Richard I and Philip Agustus

I am currently reading a book called Western Civilizations (Second Brief Edition) by Judith G. Coffin and Robert C. Stacey. I just finished Chapter Eight, The Expansion of Europe: Economy, Society, and Polotics in the High Middle Ages. The third and fourth paragraphs on page 227 read,

"The most concrete proof of Henry II [of the Angevin Empire, which was based in England, but had a large amount of territory in France]'s success is that his government worked so well after his death. Henry's son, the swashbuckling Richard I, the 'Lionheart,' ruled his father's empire for ten years, from 1189 to 1199, but spent only about six months in England because he was otherwise engaged in crusading or defending his possesions on the Continent [of Europe]. Nonetheless, the legal system continued to develop, and the country raised two huge sums for Richard by taxation: one to pay for his crusade in the Holy Land, and the other to pay his ransom when he was captured by an enemy on his return. It also steadily supported his wars to defend his French lands against King Philip Agustus of France.

THE REIGN OF JOHN AND MAGNA CARTA

"Had Richard lived, the map of Europe might look very different today: had he defeated King Philip, France itself might not exist with anything like its current borders. But Richard was killed in 1199 while besieging a small castle in southern France. His successor, his brother John (1199-1216), was a much less capable military leader, who quickly quickly lost nearly all of his lands in France to King Philip."

So, what if Richard had lived? How would France's borders be different and why? Would the Angevin Empire have been much bigger? Why or why not? Would France ever be as powerful as it is and was? Why or why not? If yes, then how would that have influenced the rest of the world?

Please answer those questions. Thank you.
 
Richard I Coeur-de-Lion was a very capable military leader : if he isn't killed in 1199, he will probably defeat the French armies. He could maybe claim the French crown : we would then have a Lord Darcy scenario.

Yet, there is a key fact : the time Richard spent in England. Six month in 10 years... Quite short. That's not enough for him to stabilize the Kingdom and it's too few to make him a popular king. The English Barons are likely to rebel as Richard is more French than English, and John Lackland will likely be at the head of the revolt.

Besides, let's not forget who is Richard's former friend and worst ennemy : King Philippe II Augustus, the very first powerful king of France. Philippe II was a brilliant politician : it will be easy for him to turn John against Richard (he had already done so before Richard came back from the crusades) and thus put Richard into a tight spot. Philippe II could also find allies in French barons protesting against Richard's rule.

Richard will have to keep the English crown from the hands of John while fighting Philippe Augustus in France to keep Aquitaine and Normandy. That is going to be hard for him, especially against Philipp II of France : let's not forget that the latter is the one who destroyed the Angevin Empire OTL.

I will admit that Richard is a brilliant and brave military leader, but unless Philipp II gets killed during one of the battles opposing his force to Richard's, he will constantly do anything to get Richard I in a tight spot.

Richard I also lacked political sense : An Empire can't be created only on military bases. We all know what happened to every Empire who only ruled military : they fell. He also cared too much about his French lands than England, which is why his brother John tried to stole the English crown while Richard was in Holy Land.
 
Meh, any rebellion led by John is going to be a disaster. He's as awful as Guy of Lusignan.

Also "any empire that rules militarily falls" uh, any empire will eventually fall.
 
Richard I Coeur-de-Lion was a very capable military leader : if he isn't killed in 1199, he will probably defeat the French armies. He could maybe claim the French crown : we would then have a Lord Darcy scenario.

He could, yes, and it's a possibility...but I'm not sure he would. Apart from anything, unlike the 1337 Edward III claiming the throne scenario, there is a strong, legitimate King of France and Richard claiming France would be nothing more than a usurpation. Unless Philip spectacularly ruins his succession line and France falls into his palm, claiming France would be uncharacteristic of European politics. It would be just a little too bold...but only a little.

Yet, there is a key fact : the time Richard spent in England. Six month in 10 years... Quite short. That's not enough for him to stabilize the Kingdom and it's too few to make him a popular king. The English Barons are likely to rebel as Richard is more French than English, and John Lackland will likely be at the head of the revolt.

