Legacy of the Lion

Legacy of the Lion

POD:
Richard of Lionheart survives and bears offspring with Berenguela of Navarre which are Richard and Henry, Richard II, Richard the Lionheart's son becomes the heir of the huge Angevin empire and Frederick Barbarossa does not drown and Richard the Lionheart aids the Battle of Muret which ends in victory in 1213 and later on a war of Paris starts in 1213 which results in France being annexed to the Angevin Empire and Philippe Augustus, the Capetian king of France is defeated.
 
Last edited:
KING RICHARD TL

Richard of Lionheart does not get shot by an arrow and survive after his mother's death and bears offspring with Berenguela of Navarre which are Richard and Henry, Richard II, Richard the Lionheart's son becomes the heir of the huge Angevin empire and Frederick Barbarossa does not drown and returns from the crusades.
Simon de Montfort led an army of 870 French Crusaders, along with a small contingent of knights brought by his ally, the viscount of Corbeil. Simon de Montfort's 870 mailed cavalry included 270 knights, making the small force of exceptional quality. King Peire of Aragon had brought 800 to 1,000 Aragonese cavalry, joined by a militia from Toulouse and armies brought by the counts of Comminges and Foix, Richard the Lion heart of Angevin Empire brought a number of 1000 cavalry and 300 knights.

Montfort divided his army into three squadrons, and then led them across the Garonne to meet the Aragonese forces. Peire's ally and brother-in-law, Comte Ramon, advised a defensive posture in order to weaken the advancing enemy with bowshot and javelins. Peter rejected this suggestion as unknightly and dishonorable. King Peire rode to the front line, forsaking his royal armor for the plain armor of a common soldier. His army was disorderly and confused. When Montfort's first squadron charged the field, Montfort's army was confronted by the huge army of King Peirre of Aragon, King Richard the Lionheart and Comte Ramon of Toulouse, Simon Montfort was defeated and killed in the Battle by Richard the Lionheart, in exchange for their help Comte Ramon abicates and partitions the County of Toulouse to King Richard the Lionheart and King Peire of Aragon and the daughter of Comte Ramon was married to Jacme the Conqueror.

King Peire of Aragon started his own inquisition of Cathars in Languedoc, Provence, Southern Gascony ,Dauphine and Catalonia, King Peire of Aragon and King Richard the Lionheart have an ambush plan for France to destroy their rival, King Richard the Lionheart, King Peirre of Aragon and their troops attack Paris and Philippe Augustus, the Capetian king of France is killed because of his defeat the Capetian duchy of Burgundy where the Capetians fled fell under HRE Control.

 
Last edited:
I hope I won't be too harsh... But this scenario is rather ASB.

First, Richard died in 1199 OTL. While inspecting a siege and not wearing amor, a French archer hit him in the elbow. The arrow broke while it was pulled back, leading to Richard caughting an infection an dying.
Richard I was 42 when he died : he thus had a decade or two to live had he not been killed. Plus, he had no sons born before 1199 and Berengaria was in her 30s : this doesn't mean she won't give Richard one or two sons, but that the sons have great chances of being minors (below 14 in the Middle Age) when Richard will die.

Second, I think you are gravely understimating Philip II of France (Philip Augustus) : though he probably wasn't as skilled as Richard in battle, he was better at Politics. OTL, Philip Augustus was the first great king of France and he's the one who made the crown hereditary for sure (the previous Capetians Kings of France had to crown their heir as co-king to ensure their election) and he greatly strengthened royal control during his reign. Let's also not forget that Philip was an expert at playing one Plantagenêt against another : he played Richard against Henry II, John against Richard and Arthur against John during his reign. I see no reason why he wouldn't be able to start again in this scenario.

Third, an alliance between Richard and the Count of Toulouse doesn't seem likely : Richard always had troubles with the Counts of Toulouse, not to mention he had a claim on that title.
And Simon de Montfort would be one of Richard's vassals in your scenario as he had lands in France but also England (he was Earl of Leicester). That doesn't mean he could rebel but still...
Not to mention that the Cathar Crusade was not only a crusade against Heresy : it was also the theater of a confrontation between Northern and Southern France (the attitude of the Northern crusader was one of the reasons the Counts of Toulouse ended up fighting them). Thus, having Raymond VI of Toulouse and King Peter of Aragon on the same side as Richard and Barbarossa, who are more Northern rulers than southern ones, seems rather unlikely.

