Robert Curthose was the oldest son of William the Conqueror. Like his father, he was handsome, charismatic, and a competent field commander. However, the similarities ended there. Curthose was a weak leader and a horrible administrator. As far as we can tell from 900 year old monastic chronicles, he was a naturally lazy personality; brave and fierce on the battlefield, but otherwise entirely lacking in qualities.
His father didn't think much of him, and nearly disinherited him, but finally fobbed him off with the Duchy of Normandy. His younger brothers William Rufus and Henry got England and a pile of money, respectively.
William Rufus and Robert quarrelled constantly -- Robert believed he should have inherited the English crown -- but eventually settled their differences and accepted each other as heirs. (William Rufus was childless; some suspect he was homosexual.)
When William Rufus died in 1099, though, Robert was off on crusade. So third son Henry seized the throne. When Robert got back, he protested. Eventually it led to war and, after one thing and another, Robert's army was decisively defeated at the battle of Tanchebrai in Normandy in 1106. Henry stuck his older brother in genteel captivity; he would linger there for 28 years, eventually dying without ever seeing freedom again.
Now, as far as we can tell, Tanchebrai was a very likely win for Henry. He had more knights. And while he was not a famous fighter in his own right, he was tough, intelligent, and a perfectly competent commander.
Still, any battle is unpredictable, and this was the age where Kings were still expected to join the fray. So, say Henry takes an arrow in the eye in the first few minutes. His knights panic, and Robert rolls them up.
Now what?
Well, Robert would claim the throne of England -- there was no other plausible candidate. But he'd be a very weak king. It would be a golden age for the Norman nobles. Somewhat less so for their English subjects... And OTL Robert lived about 25 years after Tanchebrai, so this would go on for a while... probably long enough to seriously alter the course of the evolving English state.
I could see this going in various ways, most not so good for England.
Thoughts?
Doug M.
His father didn't think much of him, and nearly disinherited him, but finally fobbed him off with the Duchy of Normandy. His younger brothers William Rufus and Henry got England and a pile of money, respectively.
William Rufus and Robert quarrelled constantly -- Robert believed he should have inherited the English crown -- but eventually settled their differences and accepted each other as heirs. (William Rufus was childless; some suspect he was homosexual.)
When William Rufus died in 1099, though, Robert was off on crusade. So third son Henry seized the throne. When Robert got back, he protested. Eventually it led to war and, after one thing and another, Robert's army was decisively defeated at the battle of Tanchebrai in Normandy in 1106. Henry stuck his older brother in genteel captivity; he would linger there for 28 years, eventually dying without ever seeing freedom again.
Now, as far as we can tell, Tanchebrai was a very likely win for Henry. He had more knights. And while he was not a famous fighter in his own right, he was tough, intelligent, and a perfectly competent commander.
Still, any battle is unpredictable, and this was the age where Kings were still expected to join the fray. So, say Henry takes an arrow in the eye in the first few minutes. His knights panic, and Robert rolls them up.
Now what?
Well, Robert would claim the throne of England -- there was no other plausible candidate. But he'd be a very weak king. It would be a golden age for the Norman nobles. Somewhat less so for their English subjects... And OTL Robert lived about 25 years after Tanchebrai, so this would go on for a while... probably long enough to seriously alter the course of the evolving English state.
I could see this going in various ways, most not so good for England.
Thoughts?
Doug M.