He also spent four years in a German prison and two on Crusades. He then spent another 3 years fighting Philip and rebellious subjects in France. These are legitimate reasons for being absent, no?

Of course, if he kept it up then yes, he would cause problems, and I don't believe that Richard was a naturally talented or even particularly interested administrator. However to criticise him for failings which aren't his fault is a little unfair IMO.

As for the barons revolting over Richard's French lineage, you seem to be forgetting - the barons are more French than English too. They only came over the Channel less than 150 years before, and wouldn't stop speaking French as a primary language for another 200 years more.

Besides, let's not forget who is Richard's former friend and worst ennemy : King Philippe II Augustus, the very first powerful king of France. Philippe II was a brilliant politician : it will be easy for him to turn John against Richard (he had already done so before Richard came back from the crusades) and thus put Richard into a tight spot. Philippe II could also find allies in French barons protesting against Richard's rule.

A gifted wordsmith but not as able a general. Yes, John will be incited to cause trouble, but we shouldn't write off the potential for Richard to - frankly - defeat John militarily and put Philip eventually to the sword. But yes, this was the major threat.

As for French subjects of Richard as potential vassals, I think the word you are looking for is "Aquitaine". The Aquitanians were fiercely independent and had a history of rebellion against liege lords - a history of rebellion so ingrained that they actually considered it a right of nobility to war and defeat their liege lords, and the Dukes of Aquitaine traditionally were so on the back foot that they could only administer three coastal cities out of the entire, rather quite expansive, Duchy. In fact, Philip doesn't even need to ally with them, though he would and OTL he did. Richard himself had grown up in Aquitaine and the Dukes had just as belligerent a nature as their vassals. Richard saw it as his mission to conquer and fully control the entire Duchy and had been warring his vassals since the year he first ascended the Ducal throne, something like 20 years before he ascended the English throne. Richard would spend years in Aquitaine conquering the place whether Philip incited them or not. The entire Duchy was a mess, really, and a nature war hotspot.

I will admit that Richard is a brilliant and brave military leader, but unless Philipp II gets killed during one of the battles opposing his force to Richard's, he will constantly do anything to get Richard I in a tight spot.

Kind of goes without saying, since the presence of Richard de facto put Philip in a tight spot himself. But yes.

Richard I also lacked political sense : An Empire can't be created only on military bases. We all know what happened to every Empire who only ruled military : they fell. He also cared too much about his French lands than England, which is why his brother John tried to stole the English crown while Richard was in Holy Land.

In fairness, your argument here is a little weak. We know what happened to every empire which ever existed: they fell. For that matter, we know what happened to every classical democracy that ever existed: they fell. And for that matter we know what happened to the Communist states, the Military Juntas of the 1960s-70s, the rebel states, the fascist dictatorships, the African tribal kingdoms, the American tribal clans: they all fall. Just as the current democracies - the US government, the EU, etc will all "fall". It is the nature of governments to evolve and it is the nature of warlike periods to cause the collapse of the major states. Military empires can and have existed - ask the Roman Empire, the Byzantines, Ottomans, and so on - they all just fall when they stagnate as every country eventually does and has throughout history. Saying that Richard created a military empire and was doomed to failure for this reason is - forgive my bluntness - just incorrect. In fact your statement is doubly harsh as Richard gained virtually no land during the course of his reign, and all of his inheritance was the result of generations of family history (some military, I'll point out). It was hardly an empire he built up by force. It was rather one he was holding onto by force because if he didn't act militarily a rival military power (France) would ensure the empire fell. Richard could have been the most benevolent, wise and peaceful King the world ever saw, but Philip II would still incite John to rebel and would still attack his borders, point of fact and end of story.
 