Lastly, Frederick Barbarossa was Hohentsaufen. Philip Augustus supported the Hohenstaufen dynasty in the HRE OTL. Besides, Richard had a nephew, Otto of Brunswick, who was candidate to the Imperial Crown and was an ennemy of the Hohenstaufen.
 
The immediate problem I see with the exact scenario is that in 1213 Frederick I would have been 84. Not impossible that he would have been riding to war, after all he was 68 when he accidentally drowned in the course of doing so and therefore both already long-lived for the period and still vigorous, but 84 is still a bit extreme. Richard's survival for another 14+ years would have had all kinds of unpredictable consequences. If not a military genius he was not far off, and an accomplished former of alliances, also ambitious and ruthless. Certainly I would think he was the best and most-feared general of his age, and he probably never would have spent long marking time. The enmity between him and Philip II Augustus was so established and bitter that I doubt Philip could have hoped for so happy an outcome as to be left a ducal vassal after Richard's triumph; perpetual confinement would seem more likely.
 
I hope I won't be too harsh... But this scenario is rather ASB.

First, Richard died in 1199 OTL. While inspecting a siege and not wearing amor, a French archer hit him in the elbow. The arrow broke while it was pulled back, leading to Richard caughting an infection an dying.
Richard I was 42 when he died : he thus had a decade or two to live had he not been killed. Plus, he had no sons born before 1199 and Berengaria was in her 30s : this doesn't mean she won't give Richard one or two sons, but that the sons have great chances of being minors (below 14 in the Middle Age) when Richard will die.

Second, I think you are gravely understimating Philip II of France (Philip Augustus) : though he probably wasn't as skilled as Richard in battle, he was better at Politics. OTL, Philip Augustus was the first great king of France and he's the one who made the crown hereditary for sure (the previous Capetians Kings of France had to crown their heir as co-king to ensure their election) and he greatly strengthened royal control during his reign. Let's also not forget that Philip was an expert at playing one Plantagenêt against another : he played Richard against Henry II, John against Richard and Arthur against John during his reign. I see no reason why he wouldn't be able to start again in this scenario.

Third, an alliance between Richard and the Count of Toulouse doesn't seem likely : Richard always had troubles with the Counts of Toulouse, not to mention he had a claim on that title.
And Simon de Montfort would be one of Richard's vassals in your scenario as he had lands in France but also England (he was Earl of Leicester). That doesn't mean he could rebel but still...
Not to mention that the Cathar Crusade was not only a crusade against Heresy : it was also the theater of a confrontation between Northern and Southern France (the attitude of the Northern crusader was one of the reasons the Counts of Toulouse ended up fighting them). Thus, having Raymond VI of Toulouse and King Peter of Aragon on the same side as Richard and Barbarossa, who are more Northern rulers than southern ones, seems rather unlikely.

Lastly, Frederick Barbarossa was Hohentsaufen. Philip Augustus supported the Hohenstaufen dynasty in the HRE OTL. Besides, Richard had a nephew, Otto of Brunswick, who was candidate to the Imperial Crown and was an ennemy of the Hohenstaufen.
Okay, I'll fix it... I will have only Richard aiding Aragon and Toulouse and have the Duchy of Toulouse divided between Aragon and the Angevins later on as a prize, the mediterranean and the crown of Aragon passes to Hohenstaufen later on..
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately Richard was both financially and diplomatically incompetent so the odds of his forming any kind of effective coalition are very low and it is arguable that his death spared him the ignominy that befell his brother, John I, when England found itself without money or allies, thanks to Richard's efforts.
 
Unfortunately Richard was both financially and diplomatically incompetent so the odds of his forming any kind of effective coalition are very low and it is arguable that his death spared him the ignominy that befell his brother, John I, when England found itself without money or allies, thanks to Richard's efforts.

