Richard the Lionheart POD

What would the consequences of Richard NOT being captured by the Duke of Austria on his way back to his Angevin domains after the 3rd Crusade? How would the lack of English ransom gold effect Henry VI, who needed that wealth to conquer Sicily? Would his escape from capture prolong the Angevin Empire somewhat?
 
With Richard's return not delayed, and with his ransom not having to be raised, he is in a much stronger position militarily and diplomatically. The laymen, nobles, and clergy have a better opinion of him (IOTL they were taxed for 25% of their wealth to pay his ransom), and John and Philip don't get a chance to invade the French possessions. Butterflies mean that he definitely doesn't die when and where he did IOTL, and probably doesn't die for a long time afterwards; he might have a son, or he might ensure the inheritance of his nephew Arthur of Brittany (which would enlarge England's continental possessions and piss off/render impotent incapable John).

Leopold of Austria (who originally imprisoned Richard) isn't excommunicated, but he also doesn't receive his share of the ransom. IOTL he used it to renew Vienna's walls; effects are weaker walls, leading to easier sieges for other Germans, Hungarians, and (if butterflies don't kill them) Turks.

Henry VI also isn't excommunicated, and also doesn't get any ransom money. I'm not sure how this effects events in Germany; he may find it easier to make the imperial crown hereditary because he isn't excommunicated (though of course money might've had something to do with that), and getting a solid grip on Italy and Sicily might be harder.

With a weaker France with no resurgence under Philip II Augustus, and thus changes in all those little fiefs in that neighborhood, the Fourth Crusade is totally butterflied. I think this means that the Byzantines will survive longer and better; it looks as though Turkish rise is much less likely.

The English might not lose their continental possessions, so their kings will stay more French than English.
 
Without that ransom money, is Henry VI going to be able to claim The Kingdom of Sicily? IT appear doubtful, but I would love to hear the opinions from this most esteemed board!


The Saxon
 
With Richard's return not delayed, and with his ransom not having to be raised, he is in a much stronger position militarily and diplomatically. The laymen, nobles, and clergy have a better opinion of him (IOTL they were taxed for 25% of their wealth to pay his ransom), and John and Philip don't get a chance to invade the French possessions. Butterflies mean that he definitely doesn't die when and where he did IOTL, and probably doesn't die for a long time afterwards; he might have a son, or he might ensure the inheritance of his nephew Arthur of Brittany (which would enlarge England's continental possessions and piss off/render impotent incapable John).

I like the idea, and makes me wonder what kind of a powerhouse England could become economically if it didn't have to throw away what amounts to a quarter or so of its wealth just to get the King back. That said, and call me superstitious here, but I'm not sure I like the idea of grooming Arthur of Brittany to be King. It just sounds like it means a bad and early end for Arthur, if the others are any measure to go by.

Henry VI also isn't excommunicated, and also doesn't get any ransom money. I'm not sure how this effects events in Germany; he may find it easier to make the imperial crown hereditary because he isn't excommunicated (though of course money might've had something to do with that), and getting a solid grip on Italy and Sicily might be harder.

This is quite probable, and if you ask me probably the largest butterfly of them all. Not sure just yet what to make of it, but it is definitely is. What does a Hohenstaufen Holy Roman Empire look like..and perhaps more interestingly, how long does it last? I don't mean in saying this to suggest that the Holy Roman Empire was not, de facto, a hereditary body, but I think that, as proved at the Erfurt Diet, the princes and dukes and kings in their respective lands are all too relcutant to be meaningfully superceded in perpetuity by Henry's successors. Part of what kept the Empire together , in my opinion, was the notion that, however much the truth may prove otherwise, at least in theory any ruler could raise himself to the rank of Emperor. This hope, this lust for power amongst the Electors kept the empire together as I see it...and by making the empire hereditary, like so many other titles, it undermines the Holy Roman Empire and while it may survive and even thrive for a time afterwards, it'll collapse far sooner than Napoleon if this continues. Well, either that or it coaleses into Greater Germany, for lack of a better term, as people get used to the situation.

With a weaker France with no resurgence under Philip II Augustus, and thus changes in all those little fiefs in that neighborhood, the Fourth Crusade is totally butterflied. I think this means that the Byzantines will survive longer and better; it looks as though Turkish rise is much less likely.
Probably true...and any Fourth Crusade that does occur is probably direct not at Jerusalem but against the Turks.

The English might not lose their continental possessions, so their kings will stay more French than English.

True, at least for a short while. I don't imagine Frankish (for lack of a better word) Kings on the English throne lasting for terribly much longer, loss of French holdings or not. As I understand it, there's just too much cultural pressure to become increasingly English. It may take longer, but the end result is much the same.

=
As for another change...the town of Dürnstein would never grow toprominence, nor would it have any reason besides its apricots for anyone to visit in the modern age.

Having been there recently, that's all the town seems to care about... Apricots and Richard being kept in teh dungeon in the castle that overlooks the town on the bank of the Danube.
 