Falastur said:
He could, yes, and it's a possibility...but I'm not sure he would. Apart from anything, unlike the 1337 Edward III claiming the throne scenario, there is a strong, legitimate King of France and Richard claiming France would be nothing more than a usurpation. Unless Philip spectacularly ruins his succession line and France falls into his palm, claiming France would be uncharacteristic of European politics. It would be just a little too bold...but only a little.

True. Richard could still try to get the French crown "by right of conquest", but that's still going to be hard : the Capet were quite popular and Philip II had strengthen royal control in France.

Besides, Richard is considered as a foreigner (he's King of England) and unlike Edward III, he has no ties to the French throne. So his position would be very weak if he conquered France and would prove worthless since he would have to pacify the area.

Falastur said:
He also spent four years in a German prison and two on Crusades. He then spent another 3 years fighting Philip and rebellious subjects in France. These are legitimate reasons for being absent, no?

Of course, if he kept it up then yes, he would cause problems, and I don't believe that Richard was a naturally talented or even particularly interested administrator. However to criticise him for failings which aren't his fault is a little unfair IMO.

As for the barons revolting over Richard's French lineage, you seem to be forgetting - the barons are more French than English too. They only came over the Channel less than 150 years before, and wouldn't stop speaking French as a primary language for another 200 years more.

I admit he had legitimate reasons for being absent. Yet, when a King is absent for too long, he starts loosing control over his Kingdom as his people think he's less interested in his kingdom than what's outside of it.

But like you said, that only depends if Richard will or not be able to spend more time in England. If he lives longer, he could decide to spend more time in England and fewer in France. However, he would have first to defeat the French (he was at war with Philip II when he died)

Regarding the French-born and thus French-speaking Nobility, I have nothing to counter your argument. If the Barons were to rebel, it would probably be because Richard is not a good king for them rather than the fact he is "French".

That also reminds me of the conversation that I had with my grandfather... He said that if Richard I had lived longer, England would have spoken French. Is this statement true? Or would we just have a more Frenchified English?

Falastur said:
A gifted wordsmith but not as able a general. Yes, John will be incited to cause trouble, but we shouldn't write off the potential for Richard to - frankly - defeat John militarily and put Philip eventually to the sword. But yes, this was the major threat.

As for French subjects of Richard as potential vassals, I think the word you are looking for is "Aquitaine". The Aquitanians were fiercely independent and had a history of rebellion against liege lords - a history of rebellion so ingrained that they actually considered it a right of nobility to war and defeat their liege lords, and the Dukes of Aquitaine traditionally were so on the back foot that they could only administer three coastal cities out of the entire, rather quite expansive, Duchy. In fact, Philip doesn't even need to ally with them, though he would and OTL he did. Richard himself had grown up in Aquitaine and the Dukes had just as belligerent a nature as their vassals. Richard saw it as his mission to conquer and fully control the entire Duchy and had been warring his vassals since the year he first ascended the Ducal throne, something like 20 years before he ascended the English throne. Richard would spend years in Aquitaine conquering the place whether Philip incited them or not. The entire Duchy was a mess, really, and a nature war hotspot.

Regarding the fact Philip II wasn't a good general, I would object by mentioning the Battle of Bouvines. What I can concede though is that Philip II was surely far less good in warfare than Richard I.

As for the Duchy of Aquitaine... You describe it as a real mess. Would that mean that Richard would have to constantly battle there to keep it under his control?
And on a side note, Richard was only Duke in right of his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. He never really bore the Ducal title as his mother died after him OTL.

