WI Henry the Young King wins the Revolt of 1173/1174?

[Earl Marshal]

In 1173 Henry the Young King, eldest living son and heir of King Henry II Plantagenet revolted against his father. Young Henry had been made the titular co-King of England alongside his father in 1170 but he had no real power or income to fund his court causing a rift between father and son. In 1173 this rift resulted in a war when King Henry II gave his youngest son John Lackland (King John I) control of several castles in England prompting Henry the Young King to rebel.

The revolt itself was supported by the King of France, King Louis VII, the King of Scotland, King William the Lion, Young Henry's brothers Richard and Geoffrey, his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine, and several lesser lords of England, Normandy and Flanders. Despite this Young Henry and his allies lost, largely because they were disorganized and several important members got captured, namely King William of Scotland and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Ultimately, Young Henry and his brothers made peace with their father but died ten years later when he tried to revolt again.

So, what if Young Henry and his allies succeed in defeating King Henry II Plantagenet? Does the Angevin Empire get divided between the victors? Does Henry II get deposed? How does this effect England, the British Isles, and France?

 

[Alex Zetsu]

He had a castle and an estate almost as big as an earl's county.

Henry II beat Louis VII and a few of his rebellious vassals while outnumbered 3 to 1 in a pitched battle. His enemy was an organized army, and he his rebellious sons were still on the loose, along with their mother.

Uh... Henry the young king is destined to die of illness. Since he has no son, Normandy and Anjou goes to Richard anyways. Aquataine doesn't get split since his mother is still alive.

 

[LSCatilina]

First, it would be extremely hard for the revoltees and their allies to really totally win the conflict. Henry II had important forces and power, they were divided and their allies not exactly thrilled to run the whole thing at their total expense : it's why Louis VII called quits after Henry II broke the siege of Rouen, more or less forcing the reconciliation between Henry II and his sons.
Henry II being more helpless, a longer conflict, William of Scotland somehow managing to get a better hold in northrern England, and an actual transmaritime invasion of England could do it, but not that easily.

Most of what follows in this post is assuming a maximalist take on the Great Revolt's aftermath : it should be assumed that it's not entierly appliable and Henry II should get a better result (especially when it comes to England)

Does the Angevin Empire get divided between the victors?

Most probably, if by victors you meant Henry II's sons. If you mean a Capetian direct takeover, it won't happen as such.

Angevine Empire, in spite of its name, certainly wasn't an unified demesne. It was rather a common feudal hegemony on really diverse demesnes, themselves often divided in small entities (especially Aquitaine, that was a true political mosaic). Hence why the revolts of Henry II's sons fit remarkably the demesnes they recieved : Aquitaine, Anjou, Normandy, etc. each with their own identity, their own structures, their own interests, and still under French suzerainty (which remained a relatively important geopolitical feature).

With local nobility asking for "their" own lord, and the need to obtain their own demesne from Henry's sons, the split-up of the Plantagenêt hegemony is a certain thing.

Does Henry II get deposed?

I don't really think so : it would have weakened far too much the legitimacy of the young Henry and his other sons, while giving a bit too much of an edge to their (mostly likely temporary) allies. Furthermore, Henry II would have still a large power base and support in England, and at least part of the aristocracy would call for a reconciliation.
I could see, however, the young Henry gaining as much power as co-king as he claimed, up to playing a major role in royal policy. That is, until the next revolt : if he joins up with his father than, for exemple.

How does this effect England and the British Isles

Henry II would probably keep a strong hand in England after the Revolt, altough with much interference from his sons especially the young king (see above).
That said, there were promises the revoltees gave to their allies, that might be probably reduced (such as recieving revenues for the lands but not lands) or nullified, but shouldn't be ignored. Henry the young promised a lot of revenues and lands from Anjou, Normandy and England to French lords (Louis VII didn't opposed for pretty much obvious reasons)

There's a short list (again probably not appliable as a whole, would it be only for being over-confident on a possible victory)
Philippe d'Alsace, count of Flanders : Kent, Rochester and Dover's castles, 1000 annual pounds of revenues
Mathieu d'Alsace, count of Boulogne : Kirketon, County of Mortain, Hay
Thibaut de Blois : Amboise's castle with surrounding territory, 200 annual pounds
William I of Scotland : Northumberland up to the Tyne
David of Scotland : Huntingdon and Cambridge,
Hugues of Norfolk : County of Norwich

I don't see any good reason why Henry II wouldn't try to take back the lead, and to enforce his authority in England and Normandy at the very least. The issue is more than in the more or less unavoidable incoming revolt/civil war, Henry II would be in a worse situation, having few control over what happens in the continent and much more opened to an invasion of England than he was IOTL (basically, Philippe of Alsace's threatened to do so in 1174, and you just might have tentative to do so in the late 1170's/early 1180's ITTL).

