No hundred-year war

Max Sinister · Feb 21, 2005

As we know, the hundred-year war happened because France had just made the Salic Law (no woman or man descended from a woman may become French king), but short time after, all the sons of the king died during a few years. WI at least one of them had survived? Would France (without 100YW) become the first power of Europe some centuries earlier? What would England do with its longbowmen, who were the most advanced unit, if they hadn't to fight in France?

fhaessig · Feb 23, 2005

Two points.

First, Salic law wasn't 'found' to keep the english king out of the french throne, it was invented to keep Mary of Burgundy, supposed to be a bastard, out of the throne after the death of her mother's husband.

second, without a 100-year war, France may actually be much worse off on the long run, as the war actually strengthened the power of the french kings over the nobility ( quite a few of whom were killed in some places or other

), especially in matter of taxes. French centralisation was created to beat back the english. Without the 100-year war, there is a possibility that France go the way of the HRE, a slight one ( I think Bouvine is a btter PoD for this ) but a real one, IMO.

Max Sinister · Feb 24, 2005

About the first point: Interesting, I didn't know that. makes sense.

Second: There's still one big difference between France and the HRE: The Emperor was elected and had to give the electors every time more rights - which is why they became that weak. And the two countries had different feudal systems - the king and the emperor both had vassals, and their vassals had sub-vassals again, but in different ways: If a German vassal turned against the emperor, his vassals still were bound by their oath to him, not the emperor. The sub-vassals in France (and in England, too) were still bound to the king. The HR emperor had to give the lands of vassals who died without a heir to other vassals - the French king could keep them (and did). Of course the 100YW may have accelerated the centralization of power (and removed a lot of nobles, like the war of the roses did in England), but that was pretty inevitable anyway - as much as the opposite in Germany.

JHPier · Feb 24, 2005

There's still the problem of the English possessing a part of France, that is Aquitaine.

fhaessig · Feb 25, 2005

Max Sinister said:
About the first point: Interesting, I didn't know that. makes sense..

Yes, the first use of Salic law went without too much of a trouble because a lot of the powerful nobles ( except Burgundy, obviously ) and the royal famly didn't want the daughter of an adultress on the throne.

And of course, everyone was glad of the precedent when the English King claimed the throne of France.

Max Sinister said:
Second: There's still one big difference between France and the HRE: The Emperor was elected and had to give the electors every time more rights - which is why they became that weak. And the two countries had different feudal systems - the king and the emperor both had vassals, and their vassals had sub-vassals again, but in different ways: If a German vassal turned against the emperor, his vassals still were bound by their oath to him, not the emperor. The sub-vassals in France (and in England, too) were still bound to the king. The HR emperor had to give the lands of vassals who died without a heir to other vassals - the French king could keep them (and did)..

Actually this depends on when in french history you are thinking. The french king were first elected ( this is how the Capetians replaced the Caroligians ). Later, the kingship became heriditary by kings having their son elected before their death. Later again, kings dispenced with the election altogether. IIRC, the first to dispence with the election was Philippe II. The same with the feodal system. At first, the french kings had very little power ( one of them even died in the dungeon of the count of Vendomois, his vassal ) and the main vassals were more powerfulls than the king. The king definitely had no power on the vassals of one of his rebellious dukes or on the land of heirless fiefs, in the early middle ages. Later this changed, mainly dues to a lucky run of strong kings.

Max Sinister said:
The HR emperor had to give the lands of vassals who died without a heir to other vassals - the French king could keep them (and did). Of course the 100YW may have accelerated the centralization of power (and removed a lot of nobles, like the war of the roses did in England), but that was pretty inevitable anyway - as much as the opposite in Germany.

I don't think french centralisation was unavoidable. The 100-y war may be a bit late to Stop it, but Bouvines was definitely a place it could have occured.
And even at the end of the 100-y war, look at the power of Charles VII at the beginning of his rule. He was forced to give in to the high nobles on a lot of things, in order to get money for his armies : on the free archers, on taxes, on armies commands..... He got very lucky just to avoid getting reduced to a figurehead.
It took a Louis XI to get the french monarchy dominent in France again, and he nearly lost against Charles of Burgundy.

