WI: Charles VII of France Dies Earlier?

IOTL, in 1429 Joan of Arc came out of nowhere & got Charles VII crowned King of
France on July 17, 1429. But on May 23,
1430, she was captured & executed a year
later by the English. OK, what if-

At any time between his coronation & Joan's
capture, Charles dies (of anything; heck, maybe he's hit by the 15th century equiva-
lent of a bus!) THEN what? Would you have,
for example-
*- A regency peacefully established for the
future Louis XI, all of 7 years old in 1430?
*- Would someone else manage to push
Louis aside & claim the throne? If so,
who?
*- Would the English be able to capatalize
on the situation sufficiently to reverse
the gains the French had recently made
under Joan? Would they even be able to
now WIN the HYW?
*- If a regency is set up, would Joan be
named Regent? Or maybe even out-&
-out Queen of France? (as was discussed
on a thread on this board way back in
2010-2012)
*- If Joan of Arc does not become Regent
or Queen, how is her fate changed from
our timeline? Does she win new victor-
iries? Is killed or captured? Or just goes
back to her native village?
*- Or some other outcome I haven't
thought of?
 
Last edited:
Joan Regent? No way. Also, why would she escape captivity?

I bet there'd be a whole regency Council. Now that changes a lot. Charles undertook massive centralization efforts. A regency Council would not and could not. Continuing French disunity may butterfly the victories of the 1440s and 1450s and thus otl's end of the 100yw. Still, the English aren't able to reverse the French gains of 1429, they're close to bankruptcy and just as internally divided and have at no point showed the ability to project their power onto vast parts of France.

Burgundy remains a wild card. Philip's policies may well decide the course of the war in ttl's 1430s, too.

A free Joan means a stronger rallying point for the coalition of roving warbands behind her. If they're not absorbed into compagnies d'ordonnance, they'll continue plundering, preferrably in anglo-burgundian territories, but if needs be even in royal French controlled lands. Peasant uprisings revolting against this are programmed. Who can stop all that in a regency situation? Certainly not Joan, even given all her charisma. She's a product of these circles and, should she turn against them, she'll soon find herself betrayed and maybe that's her way into anglo-burgundian captivity ittl...
 
On a military and diplomatic point of view, nothing really changes since Charles VII did reign but didn't rule in 1430. The real power behind the throne in France were: La Trémoille, ambitious fellow who held his position thanks to Charles VII's apathy and tacital support. Yolande d'Aragon, perhaps of the most intelligent and capable French politician of the late Middle Ages and Charles VII's stepmother. Arthur of Richemont, Constable of France and head of the military. I'm simplifying things a lot here but let's say this triumvirate ruled France in 1430 but was far from being united. Richemond hated Trémoille's guts and the feeling was mutual. Both dudes fought several private wars between 1428 and 1429. What will go after Charles VII is basically a coup led by Yolande and Arthur to remove la Trémoille from power. Yolande will head the diplomacy and the government (by giving some nice positions to her sons and supporters) while Arthur will lead the numerous military campaigns. Arthur being a part from the new duumvirate means a really benevolent duchy of Britanny. Yolande will negociate with Philip of Burgundy and a earlier peace might come out: Philip OTL really hesitated for a long time before signing peace with his father's murderer (Charles VII). With Charles VII gone, this obstacle disappears as well. Plus the French in early 1430 were actually enjoying several military successes while Philip was busy with Liege revolting and the HRE on the verge of declaring war against him because of his "Drang nach Osten" policy. So an earlier peace for Philip with France in order to deal with his eastern and northern problems would be logical. The problem remains Philip's sister, who is Bedford's wife. When the sister dies in 1432 (like OTL), Philip has no moral obligation to remain England's ally. So a peace in early 1433 between France and Burgundy is very likely.
Joan of Arc after Reims has become one French captain among many and is busy fighting skirmishes and preparing ambushes. Many of her captains (like la Hire) are still supporting her but have been sent far away from her by Charles VII (la Hire is officially Baillif in Champagne but has been sent to Normandy). So her influence is limited even she remains a powerful symbol. She's a loyalist and was respected by Richemont so she will support the new coalition and will declare herself Louis XI's faithful servant. Apart from that, she will continue to lead a guerilla warfare against England but she won't have a place at the Royal Council (but some of her captains might, as Dunois and Alençon...).
Globally, France could free a ton of financial and military ressources so far used against Burgundy and redirect them against England while England really begins to be financially and military exhausted (the 1444 truce was a welcomed respite for them but they couldn't benefit from it, hence their military collapse in one year in 1450 when war started again). War might be finished by 1440.
 