How much such a situation could hold (or even take place, again we're talking of a maximalist application there) is anybody's guess, but it certainly weaken the Plantagenêt's authority in England with a greater feudalisation (not only allies' presence, but the power of local anglo-norman nobility echoing it), altough I don't see England being much threatened of desintegration : at worst it looks a bit more like the HRE or France, which allows for a royal feudal hegemony as Capetians did.

It's more or less a given that expeditions in Ireland are butterflied away for a significant period, tough.

and France?

With a successful 1173 revolt, you'd probably end up with a similar situation than after the death of the young Henry, mau. Basically, the sons of Henry II acting much more as the french dukes and counts they actually were, than subservient and relatively powerless vice-rulers Henry II wanted them to be. It's likely that we'll see territorial and feudal disputed among sons to arise in France as it did IOTL in the 1180's only earlier, on which Capetians would as usual appear as natural arbitrators or allies of one and the other.

Basically a Capetian-gasm.

 

[LSCatilina]

He had a castle and an estate almost as big as an earl's county.

Not at all : at this point he had Anjou and Maine.
Granted, at this point, paternal interference prevented him to have full control over it, but as the local duke he beneficied from not only local support (as soon as he revolted, he more or less took the territory for himself) but as well neighbours' support (interested support, of course)

Aquitaine and Brittany quickly followed, which represented a relatively strong force.

Henry II beat Louis VII and a few of his rebellious vassals while outnumbered 3 to 1 in a pitched battle.

While the efforts of the revoltees in 1173 were largelly unfructuous and ended with them being beaten regularily, you forget that in medieval warfare, open battles were rarely decisive or relevant : what counted was the effective holding of territories, which was much more problematic for Henry II in this case (more or less loosing control of continental part excepct for Normandy).

What decided Louis VII to quit the alliance wasn't a battle, but the fact Henry II was able to break the siege of Rouen : as the Capetian was unwilling to commit to a really costly war of attrition, he leaved.

His enemy was an organized army, and he his rebellious sons were still on the loose, along with their mother.

No, they beneficied from territorial holding in France, each one on its own. You can't seriously depict the revoltees as landless yahoos.

Uh... Henry the young king is destined to die of illness.

Really? They could tell he was going to die of dysenty no matter what? Truly, they were masters in magic.

Aquataine doesn't get split since his mother is still alive.

Aquitaine *is* already split at this point : not between Plantagenêts or Capetians, but among the Aquitain nobility. Since the Xth (War of Succession of Auvergne) and the XIIth (Great Southern War), the ducal power was really challenged by the several feudal principalties that acted more or less independently (among others, Angoulême, Saintongais, Turenne, etc.). While they favoured the overlordship of a Duke of Aquitaine as Richard, rather than Henry's II, it would be particularily wrong to consider Plantagenêt Aquitaine as an unified territory.

 

[Earl Marshal]

He had a castle and an estate almost as big as an earl's county.

Henry II beat Louis VII and a few of his rebellious vassals while outnumbered 3 to 1 in a pitched battle. His enemy was an organized army, and he his rebellious sons were still on the loose, along with their mother.

Uh... Henry the young king is destined to die of illness. Since he has no son, Normandy and Anjou goes to Richard anyways. Aquataine doesn't get split since his mother is still alive.

Considering this revolt was 10 years before his death in OTL a lot could change if he was more successful here. He was only 28 when he died and he only died then because of dysentery while on campaign.

Also his wife, Margaret wasn't technically considered sterile until the miscarriage of her son in 1177 so there is a chance she could have more luck and produce a living son this time. At the very least Young Henry could have the marriage annulled, there was a rumor she had an affair with William Marshal, and then marry someone else and have children with them.

 

[Earl Marshal]

First, it would be extremely hard for the revoltees and their allies to really totally win the conflict. Henry II had important forces and power, they were divided and their allies not exactly thrilled to run the whole thing at their total expense : it's why Louis VII called quits after Henry II broke the siege of Rouen, more or less forcing the reconciliation between Henry II and his sons.
Henry II being more helpless, a longer conflict, William of Scotland somehow managing to get a better hold in northrern England, and an actual transmaritime invasion of England could do it, but not that easily.

