War of French Unification

Basically, what if France never united under an Absolute Ruler. The government wasn't centralized, leaving each of the little kingdoms in France as their own little nations. Then, sometime latter in history, they could unite, probably with some kind of war or another.

And just for the fun of it, lets have Germany unite under an absolute ruler at the time France would have.
 
Not really sure what era you are approaching this from... If you mean the early modern period, then the only kingdoms left would be Navarre (centred on Pau) and, a duchy, Brittany, plus Burgundy tho half of that was acknowledged as French (and hence didn't go down the Habsburg line of succession)

If you're looking earlier than the 16th century, then France doesn't have as much of a centralised authority as might be supposed. In fact it was always coalescing and decentralising itself through feudal domains - the crown would acquire some, and then alienate others. This only really stopped at the same time as the above, but then the death of feudalism is more or less where the early modern period begins

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think OTL war against the english kings ( against the plantagenets and 100 year wars ) and Albigionese crusade were the wars of french unifications.

To delay french unification, you need to avoid these wars ( while still keeping Alienor divorced from the french King ).

Easiest way I can think of is to have Guillaume le Batard lose at Hastings. But that may have a bit more butterflies than you want.
 
Gotta agree with Fhaessig. The wars of Phillip Augustus (not only with the Angevins) solidified the power of the French crown, the Albigensian crusade brought the south under its control and established its power over the feudal lords, and the hundred years war saw the rise of a French national identity.

The best way to get roughly what you are proposing is probably to play around with events of the time of Phillip II of France. A different outcome at the battle of Bouvines, Phillip is not born, a more steady angevin empire, or some other series of events that checks the french crown's power (one possibility is that eleanor of Aquitaine is a man, and manages to resist Capetian encroachment). Basically, you get a weakened, divided france that basically becomes a battleground for its lords and other nations much as germany did IOTL.
 
I think OTL war against the english kings ( against the plantagenets and 100 year wars ) and Albigionese crusade were the wars of french unifications.

To delay french unification, you need to avoid these wars ( while still keeping Alienor divorced from the french King ).
Interestingly, I outlined a series of events to snuff out French control of Languedoc- the Battle of Muret. If Peter II is successful in establishing control over Toulouse, the crusade can be defeated and French unification prevented. Throw in a second round of the Angevin wars for good measure, and you've got a divided France with problems everywhere.
 
Interestingly, I outlined a series of events to snuff out French control of Languedoc- the Battle of Muret. If Peter II is successful in establishing control over Toulouse, the crusade can be defeated and French unification prevented. Throw in a second round of the Angevin wars for good measure, and you've got a divided France with problems everywhere.

In my opinion Muret is too late.

Yes, it could have kept Toulouse ( and possibly Provence ) out of the hands of France, but only at the cost of having them in the hands of Peter II. That's not better from the PoV of keeping an independent languedoc. And, unfortunately, the culture of laguedoc had already been mortally wounded, in my opinion, by the quasi-genocidal crusade campaigns ( genocidal, at least, with respect to the languedoc gentry class, if not always toward the peasantry ).

ANd that won't stop the french kings to keep their power on the rest of France. So what you get is a reduced France and a super Aragon on both sides of the Pyrenees. Not a France divided in multiple warring fiefs and a surviving languedoc.
 
The best way to get roughly what you are proposing is probably to play around with events of the time of Phillip II of France. A different outcome at the battle of Bouvines, Phillip is not born, a more steady angevin empire, or some other series of events that checks the french crown's power (one possibility is that eleanor of Aquitaine is a man, and manages to resist Capetian encroachment). Basically, you get a weakened, divided france that basically becomes a battleground for its lords and other nations much as germany did IOTL.

I agree that Phillip II is the latest time this can plausibly happen, though I think Louis VI is a better time for it. IIRC, he was the one who reversed the trend of powerless french monarchy.

More steady Angevine empire just has the plantagenets unifying France, rather than the Capets, I think.

Bouvines doesn't do it, IMO. If Phillip is defeated and killed, his son Louis, just victorious against the English will bring the Ost of france ( which was not at Bouvines ) against the invaders.

Eleanor a man ( or her brother - IIRC - surviving ) would prevent the formation of the Angevin Empire but wouldn't really prevent the french kings taking control of Normandy and Britanny, it would make it easier as the english king would have less ressources on the continent. Then the french monarchy would have a lot of power to bring to bear on their vassals. It may delay the unification of France but is definitely not guarenteed to prevent it, IMO.

Phillip not being born ( and his replacement being a fool or a weak monarch ) could do it, IMO.

This was really the changing point.
 
In my opinion Muret is too late.

Yes, it could have kept Toulouse ( and possibly Provence ) out of the hands of France, but only at the cost of having them in the hands of Peter II. That's not better from the PoV of keeping an independent languedoc. And, unfortunately, the culture of laguedoc had already been mortally wounded, in my opinion, by the quasi-genocidal crusade campaigns ( genocidal, at least, with respect to the languedoc gentry class, if not always toward the peasantry ).

ANd that won't stop the french kings to keep their power on the rest of France. So what you get is a reduced France and a super Aragon on both sides of the Pyrenees. Not a France divided in multiple warring fiefs and a surviving languedoc.

IMO, it's better for Languedoc to retain its feudal structure under Aragon than be destroyed under France. Anyway, from what I've read, the Occitan culture was not entirely eliminated by the point. Things were still salvageable until Peter's death. Their culture rebounded somewhat even in OTL (witness the various, scattered Cathar renaissances in post-crusader Languedoc), so why couldn't the same thing happen in OTL?