Falastur said:
In fairness, your argument here is a little weak. We know what happened to every empire which ever existed: they fell. For that matter, we know what happened to every classical democracy that ever existed: they fell. And for that matter we know what happened to the Communist states, the Military Juntas of the 1960s-70s, the rebel states, the fascist dictatorships, the African tribal kingdoms, the American tribal clans: they all fall. Just as the current democracies - the US government, the EU, etc will all "fall". It is the nature of governments to evolve and it is the nature of warlike periods to cause the collapse of the major states. Military empires can and have existed - ask the Roman Empire, the Byzantines, Ottomans, and so on - they all just fall when they stagnate as every country eventually does and has throughout history. Saying that Richard created a military empire and was doomed to failure for this reason is - forgive my bluntness - just incorrect. In fact your statement is doubly harsh as Richard gained virtually no land during the course of his reign, and all of his inheritance was the result of generations of family history (some military, I'll point out). It was hardly an empire he built up by force. It was rather one he was holding onto by force because if he didn't act militarily a rival military power (France) would ensure the empire fell. Richard could have been the most benevolent, wise and peaceful King the world ever saw, but Philip II would still incite John to rebel and would still attack his borders, point of fact and end of story.

My argumentation was effectively weak... very weak. Next time, I'll be more careful when stating something.

It will probably also look like I'm defending the French. If so, see in this nothing more than Chauvinism : I'm a damn French and proud of it. It's a little hard for me not to be biased on this, even though I do my best not to be.
 
IIRC was not Philip Augustus able to seize John's lands by declaring him to be in rebellion against his sovereign (ie John was PA's vassal in these lands)? This was something of a novel take on vassalage using laws which had not previously been applied at that level.

Without John there would have been war, but not this aspect of things - PA would not have thought to do the same thing to Richard and think he could get away with it

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Admittedly, I don't know what Magna Carta is. I was at my aunt and uncle's house when I was reading about it, but I couldn't digest it because my cousin was watching Law and Order only a few feet away from me.
 
No one does supply lines very well in this era, and Richard isn't exceptionally gifted at them; he could conquer France in its entirety I suspect (although there's no evidence I'm aware of that that was his goal), but France can't be ruled from London and I suspect England can't be ruled from Paris either. I expect what Richard would have to do would be to stay in Paris, rule France, and cede England to his brother John. We thus get two Angevin kingdoms for the moment; how the crowns get reshuffled when Richard dies will be interesting. But England and France can remain very close for a long time this way.

I can imagine Richard taking Paris, but never managing to control Burgundy or the South (and his successors will have trouble with Aquitaine), so that we get two Frances out of this, also. I suspect this is more in line with what Richard wanted anyway.

As to England speaking French, that's probably an overstatement. We could see a lot more French spellings and loan words, but getting people to adopt a more complicated grammar for day to day use is not easy at all.
 
I expect what Richard would have to do would be to stay in Paris, rule France, and cede England to his brother John. We thus get two Angevin kingdoms for the moment; how the crowns get reshuffled when Richard dies will be interesting. But England and France can remain very close for a long time this way.

I can imagine Richard taking Paris, but never managing to control Burgundy or the South (and his successors will have trouble with Aquitaine), so that we get two Frances out of this, also. I suspect this is more in line with what Richard wanted anyway.

Re: Burgundy - it's nothing like the Duchy of Burgundy which almost became a kingdom in 1431. In this era, Burgundy is barely even formed, still split between France and the HRE, and is barely even worth talking about - it's "just another Duchy".

Re: France, entirely plausible, though the thing to remember here is that Henry II set up what was actually perhaps the best example of a working government in western Europe before the Tudors, and perhaps even before the rise of Parliament and big bureaucracy in the 1700s. The Angevin Empire was built on the principles of an equality of importance for all the domains held in person by the King - i.e. not only would England not be subject to France, but Henry didn't even treat his French vassal domains of Anjou, Maine, Normandy etc as any less important than England or France, and essentially had France been added to the pile, which France would have been extremely influential as a state it would not be the death of the other states. I've written about this numerous times before on this forum, but basically Henry engineered an independence to all of his domains which worked very well, and though there was never any disputing where the real power lay, the people under his rule were happy with their respective territory's power in the system and everyone knew the score. Henry also managed to set up an extremely efficient system of government officials (except in Aquitaine, which was a mess and where his control could not extend beyond the three Ducal cities) which mixed all the best elements of his native governments together. From England were taken a system like the Hundreds of Anglo-Saxon England (which turned into the bailiwicks in France IIRC), the methods of tax-collecting etc. From Anjou and Normandy he exported certain officials and monopolies to England and they worked well. All in all his territories' economies started to outproduce France drastically and in many areas which formerly could barely collect 20% of owed taxes, many areas were taxed almost to completion. France, by contrast, had a far larger population but could rarely produce more than 1/2 of what England alone raised in taxes, and sometimes England outproduced France in money raised by five or six times. In addition Henry encouraged Englishmen to become government officials in France and vice versa and it worked very well as it removed factionalism from some offices and started to eradicate corruption.