Interesting, so having Henry do worse at Rouen would keep the French involved in the war. Also not having William get captured at Alnwick would certainly help the rebels in England I would think.

Most probably, if by victors you meant Henry II's sons. If you mean a Capetian direct takeover, it won't happen as such.

Sorry, I meant Henry's sons.

I can't see the Capetians taking all of the Angevin's continental holdings even in a worst case scenario for them. That said they certainly wouldn't mind the Plantagenets killing each other leaving their holdings in France open to occupation.

I don't really think so : it would have weakened far too much the legitimacy of the young Henry and his other sons, while giving a bit too much of an edge to their (mostly likely temporary) allies. Furthermore, Henry II would have still a large power base and support in England, and at least part of the aristocracy would call for a reconciliation.
I could see, however, the young Henry gaining as much power as co-king as he claimed, up to playing a major role in royal policy. That is, until the next revolt : if he joins up with his father than, for exemple.

Interesting, that would certainly be a powder keg waiting to blow open again if OTL is any precedent. So any peace or reconciliation between Henry II and Young Henry would most likely be a reaming period until the next war.

How much such a situation could hold (or even take place, again we're talking of a maximalist application there) is anybody's guess, but it certainly weaken the Plantagenêt's authority in England with a greater feudalisation (not only allies' presence, but the power of local anglo-norman nobility echoing it), altough I don't see England being much threatened of desintegration : at worst it looks a bit more like the HRE or France, which allows for a royal feudal hegemony as Capetians did.

Okay, even with the success of the revolt, the legitimacy and authority of the King would still be pretty high in comparison to the nobles of England, Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine. This situation wouldn't be equivalent to an earlier baron's wars then?

Also Capet-gasm.

 

[LSCatilina]

Interesting, so having Henry do worse at Rouen would keep the French involved in the war. Also not having William get captured at Alnwick would certainly help the rebels in England I would think.

To be honest, I do think it would be a bit too late : Henry II did really well in 1173, and you'd need at least significant defeat in 1174 to have a renewed offensive mind against him.
While Louis VII would have remained in the game if Henry II fails to reach Rouen, it was the proverbial last drop : Louis VII was less interested on Henry the Young getting what he wanted, than weakening Henry II without weakening himself too much.

If they manage to take Rouen, but fails elsewhere, you'd still have Louis VII calling quits eventually. At best, you'd need 1173 campaigns being if not successful, at least not failing; at worst, you'd need to keep Henry II staying in England due to Scottish and Flemish attacks, IMO.

That said they certainly wouldn't mind the Plantagenets killing each other leaving their holdings in France open to occupation.

I'm not sure you really have any plans from Capetians to take over these holdings (even Philippe's takeover were more opportunistic at some point than long planned). Louis VII was merely continuing the old Capetian policy to weaken as much its neighbours trough shifting alliances, and maybe taking some territories there and there when they could. So, disuniting the whole Plantagenet hegemony would have been rather more of a plausible goal at this point.

Interesting, that would certainly be a powder keg waiting to blow open again if OTL is any precedent. So any peace or reconciliation between Henry II and Young Henry would most likely be a reaming period until the next war.

I do think so, altough I could see the young king to ally with his father against his former allies with the right set of circumstance, the probably unavoidable next revolt being led by his brothers (and why not even with John Lackland for the lulz of it).
Historically, the regular revolts and tensions were only resolved by John surviving everyone (or murdering possible claimants) and Capetians taking half of it.

Okay, even with the success of the revolt, the legitimacy and authority of the King would still be pretty high in comparison to the nobles of England, Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine. This situation wouldn't be equivalent to an earlier baron's wars then?

Well, it could : John's technical authority over Anglo-Norman nobility was higher than Philippe had on, say, Dukes of Brittany and most of its own nobility at the time. It doesn't mean the Anglo-Norman or the former allies of Henry the Young couldn't launch a revolt (in fact, Plantagenêts ITTL would have been in a worse geopolitical situation in England than before the Barons Wars)

Also Capet-gasm.

Be glad I didn't have to bring Capet-bukkake on the table.
More seriously : at this point, it would be hard to get rid of Capetian dominance at least regionally : they underwent a serious build-up since two centuries and managed to not only get rid of most of immediate threats, but also to gain significant projection within their kingdom.

