WI: King John II and Philip the Bold are killed at Poitiers?

I was just reading about King John II of France and how, at the Battle of Poitiers, he was dressed identically with 19 of his royal guards to confuse the enemy. That got me reading about the Battle of Poitiers and it's OTL aftermath.

Basically, what might have happened if, instead of being captured or escaping unharmed, John II and all four of his sons - Charles, Louis, John and Philip - had been killed or mortally wounded? None of John's sons had had children or even married at that point, so by Salic law, the crown would have gone to John's brother, Philip, Duke of Orleans. IOTL, he married Blanche, the posthumous daughter of Charles IV but had no legitimate children before he died in 1375. If he still dies without sons in 1375, then the crown would pass to Philip VI's brother, Charles.

Would things have been just as bad or worse for France had this scenario happened? Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I was just reading about King John II of France and how, at the Battle of Poitiers, he was dressed identically with 19 of his royal guards to confuse the enemy. That got me reading about the Battle of Poitiers and it's OTL aftermath.
Royal bodyguards were usually either nobles or potentes themselves, and then generally not killed : it would ask for the Plantagenet side a concious policy to kill every noble close to the king to have this happening.
John II and all four of his sons - Charles, Louis, John and Philip - had been killed or mortally wounded?
Charles, because of his infirmity, but as well to preserve the continuity of state, was not present on the battlefield when his father entered it.
Similarily, Louis and Jean were : Jean II tought the battle wasn't going to really work (he was more or less strongarmed by his nobility to engage the battle), so apart from Philippe (whom presence was more or less due to the necessity of legitimisation of John as a fighting noble, with a squire), there was no other son on the battlefield.
 
Royal bodyguards were usually either nobles or potentes themselves, and then generally not killed : it would ask for the Plantagenet side a concious policy to kill every noble close to the king to have this happening.

Charles, because of his infirmity, but as well to preserve the continuity of state, was not present on the battlefield when his father entered it.
Similarily, Louis and Jean were : Jean II tought the battle wasn't going to really work (he was more or less strongarmed by his nobility to engage the battle), so apart from Philippe (whom presence was more or less due to the necessity of legitimisation of John as a fighting noble, with a squire), there was no other son on the battlefield.

Okay, I didn't know that. Thanks. So what might happen if John II and Philip the Bold at least were killed, though not purposefully by nobles.
 
Royal bodyguards were usually either nobles or potentes themselves, and then generally not killed : it would ask for the Plantagenet side a conscious policy to kill every noble close to the king to have this happening.


Henry IV Part I. Act V, Scene III (the field of Shrewsbury):

HOTSPUR The king hath many marching in his coats.

EARL OF DOUGLAS Now, by my sword, I will kill all his coats;
I'll murder all his wardrobe, piece by piece,
Until I meet the king.
 
So what might happen if John II and Philip the Bold at least were killed, though not purposefully by nobles.
Well first, Edward is going to get down on the yahoo that did deprived him of a clear victory and a possibility of negociations in flames. It's not like the armour of the king and his sons doesn't clearly label them. This is a major break of feudal trust even between ennemies, and would probably enfuriate nobles on both sides.

Speaking of which. Kudos, you just made what could have been a really favourable Plantagenêt position, to a general french hostility to him, probably not negociating anytime soon.
Charles V is quickly crowned, and he'll probably pull the exact same policies that he did as a regent.

Allow me to quote myself for a second, in a description of this part of Hundered Years Wars.

Jean II's defeat at Poitiers (having same issues than in Crécy, with the twist the king could have spared his forces...if he wasn't forced to attack to abide by the rules of knighthood he used for his political legitimization) made most of his work on reinforcement of royal power moot. Still, it was unthinkable to let another raid continue while he had amassed such an army at such political cost (basically, an ideal late medieval prince should live and finance his state only trough the products of his lands and its revenues : tweaking money and raising taxes was badly seen).

The period around the Treaties of London is a really bad one for Valois (peasant revolts, fiscal rentries going downhill, mercenaries not payed turning raiders and bandits, Charles le Mauvais supporting every rebellion he humanly could).

