No outrage of Anagni - Philip IV of France excommunicated by Boniface VIII

In 1303, the dispute between Boniface VIII and Philip IV of France was in his peak. Boniface VIII planned to issue the bull "Super Petri Solio", in which he excommunicated Philip the Fair and freed his subjects from his oath of fidelity to him. The bull would have been published on 8 September 1303, but on 7 September the king's councillor Guillaume de Nogaret and cardinal Sciarra Colonna led a band of mercenaries and attacked the palace of the pope in Anagni, where he was held prisoner for three days (the outrage of Anagni), until the people of Anagni rose against the invaders and released Boniface. The pope died a month later. After a brief papacy of Benedict XI, the french Clement V was elected pope, starting the papacy of Avignon.
But what if, for whatever reason, there is no outrage of Anagni and Boniface VIII's bull is published and Philip IV is excommunicated? What would have been the consequences? What would have been Philip IV's situation?
 
But what if, for whatever reason, there is no outrage of Anagni and Boniface VIII's bull is published and Philip IV is excommunicated?
That would ask for Philip IV to act a bit weirdly : Anagni wasn't some kind of peripety, but the logical outcome of a struggle began years ago, and prepared by Capetian bureaucracy : hence the first Estates Generals gathered by the king that provided him a huge political support, including from clergy.

What would have been the consequences?What would have been Philip IV's situation?
Situation would have been basically unchanged : the council organised by Philip IV already made clear that french clergy was supporting the Capetians and not the Pope.
Eventually Philipp would realize he had been foolish letting Bonifacius enacting the bulla, and would go for taking him (and with even more motivation doing so ITTL), eventually having the bulla removed by the Council he planned to organize in Lyons.

EDIT : It's worth noting that Avignon's papacy isn't directly tied to the event. Philipp IV may have prefered that the Pope would stay in Rome for legitimacy reasons, rather than in a place that was outside Italy and France (still within HRE borders); and partially due to the bad roman political situation (which is, partially but directly issued from Capetians policies).
 
That would ask for Philip IV to act a bit weirdly : Anagni wasn't some kind of peripety, but the logical outcome of a struggle began years ago, and prepared by Capetian bureaucracy : hence the first Estates Generals gathered by the king that provided him a huge political support, including from clergy.


Situation would have been basically unchanged : the council organised by Philip IV already made clear that french clergy was supporting the Capetians and not the Pope.
Eventually Philipp would realize he had been foolish letting Bonifacius enacting the bulla, and would go for taking him (and with even more motivation doing so ITTL), eventually having the bulla removed by the Council he planned to organize in Lyons.
What's stopping the pope from fleeing abroad or just going to a place in the papal states where his rule is secure?
 
What's stopping the pope from fleeing abroad or just going to a place in the papal states where his rule is secure?

Well, such places would have been basically even more close to France : Avignon for instance was part of Papal States.

Fleeing Rome and its immediate could have been a show of weakness, allowing pro-French Cardinals and clergy to simply takeover the region and adding water to the Capetian pretexts that Bonficacius was to be judged.

Giving that Philipp IV was only the first name on the list (rather long) of people he pissed, fleeing to another court would have been quite problematic : no one would have really accepted to support the pointifical point of view that the pope could excommunicate kings for taking over their realm entierly without fearing that such thing may happen to him later.
 
Well, such places would have been basically even more close to France : Avignon for instance was part of Papal States.

Fleeing Rome and its immediate could have been a show of weakness, allowing pro-French Cardinals and clergy to simply takeover the region and adding water to the Capetian pretexts that Bonficacius was to be judged.

Giving that Philipp IV was only the first name on the list (rather long) of people he pissed, fleeing to another court would have been quite problematic : no one would have really accepted to support the pointifical point of view that the pope could excommunicate kings for taking over their realm entierly without fearing that such thing may happen to him later.
If the Pope fled to a rival court like that of the English,it's not like Edward Longshanks is going to just hand him over,is it?
 
If the Pope fled to a rival court like that of the English,it's not like Edward Longshanks is going to just hand him over,is it?

In order to reach England, he would have to go trough France. That may not be the wisest move. Assuming Plantagenet's court would want to welcome with open arms a Pope whom main goal was to curb down royal power.