I've been looking for good Angevin "Empire" PODs and this one still seems to be the best, without having to shell out a huge ransom and arriving in his realm by 1193 instead of being in captivity, can Richard bequeath a stronger realm to Arthur of Brittany?
 
I've been looking for good Angevin "Empire" PODs and this one still seems to be the best, without having to shell out a huge ransom and arriving in his realm by 1193 instead of being in captivity, can Richard bequeath a stronger realm to Arthur of Brittany?

Richard's position in 1199 was pretty solid, even with what happened OTL.
 
Thanks Elfwine! Your expert opinion is always welcomed, I also have a feeling that if he is still around in 1214, Richard's military prowess will lead to a very different outcome at the Battle of Bouvines...
 
Richard living long enough to have a son or daughter would mean a completely different future for Ireland. During his reign the Lordship of Ireland was not united with the English crown but held by John - Henry II seemed to have planned making Ireland into a seperate but subordinate vassal kingdom.

If John never takes the throne the Lordship is never (re)merged back into the English crown.
 
Richard living long enough to have a son or daughter would mean a completely different future for Ireland. During his reign the Lordship of Ireland was not united with the English crown but held by John - Henry II seemed to have planned making Ireland into a seperate but subordinate vassal kingdom.

If John never takes the throne the Lordship is never (re)merged back into the English crown.

Richard did live long enough. It has to be noted that Richard, while he died prematurely by some standards, was 41. That's quite old enough to have sired a herd of brats, or at least two or three (married 1191, and even his imprisonment was only a couple years - that leaves plenty of time for trying).

I make this note because I don't think him living longer is going to change his inexplicable lack of interest in siring an heir. So that leaves Arthur, who is very much being influenced by Philip, or John, who is well, John.

SassanidSaxon: Don't get too carried away taking my opinion as the highest level of expertise - it's flattering, but it's not altogether accurate.

And if he lives, Bouvines - which happened as a consequence of what had happened earlier from John's failures - probably doesn't happen at all. But to elaborate on that I would advise you look here (among other places) and not just trust me: http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/bouvines.htm
 
In the absence of his own children Richard would likely set out his succession and it does appear more likely John would gain the Kingship of Ireland if he isn't Richard's heir.
Richard/Arthur may also, perhaps under the influence/threat of Philippe, pass over some of his French possessions to John.
 
It wasn't all that unusual for rulers in that period to start their families late: Henry I was probably in his mid-late 30s, John was about 40 and Robert Curthose was nearly 50 when their first children were born. Richard might still have started a family had he lived, although given the way he constantly exposed himself to danger, he was certainly taking his chances.
 
It wasn't all that unusual for rulers in that period to start their families late: Henry I was probably in his mid-late 30s, John was about 40 and Robert Curthose was nearly 50 when their first children were born. Richard might still have started a family had he lived, although given the way he constantly exposed himself to danger, he was certainly taking his chances.

Okay, let's take some data from William I to Edward II, ignoring bastards (going with wikipeda for convenience, so tell me if any of these dates are off):

William I: 26
William II: None
Robert: 48
Henry I: 35
Stephen: 38?
Henry II: 20
Richard: None.
John: 41
Henry III: 32
Edward I: 16 (stillborn child)
Edward II: 28

Average: ~31

If I screwed up any of the dates or math tell me, but I think that's right.

Of these, Robert and John are the only examples of someone who had their first children after forty. While it wouldn't be impossible, I wouldn't bet on Richard suddenly taking it into his head to start siring children.

Perfectly plausible - but even with rulers starting families late-ish, Richard is on the late end.
 
Also, if Richard is not captured in Austria in the winter of 1192, will he return to the Angevin domains in time to prevent Philip from capturing the border castles of the Norman Vexin? In my TL I'm having Bela III of Hungary (as Alexios II of Rhomonia :) come to a treaty with Richard on his way back from the Crusade and assit him in reaching Italy safely.
 
Also, if a longer living Richard butterflys away or wins the decisive Battle of Bouvines in 1214, can an Angevin heir of his (such as OTL Arthur of Brittany) maintain a strong Angevin realm?
 
The succession of Arthur of Brittany also has the side-effect of consolidating the importance of primogeniture in the succession to the English throne and other Angevin domains. Firm possession of Brittany also strengthens Plantagenet hold on their continental possessions, closing off a potential front of pro-Capetian aggression. Ideal marriages for Arthur would be in France, Scotland, Saxony or Castille (to resolve the issue of Eleanor of England's unpaid dowry, for which Guienne was guarantee, I believe).

John Lackland very likely remains trapped in his childless marriage with Hawise of Gloucester.

Eleanor of Brittany might well marry the Dauphin Louis, resulting in - should Arthur's lineage ever fail - a reverse Hundred Years War.

Richard's bastard Philip of Cognac might receive significant promotion, perhaps even to the point of being able to mount a challenge to Arthur's title in due time.
 
I also wonder, how are some ways that Richard could have avoided being captured in Austria? Better relations with the Byzantines? Perhaps even making his way to Bela IV of Hungary by land?


Could Richard avoid capture by going thru Constantinople to Hungary?
 
Top