WI: the battle of Poitiers went even worse for France

What if the vanguard led by the Dauphin alongside his two middle brothers, failed to disengage properly and ended up being shattered by the black princes army with John ii three eldest sons now prisoners of war alongside there father and youngest brother. How would this affect the course of the Hundred Years’ War and French and English history when one of the greatest military disaster in French history somehow got even worse for France?
 
For starters, the French economy would be completely wrecked by the ransoms they would have to pay. At that point, the English could really make some extremely strong demands and could possibly even demand that French crown renounces their overlordship over Gascony, Calais, and any and all other territories they so wish. Keep in mind that King David of Scotland is also in captivity, so they could also demand the dissolution of that pesky Franco-Scottish alliance, French renounciation of any and all claims to the Low Countries, and the return of ancestral Norman and Angevin lands previously lost. I don't see how France possibly recovers from this. This would be an utter catastrophe, even more than if King John and all his sons were killed in battle. That at least would save the economy.

Oh, and to say the least, the House of Plantagenet taking the French Crown. This is screw-turning time if they really want.
 
Last edited:
For starters, the French economy would be completely wrecked by the ransoms they would have to pay.
But of course who is going to raise the money for all those ransoms without the Dauphin? The Duke of Orléans is currently highest ranking male member of the French royal family still at large(he was also at Poitiers but was able escape just like in otl) he is also next in line after his older brother and his sons. Is it possible that with ransom for the king and his sons being so absorbingly high and with almost all levels of society being already against the taxes used to raise the otl payment that when the even higher taxes of this timeline are imposed everyone starts clamoring for a king not imprisoned by the English like say the Duke of Orléans or even Charles the bad(who is married to the eldest sister of the captured princes)?
 
But of course who is going to raise the money for all those ransoms without the Dauphin? The Duke of Orléans is currently highest ranking male member of the French royal family still at large(he was also at Poitiers but was able escape just like in otl) he is also next in line after his older brother and his sons. Is it possible that with ransom for the king and his sons being so absorbingly high and with almost all levels of society being already against the taxes used to raise the otl payment that when the even higher taxes of this timeline are imposed everyone starts clamoring for a king not imprisoned by the English like say the Duke of Orléans or even Charles the bad(who is married to the eldest sister of the captured princes)?
I could see England and Burgundy dividing France between them.
 
But of course who is going to raise the money for all those ransoms without the Dauphin? The Duke of Orléans is currently highest ranking male member of the French royal family still at large(he was also at Poitiers but was able escape just like in otl) he is also next in line after his older brother and his sons. Is it possible that with ransom for the king and his sons being so absorbingly high and with almost all levels of society being already against the taxes used to raise the otl payment that when the even higher taxes of this timeline are imposed everyone starts clamoring for a king not imprisoned by the English like say the Duke of Orléans or even Charles the bad(who is married to the eldest sister of the captured princes)?
The "honorable and chivalrous" Edward wouldn't stand to see his esteemed royal guests have their realm usurped under such circumstances. The PR whiz he was will spin a further campaign to protect John's rights and painting anyone like Orleáns or Charles the Bad as a traitor.
 
But of course who is going to raise the money for all those ransoms without the Dauphin? The Duke of Orléans is currently highest ranking male member of the French royal family still at large(he was also at Poitiers but was able escape just like in otl) he is also next in line after his older brother and his sons. Is it possible that with ransom for the king and his sons being so absorbingly high and with almost all levels of society being already against the taxes used to raise the otl payment that when the even higher taxes of this timeline are imposed everyone starts clamoring for a king not imprisoned by the English like say the Duke of Orléans or even Charles the bad(who is married to the eldest sister of the captured princes)?

A noble, not to mention a royalty, was not necessarily staying in a captivity waiting until all his ransom is collected and delivered. A reasonably common arrangement was to make an agreement regarding size of the ransom and let prisoner to return home to collect the ransom while leaving the hostages. Which was exactly the OTL case with John II (and later with Francis I): he was released after payment of the 1st installment and left the hostages 8ncluding one of his sons. Capture of 3 sons instead of one probably would not change size of a ransom dramatically: this was seemingly a package deal based upon realistic assessment of the payee’s financial abilities.