Having him fleeing to England, as weird it may sounds, could easily end with a painful exile, while a Council chose another Pope, and Edward ending with someone widely considered as an Antipope. Less "handing it over" than at best, let him being reduced into irrelevance and a quick death, giving the fragile health of Bonifacius.
 
In order to reach England, he would have to go trough France. That may not be the wisest move. Assuming Plantagenet's court would want to welcome with open arms a Pope whom main goal was to curb down royal power.

Having him fleeing to England, as weird it may sounds, could easily end with a painful exile, while a Council chose another Pope, and Edward ending with someone widely considered as an Antipope. Less "handing it over" than at best, let him being reduced into irrelevance and a quick death, giving the fragile health of Bonifacius.
The Pope can go to Spain and through there sail to England?The English can potentially use the Pope to rally support for an anti-French coalition?It's not like Longshanks is Philip's biggest fan considering the sh$t that went down with his marriage.
 
The Pope can go to Spain and through there sail to England?
Well, given he annoyed as well Aragonese kings and Italian maritime republics alike, I wonder who would allow him maritime passage up to Spain.
Of course there's as well the possibility to run for England or Castille with a ship directly, but that would probably kill the pope as easily stress did so IOTL.

The English can potentially use the Pope to rally support for an anti-French coalition?
Hardly so : again, Bonifacius had a long list of ennemies, and Edward would likely remember that Bonifacius settled in favour of Philipp when asked for an arbitrage.

Waving a most contested Pope, that had flee to the other corner of Europe, likely ruled out as an antipope by a council is definitely not the best rally you could have, especially when the whole thing about Bonifacius was to struggle against reinforcement of royal power (Medieval rulers were quite about reinforcing their power) with, which was really a bad political move, supporting princes to rebel against their respective kings (in France and HRE alike)

It's not like Longshanks is Philip's biggest fan considering the sh$t that went down with his marriage.
It's not like Longshanks was a big fan of Bonifacius for all the pope did and still could do.

Really, at this point, Bonifacius is toasted.
 
For what I have read, Philip IV wasn't in a good position in 1303. He was at war with the flemish (the Franco-Flemish War), and he had been defeated at the battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) and at the battle of Arques (1303). Boniface's bull would have legitimized Flanders' revolt. There was also dissatisfaction with the king's financial policy, for both the taxes and the devaluation of the money, and since 1306 (when the value of the currency had fallen by two thirds) he faced riots in Paris which forced Philip to briefly seek refuge in the Paris Temple - headquarters of the Knights Templar. Many nobles were unhappy with the policies of centrlization of the king. There was also discontent in Navarre (he was king of Navarre by his marriage with Joan I) for the violations of the laws of the kingdom and the policies of the french governors. For all this problems he had had to make peace with Edward I by the treaty of Paris (1303).
 
For what I have read, Philip IV wasn't in a good position in 1303. He was at war with the flemish (the Franco-Flemish War), and he had been defeated at the battle of the Golden Spurs (1302) and at the battle of Arques (1303).
True but that wouldn't have much impacted his possibilities to act in Italy : as Bonifacius didn't have much allies, even within Pontifical States, with Colonna family being much opposed to his policies, it would have been cakewalk.

It's worth noting that the situation quickly turned against Flemish eventually.

Boniface's bull would have legitimized Flanders' revolt.
It was not really necessary at this point : Bonifacius already gave support to revolt against Philipp (as he did against Albert).
Furthermore, Flemish cities weren't only opposed to Philipp but as well against regional nobles with claims on Flanders : these wouldn't have too much interest following Boniface's excommunication.

There was also dissatisfaction with the king's financial policy, for both the taxes and the devaluation of the money, and since 1306 (when the value of the currency had fallen by two thirds) he faced riots in Paris which forced Philip to briefly seek refuge in the Paris Temple - headquarters of the Knights Templar
Which is a bit irrelevant for the matter at hand, IMO : a quick expedition in Italy wouldn't have asked 3 years to prepare; and the riots outcome point that the Capetian administration (but as well allies) had the situation at hand.
And for what mattered political opinion on pontifical claims, the Estates Generals of 1302 points how much they had a support.

Many nobles were unhappy with the policies of centrlization of the king.
They were even more unhappy at the prospective of a revival of pontifical hegemony : it would have eventually mean less room for them, and increased monetary pressure as clergy wouldn't have to pay.