Comparing this to France, France has a huge amount of work to do, and the areas under Philip also contain large regions where there are very loyal but very powerful vassals to the King, and all this prevents good government from working. Had Richard managed to take the throne of France, no doubt he would have set his administrators to improving the place but it would take a long time. In the meantime, England would continue to be a model of bureaucracy and efficiency, and it's my estimation that for several generations England would be the place where Angevin kings needed to go to raise capital for wars. I'm not saying France would be ignored - far from - but I think that England would be just too financially vital for Kings of France and England to ignore. Meanwhile, England being isolated across the Channel, France would be the political hub. While France would of course slowly improve, I could honestly see a situation occurring where, with the independent spirit of the Angevin Empire, England thrives in power by holding the Kings to ransom to fund their wars while Paris remains the city of culture and the Kings' capital for European ventures. In essence, a situation where no King can favour one territory over the other and is required to alternate between the two equally if he wants to ensure that his empire lasts. Meanwhile, with places the likes of Aquitaine, Normandy, Anjou etc all essentially being separated from their oaths of allegiance to Paris (no King is going to swear allegiance to himself, it's pointless) France could be seen as only comprising the eastern half of the state, and if the empire ever collapsed (which at some point it surely would, likely due to a King who's personality is insufficient for holding such an empire together and favouring both capitals) these places are likely to see themselves as subject neither to Paris nor London and stand a very good chance of becoming de facto and eventually de jure independent.
 
Oh snap, I just noticed that the reply that I spent ages writing was all lost when I forgot to paste it onto the reply above that I did post :\

Oh well, here goes again.

That also reminds me of the conversation that I had with my grandfather... He said that if Richard I had lived longer, England would have spoken French. Is this statement true? Or would we just have a more Frenchified English?

I find it unlikely, personally. The Frenchified English is far more believable, but then if you look into it, English already has a lot of French loan-words. The simple thing is that for a language to spread into a new area usually takes one of two things: a land border for the language to spread across (also requires one language to dominate the other to provide an incentive for the speakers of one language to adopt the other) or a mass migration to muddy the demographic waters and infiltrate a language that way - a la how English picked up its German origins, or how colonial languages have spread. This situation has neither of these - you could argue that the French nobility were a migration but they were too few and they kept themselves too apart from the average Englishmen for it to count really. In addition, the major argument to this is that France would dominate England and that England would become "that bit of France across the Channel". I disagree with this idea - in this period - based on my reasoning in my previous reply.

Regarding the fact Philip II wasn't a good general, I would object by mentioning the Battle of Bouvines. What I can concede though is that Philip II was surely far less good in warfare than Richard I.

Yes, that was bad wording on my part. I didn't mean to say that Philip was a bad general, just that his diplomatic accomplishments were better than his military ones.

As for the Duchy of Aquitaine... You describe it as a real mess. Would that mean that Richard would have to constantly battle there to keep it under his control?
And on a side note, Richard was only Duke in right of his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine. He never really bore the Ducal title as his mother died after him OTL.

