The development of France in the 14th and 15th centuries without the Hundred Years' War?
- Thread starter CaliGuy
- Start date
You'll probably still have plenty of conflicts with the English (who still own Aquitaine ITTL); the succession issue was mostly just a pretext until Henry V and Agincourt suddenly made it seem feasible. It's not like the Angevins had had any problems finding excuses to fight with the French before.
The French monarchy probably emerges out of the period significantly weaker, ironically; the wars let them expand the royal demesne significantly, and killed off a lot of the powerful nobles (as well as driving out the English, obviously).
The French monarchy probably emerges out of the period significantly weaker, ironically; the wars let them expand the royal demesne significantly, and killed off a lot of the powerful nobles (as well as driving out the English, obviously).
CaliGuy
Banned
So, were English Kings before Henry V not really serious about conquering all of France?
A nobility-dominated France would certainly be very interesting; indeed, what exactly is the closest our TL equivalent for this in Medieval Europe?
Not really; it was mostly just a bargaining chip for a better deal in Aquitaine. You'll note that when Edward III actually managed to capture the French king at Poitiers, he didn't try to claim the throne himself, instead he extorted a massive ransom and the expansion of English holdings in western France. Claiming the throne gave a legal figleaf for his actions (remembering the complicated legal status of Aquitaine as an English possession that was arguably held in fief from France, an excuse that the French had previously used to meddle in Aquitainian affairs), a justification for French nobles upset with their king to ally with the English (under the excuse that the King of England was their "rightful king") and a general excuse for war whenever the English wanted. Actually conquering all of France was never in the cards as far as Edward III or his immediate successors were concerned; even affording garrisons in the various strongpoints they controlled put a serious strain on English finances.
For that matter, it's not clear how serious Henry V was until the crushing victory over the Armagnacs at Agincourt and the defection of the Burgundians suddenly seemed to make a complete conquest possible.
It doesn't necessarily have to stay nobility-dominated; England after the Wars of the Roses looked like a mess, but the Tudors managed to centralize power enough in just a few decades that they were able to flip religion three times, go through a regency and two successive female monarchs, and then turn the crown over to a foreigner all without being seriously threatened. It's merely a possibility
That said, you could look at the HRE for a worst-case scenario.
As a side note, the proposed POD likely avoids Joanna of Bourbon marrying into the French royal family, and thus the hereditary insanity that hit Charles VI of France and his grandson Henry VI of England.
CaliGuy
Banned
Thanks for all of this information!
Why exactly do you say this? Indeed, what exactly am I missing here?
You do know Charles VI of France was crazy as hell ? As in, periodically thinking he was made of glass ?Thanks for all of this information!
Why exactly do you say this? Indeed, what exactly am I missing here?
Well, that brand of crazy was hereditary, and the same strand hit Henry VI and the Trastamaras (Juana the Mad, the mother of Karl V), ending up in the Habsburg bloodline.
CaliGuy
Banned
Yes, I certainly know this.
However, why exactly would Joanna of Bourbon not marry into the French royal bloodline in this TL?
Butterflies. There might not even be a Joanna of Bourbon, if only because her parents might have married out of a certain rationale and that the lack of a HYW modifies this rationale and makes them choose other people instead.
Or, if you prefer, the King of France might find a better alliance for his son than an internal one. It could be an English or Scottish one.
They say he was a rubbish liar, because people could always see through him. That really shattered his delusions.
(I'll get my hat.)
A number of the better ideas of Charles V and Charles VII come about under the pressure of needing to fight the English; no HYW makes the status quo more stable. Might this remove some pressure to centralize? Of course, given the French royal house, some centrifugal tendencies could be baked into the cake. All you need is one king having too many sons, and you have a clutch of royal dukes. An alt-Burgundy is not hard to imagine.
I also Juana keep going on the effects of the hereditary madness...
I also Juana keep going on the effects of the hereditary madness...
CaliGuy
Banned
Fair enough; however, wasn't Pierre de Bourbon a prominent French prince during this time? After all, wasn't that why he got married to Isabella of Valois (the French King's daughter, if I recall correctly)?
B-29_Bomber
Banned
Can someone please explain to me the rationale behind the English claim to the French throne?
That always confused the hell out of me.
That always confused the hell out of me.
The sons of Philip IV all died without surviving male issue, so the throne went at the last one's death to Philip IV's nephew, Philip VI.
Except Philip had had a daughter, Isabella. Which had married Ed II of England and was the mother of Ed III.
Of course, to French nobles, Edward III was English, not French, and thus foreign; and furthermore, the transition from Louis X to John I (the Posthumous) to Philip V despite there being a daughter of Louis X (Joanna, who got Navarra because it was her inheritance right, but not France due to suspicions she was a bastard) had given a precedent to women not having rights to the throne - which was later formalised as the Salic Law.