Joan Regent? No way. Also, why would she escape captivity?

Come now, a regent who can't read nor write wouldn't be that much worse than some presidents we have today.

But, jokes aside, Jeanne isn't going to be regent. Most likely candidates for that are either the king's mother (Marie d'Anjou), or more technically, his grandmother, Yolande of Aragon; or the senior most prince du sang, let's look at who's available:

Charles, duc d'Orléans is the most senior royal male. But unfortunately, he's been captive in England since the 1410s. So even if he gets boots on the ground in France, he might/will be distrusted by the French. Also, there's this whole rivalry between the Armagnacs (his wife's family) and the Burgundian Valois. England might decide to release him to cause chaos in France, but I can't be sure.

Next batter up is Jean, Comte d'Angoulême, younger brother to Orléans. I can't find much on him in the way of political views or affiliations, he might go with his brother's anti-Burgundian policy, he might go against it, depending on a lot of things. Also, he's still single, so whoever's going to look at wedding him to one of their daughters to maximise the hold they have on him if he's no more than a straw man.

The duc d'Anjou, brother of Queen Marie. Louis was more interested in conquering Naples than France, but him being forced to stay in France might butterfly his death from malaria, and a POD in 1430 might change who he's married to. OTL he was betrothed to a daughter of the duke of Burgundy (the OTL duchess of Bedford, I think), but the plan for a marriage between the Anjous and the Burgundians fell by the wayside at the murder of the duke. His sister was engaged to the duke of Brabant though (she later married the duke of Brittany), so I'm sure the duke of Burgundy (if it were in his interest) can scrape up some pretty little niece or cousin to marry.

The duke of Lorraine, brother of Queen Marie and the duc d'Anjou. Le Bon Roi René is still only jure uxoris duke of Lorraine at this point, but if, by some miracle, all three ahead of him aren't available, the regency is his. (Personally, I feel the chances that we're going to see an Angevin/Yolande of Aragon dominated regency, are pretty strong). René seems (from what I remember) to have been a fair politician, and his wife was a reasonably smart tack, since she often served as regent in Anjou in René's absences.

The comte du Maine. Youngest brother of Anjou, Lorraine and Queen Marie. Don't know much about him, so can't comment. Like Angoulême and Anjou he's still unmarried, so someone might be interested in achieving power through a marriage of his daughter to Maine. I would warn that after this, the princes du sang listed are moving into rather ASB territory, since I'm mentioning them for the sake of completeness, rather than the likelihood of them being regent.

The duke of Burgundy. OTL, in two years from the POD, the Anglo-Burgundian alliance was fraying. And Burgundy was, while opposed to the mainline Valois in theory, didn't simply wish to set up a Plantagenet king in their place. They wanted France weaker, not conquered. He has reasonably powerful connections through his sisters - the duchesses of Brittany, Cleves, Bedford and Bourbon - so he might still be a mover and shaker in France if things look like they're leaning too far against him. Philippe was a wily old dog who knew how to work the political street, so it's not unthinkable.

The duke of Brabant. Betrothed to the youngest sister of the duke of Anjou. His cousin, Burgundy, might use him in the event that we see an Angevin-dominated regency, as a way of connecting Burgundy to the side of the government. Unfortunately, Brabant was dead before the year was out.

