Lancaster Ascendant

Part #3: The End of the War of French Succession

From “The Quadrumvirate”. (1992, Cambridge University Press)

King Henry did not delay long in the adulation of Paris. True, the city had greeted his Joyous Return with elation, as a sign that decades of instability, warfare, and weak rule might now be at an end. In this latter hope there was reflected something of the ambitions of Isabelle of Bavaria, now Queen Dowager, who had accompanied the late Charles VI in signing the Treaty of Troyes. In signing away the inheritance of her last son, the Dauphin Charles of Valois, in favour ultimately of her grandson Henry by her daughter Catherine, Isabelle too might have foreseen the strength of a France united once more under Henry of Lancaster.

There was just one remaining hurdle to be cleared before this Lancastrian triumph could be realised, one man keeping the succession dispute alive – Charles of Valois himself. Charles had been disinherited from the French throne since even before the Treaty of Troyes, his father’s retaliation for Charles’ part in the assassination of John the Fearless of Burgundy in 1419[15] . Nevertheless the Armagnac faction had rallied to Charles in 1420, unwilling to acknowledge Henry as their next King. Against Anglo-Burgundian control of almost all northern France (save Orleans), most of the southern French vassals remained loyal to Charles. Little had changed in these allegiances in the three years since Troyes, though the Lancastrians won battle after battle against the Valois. Charles, defiant, maintained his claim to the French throne.

For those Frenchmen who rejected Troyes, and who sought to expel the English from their homeland, there remained two possible heirs to Charles VI. The first was Charles, as former Dauphin and son of the late King. However rumours abounded of Charles’ supposed illegitimately – rumours capitalised upon and given credence by the English at Troyes. Were Charles to be acknowledged as illegitimate, the Valois succession would instead fall to the Duke of Orleans. But the Duke of Orleans had languished in English captivity since Agincourt, and was unlikely to be released before the war of succession had been decisively settled in Henry’s favour. As such, what support as the Valois could still rely upon became consolidated around Charles, who made his home at Bourges in the Loire Valley. Charles maintained a court at Bourges, styling himself as King of France in defiance of the Lancastrians.

It was for this reason that Henry V and II[16] left Paris in the summer of 1423; to defeat Charles and to finally become recognised as the one true King of France. Accompanied by his brothers Clarence and Bedford, and with 6,000 men reinforced from England, he made for the Loire Valley. Following Baugé and Clarence’s 1421-1422 campaigns across Anjou and Maine, the Dauphin’s field army had been badly depleted in both numbers and leadership. In a series of further engagements throughout 1423 Henry succeeded in destroying what remained of either.

In September 1423 Queen Catherine bore Henry a second son, who was given the traditional Plantagenet name of Edward. Henry returned to Paris soon after, as the year’s campaign season ended, for reasons both of family and of diplomacy – for the two were about to become further entwined.

The ties between the Lancastrians of England and the Burgundy-Valois were at root those of shared animosity to the Armagnac Valois of France. For the Lancastrians the conflict was about securing their traditional rights as feudal lords in France, a goal which had eventually grown to mean supplanting the French King himself. For the Burgundians the conflict was a bitterer, more personal affair. Burgundy had assassinated Louis Duke of Orleans in 1407, as the enmity between the two branches of the Royal family almost spilled out into open civil war. The dispute between Burgundy and Orleans had started over the regency and guardianship of the children of the mad Charles VI. Following Louis of Orleans’s death, and the capture of his son and successor Charles of Orleans in 1415, leadership of the Armagnac faction would ultimately pass to Charles of Valois, the Dauphin. Charles’ implication in the murder of John the Fearless in 1419 only perpetuated the blood feud. Thus in 1424 both Henry V and Philip Duke of Burgundy had a shared interest in defeating Charles.

So it was that in January of 1424 King and Duke reaffirmed their alliance. Anne of Burgundy, daughter of John the Fearless and sister of Philip of Burgundy, was married to John Duke of Bedford[17]. As a further dynastic tie Marie of Brittany, aunt of Duke John V, was pledged to be married to Henry Duke of Gloucester[18], thereby binding Brittany to King Henry and securing the western-most flank of his French kingdom. Burgundy also bound itself militarily to Henry, pledging the aid of 1000 men-at-arms to his campaign against Charles of Valois.

