Richard I lives longer

samcster94

Banned
We know Richard I accidentally got killed. What if he lived longer? John is his brother and was in power when the Magna Carta happened of course. Would a similar document likely be written if a similar standoff happened?
 
Last edited:
If Richard is still in power it might be John leading the Barons...
A lot of the issues with John were fallout from John's implementation of Richard's edicts - Richard basically treated England as a piggy bank for his favourite Aquitaine and the Crusades.
 
We know Richard I accidentally got killed when hunting stag in France.

Richard I got killed being an idiot and deliberately standing within crossbow range while besieging the Château de Chalus-Chabrol and mocking the defenders accuracy. Surprisingly he got shot and poor medical treatment killed him. Considering that level of foolhardiness and general stupidity the odds of his finding another way to die are quite good.
 
If Richard is still in power it might be John leading the Barons...
A lot of the issues with John were fallout from John's implementation of Richard's edicts - Richard basically treated England as a piggy bank for his favourite Aquitaine and the Crusades.

As well as a place to draw his exorbitant ransom from.

Would Richard finally get around to siring an heir, or did he just not care? If not, would Richard try to set up Arthur as his heir (especially if Arthur is an adult)?
 
What if he lived longer?
Well, we could see him avoiding the political pitfalls in France that John blindly went into IOTL, but he's not going to escape the usual issues of running a disparate hegemony in France, namely diverse and rebellious nobility, and Capetian suzerainty and meddling; while his authority in England wouldn't be undisputed (there's a reason why John's regency wasn't that challenged).

Now, Richard had a quite favourable military situation in Normandy, and without the succession crisis that happened after his death, I don't see Philippe II being able to break it in short term. Still, the war against Capetians and their French or Aquitain vassals was a real drain for Plantagenet's treasury, and as long French kings are able to pull a pressure by warring or supporting revolts (would it be only politically), Richard won't be that able to assert its authority (which is one of the reason of the truce of Gaillon) something that would probably continue up to his death (which, as @Thoresby said, could happen sooner than later, his death in 1199 being representative of his behaviour : less because he was a fool, tough, than because undergoing trough the whole knightly charismatic behaviour was the best way to seal a disparate army and vassals).


Would Richard finally get around to siring an heir, or did he just not care? If not, would Richard try to set up Arthur as his heir (especially if Arthur is an adult)?
I wouldn't see him having an heir : Berenguela and Richard barely shared time together, and there's no real clue that it would change. If he does, it could arguably complexify things.

As for Arthur, Richard Oc e No wouldn't be that pressed to make his mind until he's on his deathbed, as usual : the problem wasn't only the age of Arthur, but as well the disunity of the Angevin demesne. Most of French nobles preferred Arthur to inherit at least Brittany, Anjou, Maine and Normandy; while Anglo-Normans lords rather elected John. Aquitains would probably end up supporting whoever let them alone.
In a situation where John and Arthur are still both alive, you would have a succession crisis, that could have as arbitle (who else) Philippe II trough his suzerainity over french holdings of Plantagenets : it could arguably end up differently than IOTL relatively easily, such as division of the Plantagenet ensemble but without real Capetian advance (altough them swallowing up Auvergne is more or less bound to happen IMO)
 
Richard won't be that able to assert its authority (which is one of the reason of the truce of Gaillon) something that would probably continue up to his death (which, as @Thoresby said, could happen sooner than later, his death in 1199 being representative of his behaviour : less because he was a fool, tough, than because undergoing trough the whole knightly charismatic behaviour was the best way to seal a disparate army and vassals).

While we agree that his behaviour and the numbers of near misses earlier in his life suggests he's not going to make old bones I would disagree that his way was the right way. Lots of other medieval monarchs managed to rule effectively without conspicuously and continuously showing such extreme bravery/foolhardiness. The chroniclers at the time specifically noted his behaviour was at the extreme end of the expected range, which in part is why he got called Lionheart but also why some contemporary chroniclers subtly questioned his suitability for his role.
 
