PC: Plantagenet-Valois partition of France

I don't want to tie this discussion down to any particular point in time, but the closest OTL got de facto to the scenario I'm envisioning was probably in the early 1400s.

I'm wondering whether a treaty dismembering France, so that the Capetians keep a rump kingdom while the Angevins get to rule significant continental possessions (i.e. more than just Calais and the Channel Islands) independently, would be thinkable. IOTL I don't think the English saw much reason to stop the Hundred Years' War without the French royal title in their grasp, but I don't know why they would necessarily oppose settling for a big chunk of land.

So, basically, the question I'm asking is this: was late medieval France regarded as a unitary thing that could only be possessed or not possessed, or would people have been willing to sacrifice its territorial integrity for pliability in treaty negotiations?
 
I don't think your question is well formulated because it is anachronistic.

What was the key territorial level was not countries but smaller territories : rival kings were fighting for the kind of rights (legal and fiscal) they held on territories, and especially on the balance of power with their vassals and their lord.

Henry II Plantagenet's daily main concern was with his vassals. John Lackland lost most of his possessions because his vassals, especially in Poitou, were very hard to handle and because he messed things up.

Then you have to take into account the realities of geography, communications and identities. You can't hold together so distant and different territories.

You don't either break-up kingdoms because if you do, you set an example of breaking all legitimacy. Consider that the Holy Roman Germanic Empire was nominally kept into existence untill Napoleon broke it, though it almost was a mere geographic expression.

You can more easily become king of a kingdom than partition or break this kingdom.

The more the Plantagenet and Lancaster could achieve on the continent, they did but could not keep for the geographic and identities reasons I mentioned.

The treaty of Bretigny was a kind of partition. It just did not work in the long run because a little army was enough for Charles V to reconquer in 10 years all he had lost.
 
Top