The comte de Nevers. Cousin of Burgundy, unwed, don't know about his political opinions.

The duc d'Alençon. Son-in-law of the duc d'Orléans. Might be included on the regency council due to him being closely related (by marriage, if not blood, which is a lot more distant) to the new king. His wife is the king's paternal cousin. But at the same time, Alençon was later executed for treason by Louis XI, and his future second wife is an Armagnac.

Basically, IMHO we're going to see an Angevin dominated regency, that's going to have to walk a tightrope between the Armagnac and Burgundian factions if they want to pull France out of the mess it's in. England's struggling, but the coup de grace hasn't been dealt yet, so it's not down, and it's not out. The duke of Bedford's sitting in Paris, and his wife's OTL death is still two years in the future. His wife's death was what led to the breaking of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance OTL. Here, that might be different. The duchess may live, or Burgundy may decide to jump from the English ship if France offers him good enough terms.
 
@JonasResende
oh, I wasn`t making predictions about how good a regent she`d be, just that it wasn`t likely to happen given the social views of the time. Agree with what you said.

On a military and diplomatic point of view, nothing really changes since Charles VII did reign but didn't rule in 1430. The real power behind the throne in France were: La Trémoille, ambitious fellow who held his position thanks to Charles VII's apathy and tacital support. Yolande d'Aragon, perhaps of the most intelligent and capable French politician of the late Middle Ages and Charles VII's stepmother. Arthur of Richemont, Constable of France and head of the military. I'm simplifying things a lot here but let's say this triumvirate ruled France in 1430 but was far from being united. Richemond hated Trémoille's guts and the feeling was mutual. Both dudes fought several private wars between 1428 and 1429. What will go after Charles VII is basically a coup led by Yolande and Arthur to remove la Trémoille from power. Yolande will head the diplomacy and the government (by giving some nice positions to her sons and supporters) while Arthur will lead the numerous military campaigns. Arthur being a part from the new duumvirate means a really benevolent duchy of Britanny. Yolande will negociate with Philip of Burgundy and a earlier peace might come out: Philip OTL really hesitated for a long time before signing peace with his father's murderer (Charles VII). With Charles VII gone, this obstacle disappears as well. Plus the French in early 1430 were actually enjoying several military successes while Philip was busy with Liege revolting and the HRE on the verge of declaring war against him because of his "Drang nach Osten" policy. So an earlier peace for Philip with France in order to deal with his eastern and northern problems would be logical. The problem remains Philip's sister, who is Bedford's wife. When the sister dies in 1432 (like OTL), Philip has no moral obligation to remain England's ally. So a peace in early 1433 between France and Burgundy is very likely.
Joan of Arc after Reims has become one French captain among many and is busy fighting skirmishes and preparing ambushes. Many of her captains (like la Hire) are still supporting her but have been sent far away from her by Charles VII (la Hire is officially Baillif in Champagne but has been sent to Normandy). So her influence is limited even she remains a powerful symbol. She's a loyalist and was respected by Richemont so she will support the new coalition and will declare herself Louis XI's faithful servant. Apart from that, she will continue to lead a guerilla warfare against England but she won't have a place at the Royal Council (but some of her captains might, as Dunois and Alençon...).
Globally, France could free a ton of financial and military ressources so far used against Burgundy and redirect them against England while England really begins to be financially and military exhausted (the 1444 truce was a welcomed respite for them but they couldn't benefit from it, hence their military collapse in one year in 1450 when war started again). War might be finished by 1440.
And all of that because you think Philip of Burgundy concludes peace earlier?
I highly doubt that. By 1431, Philip will have solved his issues with Liege. Depending on how the alt-Battle of Bulgnéville turns out in 1431, he is probably in a very healthy position.
IOTL, Charles VII got the Estates to agree to a ton of new royal taxes in the late 1430s, as a double solution to both defuse the problem of free-roving warbands and turn them against England again. Without that, I doubt that France can "free a ton of financial and military ressources". No regency government is going to achieve this, Yolande or no Yolande.
Also, the peace you envision brokered in 1433 is not so easy, too. Philip wanted his de facto independence recognised in all but name (and I don`t see why that isn`t going to be what he wants with Charles VII dead, too), and only the king could give him something that would amount to more or less that. A regency means everything remains somewhat provisional, so I doubt a final solution to the Burgundian question comes about earlier than IOTL.

