Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine killed during the Second Crusade

WI Louis VII of France and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine had died in January 1148, when the Turks almost destroyed the French army that was going from Laodiceia to Adalia? Would Louis' brother Henry give up the clerical life and become king, or would his brother Robert take the crown (if he doesn't die with the king either, since he was also at the Crusade)? What would happen to Aquitaine? And with Eleanor dead, who could become the wife of Henry II of England?
 
Its quite likely that with the French King dead, and much of the army destroyed, the Angevin Empire would be recognised as a state seperate to France in order to prevent a costly war from occuring with England. In return Auverge is given to France, and England helps France extend her boundaries to cover the Kingdom of Arles in the Rhone Valley. Henry II could marry Marie, Countess of Champagne (Louis VII's daughter) or Constance Capet then Marie. Probably the thrones of England and France are united by Henry II or his sons. Of course, if Marie marries Henry II, and Alix marries one of his brothers Geoffory or William, then the two thrones could be united by marriage.
 
Its quite likely that with the French King dead, and much of the army destroyed, the Angevin Empire would be recognised as a state seperate to France in order to prevent a costly war from occuring with England. In return Auverge is given to France, and England helps France extend her boundaries to cover the Kingdom of Arles in the Rhone Valley. Henry II could marry Marie, Countess of Champagne (Louis VII's daughter) or Constance Capet then Marie. Probably the thrones of England and France are united by Henry II or his sons. Of course, if Marie marries Henry II, and Alix marries one of his brothers Geoffory or William, then the two thrones could be united by marriage.
But would there be an Angevin Empire without Aquitaine?
 
Louis VII

I see one of Louis 's brothers becoming king, but I'm not sure which one..I see Aquitaine reverting to France and the role of the Angevins becomes less important. I think that the French would have re-taken Normandy much earlier in this scenario.
 
massive effects...

Aquitaine technically was not a part of France. That's why it went back to Eleanor after the divorce. Most likely Eleanor's sister Alix (aka Petronilla) would have inherited. Her husband would probably be much less likely to divorce her in 1151 as he did otl.

Henry would still make a go at England, but he's far from assured the kingship. King stephen still has his son Eustace, who died otl in 1153. It was only after Eustace died that Stephen made the treaty with Henry naming him his heir. I doubt Henry would have the funds or men to take England by force without the weath of Eleanor.

I don't think Henry would have married Marie (Eleanor and Louis' daughter), IIRC it was considered OTL, but they were too closely related - even though her mother later married him, and they were more closely related.

King Eustace would still have lands and family in France, so there will still most likely be war there. If Louis' brother Robert survives 1148, he will most likely be King of France. OTL, he didn't have kids until his 3rd marriage in 1152, possibly setting the stage for more trouble or even maybe a civil war if he dies without heirs.
 
Just to point out, not to disrupt your debate, but Eleanor of Aquitaine would not have been killed, even if the army was destroyed. The Muslim Commanders during the Crusades were in fact by and large very chivalrous, maybe more so than many of the Christian leaders, and they would not just senselessly slaughter all of the camp followers, especially non-combatant women and especially especially not non-combatant women of Ducal rank. It was just something you couldn't get away with - it might give you a reputation as a fearsome leader but it would cause all of civilised society - including your own side - to publicly shun you for your actions, and your irresponsible behaviour. On top of this, as a woman of rank, Eleanor could fetch a mighty ransom, which any Muslim commander would love to cash in on. Slaughtering Eleanor of Aquitaine after the Crusader army falls is something of a big no-no.
 
Just to point out, not to disrupt your debate, but Eleanor of Aquitaine would not have been killed, even if the army was destroyed. The Muslim Commanders during the Crusades were in fact by and large very chivalrous, maybe more so than many of the Christian leaders, and they would not just senselessly slaughter all of the camp followers, especially non-combatant women and especially especially not non-combatant women of Ducal rank. It was just something you couldn't get away with - it might give you a reputation as a fearsome leader but it would cause all of civilised society - including your own side - to publicly shun you for your actions, and your irresponsible behaviour. On top of this, as a woman of rank, Eleanor could fetch a mighty ransom, which any Muslim commander would love to cash in on. Slaughtering Eleanor of Aquitaine after the Crusader army falls is something of a big no-no.
Well, she could always die due to an accident, falling from her horse during the retreat, or hit by an arrow, it wouldn't be impossible.

