit them.

It's far from being a rule : you have exemples of the contrary, for exemple, administration by mothers, suzerains, trusted but unrelated persons...

 

[aegis03florin]

Ok... I accept that this marriage is too forced...

I will re-edit in order to Joan marry Peter of Dreux, Mauclerc.
In my timeline, he do not marry Alix of Brittany. He is a cousin of the king, being an indirect Capetian, he had the right pedigree of marry her.

Is this plausible? of course, the Flemish nobles will disagree and revolt...

 

[LSCatilina]

Is this plausible?

It's possible, but plausible? Pierre de Dreux was quite loyal to Philippe Auguste, granted, but was already duke of Brittany. Giving to the same person two important duchies, critically when strategically important for what mattered Plantagenets.

I'm not sure Philippe would have that tempted the devil there : when Pierre tried to undergo such union IOTL, Louis VII acted against for these reasons.

of course, the Flemish nobles will disagree and revolt...

Maybe, maybe not. Flemish nobles may actually accept it as they did with Ferrand IOTL. It's just that Flemish towns would be pissed and may refuse to acknowledge him really. Not a revolt per se, but general rebelliousness.

Eventually, it's quite a window of opportunity you have to get : a choice that would lead to a quick and open rebellion of Flander wouldn't be taken by Philippe that wanted to neutralize it, not make it join the bandwagon and allow Plantagenets a safe harbour.

Coucy seems the most viable alternative (and more antagonizing choice than Ferrand), but other choices may be avaible, keeping in mind Capetians did wanted to politically neutralize the country : as in not taking risks with a too powerful noble or too involved with Plantagenets.

 

[aegis03florin]

It's possible, but plausible? Pierre de Dreux was quite loyal to Philippe Auguste, granted, but was already duke of Brittany. Giving to the same person two important duchies, critically when strategically important for what mattered Plantagenets.

I'm not sure Philippe would have that tempted the devil there : when Pierre tried to undergo such union IOTL, Louis VII acted against for these reasons.


Maybe, maybe not. Flemish nobles may actually accept it as they did with Ferrand IOTL. It's just that Flemish towns would be pissed and may refuse to acknowledge him really. Not a revolt per se, but general rebelliousness.

Eventually, it's quite a window of opportunity you have to get : a choice that would lead to a quick and open rebellion of Flander wouldn't be taken by Philippe that wanted to neutralize it, not make it join the bandwagon and allow Plantagenets a safe harbour.

Coucy seems the most viable alternative (and more antagonizing choice than Ferrand), but other choices may be avaible, keeping in mind Capetians did wanted to politically neutralize the country : as in not taking risks with a too powerful noble or too involved with Plantagenets.

Hi,

Well, In my Timeline, it's prince Louis of France that become duke of Brittany on the right of his wife, after a succession war (between 1204-1208) fought after the first war with John. So, Pierre of Dreux is not duke, it's not married and it's a younger brother of Robert (the future count of Dreux) and Philip (bishop of Beauvais). So he is my new choice!

Concerning Otto as prisoner, other than a big ransom (100.000 marks), what else do you think that Philip can obtain from him/the situation?
Keep in mind that he is excommunicated and the pope will crown Frederick II as emperor in the same year (1212).

Thanks a lot for the help.

 

[LSCatilina]

So, Pierre of Dreux is not duke, it's not married and it's a younger brother of Robert (the future count of Dreux) and Philip (bishop of Beauvais). So he is my new choice!

Well, it could work indeed. I'm not sure it would end with a revolt, to be honest, but the marriage makes sense.

Concerning Otto as prisoner, other than a big ransom (100.000 marks), what else do you think that Philip can obtain from him/the situation?

As I said above, I don't think Philippe would try to really push his advantage : he have more interest making his eastern borders safe, as he's still in war with Plantagenets.

Furthermore (and maybe more importantly), Philippe was supporting Frederick's rights, and couldn't have forced Otto's hand on political matter without at least acknowledging him as partially legit, and pissing on his ally. Which could mean imprisoning him long enough, before Otto manages to gather the ransom or at least part of it.

 

[aegis03florin]

Thank you!
I've re-edited my timeline.
Now it's time to move further.