And even if it did, Arras solved the Burgundian problem in 1435 IOTL. That is two years later than you proposed, and still the war went on until 1453. Why would a peace with Burgundy two years earlier lead to French victory 13 years earlier????
 
@JonasResende
oh, I wasn`t making predictions about how good a regent she`d be, just that it wasn`t likely to happen given the social views of the time. Agree with what you said.


And all of that because you think Philip of Burgundy concludes peace earlier?
I highly doubt that. By 1431, Philip will have solved his issues with Liege. Depending on how the alt-Battle of Bulgnéville turns out in 1431, he is probably in a very healthy position.
IOTL, Charles VII got the Estates to agree to a ton of new royal taxes in the late 1430s, as a double solution to both defuse the problem of free-roving warbands and turn them against England again. Without that, I doubt that France can "free a ton of financial and military ressources". No regency government is going to achieve this, Yolande or no Yolande.
Also, the peace you envision brokered in 1433 is not so easy, too. Philip wanted his de facto independence recognised in all but name (and I don`t see why that isn`t going to be what he wants with Charles VII dead, too), and only the king could give him something that would amount to more or less that. A regency means everything remains somewhat provisional, so I doubt a final solution to the Burgundian question comes about earlier than IOTL.

And even if it did, Arras solved the Burgundian problem in 1435 IOTL. That is two years later than you proposed, and still the war went on until 1453. Why would a peace with Burgundy two years earlier lead to French victory 13 years earlier????
Because France had 40 000 men and England at best 15000-20000 at the price of an enormous effort. But France had to divert half of these men in Picardy, Champagne, Lorraine, Burgundy to fight a war on two fronts. Plus Richemont was quite the agressive dude and Charles VII often refrained him during quite successful campaigns, thus preventing the French Army of gaining decisive success: example the campaign of 1434 against Burgundy. Richemont had 15000 men in Picardy and conducted a series of quick sieges which litterally cut Burgundian forces in half in the area. Richemont wanted to push the advantage and seizing the Ardennes, thus completely separating FLanders and Burgundy. Philip of Burgundy was scarred sh...less because he lacked the men to counter such an offensive. But Charles VII ordered Richemont to stop the offensive because he wanted to negociate. When you read Guillaume Gruel and Enguerran de Monstrelet's chronicles, you realize how many missed opportunities the French had to win decisive victories in the early 1430's.
Bugnéville was a battle led by René d'Anjou because the Angevins hadn't absolute power at Bourges (thanks to their rival La Trémoille). With Charles VII gone, so is la Trémoille and Yolande will basically rule France, thus favoring her family in a massive way. If the Angevins can gain such a power at Bourges, they won't feel the need to lead a desperate campaign in Lorraine to gain a prestigious title (every seasoned captain was against the battle in 1431, including the de facto leader of the army: Barbazan). Instead they will negociate with Vaudémont for a compromise. Late Middle Ages tended to avoid wars of succession if possible. The compromise of 1441 could in fact be reached ten years earlier.
 