However, the idea of Eleanor surviving Louis VII is interesting too. She had wealth and power, could she somehow make the French "forget" the Salic Law and make that her daughter Marie becomes queen?
 
Well, she could always die due to an accident, falling from her horse during the retreat, or hit by an arrow, it wouldn't be impossible.

However, the idea of Eleanor surviving Louis VII is interesting too. She had wealth and power, could she somehow make the French "forget" the Salic Law and make that her daughter Marie becomes queen?
Well the French weren't exactly strict followers of Salic Law pre100YW so if Louis's brothers were dead and Marie's husband was strong enough....
 

Susano

Banned
Well the French weren't exactly strict followers of Salic Law pre100YW so if Louis's brothers were dead and Marie's husband was strong enough....
What the French had wasnt Salic Law! It was Ultrasalic Law, so to say. Under original Salic Law, land property (including kingship) CAN pass through the female line, its just that a female herself couldnt hold it - but her husband or her son could. And that was indeed the state of affairs in France pre-100WY, so you got it somewhat right - just nitpicking terms, as the French changed the concept and then presented it as the only true way ;) So... it becomes very important whom Eleanor marries now, seeing as in any "Eleanor wins the crown" scenario that guy would de jure be King reignant. IOTL that was Richard of England, of course who was "Next in line" ;) ...
 
What the French had wasnt Salic Law! It was Ultrasalic Law, so to say. Under original Salic Law, land property (including kingship) CAN pass through the female line, its just that a female herself couldnt hold it -
As long as you're nitpicking on that level, you could get it fully right and say that what the french grandees invented to keep the house of Burgundy from the throne was never practised by the salic franks. So you can say that THE salic law ( singular, which is, by historical definition, what was invented after the death of Louis X, le Hutin ) was never part of salic laws ( plural, the traditional corpus of the salic tribe of the franks ).:D:):cool:
 

Susano

Banned
That is exactly what Im rallying against. What the French invented was something new. Germany (well, the German states, the HRE and with that the German Kingdom of course was an elective monarchy) retained the Salic Law. THE Salic Law is what the Salic Franks praticised in succession law and what was largely retained in Germany, whereas the French succession rules do not have this claim to tradition.
 
That is exactly what Im rallying against. What the French invented was something new. Germany (well, the German states, the HRE and with that the German Kingdom of course was an elective monarchy) retained the Salic Law. THE Salic Law is what the Salic Franks praticised in succession law and what was largely retained in Germany, whereas the French succession rules do not have this claim to tradition.
Really?

Do you have any cite for the words 'salic law' been used in the germanies for transmission of kingship before the french invention in 1316? Can you provide it if so?

Because I was under the impression that this name was coined out of nowhere by legists and monks in the pay of Philippe V.

I was also under the impression that said inventors were inspired by old chronicles of salic franks customs, not by any laws which had ever been formally promulgated, much less still extend laws at that time.

If I'm wrong, can you provide a source, please?

And, just BTW, the french invention/interpretation ( chose your pick, mine is of the former ) applied just to kingship, not to transmission of any other title or land. Also for Fun, it just applied to Kingship of France, which is how Jeanne II was recognised Queen of Navarre, by the very uncle which had denied her the title of Queen of France.
 
My Dad wouldn't have gone on and on about Eleanor of Aquitaine for the better part of my entire life and as such I might have had less interest in History and would have become a physicist or mathematician.
 
My Dad wouldn't have gone on and on about Eleanor of Aquitaine for the better part of my entire life and as such I might have had less interest in History and would have become a physicist or mathematician.
This is a good thing. As a history-fanatic mathematician I can't tell you how irritating it is to spend four years studying for a maths degree and wishing the whole time that you'd picked history.
 
What was the status of the Angevin empire in France?
Well, Aquitaine and Poitou are obviously no part of it.

