Platagenets In Normandy

I once read in this book about William Marshal (knight who served Henry the Young King, Henry II, and Richard I). When it got to the part about Phillipe Augustus tearing apart the "Angevin Empire," it stated that contemporaries concluded that he had no chance had the Plantagenets stood together instead of bickering. For example, the Norman levies actually beat back the Capetian army, relieving three sieges of castles, before some of the lords deserted to Richard.

Later on, when the book covered King John's time (aka, epic fail), it mentioned that contemporary chroniclers in the Holy Roman Empire, Paris, and Normandy also thought that had John not caused so much trouble during Richard's reign, the Plantagenets would have easily parrayed the Capetians. They even mentioned that had John stayed faithful to his brother, the situation was strong enough that even he couldn't mess it up.

Is this true? I'm not entirely convinced.

Arguing in favor of contemporary chroniclers, the Plantagenets were on the defensive, castles were a great force multiplier. Henry II had a huge warchest saved up over the years and Richard's crusading didn't eliminate all of it (it might have if Richard stayed longer which is why he tired to raise more money when he left because he might have needed it). The Brittany, Aquitaine, and Anjou had been exempt from tax from the crown... for no good reason. Apparently some pre-1000 king gave them exemption indefinitely, meaning these lands paid nothing to the crown and didn't owe anything financially (heck Aquatine was practically independent) until they were pried from the Plantagenet hands. Thanks to incompetent tax collection, this meant not only Henry II of England was one of the wealthiest men in Europe, his French holdings gave him more income than the Capetians had income.

There was also this place called Chateau Gaillard. Phillipe had pretty much no way of incurring into Normandy with a large footbound army if he didn't go through it. In OTL, the defenders prepared for a siege to last as long as three years, having stored enough grain, but they got beaten anyways. Part of it was because John was wasting time trying to raise funds for mercenaries. part of the reason is that they didn't hold out for three years since John's addition of a poop chute allowed a Captian soldier to get in and open the gates. My point being, it was a really formidable castle and if Richard wasn't on the defensive for so many years, it Phillipe might be too busy with the boarder areas he took early in OTL instead of getting right up to Chateau Gaillard immediately.

Against the Plantagenet cause, even if they united once Henry the Young King died, they were still vassals of the French king. This allowed Phillipe to come up with all shorts of shenanigans and justifications to escheat Normandy from them on the flimsiest of reasons. Once the Capetians won, Normandy would be lost and the cultural heart of England's (Anglo-Norman) nobility would be gone. If the Plantagenets win a war, or two,, or three, they can't eliminate the threat to Normandy. They only got their French lands due to marriage. And until Edward III (after John already lost Normandy), they have no royal French blood.

So what do you guys think? Can the Plantagenets keep their French lands in their family if they stop infighting once Henry the Young King dies? I don't mean all together indefinitely. Henry II planned to divide up his holdings (he didn't think of them as one continuous block) leaving only England and Normandy with the senior line, but Henry the young King's death screwed that up.
 
Kill off John well before Richard and the Plantagentes will have a great chance to keep most of their french lands (Normandy, Anjou, Brittany, Aquitaine, Poitiers).
Aquitaine and any onyother lands of Eleanor were at least formally indipendents and at maximum only in personal union with England until Eleanor's death as they were her own inheritance
 
Perhaps give Young Henry a posthumous son?
Henry II then has a clear heir to England & Normandy who won't inherit Aquitaine, John has a chance at Ireland and probably Aquitaine if Richard is still childless, and Arthur of Brittany is likely to live to hold that. Anjou might be a flashpoint for later between the branches but Philippe has less chance to gain what he did OTL.
 
Perhaps give Young Henry a posthumous son?
Henry II then has a clear heir to England & Normandy who won't inherit Aquitaine, John has a chance at Ireland and probably Aquitaine if Richard is still childless, and Arthur of Brittany is likely to live to hold that. Anjou might be a flashpoint for later between the branches but Philippe has less chance to gain what he did OTL.
Unlikely to happen as Margaret of France became unable to have children for a miscarriage she had some years before.
I think a better way is either having the wedding between Richard and Alys of France go ahead as soon is possible and them having children for England&Normandy and Aquitaine or John dying before Richard and Arthur inheriting everything (and likely a wedding between Eleanor of Brittany and the future Louis VIII as originally projected)
 
I think a better way is either having the wedding between Richard and Alys of France go ahead as soon is possible and them having children for England&Normandy and Aquitaine or John dying before Richard and Arthur inheriting everything (and likely a wedding between Eleanor of Brittany and the future Louis VIII as originally projected)

Richard was quite a warrior. Since our target POD is after Henry the Young King's death, we do know that Richard is going to spend a lot of time on the upcoming Crusade since his personality is developed at this time. His child would still be young when he comes back.
 