Because France had 40 000 men and England at best 15000-20000 at the price of an enormous effort. But France had to divert half of these men in Picardy, Champagne, Lorraine, Burgundy to fight a war on two fronts. Plus Richemont was quite the agressive dude and Charles VII often refrained him during quite successful campaigns, thus preventing the French Army of gaining decisive success: example the campaign of 1434 against Burgundy. Richemont had 15000 men in Picardy and conducted a series of quick sieges which litterally cut Burgundian forces in half in the area. Richemont wanted to push the advantage and seizing the Ardennes, thus completely separating FLanders and Burgundy. Philip of Burgundy was scarred sh...less because he lacked the men to counter such an offensive. But Charles VII ordered Richemont to stop the offensive because he wanted to negociate. When you read Guillaume Gruel and Enguerran de Monstrelet's chronicles, you realize how many missed opportunities the French had to win decisive victories in the early 1430's.
Bugnéville was a battle led by René d'Anjou because the Angevins hadn't absolute power at Bourges (thanks to their rival La Trémoille). With Charles VII gone, so is la Trémoille and Yolande will basically rule France, thus favoring her family in a massive way. If the Angevins can gain such a power at Bourges, they won't feel the need to lead a desperate campaign in Lorraine to gain a prestigious title (every seasoned captain was against the battle in 1431, including the de facto leader of the army: Barbazan). Instead they will negociate with Vaudémont for a compromise. Late Middle Ages tended to avoid wars of succession if possible. The compromise of 1441 could in fact be reached ten years earlier.
But the numerical differences in strength are no different from OTL.
May I take the gist of your post to be that, while France had so many great military leaders and diplomats, it was Charles VII and his favourites who messed it all up in the 1430s?
(That sounds weird to me when looking at the role he played later on.)
 
But the numerical differences in strength are no different from OTL.
May I take the gist of your post to be that, while France had so many great military leaders and diplomats, it was Charles VII and his favourites who messed it all up in the 1430s?
(That sounds weird to me when looking at the role he played later on.)
The French were basically in the middle of mini civil war between Richemont and La Trémoille between 1430 and 1433: it doesn't help when you have to fight a big war at the same time. Charles VII is an interesting figure but until Agnès Sorel came and choose competent advisers for him, the man was surrounded by ambitious/greedy advisors who wanted to gain as much lands/money/titles as possible: La Trémoille was only the last of a long list (take Giac for example before him). And since Charles was quite a depressive and apathetic person, he let his advisers fought each other and never intervened. The story of La Trémoille's removal is quite eloquent in this regard: basically Richemont picked young captains (like Jean de Bueil) to seize the castle where Charles the VII and la Trémoille were sleeping during a night assault. The soldiers came in, threatened la Trémoille and forced him to sign everything they wanted while Jean de Buel came in Charles VII's bedroom, in full armour, to calm him down because Charles VII believed it was some kind of assassination attempt. When Charles VII realized there was nothing to afraid of, he went back to sleep (in his mistress's arms btw) and the next morning, he just saw that there was a new adviser for him and just say " 'Kay". Once again, chronicles are full of weird stuff and it sounds almost like ASB but every source says it happened this way.
 
The French were basically in the middle of mini civil war between Richemont and La Trémoille between 1430 and 1433: it doesn't help when you have to fight a big war at the same time. Charles VII is an interesting figure but until Agnès Sorel came and choose competent advisers for him, the man was surrounded by ambitious/greedy advisors who wanted to gain as much lands/money/titles as possible: La Trémoille was only the last of a long list (take Giac for example before him). And since Charles was quite a depressive and apathetic person, he let his advisers fought each other and never intervened. The story of La Trémoille's removal is quite eloquent in this regard: basically Richemont picked young captains (like Jean de Bueil) to seize the castle where Charles the VII and la Trémoille were sleeping during a night assault. The soldiers came in, threatened la Trémoille and forced him to sign everything they wanted while Jean de Buel came in Charles VII's bedroom, in full armour, to calm him down because Charles VII believed it was some kind of assassination attempt. When Charles VII realized there was nothing to afraid of, he went back to sleep (in his mistress's arms btw) and the next morning, he just saw that there was a new adviser for him and just say " 'Kay". Once again, chronicles are full of weird stuff and it sounds almost like ASB but every source says it happened this way.
LOL
That`s indeed a story I haven`t heard before, but I don`t question it.

If I follow your argument that a dead Charles VII is better than OTL in 1430-35, we`re still left with the open questions of how much could be settled between a regency government and Philip of Burgundy, and of how Louis XI turns out as a young king when he is of age and, presumably, a much different personality than IOTL, as compared to the later Charles VII ("the victorious").
 