Still it preludes to the Caroline phase : Charles de Normandie (future Charles V) after he dealt with jacques and Etienne Marcel, having created monetary reforms of his own, use a policy of scorched earth. When Edward III tries to get crowned in Reims in 1359 (trying to force French to fight him in open battle, he doesn't have siege weapons), Charles decides to harass his flanks (and even to raid English shores) and to gather or destroyt anything that could be used by Edward on his way (who doesn't takes that much joyfully and decides to plunder the hell out of what he finds, something that would definitely not help the case for a dual monarchy in common mentality)

Eventually, Charles' strategy is enough for Edward accepting the Treaty of Brétigny which is less favourable for him than the Treaties of London (although Jean II's intervention makes the Treaty still considered as shameful, for the sake of reinforcing his power on France against Charles).

ITTL, Charles (who already have a political experience as Dauphin of Viennois and Duke of Normandy) would enjoy at the very least a similar position than he did historically, possibly stronger due to being king, and not mere regent (which did allowed several destabilizing events). So, scorched earth, harassing rather than fighting English chevauchées, etc.

It doesn't mean that Charles V is going to be spared the troubles that plagued his early reign : but his stronger position, with reformers not fearing anymore the return of Jean II (obviously) would mean a less strong position of Charles II of Navarre, and possibly (as a reaction) less arguing from Estates to fund Caroline strategy. So, I'd think we'd have a smoother transition.

This is the textbook exemple on why you don't kill kings on the battlefield if you can prevent it, especially in a war which involve a lot of political negociations : it's just forcing a wildcard to appear, if a wildcard could bite you in the ***.
 
Henry IV Part I. Act V, Scene III (the field of Shrewsbury):

HOTSPUR The king hath many marching in his coats.

EARL OF DOUGLAS Now, by my sword, I will kill all his coats;
I'll murder all his wardrobe, piece by piece,
Until I meet the king.

The isight of an Elizabethan play on the political and social-cultural practice of the XIVth is lost on me, I must admit.
 
Henry IV Part I. Act V, Scene III (the field of Shrewsbury):

HOTSPUR The king hath many marching in his coats.

EARL OF DOUGLAS Now, by my sword, I will kill all his coats;
I'll murder all his wardrobe, piece by piece,
Until I meet the king.

They're engaging in active rebellion and can expect no mercy from the victors if they lose, which is common in a civil war. And far better to kill the king in the heat of battle rather than going through the awkward dance of trying him: witness the fates of Richard II and Henry VI where the victors really didn't want to touch the sacred royal person and eventually resorted to murder or death by starvation. Contrast it with how much easier it was for Henry Tudor because Richard III had died in the field. Indeed, at Azincourt, the killing of high-ranking nobles was seen as a complete breach of medieval warfare customs so it's not likely for Edward of Woodstock to go for it at Poitiers, especially since he's not under the same logistical constraints as Henry V.
 
The XVth political-military features were really a partial departure from what existed in the XIVth : a lesser use of nobiliar levies, and a much greater use of mercenaries and/or foreign levies to deal with military matters (it was admittedly a bit less obvious in the French army, but was a real trend). It did its job to break a class solidarity between nobles (which always pushed to spare their counterparts would have they been foes in the battlefield), and to bring a more "no quarter" feel into battles.

But even this new mindset is to be nuanced : outright slaughters as Townton were exceedinly rare, and more a device to really tensed civil war where you needed to utterly crush the opposing faction. I stress that even this came at the extreme surprise of everyone involved, and pushed the need of negociations when it happened.
 
Royal bodyguards were usually either nobles or potentes themselves, and then generally not killed : it would ask for the Plantagenet side a concious policy to kill every noble close to the king to have this happening.

It's unchicirous to kill a surrending enemy. It is also unprofitable too, as it's easier to exact terms from the enemy when it's a single guy in your hands and not a bunch of squabbling reagents. It is absolutely against Plantagenet honor to do this, and probably not even in their interests (I mean a royal bodyguard could fetch a ransom worth more than his armor)

But you might conceivably injure a few of them. And germ theory didn't exist and medical leeches were still used for what modern doctors would not use them for. A little wound can become gangrene.

