N/A

Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester briefly ruled England while Henry III and his son Edward lay languishing in prison. He encouraged directly elected representatives of the people to be elected but in the end alienated baronial support for reform by betraying Englands interests. WI he hadnt? WI he had been slightly more patriotic, and perhaps stayed away from alliances with Welsh princes? Could it all lead to a Serene Republic of England?

I feel obliged to cheer anything with "Leicester" and "ruling England" in.

This would have been pretty awesome - an English Republic in the Middle Ages? Perhaps the French would claim the British throne?
 
Do you honestly see Longshanks being out of the picture long enough for any government under the control of anyone but himself to exist for any real period of time?
 
Considering the fact that de Montefort couldn't keep hold of young Prince Edward Longshanks in OTL I find it hard to believe that he would be capable of doing so in TTL.

Also you have to remember that Longshanks was quite possibly the most domineering and ruthless of all the Plantagenet Monarchs and all he would need would be a tiny oportunity and he would get his revenge.

Remember that none of those men and women who rose in rebellion against Longshanks ever suceeded in the long run while he was alive. Simon de Montfort was killed at the Battle of Evesham, Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was crushed under Longshanks opressive heel and his Princedom was subjugated and the will of his people shattered and by the time Longshanks died in OTL there was nobody in England, Wales or Scotland who opposed him. All of his enemies had been killed or expelled.

Simon de Montfort was but a minor annoyance to Longshanks. Henry III and Richard of Cornwall may have seen de Montfort as a major threat and they may well have been prepared to cave into his desires, as they did, but Longshanks was always going to get revenge for the defeat at Lewes.

As long as Longshanks lived de Montfort would never be secur in his position as ruler of Britain, as he was the King in all but name (like Cromwell), but de Montfort both didn't have the capability to hold Longshanks for long or the foresight to remove him perminately.
 
Remember that none of those men and women who rose in rebellion against Longshanks ever suceeded in the long run while he was alive. Simon de Montfort was killed at the Battle of Evesham, Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was crushed under Longshanks opressive heel and his Princedom was subjugated and the will of his people shattered and by the time Longshanks died in OTL there was nobody in England, Wales or Scotland who opposed him. All of his enemies had been killed or expelled.

Really? Go find out where Edward died, and what he was doing there.
 
I got a bit mixed up, let me review:

All but one of his enemies had been killed or removed by the time of his death.

Well 'one' if you mean the leaders of his enemies. And Scotland had been in rebellion for a decade - hard to see him ending that overnight, although I'm sure he'd have crushed Bruce.
 

Thande

Donor
I wonder if England could become an oligarchic trading republic, like Venice or Genoa...or perhaps a super-uber-Hanseatic League is a better analogy...
 
Well 'one' if you mean the leaders of his enemies. And Scotland had been in rebellion for a decade - hard to see him ending that overnight, although I'm sure he'd have crushed Bruce.

I did mean the leaders of his enemies. I was very aware that Scotland was still, in many parts, in open opposition to him but they were not really in open rebellion against him anymore.

Robert the Bruce had murdered/participated in the murder of the Red Comyn and thus taken away the chief opposer of Longshanks in Scotland. Then he was forced to flee for his life and spent a while fighting the Earl of Buchan in a Civil War. Only after Buchan was defeated did he pose some kind of threat to Longshanks.

If Longshanks had fought the Bruce at Bannockburn in stead of his useless son I would fully expect the Scots to lose.
 
I did mean the leaders of his enemies. I was very aware that Scotland was still, in many parts, in open opposition to him but they were not really in open rebellion against him anymore.

Robert the Bruce had murdered/participated in the murder of the Red Comyn and thus taken away the chief opposer of Longshanks in Scotland. Then he was forced to flee for his life and spent a while fighting the Earl of Buchan in a Civil War. Only after Buchan was defeated did he pose some kind of threat to Longshanks.

If Longshanks had fought the Bruce at Bannockburn in stead of his useless son I would fully expect the Scots to lose.

True, but I'd expect the Scots to win in the end. They'd keep rebelling, and the English barons would keep resisting taxation. Eventually civil war in England would allow Scotland to break free again. Complete and lasting English conquest is a fairly outside shot - surely 10-1 at least.
 