OTOH, judging by the Treaty of Bretigny, Ed III was not planning to substitute John with himself, he was satisfied with getting a number of territories free and clear from any homage to the King of France. In return he renounced claim to the throne of France and renounced claims to the suzereinghty of the Flanders and Brittany. In OTL the Treaty was signed on the French side by a Dauphin, which probably an indication that a document signed by a prisoner could be considered of a questionable validity (again, see the case of Francis I). In other words, Ed would not necessarily interested in holding all his royal prisoners in England. And having upheaval in France resulting in overthrow of the Valois dynasty would mean that Ed is not going to see the money, not to mention a probability of having a renewed war instead of a seemingly profitable peace.

upload_2019-6-15_21-47-28.jpeg
 
Which was exactly the OTL case with John II (and later with Francis I): he was released after payment of the 1st installment and left the hostages 8ncluding one of his sons. Capture of 3 sons instead of one probably would not change size of a ransom dramatically: this was seemingly a package deal based upon realistic assessment of the payee’s financial abilities.
Wasn’t the ransom agreed by the treaty of bretigny something that only happened after the Dauphin was able to haggle Edward and his diplomats down and making the 1359 campaign a disappointment for the English thourgh Fabian tactics? Who’s going to do that now with the Dauphin imprisoned with the rest of his immediate male family?
 
Wasn’t the ransom agreed by the treaty of bretigny something that only happened after the Dauphin was able to haggle Edward and his diplomats down and making the 1359 campaign a disappointment for the English thourgh Fabian tactics? Who’s going to do that now with the Dauphin imprisoned with the rest of his immediate male family?

You recounting of the events is incorrect. Actually, the ransom and other conditions were first agreed upon by the 2nd Treaty of London in 1359. This treaty was repudiated by the Estates General which action triggered new failed campaign of EdIII which forced him to agree to the revised terms of the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360.

Even in the unlikely case of all children of John being in the England, there would be somebody acting as a regent, and Estates General capable of repudiating the agreements making excessive concessions. Repudiation could happen after <whoever> is released or escaped. Both things happened in OTL before the full amount of ransom had been paid. What is important is that even Treaty of London did not include claim to the crown of France: the difference from Bretigny was in the list of the territories in which Edward was getting a full sovereignty. So, with slightly different details, the process would go along the OTL lines and the only impediment would be release of John but not a Dauphin before the whole ransom is being paid. However, taking into an account an obvious inability of the English side to handle the legalistic affairs properly, this would be just an issue of a delay.
 
You recounting of the events is incorrect. Actually, the ransom and other conditions were first agreed upon by the 2nd Treaty of London in 1359. This treaty was repudiated by the Estates General which action triggered new failed campaign of EdIII which forced him to agree to the revised terms of the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360.
Yes the idea of John paying a huge ransom was agreed in 1359 but in the treaty of Brétigny its was lowered down by 25% to three million ecus with him being freed after a 33% down payment and handing over a bunch of new hostages as a security to make sure John ii still ends up paying the whole thing like you said.
there would be somebody acting as a regent,
Yes but who exactly is going to be made regent though? And are they actually going to be particularly competent? Like how competent was the duke of Orléans(the most logical choice to make regent given his rank) of this time exactly? Or does Charles the bad end up playing his roll as the proverbial wild card even harder this time around with a not particularly competent regent in charge?
Repudiation could happen after <whoever> is released or escaped
Um but John and his youngest son were only released after the first million was paid with his two middle sons being handed over as a security to make sure John did end up paying the entire thing(and when those two sons escaped England John went willingly back to England rather then break his word). Hell the only time I’ve heard of the prisoner being released so they can raise the money for the ransom are from minor members of the nobility like the average knight who had no ability to fight off a much more powerful noble coming to there home to collect on the money that was owed with a dash of chivalry thrown in. Much higher ranking nobles were kept captive until after there families or there officials raised enough money to pay a suitable down payment to free them in exchange for a security hostage that would give them incentive to pay off the rest of it or just kept captive until all the money was paid. Like for example the ransom demand that the holy Roman emperors gave to Eleanor of Aquitaine to free her son Richard. Richard was not released until the full amount, all 100,000 pounds of it, were given to the emperor.
 
Top