 

[Earl Marshal]

To be honest, I do think it would be a bit too late : Henry II did really well in 1173, and you'd need at least significant defeat in 1174 to have a renewed offensive mind against him.
While Louis VII would have remained in the game if Henry II fails to reach Rouen, it was the proverbial last drop : Louis VII was less interested on Henry the Young getting what he wanted, than weakening Henry II without weakening himself too much.

If they manage to take Rouen, but fails elsewhere, you'd still have Louis VII calling quits eventually. At best, you'd need 1173 campaigns being if not successful, at least not failing; at worst, you'd need to keep Henry II staying in England due to Scottish and Flemish attacks, IMO.

So William the Lion and the rebels would have to actually do something in 73 instead of mucking about in England for a year and getting routinely beaten by Henry II.

Would a rebel victory at Fornham work to invigorate the rebellion in England? I believe the rebels outnumbered the royalists nearly 10:1 but only lost the battle because they were fording a river when they were confronted by the loyalists. Or Perhaps William is actually capable of besieging Newcastle in 73.

 

[LSCatilina]

Would a rebel victory at Fornham work to invigorate the rebellion in England? I believe the rebels outnumbered the royalists nearly 10:1 but only lost the battle because they were fording a river when they were confronted by the loyalists.

Well, I'm not that familiar with English history, especially in its northern part, so I may be a bit too vague there.

First, it does seem, tough, that the ratio was more favourable to loyalists than you make it, as they counted levies and other suppliment. No clear number is given, but guesstimating it a bit (trough later military ordinance), you might have something closer to 1:5, with rebel mercenaries being a bit clueless after Beaumont's cavalry was cut down.

Then, from what I gathered, the disbandement of the rebel army seems to have been caused by inner tensions after some victories. Assuming a victory at Fornham (which I'm not sure would be been really a clear one), and rebels reaching Leicester, you'd still have a poor ensemble. Maybe preventing the split between Hugh Bigot and Beautmont might have been more fructful?

Or Perhaps William is actually capable of besieging Newcastle in 73.

It appears he didn't have much siege engines or supplies to really do that IOTL. I'm half tempted to say that having Malcom IV dying earlier could allow William to undergo an actual military build-up, but I'm not sure (I don't know this much on Scottish history) if it would have been enough, and as William was king since a decade at this point...Frankly , Scots were poor allies at this point and better as auxiliaries in the case of a continental invasion rather than main attackers.

But, again, I may forgetting or missing something there.

 

[Earl Marshal]

Well, I'm not that familiar with English history, especially in its northern part, so I may be a bit too vague there.

First, it does seem, tough, that the ratio was more favourable to loyalists than you make it, as they counted levies and other suppliment. No clear number is given, but guesstimating it a bit (trough later military ordinance), you might have something closer to 1:5, with rebel mercenaries being a bit clueless after Beaumont's cavalry was cut down.

Then, from what I gathered, the disbandement of the rebel army seems to have been caused by inner tensions after some victories. Assuming a victory at Fornham (which I'm not sure would be been really a clear one), and rebels reaching Leicester, you'd still have a poor ensemble. Maybe preventing the split between Hugh Bigot and Beautmont might have been more fructful?


It appears he didn't have much siege engines or supplies to really do that IOTL. I'm half tempted to say that having Malcom IV dying earlier could allow William to undergo an actual military build-up, but I'm not sure (I don't know this much on Scottish history) if it would have been enough, and as William was king since a decade at this point...Frankly , Scots were poor allies at this point and better as auxiliaries in the case of a continental invasion rather than main attackers.

But, again, I may forgetting or missing something there.

You're certainly more knowledgeable on this than I am, I'm just going off what I found on the internet.

I forgot the loyalist levies? I'll have to look into Hugh and Beaumont a little more to see what their relation was.

I certainly agree that the Scots were definitely lackluster allies for the rebels. To be fair though all the rebels were lackluster, but then again the Scottish king managed to get himself captured by a force he had no right losing to.

 

[LSCatilina]

You're certainly more knowledgeable on this than I am, I'm just going off what I found on the internet.

Personally, I go with Internet (mostly some articles on the question), my not-that-trusty Histoire de l'Ecosse, and the chronicle of 1173, soo...Don't worry, we're all in it.

I forgot the loyalist levies?

Apparently. It's true the chronicle doesn't mention them, but in the sametime it does mention 10 000 casualties among mercenaries which is...well, not that credible to say the least.

but then again the Scottish king managed to get himself captured by a force he had no right losing to.

Ah, then keeping Scots as a possible threat north of England, without having them really capturing Newcastle? Couldn't hurt, indeed.