True, but I'd expect the Scots to win in the end. They'd keep rebelling, and the English barons would keep resisting taxation. Eventually civil war in England would allow Scotland to break free again. Complete and lasting English conquest is a fairly outside shot - surely 10-1 at least.

Complete conquest might be implausible, but I could easily see the Anglo-Scottish border moving north.
 
I got a bit mixed up, let me review:

All but one of his enemies had been killed or removed by the time of his death.

So have him die of some natural illness early! Heavens, man, this is mediaeval Europe, it's not exactly difficult to have someone fall sick!
 
The problem that you're going to run into with the whole "oligarchical republic" concept is that the states you named were run by merchants- families of jumped up burghers. Their wealth was based on trade, commerce, that is their wealth was liquid. This group could also expand, since its origins were not noble, and it wealth was based on smarts not birth (I know this is not strictly true, that the merchant republics were birth-based also, but not so strictly). The barons' that de Montfort needs to support his new regime are dependent upon landed wealth, which is much more exclusive.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is that the power base of the oligarch republics is very different from England. I think they may be incompatable.
 
Alright good point. At that point in the Middle Ages, a trade-based oligarchy wasnt to be. But i think an oligarchy would take form; rejection of Monarchy (which this time conveniently lasts) and Barons balancing each others power i think would lead to an oligarchy, maybe trade based later. Perhaps Columbus, hearing of the English's hunger for profits later in the period goes to London first, to make his case to the High Chancellor.....

Columbus is definitely butterflied away for plausibility reasons.
 
Alright good point. At that point in the Middle Ages, a trade-based oligarchy wasnt to be. But i think an oligarchy would take form; rejection of Monarchy (which this time conveniently lasts)

Why would this last though? I could see perhaps arguing for a sort of Polish situation where the extremely strong English barons, having overthrown the inherited monarchy and claimed broad powers for themselves just elect weak foreign kings. England is harder to invade and cut up then Poland, and when the urban merchant class rises, they overthrow/ reform the "Barons' Republic" as the Kingdom of England is called.

and Barons balancing each others power i think would lead to an oligarchy, maybe trade based later. Perhaps Columbus, hearing of the English's hunger for profits later in the period goes to London first, to make his case to the High Chancellor.....

You need a compelling reason to have the barons continue without a king. The King wasn't just a player on the national scene, he was the national scene. Even today, the English constitution basically derives its power from the monarchy, not from the people. Changing from the monarch to "the people" (whose make-up will be subject to both debate and change) as the source of power will change things significantly.

For instance, if the barons' establish a "Barons' Republic", then how to the courts work? Who decides disputes between barons? What body becomes the final arbiter of justice? Where is executive power? These questions must be answered by the barons, and the answer is going to drive them back into the arms of monarchy.
 
What your describing IS an oligarchy in all but name. The legitamacy of the courts therefore in such an oligarchy would be owed from the King, but the real and lasting power would lie with the Barons under weak Kings. They would make the decisions, and no more.

Its fine to say "They will make the decisions" but your assuming the barons are a monolithic group that will always agree. They won't always agree. And with no central power to exert control over the country disagreements between different factions could easily escalate into bloody feuding.

So you'd have a country riven by disputes, with no recourse to a higher power to solve said disputes.

Additionally, in order for the barons to maintain their liberties, they basically can't have ANY kind of executive, be it royal or otherwise. If you look at all the European communes and urban republics, virtually none (save Venice) allowed a strong executive. In fact, most had constitutions whose sole purpose was to divide power as much as possible. And Venice had a whole variety of things that made it significantly different from any of its contemporaries.

Of course, would such a situation inevitably last (weak king that is). For that with England we have no parallels other than today, but after maybe 100 years of good/mediocre Baronial rule, a Republic would eventually shape itself via Parliament. Moreover, you mention the stability of England; no recurring invasions give this experiment in English oligarchy and then Republicanism a chance....
I think that the barons constant feuding would open England (quite easily) to a restoration. The urban merchants won't like the barons' rule, the peasants won't like the barons rule, a lot of barons will be engaged in warfare against other barons. The whole thing is just a house of cards with a strong wind blowing.
 
Top