As the new campaign season began in 1424, Henry raised further reinforcements, this time from the “loyal” provinces of Normandy, Picardy and Champagne. Once again he returned to the Loire Valley, raiding Valois-supporting towns from Poitier all the way to Orleans. This time however Valois forces lacked even the strength to meet Henry in open battle. Instead they fell back on Fabian tactics, harassing the Lancastrian supply lines and fighting an unconventional war. In this they had a small measure of success, carrying as they did the logistical advantage and a still substantial hinterland of friendly territory. It is possible that, given stronger leadership and more time, the use of such tactics might have grown to become a serious hindrance to King Henry’s campaign[19].

Instead Henry resolved to end Charles of Valois’ pretence at the earliest opportunity. Across all of northern France only one major city now aligned itself to Charles – Orleans. With the Duke of Orleans an English prisoner, an assault on his city might traditionally have been considered to be against the customs of knightly warfare, a breach of the chivalric code to which monarchs such as Henry still nominally adhered. But Henry could an unscrupulous and unchivalrous king when faced with the realities of warfare. During the Battle of Agincourt he had infamously ordered that French prisoners be executed, for fear that they might later turn on their captors. At the siege of Rouen he had refused to allow women and children to leave the starving town, condemning them to die within his siege lines. When Rouen fell, those who had resisted were punished severely[20]. Against all these dire precedents, the people of Orleans made the grim choice to resist Henry’s assault.

Henry’s army reached Orleans in August 1424[21], and with its size bolstered by Burgundian reinforcements, successfully invested the city. For six months the soldiers and citizenry of Orleans made a valiant defence. With Henry’s initial advance coming from the north, the bridge over the Loire to the south of the city was successfully held and then demolished to prevent it falling into Lancastrian hands. Only the turreted gatehouse on the southern bank – Les Tourelles – was left to the English. Thus deprived of the best place to position cannon for an assault on the city[22], Henry was left with little choice but to completely surround Orleans and starve it into submission.

The autumn and winter of 1424 came without relief for the citizens of Orleans – or indeed for the Lancastrian forces who endured conditions almost as bad outside the city. In January a wave of dysentery swept through their camps, with King Henry himself becoming badly afflicted. Grimmer still was the mood in Bourges, where those close to Charles of Valois were rapidly coming to the conclusion that the fall of Orleans meant the end of any meaningful resistance to Henry V. Charles for his part was falling into an ineffectual despair, and it was widely felt that a miracle should be necessary to save the Valois cause.

But no such miracle came[23]. In February 1425 Orleans fell[24]. Henry ordered that the city be treated with uncharacteristic leniency – whether through recognition of the valour of the townsfolk, or in pious gratitude for his own recovery from sickness. Henry’s commanders secured the city, where he was proclaimed once again to be the rightful King of France. With the entire north, west, and east of the country under either his direct control or that of his allies; the road was now open to southern France, to Bourges and to Charles of Valois.

A medieval chronicler might now have been inclined to portray a final dramatic showdown between the two claimants. Certainly the playwrights of a century hence would not have let the curtain fall after Orleans – not when a final Act of grand speeches and heroic last stands could still be told. But the reality was that over the next few months the Valois’ support melted away. Only those noble families still committed to the cause though absolute personal loyalty to Charles, or alternatively though uncompromising hatred for the Lancastrians, still remained at Bourges. The War was lost from any strategic perspective – all that remained was for Henry to determine the terms by which it was settled.

Henry for his part stayed in Orleans a while, retreating for a time to a nearby chateaux where his presence could be kept secret and where he could fully recover from his illness[25]. When summer came his army was once again on the move. Leaving Orleans in the capable hands of the Earl of Salisbury[26], and joined by Philip of Burgundy, he began the march south. Philip had opted to be present in person for the final campaign of the War, all the better to avenge the Burgundian-Armagnac blood feud.

As Henry approached Bourges after several days of marching, Charles of Valois made a decision. Having prevaricated for several months now, he at last elected to flee Bourges, with the eventual hope of making it to Aragon. Once in Iberia, or so he apparently hoped, he would be able to rally those forces still loyal to him, and strike back at a more opportune time. The choice of Aragon was a reasoned one. Yolande of Aragon, mother of Charles’ wife Marie of Anjou, and titular Queen of Aragon, had been Charles’ strong supporter from the beginning. So she remained even now, while his native French vassals deserted. Unlike Castile and Portugal, Aragon lacked dynastic links to the Lancasters[27], and could therefore perhaps be his sponsor in exile. The obvious flaw to Charles’ supposed reasoning is that, having fled, he would be seen to have abandoned France and conceded his inheritance to Henry – if perhaps not in the eyes of the courts of Europe, then at least to the people he nominally ruled.

