WI: Charles VII dies shortly after his father

[Tyler96]

But after the birth of his son, OTL Louis XI in 1423. Now, both sides of the Hundred Years War are headed by an infant.

This presumably strengthens the English position, with their French opponents just as bereft of an adult, competent king as they are.

How does this effect the Burgundian position- an infant Louis is no better king (or negotiator/ally) than an infant Henry VI, and the English will look like a slightly better bet than before.

Its also worth noting that the House of Valois-Orleans is also crippled at this point- Charles Duke of Orleans and John Count of Angouleme are imprisoned by the English, and Philip Count of Vertus is dead.

So, who have we got around Louis? There's his mother Marie and was John Count of Armagnac still onside at this point?

Have I made the Hundred Years War more messy for everyone?

 

[LSCatilina]

This presumably strengthens the English position, with their French opponents just as bereft of an adult, competent king as they are.

Not really. The problem was not the infancy of Henry VI, but the fact he was percieved as illegit or at best not that supported by the anti-Armagnac base.
Critically when Henry wasn't sacred, a huge issue when it comes to legitimacy, while he didn't beneficied from an overwelming support.

How does this effect the Burgundian position- an infant Louis is no better king (or negotiator/ally) than an infant Henry VI, and the English will look like a slightly better bet than before.

Wouldn't change that much. Bourguignons (it's better to use this term rather than Burgundian, as the former represent not only a region but one of the main political faction in France, besides only Burgundy) tended heavily to a conciliation with Armagnacs (at their benefit).
Critically when Charles VIII died, and with the responsabilty of the murder of John the Fearless a bit atoned.

So, who have we got around Louis? There's his mother Marie and was John Count of Armagnac still onside at this point?

Basically the same persons you had around Charles VIII IOTL. There's little chances that his death would make significant changes in what was an extended civil war based on more than just dynastical strife.

Have I made the Hundred Years War more messy for everyone?

Not really. You have the same forces present, and maybe made the Armagnac/Bourguignon agreement appearing earlier.
What would change would be the post-war situation.

 

[Matteo]

Beginning the nominal kings, there were parties.

The Armagnac-Orleans party had de facto become the party of France.

It was the men (and women) of the party who were leading the war, not the king which, concerning Charles VII, being all but a genious statesman, was very very well served.

 

[Janprimus]

It would allow the duke of Burgundy a bit more time and a bit prolonged better position to further Burgundy.

OTOH an ATL treaty of Arras, still seems rather likely. However ITTL the duke of Burgundy is in an even better position to benefit from both sides.
Supporting their Valois relatives as king of France is one thing, but it isn't in the interest of the duke of Burgundy, that there will be a strong king.

 

[Matteo]

Why ? The best years of expansion for the principality of Philip the good were the years 1430 and 1440 : precisely when Charles VII was alive.

Charles VII did not prevent the expansion of Philip the good. Louis XI did with Charles the bold, when adult.

 

[LSCatilina]

He didn't said that he did, he just argues that without Charles VIII and with a younger king, Bourguignons would have a better hand (the end of Argmagnac/Bourguignon conflict being even more necessary for the formers).

Armagnac-Orléans party didn't became the "French" faction before the 1430's IOTL (for exemple, it's not identified as such in the Bourgeois de Paris). Bourguignions would have a fair game arguing of a "national reconciliation" with not only strengthening their territorial presence in North-Eastern part of the kingdom but as well (and that may be the most important part), their political influence on the northern regions even where they don't have a direct territorial grasp.

 

[Matteo]

What could the Bourguignons have expected before the 1430's ?

They were barres by the Plantagenet and dis satisfied with their alliance. Charles VII was almost a non-entity as far as leading his party in the 1420's.

His stepfather and his military commanders saved his dynasty. From the battle of Patay on, you can consider that the Lancaster's holding of the crowd was doomed.

Charles VII was the best - which means the weaker - partner Philip the good could deal with. And that's very probably because he realized Charles VII's personal weakness and, though this weakness, how the french-armagnac party was strong and able to resist and roll back the Plantagenet, that he considered changing sides.

He considered that It was better changing sides than risking defeat at the side of the Lancasters.

 

[Janprimus]

Why ? The best years of expansion for the principality of Philip the good were the years 1430 and 1440 : precisely when Charles VII was alive.

Charles VII did not prevent the expansion of Philip the good. Louis XI did with Charles the bold, when adult.

Except most of these gains were imperial fiefs. In 1429 he became margrave of Namur (HRE), in 1430 he inherited the duchies Lothier, Brabant and Limburg (all HRE) from his cousin (Philip of Valois-Burgundy-Brabant), in 1432 he gained the counties Hainaut, Holland and Zeeland (all HRE) and in 1443 he also became duke of Luxembourg (HRE).