Faeelin · Feb 25, 2005

What makes you think that Bouvines would be a good date?

fhaessig · Feb 26, 2005

Faeelin said:
What makes you think that Bouvines would be a good date?

First, the fact that Philippe II seem to signal a turn in the power of french monarchy. He was the first to dispense with the formality of election, thereby depriving any chance of reviving the institution. He also broke the church to his will somewhat ( when the kingdom was under interdict, he had his soldiers open the churches ) and established Paris as permanent Capital, thereby beginning a centralised administration.

As for Bouvines itself, Phillippes was in a very dangerous personnal position. Had he died when the german infantry broke through to him, the french army would have broken. This would have signaled a defeat ( and death ) of the king at the hands of two rebellious vassals ( allied with a german pretender ). I don't think Phillippe's Heir would have been able to turn back before a long time, as he just won a victory against the English ( with the proper french ost ). It wopuld have taken a long rime for him to come and a lot of Northern france would have been lost. And the precedent would have been there for future nobles.

Max Sinister · Feb 26, 2005

OK, maybe French kings had to give in if they needed money - but German emperors had to do that more often, if they needed money or wanted to be elected. When 100YW happened, the French kings weren't elected anymore, as you stated. So I think I can say French monarchy was more stable at that time already than the German one, and I still guess that trend would go on. We have to ask ourselves: Of course it's not predestined that France ends as a centralized monarchy - but if not that way, what then? I don't believe that another country could conquer France for long time after 1300 - Spain was preoccupied with the Muslims, Germany and Italy were split in dozens of little states, and England and Burgundy couldn't take France OTL either, so noone's left. Of course, France might still end f.e. as an aristocratic republic (one word: Fronde)...

fhaessig · Feb 27, 2005

Yes, by the 100 year war, french monarchy was more powerful than the german one, but I think the memory of the nobles had not yet faded. The 100 year war was the crucible in which the french nation was really forged.

And I think it could have shattered in the forging. All it needs is a few more bad breaks for the french ( though they already had more than their share, OTL - you'd think ASB intervened - ). If you remove either Joan or Bertrand DuGesclin from the picture or have people convinced Charles VII is a bastard ( he himself wondered ), France will definitely fall to the english. Of course, after a few decades, the english King will move back to Rouen and england will be ruled from the continent, but that's another story..

About Burgundy, I think that, as late as Louis XI, it could have carved an indepedant kingdom out of what was northern France. If you remove Louis XI and make Charles a bit more diplomatic ( which are linked ), you'd achieve a Grand Duche d'occident which would cover the North of France, Belgium, the Luxemburg, Lorraine and Burgundy. From there, it can only grow.

And if you're willing to go a bit earlier than the 100 y war, the kingdom of Provence-Toulouse is a distinct possibility.

The last two don't destroy France as an entity, but this entity will have nothing to do with OTL.

Faeelin · Feb 27, 2005

I'm not sure removing Joan solves everything; the English seem to have fundamentally been unable to subdue France. Remember, Bedford was a capable general, and he failed. Why would the death of Joan (who died otl anyway) change that?

fhaessig · Feb 27, 2005

Faeelin said:
I'm not sure removing Joan solves everything; the English seem to have fundamentally been unable to subdue France. Remember, Bedford was a capable general, and he failed. Why would the death of Joan (who died otl anyway) change that?

When Joan showed up, the french were on the verge of collapse. Actualling already falling in the pit. Charles VII controlled, at that point, Bourges, Orlean, Beaugency, Plessy and Vendome. The last three are really minor town and are usually cited only because there was nothing else. So, as far as cities go, only Orleans and Bourges. Charles was also uncrowned and unsure of his legitimacy.

The first thing Joan did was save Orlean, which was near to surrendering. The second was to get Charles VII crowned at Reims. The effect of the later is difficult to overestimate, IMO, give the middle ages mores. This gave Legitimacy to Charles. Joan went on to show the french God was on their side.

Remove her effect and Charles fades in the coutryside, to be betrayed by one noble or another for gain.