Last edited:
There was no rationale to Edward III's claim to the french throne. By any standard of dynastic succession, Edward III could not claim the throne of France.
If the french nobility had not devised the trick of Salic Law and if Joan of Navarra still had been dismissed from the succession (either because there were suspicion of being a bastard or because she had no son yet and the nobility wanted a male on the royal throne), then the legal heir would have been Philip of Burgundy (1323-1346) who was the grandson of king Philip V of France.
This is why Henry V of England had to devise his own trick : being adopted by Charles VI.
Last edited:
Technically the Plantagenet claim relied on proximity of blood. Edward was the nephew of the last male Direct Capetian, while Philip of Burgundy was a grand-nephew (and Philip VI, who actually succeeded in France, was a cousin).
It's still a bit dodgy, but so was the original claim of Salic Law.
Anyway, it was never taken especially seriously until Henry V, and was more used for political/diplomatic purposes. Isabella of France (Edward's mother) originally lodged the claim on her son's behalf during her regency, mostly for domestic political purposes (remember that she had deposed and murdered her royal husband and was currently acting as regent alongside her lover, so a display of fighting for English rights was a useful political distraction). Edward III, as I noted, mostly used it as a bargaining chip, pressing it whenever he wanted to force the French to make concessions, and dropping it whenever it wasn't particularly useful. Richard II already saw the war as a waste of blood and treasure, and eventually made a peace that lasted through the reign of his usurper and successor Henry IV; both of those kings had enough domestic problems not to want to get involved in a nasty foreign war anymore than they could (especially since the war was going poorly by Richard's time; the expense of paying for it caused some of the tensions that eventually led to the rebellions of his reign).
As well a written case for it as can be found:
Then hear me, gracious sovereign, and you peers,
That owe yourselves, your lives and services
To this imperial throne. There is no bar
To make against your highness' claim to France
But this, which they produce from Pharamond,
'In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant:'
'No woman shall succeed in Salique land:'
Which Salique land the French unjustly gloze
To be the realm of France, and Pharamond
The founder of this law and female bar.
Yet their own authors faithfully affirm
That the land Salique is in Germany,
Between the floods of Sala and of Elbe;
Where Charles the Great, having subdued the Saxons,
There left behind and settled certain French;
Who, holding in disdain the German women
For some dishonest manners of their life,
Establish'd then this law; to wit, no female
Should be inheritrix in Salique land:
Which Salique, as I said, 'twixt Elbe and Sala,
Is at this day in Germany call'd Meisen.
Then doth it well appear that Salique law
Was not devised for the realm of France:
Nor did the French possess the Salique land
Until four hundred one and twenty years
After defunction of King Pharamond,
Idly supposed the founder of this law;
Who died within the year of our redemption
Four hundred twenty-six; and Charles the Great
Subdued the Saxons, and did seat the French
Beyond the river Sala, in the year
Eight hundred five. Besides, their writers say,
King Pepin, which deposed Childeric,
Did, as heir general, being descended
Of Blithild, which was daughter to King Clothair,
Make claim and title to the crown of France.
Hugh Capet also, who usurped the crown
Of Charles the duke of Lorraine, sole heir male
Of the true line and stock of Charles the Great,
To find his title with some shows of truth,
'Through, in pure truth, it was corrupt and naught,
Convey'd himself as heir to the Lady Lingare,
Daughter to Charlemain, who was the son
To Lewis the emperor, and Lewis the son
Of Charles the Great. Also King Lewis the Tenth,
Who was sole heir to the usurper Capet,
Could not keep quiet in his conscience,
Wearing the crown of France, till satisfied
That fair Queen Isabel, his grandmother,
Was lineal of the Lady Ermengare,
Daughter to Charles the foresaid duke of Lorraine:
By the which marriage the line of Charles the Great
Was re-united to the crown of France.
So that, as clear as is the summer's sun.
King Pepin's title and Hugh Capet's claim,
King Lewis his satisfaction, all appear
To hold in right and title of the female:
So do the kings of France unto this day;
Howbeit they would hold up this Salique law
To bar your highness claiming from the female,
And rather choose to hide them in a net
Than amply to imbar their crooked titles
Usurp'd from you and your progenitors.
King Henry V, Act I, Scene ii.
1) It's Shakespeare.
2) It's not really the strongest claim, more of a "well shit we won big at Agoncourt, what do I do now?"
ETA
3) And it had a contemporary relevance when first performed; there's the subtext of "y'think Jimbo the Scott's claim is tenuous? We've done so much worse."