To address the second part, I postulated that Raymond VI of Toulouse could use his familial connections to the Plantagenets - as well as their mutual hatred of France - to entice John Lackland to invade northern France to reclaim lost Plantagenet lands. But while writing that, I forgot about the First Barons' War that would engulf England quickly after the POD.
 
IMO, it's better for Languedoc to retain its feudal structure under Aragon than be destroyed under France. Anyway, from what I've read, the Occitan culture was not entirely eliminated by the point. Things were still salvageable until Peter's death. Their culture rebounded somewhat even in OTL (witness the various, scattered Cathar renaissances in post-crusader Languedoc), so why couldn't the same thing happen in OTL?

I may be overly pessimistic, but I think, from what I read, that the damage done by the crusade was already too extend at that point. Scattering of Cathar renaissance isn't, in my opinion, the same as the vibrant, coloful, laguedoc culture which was extinguished by sword and fire ( and stoning and drowning... ). It requires a widespread gentry class with enough leisure and wealth to support it. That's what, in my reading, was destroyed in the first years of the crusade, when the famillies of the lords and knights which were suspected of harbouring cathar sympathies were targetted for systematic destruction. The resistance of later faydit was not enough; the main damage had been done.

Nota : you may deduce from the above that I'm not the greatest fan of the albigionese crusaders, even if I am not from Langedoc.
 
I may be overly pessimistic, but I think, from what I read, that the damage done by the crusade was already too extend at that point. Scattering of Cathar renaissance isn't, in my opinion, the same as the vibrant, coloful, laguedoc culture which was extinguished by sword and fire ( and stoning and drowning... ). It requires a widespread gentry class with enough leisure and wealth to support it. That's what, in my reading, was destroyed in the first years of the crusade, when the famillies of the lords and knights which were suspected of harbouring cathar sympathies were targetted for systematic destruction. The resistance of later faydit was not enough; the main damage had been done.
Okay, I concede that you are probably right. But my point was that the existence of some kind of feudal states in the south (to inhibit France) could be attained even after the Languedoc culture was lost. Even if it is destitute and not vibrant, as long as Peter keeps his told over Toulouse the rise of France can be inhibited. So even though damage had been done, everything was not lost until some time later. I agree that you would need an earlier POD if your objective was to preserve Cathar culture, but mine initially wasn't. It is actually immaterial whether or not the Cathars survive ITTL (for the purpose of this WI, anyway).

Nota : you may deduce from the above that I'm not the greatest fan of the albigionese crusaders, even if I am not from Langedoc.
Neither am I. As much as I like French history, I think this was one of their darker moments, the pinnacle of feudal insanity. I have never been to Languedoc (although it's somewhere I long to visit), but I can still sympathize with the Cathars.
 
Okay, I concede that you are probably right. But my point was that the existence of some kind of feudal states in the south (to inhibit France) could be attained even after the Languedoc culture was lost. Even if it is destitute and not vibrant, as long as Peter keeps his told over Toulouse the rise of France can be inhibited. So even though damage had been done, everything was not lost until some time later. I agree that you would need an earlier POD if your objective was to preserve Cathar culture, but mine initially wasn't. It is actually immaterial whether or not the Cathars survive ITTL (for the purpose of this WI, anyway).

I agree with most you said, with the exeption of mixing Languedoc culture with Cathar one. It was not the same. Languedoc culture was much richer, wider-spread and started earlier than catharism, strictly speaking ( unless you count all manicheism as cathar, of course ).

Yes, it is possible to have Aragon keep Toulouse, Navarre and even Provence, with a PoD at Muret. However, I think this will only restrain the geographical extend of France, not prevent it from coming into being.

In fact, now that I think of it, this could easily result in a France which specially when the industrial revolution comes ( if it does ).

Now, what happens in *Spain?

Neither am I. As much as I like French history, I think this was one of their darker moments, the pinnacle of feudal insanity. I have never been to Languedoc (although it's somewhere I long to visit), but I can still sympathize with the Cathars.

I've lived one year in Toulouse. The region is very nice and historically interesting. There are a lot of things to see and do.

And I agree that the albigionese crusade was one of the worst time of french history, maybe even the worst one since the germanic invasions - at which time you can argue France didn't exist -( though religious wars come close, imo, if only because they were more widespread, they didn't completely destroy a whole culture ).
 
Last edited:
Now that I've had had some time to think about it. I wonder if there's not a possible french dissolution PoD in the albigionese crusade.

When the crusade turns against the count of Toulouse, what if the french king, instead of siding with the crusade, steps in to protect his vassal, as was his feudal duty?

At that point, the crusade had an important army, which can oppose the royal troops. Then, if the papacy, warned by previous conflicts with french kings ( when Phillip II was excommunicated and had his kingdom placed under interdict, he just sent his soldiers to open the churches again ), uses the ultimate weapon at it's disposal : it absolves every french lord from his oath to the french king and declares excommunicated every man obeying the french king.

That could lead to a nasty civil war, which, if the King loses it, has the possibility to lead to the kingdom being fractured in several mid-size components ( or, of course, it could just lead to a change of dynasty ), if the crusaders prevail. Of course, if the king prevails, then the authority of Rome is set to naught and you can expect a lot of national churches to form.

Of course, these high stakes are a reason neither king nor pope wanted to go there OTL, so it's difficult to make this pass, but maybe not impossible.
 
Top