Perhaps give Young Henry a posthumous son?
Henry II then has a clear heir to England & Normandy who won't inherit Aquitaine, John has a chance at Ireland and probably Aquitaine if Richard is still childless, and Arthur of Brittany is likely to live to hold that. Anjou might be a flashpoint for later between the branches but Philippe has less chance to gain what he did OTL.
Have William, the son of Margaret of France survive instead that is a good POD.
 
Have William, the son of Margaret of France survive instead that is a good POD.

Technically possible, but I was thinking of after Henry the Young King dying.

Do you think the contemporaries were right when they thought if the Plantagenets stopped infighting, Phillipe August's ambitions were doomed? Or do you think their realm and being legally subordinate to France dooms it?

I mean, it could go either way but I'm wondering who has the better odds.
 
I once read in this book about William Marshal (knight who served Henry the Young King, Henry II, and Richard I, John I and Henry III, effectively ruling as King of England 1217-1219).

Yeah, I read that book too. William Marshal, The Greatest Knight. I read it until the cover pealed off and the spine fell apart. I need a new copy

Have William, the son of Margaret of France survive instead that is a good POD.

Anyone recall that Henry the Young King - who I refer to as Henry 2.5 - exiled William Marshal from his court for giving it to the Queen. Marshal offered to fight any number of challengers in defence of his/the Queen's honour. Sadly nobody was stupid enough to commit suicide take up the challenge. Yet the son borne by Margaret was named William.
 
Yeah, I read that book too. William Marshal, The Greatest Knight. I read it until the cover pealed off and the spine fell apart. I need a new copy

Anyone recall that Henry the Young King - who I refer to as Henry 2.5 - exiled William Marshal from his court for giving it to the Queen. Marshal offered to fight any number of challengers in defence of his/the Queen's honour. Sadly nobody was stupid enough to commit suicide take up the challenge. Yet the son borne by Margaret was named William.

Oh yeah, I didn't get to John (a quick Wikipedia look shows William Marshall's life) and forgot the name of the book. You're right.

And yes, I remember Marshal being accused of doing that.
 
Is this true? I'm not entirely convinced.
It might be true enough for Normandy, due to its relatively unified structure, but I doubt it for the rest. See, we all know the big pink map covering the western part of the kingdom, but it hides that Plantagenets as Dukes of Aquitaine or Anjou had as much levy on their vassals than any other French lord in their position. Meaning not this much, especially with French kings that managed to play their suzerainity rather well to tie themselves with their vavassors in Plantagenets holdings and even with Plantagenets dukes against their father IOTL.

Brittany, Aquitaine, and Anjou had been exempt from tax from the crown... for no good reason.
Except there is : the lords and nobles of these lands didn't see a good reason why their contributions should go to the crown : as far they were concerned, their ruler wasn't the king of England but the count of Poitiers, the duke of Anjou, etc. it's why Henry had to name his sons as such, because it was the best way to give these nobilities what they wanted, namely a proper ruler. The idea was he could rule still these lands by proxy or at least as a suzerain as the Capetians were, which obviously failed.
This is not incompetence, this is basic understanding of feudal politics.

So what do you guys think? Can the Plantagenets keep their French lands in their family if they stop infighting once Henry the Young King dies? I don't mean all together indefinitely. Henry II planned to divide up his holdings (he didn't think of them as one continuous block) leaving only England and Normandy with the senior line, but Henry the young King's death screwed that up.
You could have something regarding Normandy : the Capetian general strategy at this point wasn't really "let's takeover everything" and rather continuing the usual game of balance between their vassals to prevent one of them becoming too powerful, using their sacred prestige to tip it, and eventually slowly gaining on lands they considered most important such as Vexin. Would Plantagenet's hegemony turn into various principalities, this would be business as usual with a focus against Normandy (or rather, to take control of Seine river as much as possible) that due to more avaible ressources, and the maintain of a suzerainity over the region even if in personal union with the English kingship (which wouldn't be obvious, for reasons stated above) would still provide Capetians with fair chances.
Still in the immediate aftermath, I think the idea does have merit.
 