The problem with Aquitaine was that the Duke's power base was so weak and that the vassals were so fiercely protective of their right to do what they wanted. If the Duke wanted to walk a huge army in to pacify the region, his opponents would just hide in castles and make the campaign take so long that he would gain little ground. If he defeated a vassal, another vassal would come in instantly and claim half the defeated noble's land from some family dispute or other, and boom! you've just created a new enemy. The Dukes simply had so many potential rivals and so many castles to siege that it was a bigger job than anyone could complete in one lifetime. It's not that Richard would be forced to stay there his entire life, but that if he ever went more than a few years without attacking the new strongest lords there, they would attack him first. The Aquitanian nobles were also very willing to change sides at the drop of a hat, and so they repeatedly appealed for Philip II to take the Duchy, then as soon as he made progress they would desert his cause and ensure that he couldn't complete his capture of the region - without ever actually fighting FOR Richard, that is. The entire region was almost lawless, really. It was the Chinese Warlord states, only constantly for hundreds of years and on a much smaller scale.

It will probably also look like I'm defending the French. If so, see in this nothing more than Chauvinism : I'm a damn French and proud of it. It's a little hard for me not to be biased on this, even though I do my best not to be.

That's alright, everyone is biased. I find it hard not to be pro-English a lot of the time...in fact, I probably fail at being neutral constantly.
 
Falastur said:
I find it unlikely, personally. The Frenchified English is far more believable, but then if you look into it, English already has a lot of French loan-words. The simple thing is that for a language to spread into a new area usually takes one of two things: a land border for the language to spread across (also requires one language to dominate the other to provide an incentive for the speakers of one language to adopt the other) or a mass migration to muddy the demographic waters and infiltrate a language that way - a la how English picked up its German origins, or how colonial languages have spread. This situation has neither of these - you could argue that the French nobility were a migration but they were too few and they kept themselves too apart from the average Englishmen for it to count really. In addition, the major argument to this is that France would dominate England and that England would become "that bit of France across the Channel". I disagree with this idea - in this period - based on my reasoning in my previous reply.

I agree with your arguments.

When I first discussed the topic with my grandfather, I thought he was right and that French would become the main language in England under Richard I. But then I realize the idea was wrong as French was only the aristocratic language while English was that of the Common Folk.

Of course, there were exchange between the Peasants and their Lords, but that would not make the peasants learn French, even by forcing it. That would just, as we said, Frenchify English more than OTL.

Falastur said:
Yes, that was bad wording on my part. I didn't mean to say that Philip was a bad general, just that his diplomatic accomplishments were better than his military ones.

That's true. Philipp II is, in my opinion, the very first strong King of France. And that is not due to his military accomplishments but rather due to his political sense and his reforms.

Falastur said:
The problem with Aquitaine was that the Duke's power base was so weak and that the vassals were so fiercely protective of their right to do what they wanted. If the Duke wanted to walk a huge army in to pacify the region, his opponents would just hide in castles and make the campaign take so long that he would gain little ground. If he defeated a vassal, another vassal would come in instantly and claim half the defeated noble's land from some family dispute or other, and boom! you've just created a new enemy. The Dukes simply had so many potential rivals and so many castles to siege that it was a bigger job than anyone could complete in one lifetime. It's not that Richard would be forced to stay there his entire life, but that if he ever went more than a few years without attacking the new strongest lords there, they would attack him first. The Aquitanian nobles were also very willing to change sides at the drop of a hat, and so they repeatedly appealed for Philip II to take the Duchy, then as soon as he made progress they would desert his cause and ensure that he couldn't complete his capture of the region - without ever actually fighting FOR Richard, that is. The entire region was almost lawless, really. It was the Chinese Warlord states, only constantly for hundreds of years and on a much smaller scale.

Wow, that is a big mess...
But if the Aquitanian vassals were that untrustworthy and very war like, how did the Duchy stabilized OTL? If it did stabilize of course.
And could Richard I quiet these rebelions?

Falastur said:
That's alright, everyone is biased. I find it hard not to be pro-English a lot of the time...in fact, I probably fail at being neutral constantly.