LOL
That`s indeed a story I haven`t heard before, but I don`t question it.

If I follow your argument that a dead Charles VII is better than OTL in 1430-35, we`re still left with the open questions of how much could be settled between a regency government and Philip of Burgundy, and of how Louis XI turns out as a young king when he is of age and, presumably, a much different personality than IOTL, as compared to the later Charles VII ("the victorious").
A slightly stronger French side against Burgundy will lead to different terms for the peace. Of course Philip will still benefit A LOT from the treaty things like handing over cities in Picardy to Burgundy will probably not happen. Let's say a ton of money plus a free hand in the Low Countries plus several little counties are the minimum price to pay for France. This and the de facto independence of Burgundy.
Louis XI remains a smart boy and his education will be closely monitored by his grandmother Yolande until his twenties: meaning he won't spend his childhood at doing childish things but will instead learn how to rule. But his hate regarding his father and everything he represented will vanish. For example, it's unlikely Louis XI will sack the OTL competent Generals of his father (and it was these captains which were the real commanders of the Burgundian faction during the War of the Public Good like -again- Jean de Bueil). It's likely that Louis XI will be more pro-Angevin thanks to his education and that he will be less hostile towards upper nobility than OTL. But I think he will remain a cautious monarch: for example I don't think that his possible pro-Angevin attitude will push him to intervene in Italy in the 1440's. But it's likely that this ITTL Louis XI will have a less eventful reign than OTL (rivalry against Burgundy probably still here but less vivid, not antagonizing the great houses etc.). On the long run, it could have huge consequences. Burgundy was at the beginning of Habsburg's power and hostility towards the Valois.
 
The French were basically in the middle of mini civil war between Richemont and La Trémoille between 1430 and 1433: it doesn't help when you have to fight a big war at the same time. Charles VII is an interesting figure but until Agnès Sorel came and choose competent advisers for him, the man was surrounded by ambitious/greedy advisors who wanted to gain as much lands/money/titles as possible: La Trémoille was only the last of a long list (take Giac for example before him). And since Charles was quite a depressive and apathetic person, he let his advisers fought each other and never intervened. The story of La Trémoille's removal is quite eloquent in this regard: basically Richemont picked young captains (like Jean de Bueil) to seize the castle where Charles the VII and la Trémoille were sleeping during a night assault. The soldiers came in, threatened la Trémoille and forced him to sign everything they wanted while Jean de Buel came in Charles VII's bedroom, in full armour, to calm him down because Charles VII believed it was some kind of assassination attempt. When Charles VII realized there was nothing to afraid of, he went back to sleep (in his mistress's arms btw) and the next morning, he just saw that there was a new adviser for him and just say " 'Kay". Once again, chronicles are full of weird stuff and it sounds almost like ASB but every source says it happened this way.

Too bad this didn't happen IOTL earlier.

P.S. Charles' defenders make much about
how he "matured" in the years after Joan of
Arc & in truth he does seem to have posted
some impressive accomplishments(like
winning the HYW). Is it your thesis jean-
debueil that Ms. Sorel is actually the one who deserves the credit?
 
Last edited:
Too bad this didn't happen IOTL earlier.
That Agnès Sorel became his mistress? The girl was born in 1422 and was 8 years old in 1430. Some historians believe she began to be with Charles VII around 1440( although official History says 1443) and that's the soonest you can get. For her age, she was insanely mature (plus having the body of a goddess acording to everyone including those who despised her).
 
That Agnès Sorel became his mistress? The girl was born in 1422 and was 8 years old in 1430. Some historians believe she began to be with Charles VII around 1440( although official History says 1443) and that's the soonest you can get. For her age, she was insanely mature (plus having the body of a goddess acording to everyone including those who despised her).


Oh no no no- I was talking about what
happened to La Tremoille, not about Ms. Sorel.
 
Top