So, if I am not mistaken, ouside of the british isles, it is limited to Anjou proper ( which includes Maine and Touraine at that time ) and Normandy. Britanny is iffy. OTL, it became ( again ) an english possession only in 1166, which is after the PoD. However, the english kings already had some influances before.

For a detailed map.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Map_France_1180-fr.svg
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
That not sufficient either, Prof, though, because - well, you can say, French, German and British (to pick three examples) legal practice only differed in dekree. The British/UK crown (I understand its different with noble titles there, too) is male-preference succession, but only within siblings - a daughter has a better right than a cousin. In German practice (that is, how it was in the HRE), things arent entirely clearcut, and if there are no nearer male relatives around, titles and lands can pass through marriage. In France (as fhaessig mentioned, in the case of the Crown, anyways) it can ONLY pass through the male line. So, yes, gradual - your terms hence dont help much, either. :p

And I see your point fhaessig, what you meant, and concede partial defeat - of course, the fact remains that naming it "Salic Law" was flawed, and that the later application of the term to German succession laws of the time made much more sense :p
 
King Eustace would still have lands and family in France, so there will still most likely be war there. If Louis' brother Robert survives 1148, he will most likely be King of France. OTL, he didn't have kids until his 3rd marriage in 1152, possibly setting the stage for more trouble or even maybe a civil war if he dies without heirs.
But Robert had an elder brother, Henry, who lived as a cleric. How Henry give up his vows and become king or Robert would be the new monarch?

Also, in case Eleanor doesn't die, could she push her daughter Marie as queen of France? And in this case, would she still marry Henry Plantagenet or would there be other candidate more interesting to defend the rights of her daughter?
 
But Robert had an elder brother, Henry, who lived as a cleric. How Henry give up his vows and become king or Robert would be the new monarch?

Also, in case Eleanor doesn't die, could she push her daughter Marie as queen of France? And in this case, would she still marry Henry Plantagenet or would there be other candidate more interesting to defend the rights of her daughter?
I'd say all three possibilities are possible, given that french laws are not yet very firm and there is really no precedent for this, at least under capetian reign by that time.

So I guess the decision will be made depending on the personalities of each character and who can get the most support from the most powerfull nobles.

In that game, I's say Alienor has has some advantages as she IS one of the most powerful noble of France in her own right and her character being what it is. However, I think she will need allies if she is to get her daughter on the throne of France. One of the most telling card she has, I think, is the hand of her daughter. So, IMO, there's a good chance to have Marie as Queen with Alienor as head of the regency concil, but the price is going to be Marie maried ( in her cradle, nearly ) to the son ( or grandson ) of another powerful french noble. The English are out, I think, as Alienor will want a husband who will support her daughter, not overshade her. In my opinion, it will be either Toulouse, Champagne, Flander or Burgundy, with Flander being the best option in my opinion ( due to geographic position and wealth ). It just happens that Thierry d'Alsace, Count of Flander, has a son and heir, Philippe, about the right age.

So, we could get Marie, Queen of France, raised by Alienor, with her husband Philippe ( both raised together to ensure they will get accustomed to the wedding ). The royal domain which will be inherited by any progeniture will include Flander, Guyenne, Poitou, Ile de France as well as a few other land... Basically a big, nearly-continuous band from the North est to the South west of the Kingdom of France, and with some of the richest lands....

Any rebellious vassal will have to think twice, even the king of England.


PS : Susano, I still habe a few questions on that discussion, but rather that pollute this thread further, I'll send them by PM.

EDIT : As a second choice, I would say Marie OTL husband, Henry of Champagne, with the wedding taking place earlier than OTL. Then Hugues of Burgundy, but he's younger than Marie, so I'm not sure he will be a strong candidate. Toulouse just has a new count, but he is minor, so he may not be a strong contender and may be bought out cheaper, maybe by Alienor abandonning her claims to the county of Toulouse if the Regents for Toulouse support her daughter. ( beside Guyenne plus Toulouse runs the risks of francturing the kingdom between North and South; which is why I think Flander or Champagne are better )
 
Last edited:
Top