WI A Successful Aragonese Crusade

What if the Aragonese Crusade had defeated Peter III of Aragon and Charles, Count of Valois, son of the French king, Philip III, had become Carlos I of Aragon? With Aragon out of the war, Charles of Anjou would be able to keep Sicily under his thumb and France would reign supreme over Southern Europe.

What else could happen? If Louis X dies as IOTL, would Charles's son, Phillip (Felipe I of Aragon) also become king of France as IOTL? Would Aragon be annexed to France or would it be made an independent kingdom again under some French prince (i.e. any of Jean II's sons).
 
The whole expedition was so badly planned (while less badly exacuted) you'd need a miracle of sort to make it work on the long term.
The lack of any real Capetian naval power in Mediterranean Sea makes Philippe III's army very vulnerable when it came to supplies : it's basically what forced it to retreat IOTL (and to be decimated by half-banded Aragonese forces).

Even if by the virtue of any miracle, Capetians manage to have a worth of notice fleet and that Aragonese armies somehow cease to exist, I doubt you'd end up with any kind of Capetian hegemony in southern Europe : after a while Angevin rulers IOTL tended to focus on their own business, their relations with French kings being mostly tied up with whichever holdings they had still within the kingdom or, admittedly, the familial links for the first generations.
 
I have the feeling that the whole expedition suffered not only from bad planning but of too much overconfidence, and so it ended. The lack of navy was almost the key point of the whole campaign, and in that the French failed in the most preposterous way.

So, indeed, they needed a miracle.
 
It was not easy to overthrow a legitimate dynasty in the central middle Ages with only a papal warrant. Charles d'Anjou managed to do it, as Manfred himself was illegitimate, but he ended up with the Sicilan Vespers. Peter III of Aragon had four sons, a brother, four nephews, two legitimized brothers and some nephews, all able to inherit the throne according to James Ist's will (plus two bastards brothers and theirs sons). On top of that, Elisabet, the mother of Charles of Valois, was the third daughter of James Ist. Her elder sisters had sons of their own. The claim is too feeble for Charles to win in the long term.

That being said, I think the most important consequence is a longer-living Philip III the Bold (the original one). Philip III was less willy than his son and the construction of the french monarchy (and its unpleasant side-effects such as persecution of the Jews and the Templar affair) would be delayed for some twenty years. With a different king on the throne, the marriages of the heir's sons could be different, thus butterflying away the Tour de Nesle scandal and giving the Hundred Years War a very different look.
 
Top