What If Different Treaty of Bretigny

I've been reading quite a lot of thirdhand content on the Hundred Years War, and I don't get why the English didn't push harder after the Battle of Poitiers, and receive the submission of more of France. I know that England's population was about a tenth of France's, but their relatively plentiful mercenaries from Wales and Ireland and large yeoman/free farmer class as opposed to France's many serfs certainly helped.

Isn't a big part of why the English received so little support in France due to the Black Prince's brutality toward commoners (and therefore nobles' and clergy's cash cow) in the chevauchee, and Edward III's renunciation of the kingdom of France in the Treaty of Bretigny? If the Black Prince can go easier on France after Poitiers, and the English don't let up, and the stars align not-too-wankishly, can the English get an unstable overall victory?
 
From what I remember they tried to do so but lost. The initial Treaty included secession of Normandy and Anjou; effectively a complete revival of the Angevin Empire. Jean II accepted the terms but the Dauphin and the Conseil du Roi rejected it. In response Edward III attempted to take Rheims, the traditional site of French Coronations and Paris but failed in both objectives. Supposedly Edward III underwent a religious experience around this time that made him want peace with France. Thus the Treaty of Brétigny.
 
Didn't know the population difference was that great. Certainly goes to explain why the English lost. Was there still a decent amount of autnomy in Brittany? And was Burgundy on the rise and close tot he English? I can ee a trio of verticle kingdoms the like not seen since the breakup of Charlmange's empire-
 
From what I remember they tried to do so but lost. The initial Treaty included secession of Normandy and Anjou; effectively a complete revival of the Angevin Empire. Jean II accepted the terms but the Dauphin and the Conseil du Roi rejected it. In response Edward III attempted to take Rheims, the traditional site of French Coronations and Paris but failed in both objectives. Supposedly Edward III underwent a religious experience around this time that made him want peace with France. Thus the Treaty of Brétigny.
Ah, didn't know about the religious experience part. But see, I think that Edward III's renunciation of his claim was the death knell to any relatively easy success for the English, since it became clear to French nobles that he just wanted to expand England's lands on the continent, not become king of France as well. If he had toughed it out and asserted his authority, expanded his bridgeheads of Calais, Normandy, Brittany, and Aquitaine, maybe even reached some kind of understanding with Charles the Bad (King of Navarre and ruler of half of Normandy), I think that Jean II's utter stupidity (why is he even called "the Good") and English promises of clemency and preservation of lands to nobles switching sides would win the situation for England.

Didn't know the population difference was that great. Certainly goes to explain why the English lost. Was there still a decent amount of autnomy in Brittany? And was Burgundy on the rise and close tot he English? I can ee a trio of verticle kingdoms the like not seen since the breakup of Charlmange's empire-
Brittany was very autonomous indeed, and became even more so throughout the Hundred Years War. The impetus for Edward III's initial invasion was in fact to assert the rights of John de Montfort (half-brother of the late duke) to Brittany, while the French favored their own king Philippe VI (who was to receive the duchy per the late duke's will). The majority of the Breton nobility supported Montfort and the English, since to come under direct rule of the French king would be to lose their special rights and freedoms. Burgundy wasn't quite on the rise at this point, but the duchy of Burgundy in France and the county palatine of Burgundy in the Empire had been recently united and was a strong part of France. Flanders at this point wasn't under Burgundian control, rather it was controlled by the burghers of the cities, allied to the English upon whom they depended so much for commerce (mainly wool).
 
England (>2.5 million) was more than a quarter of France's (<10 million) population so the demographic gulf while big wasn't an order of magnitude. As to why the Treaty of Bretigny wasn't more favorable a major factor is that Edward III was broke. He couldn't afford to operate the sort of army he took to Poitiers.
 
England (>2.5 million) was more than a quarter of France's (<10 million) population so the demographic gulf while big wasn't an order of magnitude. As to why the Treaty of Bretigny wasn't more favorable a major factor is that Edward III was broke. He couldn't afford to operate the sort of army he took to Poitiers.
Are you sure about those demographics? From everything I can find, even after the Black Death, France's population was still well over 15,000,000. It never dipped below 10,000,000 after the time of the Norman conquest of England, approximately. But ahhh, alright, so he's broke. Isn't Jean II even more broke, though? What can happen to bring more French nobles over the Edward's side?
 
The population of France in 1400 was 10 million and it's fair to assume it would be lower in the immediate aftermath of the first wave of the black death hitting France. Jean is even more broke but he doesn't need to raise armies, he can simply rely on French barons to defend their castles. If Edward III is to expand the territory under his control he does need to pay troops to carry out the necessary sieges.
 
The population of France in 1400 was 10 million and it's fair to assume it would be lower in the immediate aftermath of the first wave of the black death hitting France. Jean is even more broke but he doesn't need to raise armies, he can simply rely on French barons to defend their castles. If Edward III is to expand the territory under his control he does need to pay troops to carry out the necessary sieges.
Could I have your source on the population?

Great points but then I ask, why would the French barons continue to be loyal to Jean (and because of it going through pain-in-the-ass sieges and razed villages and scarcity, etc.) when has neither the means nor the ability to fulfill his feudal obligation to come to their defense? Wouldn't it be easier for a lot of the barons to just pay homage to Edward? In this way they keep all their lands and titles, and they're more autonomous being loyal to a king across the Channel in London than one a hop and skip away in Paris.
 
Hmmm, well it seems that the data I was using considers the 2004 borders of the Metropole, a lot of which wasn't in France in the 14th century. Thanks for correcting me on that.

I see. Too bad the Dauphin was wise enough to temper some of his father's worst actions, if something were to happen to him.... Given how paranoid Jean was, could he antagonize even more of his nobles, and not just the Norman/Evreux ones as in his persecution of Charles of Navarre?
 
Ah, didn't know about the religious experience part. But see, I think that Edward III's renunciation of his claim was the death knell to any relatively easy success for the English, since it became clear to French nobles that he just wanted to expand England's lands on the continent, not become king of France as well. If he had toughed it out and asserted his authority, expanded his bridgeheads of Calais, Normandy, Brittany, and Aquitaine, maybe even reached some kind of understanding with Charles the Bad (King of Navarre and ruler of half of Normandy), I think that Jean II's utter stupidity (why is he even called "the Good"
That was because he was good at jousting.
) and English promises of clemency and preservation of lands to nobles switching sides would win the situation for England.


Brittany was very autonomous indeed, and became even more so throughout the Hundred Years War. The impetus for Edward III's initial invasion was in fact to assert the rights of John de Montfort (half-brother of the late duke) to Brittany, while the French favored their own king Philippe VI (who was to receive the duchy per the late duke's will). The majority of the Breton nobility supported Montfort and the English, since to come under direct rule of the French king would be to lose their special rights and freedoms. Burgundy wasn't quite on the rise at this point, but the duchy of Burgundy in France and the county palatine of Burgundy in the Empire had been recently united and was a strong part of France. Flanders at this point wasn't under Burgundian control, rather it was controlled by the burghers of the cities, allied to the English upon whom they depended so much for commerce (mainly wool).
 
Top