Basically, not that there weren't issues, but these were definitely not aoblem when it came to deal with a Pope that basically spit on everyone on sight, and against most of what princes (not only kings) were trying to do politically.
 
Last edited:
Boniface can have the support of Charles II of Naples. He also have recognized Albert I of Habsburg as King of the Romans, and in return, Albert recognized the authority of the pope alone to bestow the Imperial crown, and promised that none of his sons should be elected German king without papal consent. So he may have also the support of Albert.
 
Boniface can have the support of Charles II of Naples.
True, but Charles would have to resolve a dilemna between a support for the pope that strengthened his power in Naples and that he helped to make elect, and a likely Capetian pressure on his French holdings, maybe at the benefit of Charles of Valois.

Eventually, I could admittedly see Bonifacius being host of the Napolitain court, with Philipp IV turning a blind eye as long he can act without Napolitain intervention in Roman politics.

So he may have also the support of Albert.
I'd disagree there : Albert would have the perfect opportunity to ignore the conditions of a really disfavourable treaty. Don't forget Albert went up to refuse the imperial coronation that Bonifacius proposed in order to limit the disfavourable consequences of an agreement with the pope.

It's one of the reason why Albert barely reacted to Anagni (that and troubles in the Empire).
 
Does Biniface VIII have any option against Philip the Fair? And in the long term, how would this change the history?

By 1302/1303? Not much chance : things went really too far, and he was quite alone on this.

On the long term...Popes won't be able to counter the rise of royal bureaucracies and to pursue the objective of a pontifical supremacy over kings and emperors no matter what.
If not Phillip, then someone else (arguably Capetians, as the most important political power of this time were probably among the first to react anyway).

Bonifacius already decided to act against Philipp, trough Clericis laicos in 1296, and had to withdraw much of his claims with Etsi de statu and Ineffabilis amor : it was quite obvious that if a king blockaded clerical revenues that were gaven to the pope, Rome couldn't maintain its power for long.

Now, having a less aggressive Bonifacius (hard, but doable) or another pope in charge could make things...smoother. It could mean no Clemens V, less because he was French, but because he was elected IOTL to prevent choosing before pro and anti bonifacians cardinals.

I think you'd still have a pope in Avignon, would it be only to be closer to the important ecclesiastical matters of the time, but maybe not a Avignon Papacy where the county would be the seat of the pontiff for several reigns : other cities in the region or, of course, in Italy could be as well be chosen.

It could mean a relatively stabler Papacy in Late Middle Ages, maybe up to not that formal of a Schism in the XIVth century.
 
In the papal conclave of 1294, in which Boniface VIII was elected pope, cardinal Matteo Rosso (or Rubeo) Orsini was elected in the first ballot, but he refused to accept the papal dignity. On the next day was elected Benedetto Caetani, who took the name of Boniface VIII. Had Matteo Orsini accepted the papacy, he may have acted differently, at least more tactfully (Although he supported the idea of papal supremacy).
 
Maybe, but I can't find much about this Orsini, that seem to be overshadowed by his illustrious homonym.
Do you have some informations about him, safe the short bibliographical notice that I found a bit everywhere? (Particularly, what was the base of his De auctoritate Ecclesiae?)

That said, his biography almost scream "Nepotism" at me. Not sure if it's a good start, but admittedly, I didn't found much about him.

EDIT : Nevermind, found something quite interesting there. The "loyal and important advisor of Bonifacius" part doesn't looks much promising, tough.

The part where he refused to be elected is apparently discuted.

But basically, it doesn't seem he would have been less aggressive when it come to pontifical sovereignty than Bonifacius.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but I can't find much about this Orsini, that seem to be overshadowed by his illustrious homonym.
Do you have some informations about him, safe the short bibliographical notice that I found a bit everywhere? (Particularly, what was the base of his De auctoritate Ecclesiae?)

That said, his biography almost scream "Nepotism" at me. Not sure if it's a good start, but admittedly, I didn't found much about him.

EDIT : Nevermind, found something quite interesting there. The "loyal and important advisor of Bonifacius" part doesn't looks much promising, tough.

The part where he refused to be elected is apparently discuted.

My main source about him is the italian wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Rubeo_Orsini), but I have found that one of its external links is the same page that you have found. I did not know that his refusal to be elected was disputed.

But basically, it doesn't seem he would have been less aggressive when it come to pontifical sovereignty than Bonifacius.

After all, I think the same.
 
Top