While we agree that his behaviour and the numbers of near misses earlier in his life suggests he's not going to make old bones I would disagree that his way was the right way.
I didn't said it was the right way: I entierly agree it was reckless, even for the times. But it wasn't foolish for the sake of it : the turn of the century saw the end of the miles as a separate sub-class, and conversly the rise of chivalrous values within nobility as a whole (as a self-justification, when it lost its military monopoly, among other reasons); and ruling over the complex and divided ensemble that Richard ruled over asked to abide trough this chivalrous ideology to really tie himself the said divided nobility (or possibly get enough prestige to get a better support base, including outside the realm).

It mostly worked on this regard, while I don't think we can dispute it took a tool (and not just on Richard's life, but also on the succession) especially as Richard didn't just abided trough this for his interest but (as it was usually the case) did probably genuinly assumed these values (which isn't that surprising giving his upbringing).
 
Would a similar document likely be written if a similar standoff happened?
Forgot this part, sorry.

John's rule in England wasn't that a departure from what his brother and his father did themselves when it comes to England : it was a concious Plantagenet policy to curb down whenever possible the baronial ensemble in England (which really blossomed during the Anarchy), trough harsh watch, destruction or requisition of castles; as well than reinforcing royal authority with the establishment of a royal justice all over the kingom down to free tenants (which by by-passing landed aristocracy, cut down their own power, while increasing royal fiscal revenues).

John's policies were a bit of hit-and-miss : many of his reforms lasted after his death, but while he wasn't this much harsher than his father, he was less competent, eventually drowning in a multi-causal crisis.

But while Anglo-Normans nobles will be prone to assert their interests and their rights, how they will do so depends a lot of what happen ITTL. It's plausible that Richard wouldn't give this much mind to England (not that he was uninterested, but he negleted it for its continental interests), and how the succession happens could lead to barons being acknowledged some right, and/or John's reforms on justice being butterflied or limited, and/or the pursuit of RIchard's policies, and/or an Anarchy II with barons beneficing from it...
The only thing that's clear to me is that you would still have a political-social base for barons to claim some autonomy.
 
It should be noted that John had close to zero Charisma, and even his supporters said other than basic court etiquette, his talking lacked any polish in his own court. So while policy wise he wasn't that different than Richard, I can see the same barons who grumble but follow instructions form Richard having trouble with John. Also, treating England as a piggy bank is not a new thing, Henry I thought of himself as a Norman with a Piggy Bank across the channel, so Richard is simply channeling some of his predecessor's thoughts. Henry II knew Richard loved Aquitaine and was planning to leave it to him while giving Anjou, Normandy, and England to Henry the Young king while John was supposed to get Ireland.
 
Had Richard I lived longer, I wonder if he might have possibly had a son by Queen Berengaria to succeed him instead of Prince John? Yes, there's some question as to whether it ever was a true marriage but he is believed to have had at least one non-marital child so since the latter part of his life he was starting to acknowledge his past neglect of the Navarrese consort (at least escorting her to mass on a weekly basis after the Church more or less butted in), and she was only 34 at the time of his death so perhaps she may have not yet been rendered barren . True, 35 would have been a very late age for a woman back then to have had her firstborn but her own mother-in-law Eleanor of Aquitaine had successfully born the healthy Prince John when she herself was 45!
 

trajen777

Banned
I think if Richard had lived longer he would have continued his recapture conquest of parts of France. He quickly won at Freetaval and pretty much had his way. His alliances with HRE/ Flanders / Navrarre had put the French in a bad situation . According to McClenes book this was part of a plan to slowly break France apart. I could see the following :
1. Neutralize France
2. Heir ?? I think this would have happened
3. Lead the 4th crusade (focus on Egypt) - acquire massive wealth form Egypt (John as Duke of Egypt?)
4. Use the credibility / resources to build out England French positions / Take thrown of France
 
Richard doesn't have a claim on France, only until Edward III's line do the Plantagenets have a claim. That said, retaking his Normandy and Anjou lands should be doable. I somehow think if the 4th Crusade happened, it's Egypt or stay home for him, I don't think he wanted to do any detours.
 

trajen777

Banned
Yep 4th crusade would have focused on Egypt. He was driven to take Egypt during the 3rd however the resistance from the French etc, and the risk to his kingdom forced him to return to England. As to claims - it would have been the right of conquest -- with parts going to the allies (or he puts his choice on the throne as a puppet)
 
Top