Or all your prisoners might die of dysentery. No seriously. That thing was a major killer back then and it did even kings. Even if your treat all your prisoners well, on their way back to the castle you might lose all of them in a single outbreak. In fact, given that they ate raw eggs semi-regularly (not a common food dish, but about a bit more common than say... pufferfish in Japan) I'm surprised there isn't a salmonella outbreak more often back then given that if you tried to eat raw eggs in real life, you'd get that infection every third egg package.
 
But you might conceivably injure a few of them. And germ theory didn't exist and medical leeches were still used for what modern doctors would not use them for. A little wound can become gangrene.

Most of open wounds on legs or arms (basically extremities where gangrene can devellop the more easily) are caused by spears, picks, etc. given by piétons on mounted opponents; or often trough piercing weapons such as arrows. You'd need a really bad stroke of luck (and more or less blindness to the situation) to have someone allowed to pierce the king. It doesn't remove the possibility of a small infection evolving trough, but for what matter wounds in fight, it's not that obvious of a prospect.
Eventually, wounds as crushed skulls or bones, open bleeding wounds seem to have been more present (to not mention the large ammount of burns, crushed bodies, drowning, etc. due to the prevalence of siege warfare in medieval era)

There the shield is still the essential defense, and safe trying to go for the prince, you won't get on this that easily.

I'm not saying that nobles, or even kings and princes, were immune to death in fight, or consequence of fight, but it's relatively rare even as accidents (or in the case of Richard I, because he wore a non-labelled armour to show off during a siege). So, it can happen : but not that obviously, and would be tempted to be treated (as random it might be depending on the results).

A detail, but overuse of leeches is rather a late XVI/XVIIth centuries that continued up to the first half of XIXth : not that medievals didn't used them but they didn't led to a real shortage of leeches in all Europe. For gangrene, maggots might have been an alternative treatment, and of course amputation.

Or all your prisoners might die of dysentery.
Dysentry is essentially a siege or campaign disease, for attackers or defenders. When Louis IX and his son dies before Tunis, it's because they had trouble finding a clear access to water. Note that he was stricken multiple times by dysentry in his life, and that his age and general weakness (tyhpus epidemic) during the campaign did its job.
There are other causes as Louis VI dying of dysentry due to its obesity, but I somehow doubt that Edward would fatten Jean up for the lulz.

The chances of an honoured hostage to die of dysentry aren't equalling zero, but particularily reduced. And even if it happened, it would be almost certainly considered as a death due to poison (Medievals were a bit frightened by the idea of poisoning), regardless of the lack of interest for Edward to do this, and then back to Charles V.

In fact, given that they ate raw eggs semi-regularly [...] if you tried to eat raw eggs in real life, you'd get that infection every third egg package.
I do so (it's called gober les oeufs). Never been sick. And I'm talking farm eggs there, which is most probably what was used (the distinction between animal husbandry and human domestic sphere was at best blurry then, so you'd find eggs more or less everywhere).
I know people doing so 3 times a days (but I think it's overkill).
 
Stupidity & other can however lead to kings dying on the battelfiled, as well as bad luck.

1. Stupidity embedded with arrogance , overconfidence and an exaggerated chivalric sense led to the death of Peter II of Aragon at Muret. He changed his armour with another knight and was killed because of it.

2. Philip Augustus could be killed at Beauvines if he had have being run out of luck. He was stabbed multiple times by infantry and it was his armour which save his life (until his men come to rescue him)

3. And something less known: Charles Robert of Anjou, King of Hungary and Croatia at the battle of Posada against Basarab I, Voivode of the Vlachs (Romanians) - he escaped with life by changing his royal armour with a soldier (who get killed instead of him). Have him a little more pride and he could be killed instead his man "who dies under a hail of arrows and stones" – while he escaped to Visegrad "clad in dirty civilian clothes" (quotes from wiki)

So, have John II insisting to be a true knight and change his royal armour for one of his squire and he could be killed by error. :)
Now, to have both John and his sons do so... :(
 
That's forgetting two important features of Poitiers.

1) Jean II was more or less strongarmed to engage the battle, and didn't tought it would obtain a victory easily. Hence why he sent back three of his sons elsewhere.
2) A good part of the military restructuration Jean went trough after Crécy was about reinforcing the royal authority on noble levies by both abiding trough a royal charismatic presence inside the army, and by stressing his presence.

Changing armour wouldn't that make sense, psychologically or else, in this context.
 
Top