It is not exactly a coalition he just helps the Aragonese because of a common enemy..
 
I would have said Richard was quite accomplished and successful diplomatically, he formed a strong enough alliance against Philip II for example. As for financially incompetent, he beggared England twice, once to pay for his Crusade and once for his ransom. Neither of these could be said to be due to incompetence, rather circumstance. For him to be held at all, let alone to ransom, was utterly contrary to the international law of the day; as a returning Crusader his person should have been inviolate. Absent these events I expect his realms would have done well enough financially under him. They managed to absorb the blows in any case. John's failings were his own, and not to be blamed on his brother's legacy. Matters would have gone much differently under Richard's continued reign.
 
Rumours but no evidence that I know of, and I see no reason to believe them. Ditto with William II. Edward II, James I and VI and William III and II there is a lot more reason to believe that they were bisexual; James I would say primarily gay as outside of marriage, a dynastic obligation which he couldn't well escape, he had no reported or rumoured affairs with women at all, only men. Richard's lack of legitimate issue might well have been rectified had he spent more time with his wife, or married earlier. The latter he would have done were it not for his father's scandalous affair with his intended bride, which was also at the root of the acrimony between him and Philip II who, being unaware of the affair, took Richard's continued delays in marrying his sister as a slight on himself.
 
Domenic said:
I would have said Richard was quite accomplished and successful diplomatically, he formed a strong enough alliance against Philip II for example. As for financially incompetent, he beggared England twice, once to pay for his Crusade and once for his ransom. Neither of these could be said to be due to incompetence, rather circumstance. For him to be held at all, let alone to ransom, was utterly contrary to the international law of the day; as a returning Crusader his person should have been inviolate. Absent these events I expect his realms would have done well enough financially under him. They managed to absorb the blows in any case. John's failings were his own, and not to be blamed on his brother's legacy. Matters would have gone much differently under Richard's continued reign.

I'll admit you can't blame all what happened to John on Richard. However, Richard did left difficulties behind after his death, first one being his unclear succession (which led Philip Augustus to promote the rights of Richard's nephew, Arthur of Britanny, who was the son of Geoffrey, deceased younger brother of Richard and older brother of John).

Speaking of John... Wouldn't he rebel if Richard survives and has an heir? After all, he did try to usurp the throne (with Philip Augustus' help) while Richard was away but had finally submitted to Richard who had made him his heir instead of Arthur of Britanny.
With a son being born to Richard, John would once again be number 2 in the order of succession (even farer if Richard has one or more sons).

Sior said:
Rumours abounded regarding his homo-sexuality in his own lifetime and he once did penance for the sin of sodomy.

Historians tend to see Richard more as a bisexual nowadays. He did penance for the sin of sodomy but he had also one illegitimate son : Philip of Cognac (portrayed as the Bastard in Shakespeares' King John).

Rumours also said he had an homosexual relationship with Philip Augustus before Richard became King of England. However, Richard having a real "knightly" character (one of the reasons I think he was bad at handling his finances), he wouldn't have accepted that Philip didn't repent for the sin of sodomy like he did.
 
The succession law was unclear, in fact there more or less wasn't one, except that it was taken for granted that if the King left a son then he would succeed. Absent that, did it go by primogeniture, which meant Arthur, proximity of blood, which meant John, or nomination, which meant first Arthur then John as Richard changed his mind on the subject? Neither was actually an attractive prospect. Few had a high opinion of John, and understandably so. With less time to make himself disliked, Arthur had made an excellent start on it, seeming to be detested by all who came in contact with him. William Marshall used all his prestige to ensure John's selection, obedient to the late King's wishes, having Arthur's minor status in mind, and no doubt seeing John as the lesser of two evils.

He certainly was an evil, whether lesser we shall never know. I don't see John as having much luck rebelling against an actual son of Richard's, Richard was much better loved than he and loyalty and custom would have made men rally to the proper heir, even if a child, as seems likely. They did to John's son, after all, horrible and hated as John was. Richard I would say did as much to ensure the succession as he could, short of fathering a successor, and of course his choice did win out.
 
Top