Whatever the hopes or prospects of Charles’ plan, it would ultimately come to naught. Having delayed his departure for so long, Henry was almost upon the town when Charles and his pitiful retinue left the gates. They had travelled a mere two miles down the road before they were intercepted by an advance patrol of English soldiers. The soldiers were swift to recognise the greatest hostage prize of the war, and Charles made little attempt to resist surrender.

Henry entered Bourges without resistance – the town abandoning Charles as he had abandoned it. Here once again his retainers proclaimed him to be the one true King of France. Immediately after, or so the legend goes, there was heckling from one of the townsmen. Whether historical truth, an embellished translation, or the total fabrication of Sir John Attenash’s King Henry V[28], it is impossible to now be certain; it is supposed that, upon hearing the above proclaimation, the townsman replied:

“He can’t be the King of France – he’s not running away!”

Henry’s reaction, if ever there was one, is not recorded.

Charles was delivered to Henry that evening. The traditional account holds that he wept, and grovelled, and begged for his life. Given what is known of Charles of Valois – a man brave until absolute desperation – this seems unlikely. The only records from the closing phase of the War come from the Lancastrian side, and should be treated with appropriate scrutiny. More likely is that Henry requested that Charles renounce his claim upon the French throne, in return for his freedom and a lesser title[29]. If so, Charles clearly refused, for he remained imprisoned. Among his entourage, the Lancastrians had also captured his wife Marie of Anjou, and their infant son Louis[30]. Marie was offered the chance to return to either Anjou or Aragon, her ancestral homes. In the former case she was required to swear allegiance to Henry as her sovereign. For her son Louis, Henry was mindful even then of any potential future threat to his own son’s succession to the French throne. Accordingly Louis would be required to remain in France where he could be properly observed. Marie thus decided to remain in France also, where she could still care for her only son.

After Bourges Charles was transferred to the care of Philip of Burgundy, as according to a private agreement made between Henry and Philip. Noting that Charles had never yet made amends for his part in the death of John the Fearless, the Burgundians committed him to imprisonment[31].

Now the sole remaining claimant to the French throne, Henry’s rule was at last assured. The War of French Succession was over[32].





[15] Every time I see John the Fearless’ name in relation to his assassination, I can’t help but think he might have benefited from being a little bit more cautious, if not slightly cowardly.
[16] A somewhat cumbersome styling based upon OTLs James I and VI of England and Scotland.
[17] This is as OTL, a political match made to strengthen Anglo-Burgundian relations. Unlike OTL, Henry V is still alive, which strengthens the English position considerably. In OTL the Treaty of Amiens (1423) was an agreement between Bedford – regent for the infant Henry VI – Burgundy, and Brittany with all three pledging to recognise Henry VI as King of France.
[18] Gloucester’s marriage of dubious legality to the Countess of Hainaut does not take place ITTL, of which more later. Marie, as a member of the Breton ruling family, is both more useful politically to the Lancastrians, and a better personal match for Humphrey.
[19] As they indeed became to Henry’s successors in OTL, and ultimately the reason why Charles VII won the Hundred Years’ War. “Fabian” tactics are what we would today call Guerrilla warfare, the term “Guerrilla” dating from the Spanish theatre of the Napoleonic Wars.
[20] These acts, which would today be considered war crimes, all happened before the POD and are thus historical.
[21] IOTL the Siege of Orleans did not occur until 1429. ITTL the victory at Baugé, the survival of Clarence and of Henry V, and the generally greater success of the Lancastrian campaigns has accelerated the time schedule. Orleans is still besieged for the same strategic reasons as in OTL, only in TTL Henry is more actively trying to win a definitive victory in the war.
[22] IOTL the English outflanked Orleans initially, before approaching from the south. There was heavy fighting over the bridge, but the result was ultimately the same – the French managed to destroy the bridge.
[23] Depending on how much of the story you believe, Joan of Arc only claimed to have experienced her first vision in 1425. It would be another few years of persistence in OTL before she got close to the French court.
[24] In OTL the arrival of Joan of Arc rallied the French defenders and the siege was ultimately lifted. From here a path was clear for Charles to travel to Reims for his coronation. ITTL there is no such relief.
[25] IOTL Henry died of dysentery. It’s only fair that he gets a good blast of it sooner or later ITTL.
[26] Salisbury was killed in the OTL Siege of Orleans.
[27] Henry V’s aunts Philippa of Lancaster (1360-1415) and Catherine of Lancaster (1373-1418) were respectively Queens consort of Portugal and Castille. Including Henry V this puts grandchildren of John of Gaunt on the thrones of four major European kingdoms by the 1430s.
[28] What would the English late sixteenth century be without historical propaganda plays based upon events from two centuries ago?
[29] “Duke of Bourges”, perhaps?
[30] OTL’s Louis XI of France (1423-1483). His birth is two years after the POD, but he remains Charles and Marie’s first child. French Royal names are not prone to divergence.
[31] Execution might seem more apt, given the nature of Charles’ alleged crimes, but for three factors: 1) Charles is ultimately still royalty, however disinherited, and having thrown himself on Henry’s mercy (and by extension Philip’s) cannot just be executed like a common criminal. 2) Think of the ransom money. 3) Pretenders are rather like hydra – kill one and the claim just falls upon the next in line, one perhaps better placed and more able to act upon the claim. Better therefore that the legitimate Valois candidate remains in prison.
[32] If nothing else, this War of French Succession (1337-1425) is a good thirty years shorter than OTL’s Hundred Years’ War (which itself lasted 116 years). Neither country will be quite so war exhausted as they were historically – assuming the settlement lasts.
 
