What Is Your Favourite Kind Of France?

What Is Your Favourite Kind Of France?

  • Gallic

    Votes: 11 5.3%
  • Balkanised

    Votes: 24 11.6%
  • Roman

    Votes: 10 4.8%
  • Germanic

    Votes: 4 1.9%
  • Charlemagne

    Votes: 11 5.3%
  • Middle Ages

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • Plantagent

    Votes: 8 3.9%
  • Protestant

    Votes: 8 3.9%
  • Catholic League

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Valois

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Guise

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • Bourbon

    Votes: 7 3.4%
  • Post Henry IV Kingdom Of France

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • Wanked Kingdom Of France

    Votes: 11 5.3%
  • French Revolutionary

    Votes: 21 10.1%
  • French Empire Wank

    Votes: 19 9.2%
  • Bourbon Restoration

    Votes: 4 1.9%
  • Bonapartist

    Votes: 36 17.4%
  • Today

    Votes: 8 3.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 18 8.7%

  • Total voters
    207
  • Poll closed .
Not to prolong much longer, but trouble came mostly not from the kings / emperors but from those Great Nobles who, because of the haphazard dismemberment of Lotharingia, were vassals of the French crown for some of their estates but otherwise (practically) independent rulers of their own lands under the HRE umbrella. Specially the Counts of Flanders: while Flandre Royale (West of the Escaut) was part of the kingdom of West Francia since 843 their other domains were 'imperial'. Then their heirs the Dukes of Burgundy, who already were in the same situation with the Duché de Bourgogne French since Richard the Justiciar was made the first Dux Burgundiae ca. 918 by French King Charles le Simple while the Franche Comté de Bourgogne was Franche, 'free', precisely because it was imperial (!) and thus 'free' of French vassalage. They were a constant source of conflict between France and the HRE, even before being supported / used as proxies by the English monarch. The French kings constantly strove to make their realm a pré carré clearly delimited with 'natural borders', *specially between the Alps and the North Sea*.

The French kings constantly strove to expand their power, you mean?

Being vassals of two kings depending on what one held wouldn't magically go away with what OTL was Lotharingia being given in full to France. Unless you make it so that one can't hold lands in France (defined as "as a vassal or subvassal to the French king") and somewhere else, for example.

You could give it to the eastern half with just as much effect.

And of course, this is assuming that the idea of one half getting it all isn't itself grounds for dispute by kings.
 
Being vassals of two kings depending on what one held wouldn't magically go away with what OTL was Lotharingia being given in full to France.
652px-Partage_de_l%27Empire_carolingien_au_Trait%C3%A9_de_Verdun_en_843.JPG

We are not on the same wavelength: the suggestion was not to give entire OTL Lotharingia to either France or Germany but on the contrary to have West Francia and East Francia blatantly separated from the start by the Alps and the Rhine. Preferably with the Pope's blessing as reflecting God's Will. The Oaths of Strasbourg were already written in two languages, Old (Langue d'Oïl) French and Old German, bases of diverging cultural identities. All these factors together would of course not prevent Great Households (the royal and imperial ones included) to gain territories 'abroad' e.g. by marriage, but hopefully would have set a cultural bias about the 'natural', and thus 'good', state of things.


This would not be a French or German wank -both countries would have plenty enough of problems otherwise- but Lotharingia was the source of never ending pointless conflicts between (Northern) France and the HRE, their escalation eventually leading to the FPW and the 2 WW. Even the Schlieffen Plan of 1914 was a Lotharingian heritage, tiny, *flat* Belgium as an inviting bridge between 'French' and 'German' territories being the historical coheir of Lotharingia.
 
We are not on the same wavelength: the suggestion was not to give entire OTL Lotharingia to either France or Germany but on the contrary to have West Francia and East Francia blatantly separated from the start by the Alps and the Rhine. Preferably with the Pope's blessing as reflecting God's Will. The Oaths of Strasbourg were already written in two languages, Old (Langue d'Oïl) French and Old German, bases of diverging cultural identities. All these factors together would of course not prevent Great Households (the royal and imperial ones included) to gain territories 'abroad' e.g. by marriage, but hopefully would have set a cultural bias about the 'natural', and thus 'good', state of things.

Quote:
Other: a France where Louis the Pious had only two sons: no Middle Francia, later no Lotharingia, this stretch of disputed land from the Northern Sea to Italy, the Rhine and the Alps as natural borders from the very start of Franco-German relationships.



And none of those factors, together or independently, make one whit of difference. The oaths are just as serious regardless of the border, the kings are just inclined to expand their power, marrying for personal benefit regardless of anything like a "natural border" is just as desirable, and the Pope's ability to enforce anything just as nonexistent.


This would not be a French or German wank -both countries would have plenty enough of problems otherwise- but Lotharingia was the source of never ending pointless conflicts between (Northern) France and the HRE, their escalation eventually leading to the FPW and the 2 WW. Even the Schlieffen Plan of 1914 was a Lotharingian heritage, tiny, *flat* Belgium as an inviting bridge between 'French' and 'German' territories being the historical coheir of Lotharingia.

And it is still going to be the source of "never ending pointless conflicts" because it is still going to be fought over by kings who want to establish greater control and greater power.

I really don't get why you think that factor can be handwaved out of existence with a Rhine border but without it conflict is inevitable. When did the Rhine stop determined invaders?
 
Top