Yeah, I read that book too. William Marshal, The Greatest Knight. I read it until the cover pealed off and the spine fell apart. I need a new copy



Anyone recall that Henry the Young King - who I refer to as Henry 2.5 - exiled William Marshal from his court for giving it to the Queen. Marshal offered to fight any number of challengers in defence of his/the Queen's honour. Sadly nobody was stupid enough to commit suicide take up the challenge. Yet the son borne by Margaret was named William.
Well the boy was likely named after William the Conqueror (plus was also the name of Eleanor’s father and the name of the short lived elder brother of the Young King)
 
It might be true enough for Normandy, due to its relatively unified structure, but I doubt it for the rest. See, we all know the big pink map covering the western part of the kingdom, but it hides that Plantagenets as Dukes of Aquitaine or Anjou had as much levy on their vassals than any other French lord in their position. Meaning not this much, especially with French kings that managed to play their suzerainity rather well to tie themselves with their vavassors in Plantagenets holdings and even with Plantagenets dukes against their father IOTL.

I know the French kings have the suzerainty card, which is why I realized you were right in the other thread when you pointed out the easiest way to get a Plantagenet Normandy Plus England was ironically later in the Hundred Years War when many French nobles jumped ship temporarily until Henry VI's regents managed to screw things up.

The Suzerainty card is why I think the author of William Marshal the Greatest Knight and the medieval contemporaries are wrong that if the Plantagenets unite they can hold.

Henry II actually didn't intend for the "big pink map." Henry the Young King was to get Normandy and England and he was busy dividing his lands. During the Great Revolt, Elanor got captured and imprisoned and Henry as duke-consort took control of Aquataine and sent Norman administrators to run it for a few years, until Richard was allowed to act as regent for Aquitaine, his future inheritance. The problem was when Henry the Young King promised a bunch of Gascon lords fed up with Richard that he would take control. Then he died. Richard grew attached to Aquitaine (technically his mother is still Duchess) and insisted on keeping it. Henry II allowed him to stay as heir to Aquitaine and Richard was supposed to give it to a junior heir if he had children.

John took over from Richard's death. Richard decided if he were to die an untimely death, John should take over since he was the least likely guy left in the family to lose Normandy (ummm…). He didn't seem to know if he wanted to split Aquitaine and Normandy.

Henry III as a young boy and William Marshal, the guy who salvaged his realm, intended to plan a retake of Normandy after which Aquitaine might go to a son-in-law (really, is it best to plan these things before even having kids? Richard promised to split it up between the kids he didn't have and he died). So it seems even up to this point, Aquitaine was still considered a family holding to be parceled out to a loyal kinsman, but it needed to be kept by the family head in the short term for the recapture of Normandy (which obviously never came and Henry III himself ended up as a figurehead of Parliament for most of his rule).

Brittainy is unusual. Geoffrey was made to pay homage to Henry the young King instead of the Capets, but it was unclear from the ceremony if Brittainy was attempted to be absorbed into England, (it was de facto independent at times) or if he meant Dukes of Brittany should be subordinate to Dukes of Normandy (which is still in France).

So what Henry II had in mind was that this region would be controlled by various members of his family down the line. Rather than a super-personal union (Angevin Empire as modern people sometime call it), his future descendants would be a collection of French nobles who don't waste resources fighting each other.

I was wondering if two things could be one. Hold Normandy and England together and kick the "split point" from Henry II's intended point (two people Henry FitzPress King of England, Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou, regent of Brittainy, duke consort of Aquitaine plus Eleanor Duchess of Aquitaine) to Henry II's great grandchild.

s and nobles of these lands didn't see a good reason why their contributions should go to the crown : as far they were concerned, their ruler wasn't the king of England but the count of Poitiers, the duke of Anjou, etc. it's why Henry had to name his sons as such, because it was the best way to give these nobilities what they wanted, namely a proper ruler. The idea was he could rule still these lands by proxy or at least as a suzerain as the Capetians were, which obviously failed.
This is not incompetence, this is basic understanding of feudal politics.

No that makes a lot of sense they owe nothing to England.

I meant that apparently some hundreds of years ago, the Capet kings exempted them and... apparently the local lords decided the exemption was heritable (What?!). Brittainy not only didn't pay in, but reached de facto independence which came on and off depending on the noble in charge, all while paying lip service to Paris.

Phillipe Augustus undid most of the exemptions (I can only imagine "no, they were not heritable with the count titles"), and three generations down the line the last ones were peeled one by one.

Still in the immediate aftermath, I think the idea does have merit.

Ok, thanks for your input.

Ok, as a suspected, edge Capets.
 
Top