A very interesting segment, Long Live the King!

One small notice, Beaufort is Henry V's uncle, not brother.

You are of course correct. This is what comes from having two inter-related families who carry the same names from one generation to the next. I meant to say that Henry (OTL Cardinal) Beaufort was half-brother to Henry IV, not V

Nice update.

Two things:

One - is this Jacqueline of Hainaut the one that Gloucester married IOTL? Will he be marrying her again, or does Henry have plans to marry him into France to try and bring more people into his French realm etc.

Yes, and you've pretty much anticipated where I'm planning to go there, as in Part 3. Jacqueline will feature again.

Two - with no expectation on him from early age will his son be different? Or are you subscribing to the theory he had a touch of his grandfathers madness about him?

TTL Henry VI (if he does indeed succeed his father) will indeed be different. I've yet to decide how strongly to interpret any genetic predisposition to mental ill-health. After all, its not as if the circumstances of Henry VI's OTL reign weren't enough in themselves to cause his breakdown; mad Granddad or not.

So Henry now has a Crown on his head France and control of France north of the Loire and Gascony. Still that leaves a lot of France not under his control and more importantly a lot of France north of the Loire without Lords, or rather with Armagnacs Lords who can be attainted and the lands regranted to Lancastrian Frenchmen or Englishmen. Presumably he's going to be sticking around in France for a while to continue Clarence's work though I dispute the description of Clarence as able. He seems to have always been rather impetuous and generally less able than Bedford or Henry V. Also Clarence is unlike to have any children as his wife Margaret Holland is 38 by now.

The "settlement" of a Lancastrian nobility will feature in a later update. With regards to Clarence - in TTL history his reputation is inevitably better by virtue of not being killed in a battle thanks to his own reckless decisions. He's still the same man as OTL, which is probably why Henry returns to take personal command of the war. And you are right that Margaret Holland's age probably rules out a Clarence heir.

I wonder how long the Duke of Burgundy will reiman a loyal ally...

Indeed...

After all, there is a fairly recent precedent for a powerful semi-independent vassal of the French crown. Now how did that turn out? :D

For now their interests and personal temperaments align. For now.
 
Jeanne d'Arc must be quite pissed now... No city to rescue :D

Indeed...

After all, there is a fairly recent precedent for a powerful semi-independent vassal of the French crown. Now how did that turn out? :D

For now their interests and personal temperaments align. For now.

Methinks that the future of this realm is going to be a quite interesting one...
 
This is, as I've come to expect from you, a very enjoyable read - albeit one quite far removed from my frame of reference. I'm afraid I can't comment much on the veracity of events, although I do feel a mild residual loyalty to the House of Lancaster based on historical geography - nevertheless, I'm enjoying the adventure so far.

Speaking of - Henry V, King of France? This is going to come crashing down spectacularly...
 
Orleans certainly wouldn't have been regarded as the last major city in the "Kingdom of Bourges", Lyon, Toulouse, Poitiers and Limoges were both major cities and under Armagnac control. Also consider Charles post the fall of Orleans controls a geographically larger area than Henry V he has enormous scope to continue his Fabian tactics and retreat south. The idea that the Armagnacs would give up with the fall of Orleans is like the idea that the Soviets would give up with the fall of Stalingrad in WW2. Superficially attractive but flawed.
 
Top