What If Richard I Lionheart Doesn't Die In Normandy?

eltf177 · May 5, 2009

Was watching John Rhys-Davies as Richard I on the old BBC ROBIN HOOD series again the other day, probably the most accurate representation of the man.

Got me to thinking, what if he was only wounded in Normandy and John doesn't become king (perhaps later, perhaps never at all)?This means the Magna Carta isn't written (at least not yet). What are the butterflies coming from this?

Personally, I've never felt the Magna Carta was the start of democracy. It wasn't really a step forward, more a step to the side as power went from the king not to the people but back to the nobles whose abuse of it in the first place is what caused Henry to clamp down on them.

Jaded_Railman · May 5, 2009

The Magna Carta wasn't important because it established free and open elections in England or anything, it was important because it established the idea that the monarch can be as much a subject of the law as his people. Hence the phrase, "The Rule of Law".

bill_mchale · May 5, 2009

eltf177 said:
Was watching John Rhys-Davies as Richard I on the old BBC ROBIN HOOD series again the other day, probably the most accurate representation of the man.

Got me to thinking, what if he was only wounded in Normandy and John doesn't become king (perhaps later, perhaps never at all)?This means the Magna Carta isn't written (at least not yet). What are the butterflies coming from this?

Actually I think that a Surviving Richard might have been forced to sign Magna Carta as well. He wasn't a very good King; not even close to as good as his father. He spent very little time in England, and his taxes on the English Nobles to support his other wars would probably have resulted in a similar revolt sooner or later.

Personally, I've never felt the Magna Carta was the start of democracy. It wasn't really a step forward, more a step to the side as power went from the king not to the people but back to the nobles whose abuse of it in the first place is what caused Henry to clamp down on them.

[/quote]

Magna Carta was an extremely important step towards democracy in England because prior to Magna Carta, in theory all power rested with the King that was then granted to his Nobles in return for their Feudal Service. Following Magna Carta, the King's power was limited in theory a well as in practice. While it would take another 400 years, these limitations would ultimately form the basis of Parlimentary Government.

--
Bill

chornedsnorkack · May 5, 2009

bill_mchale said:
Actually I think that a Surviving Richard might have been forced to sign Magna Carta as well. He wasn't a very good King; not even close to as good as his father. He spent very little time in England, and his taxes on the English Nobles to support his other wars would probably have resulted in a similar revolt sooner or later.

Yes, but I suspect that he would have been more competent at defeating and suppressing the rebellious nobles.

fhaessig · May 5, 2009

two words :

Lord Darcy

( Ok, MAYBE without magic

; it's still fun to read as an ATL )

Falastur · May 5, 2009

An interesting question, to be sure. bill_mchale is right, he wasn't any good at administration, and he was born and bred in autonomist Aquitaine, where he had spent most of his young life fighting constant wars to bring his vassals under control. Consequently, he had a very slanted view of politics - as part of his fight to centralise Aquitaine he had developed a "you're either with me or against me" policy, and he believed in being a strong King by keeping your vassals scared of opposing you, which can be seen in his personal motto - "Oderint dum metuant" (let them hate so long as they fear). I can't help but assume that within the space of about a year in England, Richard would be attempting to cow all of the barons, and while I think he would have far more vassals sucking up to him than he ever got in Aquitaine, he would still eventually provoke the wrath of the rest of the barons. That said, feeling uncomfortable in places he didn't know or understand (i.e. England) he would probably often retreat to Aquitaine to war more vassals regularly, whenever he felt things getting out of hand.

It's really up in the air, but I can see him provoking a baron's revolt, militarily defeating them before slinking back to Aquitaine. I can see him getting involved in a war with France (which also happened to him fairly often, given that the Kings of France kept trying to insist that they should have a say in the running of Aquitaine), returning to England to seek money, finding all his support gone and having to consent to the Magna Carta. Where he goes from there I'm not sure - either he breaks the agreement very soon and gets in a lot of trouble (but probably avoiding a King Louis I of England scenario) or he just ignores England from hereon out and the barons become, if anything, far too powerful...

DAv · May 5, 2009

I don't see Richard being quite so bad. When in the Crusades, he left England in competent, if uninspired hands. It's unlikely that he'd have lost Normandy or at least in the same way John did. Richard did get on well with his underlings, not letting grudges prevent getting the best out of them and even making compromises at times. I imagine he would manage to retain a distinct France Militarily while keeping his realms under some form of control, his long range and off hand ruling of England preferable to being ruled up front. After he died however, it could come crashing down, even heavier than OTL.

trajen777 · May 6, 2009

Richard was a good king that focused on the wealth of his kingdom. The wealthiest part of his kingdom was Averiogn which had 4.5 times the revenue of England. So his focus was always as should be was France.
As to if he was not killed I see two possibilities:
1. Solves war with France – he goes back to fight a fragmented Muslim world. His focused approach was capturing Egypt, the main source of revenue for the Muslim world.
2. No Saladin
3. No combined Muslim world. So a grouping of Aleppo / Damascus / Egypt.
4. No 4th Crusade destroying Byz empire
So Richard attacks Egypt. Captures Egypt. Then the Butterflies fly.

1. Richard stays in France. Fights wars against France.
2. Richard either overcomes France (he actually had more land and resources in France then the French King and was viewed as a French person (Norman)) and builds a dynasty.
3. His achievements from a strategic standpoint were as a builder (look at sieges and construction of Castle Gallard) or as an organizer (look at his financial undertakings in third crusade)
4. So a very good king

bill_mchale · May 7, 2009

trajen777 said:
Richard was a good king that focused on the wealth of his kingdom. The wealthiest part of his kingdom was Averiogn which had 4.5 times the revenue of England. So his focus was always as should be was France.

The basic problem here is that his French territories were not in fact part of his "kingdom". They might have been part of his empire, but Richard did not rule them as King. In practice, because of those territories, he owed fealty to the French King and thus the French King could always induce knights and nobles to revolt against Richard with rewards.

Also, his father in contrast, was able to effectively govern the whole of his empire (well except for his sons).

As far as I can see, the best case scenario for a longer lived Richard is that he holds things together long enough for him to have an heir and maybe, possibly would be strong enough to stop a revolt of his nobles in England.

--
Bill