Yeah... I think the only true neutral are probably the Swiss :D

Falastur said:
Re: Burgundy - it's nothing like the Duchy of Burgundy which almost became a kingdom in 1431. In this era, Burgundy is barely even formed, still split between France and the HRE, and is barely even worth talking about - it's "just another Duchy".

Exactly. At the time, there was a Duchy of Burgundy under French control (the Dukes were of the House of Capet and peers of France) and a County of Burgundy belonging to the HRE. The only time Burgundy could have become a state was shortly after the end of the Hundred Years' War.
Since we're at least two hundred years before that, Burgundy has no real power of importance.
 
I know Burgundy isn't a significant power in this period - I simply grabbed the name because I could remember where it is, and couldn't think of the major duchies of the south at the moment :)

The system Richard wants to establish, the Angevin system, is one that absolutely requires a brilliant autocrat at the center to work. Richard isn't even equal to the task alone - he requires the active assistance of his brothers. I expect it would collapse before it was even fully implemented in France, especially since the Crown may regard all of its vassals as equals, but the French Dukes are unlikely to agree with that assessment (if the finances are as imbalanced as all that, the English vassals are going to be thinking similarly for different reasons).

That still leaves us with an England and France even more culturally enmeshed than OTL and with intertwining royal houses. Could be interesting to explore.
 
Wow, that is a big mess...
But if the Aquitanian vassals were that untrustworthy and very war like, how did the Duchy stabilized OTL? If it did stabilize of course.
And could Richard I quiet these rebelions?

Over a series of centuries, the major vassals' power was broken until the cities became more powerful in influence than them, and at that point a series of carrots and sticks made the cities fall in line too. Eventually, in an era of vassals with no real power, Aquitaine could be the exception to the rule but it would always be in decline. By the 16th century it had essentially fallen into line with the rest of France.

Richard's best way of quieting the rebellions was to keep winning. No-one wants to fight a King who has defeated them before and no-one wants to ally against a man who has no other wars to fight and thus who can focus on them. It was a given that Aquitaine would cause problems and Richard would have no instant solution. He might not even be able to achieve some stability and peace in a 50 year reign. But he could go some way to consolidating his power and keeping the vassals quiet by being successful enough that they are scared to fight him. It won't stop the wars but it will slow them down.

The system Richard wants to establish, the Angevin system, is one that absolutely requires a brilliant autocrat at the center to work. Richard isn't even equal to the task alone - he requires the active assistance of his brothers. I expect it would collapse before it was even fully implemented in France, especially since the Crown may regard all of its vassals as equals, but the French Dukes are unlikely to agree with that assessment (if the finances are as imbalanced as all that, the English vassals are going to be thinking similarly for different reasons).

Yes and no. You are of course right that a powerful man is needed to hold any administration together, and the French systems were never as good as the English, but in England at least the administration had the virtue of being largely capable of running itself. Of course, this does not absolve the King of the need to see his vassals about raising taxes, nor handling royal decrees, nor generally showing interest in the Kingdom to persuade his subjects that he cares. But it's a start. In Anjou and Maine and some of the other lesser duchies this was also the case, but more to do with the fact that they were small and so accustomed to being the inferior partner in a Personal Union that they were very experienced in running themselves. Areas the likes of Normandy and Aquitaine were not as good at self-administration, and should France ever fall into the fold it would have required constant management. So yes, your point is largely valid.

As to the thing about vassals being equal - that's not exactly what I said though I understand your misconception. What I actually said was that all territories ruled personally by the Angevin "Emperor" were treated equally. So England, Normandy, Aquitaine, Anjou, Maine and a few other places. Vassal territories with their own lords still had to follow the standard rules of court protocol - the higher one's rank the more their power, and the larger one's domain and income, as well as the more dominant one's personality, the more influence they wielded. The Viscount of Limoges with a personal domain the size of southern Wales where he executed full sovereignty under Richard's suzerainty was always going to wield more power in court than, say, some petty lord from Northumberland who held half a knight's fee and who happened to be the King of England's direct vassal.
 
Top