I'm arguing Burgundy could have a better position in France, the Holy Roman Empire is a somewhat different matter. Though the duke of Burgundy did profit from the fact that he controlled important fiefs on both sides of the French-HRE border.

 

[LSCatilina]

What could the Bourguignons have expected before the 1430's ?

Making Armagnacs-Orléans acknowledging their de facto dominance outside their territories. Meaning not only Somme basin, but strongholds in Ile de France and probably advantages in Champagne.

I'd point the obvious with arguing Bourguignons (as a party) and Burgundy (as a duchy) had more to win agreeing with a much weakened Armagnac party, than with a Charles VII that was definitelty on the rise.

They were barres by the Plantagenet and dis satisfied with their alliance. Charles VII was almost a non-entity as far as leading his party in the 1420's.

Remember we're talking of a TL where Charles VII dies : he's replaced by his infant son, removing a good part of the problem that plagued the tentatives of conciliations.

If we were to follow you, we could say "Hey, what could the Bourguignons have expected in 1419?", and there Charles VII was older than Louis XI would be ITTL, and considering Armagnacs would definitely see their weaker position at this point.

(I'd temper a lot the supposed weakness of Charles VII, importantly nuanced by modern historians, being a legacy of contemporary french chroniclers that were often pro-Bourguignons. While inexperienced at first, for obvious reasons, he seem to have managed his court well, and as it was pointed out he beneficied from really skilled courtiers. Eventually his management of the kingdom after 1430 let see a more decisive character and psyché than the whimp you describe)

 

[Matteo]

To put it quickly, your logic on this subject is much more questionable than mine. Why would the french-Armagnac party have said : "ok, let's give to the bourguignons what the english hold !" ????

Reconciliation is not stupidness of one of the parties. Philip the hold was able to ask much because Charles VII, Held responsible for the murder of his father, was at the head of the other party.

The fact is that people get what they can grab. Neither militarily, nor politically, not economically., the bourguignons did not have the means to grab more, not even to have more at the expense of the Lancaster controled area of France. Otherwise England would have cut its wool supplies. England held the low Countries by the balls for centuries.

That's why the holder of Flanders, Brabant, etc, never could go to a long conflict against England before it was able to find an alternate massive wool supply. But for this you need him to become king of Castile.

So all your point is devoid of plausibility and possibility : ASB.

 

[LSCatilina]

To put it quickly, your logic on this subject is much more questionable than mine. Why would the french-Armagnac party have said : "ok, let's give to the bourguignons what the english hold !" ????

I think you misread, maybe a bit too quick to hold out "your logic doesn't compute". If you read me carefully enough, you'd notice that I'm talking of territories that Bourguignons already controlled, as Champagne.

See, while Lancaster dominated a fair chunk of Northern France (Normandy, Part of Anjou and Ile de France), Bourguignons (both as a duchy and a party in France) dominated themselves large part of the regions even when it wasn't part of their dominion : Champagne, Somme, part of Ile de France etc.

Why the Armagnac party (that at this point wasn't considered as the French party : I already mentioned the Diary of a Parisian Bourgoeis on this, that I must say is one of the most important contemporary sources on the Civil War and Lancastrian phase in Northern France. If you disagree, please gives something else than simple repetition) would have conceeded more than in 1435?
Well, that's quite easy : IOTL, they beneficied from military success and boost of power and legitimacy in Northern France. Basically they were in a favourable position.

ITTL, however, they would be in a disfavourable position (at least relatively) : a child pretender which would be out of question to sacre before a decade considering his age, forseeable heirs being held hostage by Lancasters (Charles and Jean of Orléans, to name them).
Granted, Philippe d'Orléans would be still among Armagnacs, but that would barely hide a really great problem of legitimacy if Louis XI dies, without even a bastard to be used.

Given that the obstacle that represented the murder of John of Burgundy disappears greatly with Charles VII's death, and that Armagnacs would be more interested to deal with Bourguignons at this point (would it be only to assure their flanks).

Bourguignons, having a better position ITTL to negociate, would probably continue to follow their main policies : expand their de jure domination whenever possible, something no longer doable with Lancasters, but with Armagnacs. On this regard, I'd think it may look like more as the 1414 Treaty of Arras, but with more important concessions than 1435 Treaty of Arras (that, I'm forced to point again, officiallized the de jure control of places that Bourguignons had taken over 15 or 20 years ago).

The fact is that people get what they can grab. Neither militarily, nor politically, not economically., the bourguignons did not have the means to grab more, not even to have more at the expense of the Lancaster controled area of France.

You doesn't seem to understand. Please take a look at the map I linked in my previous post, that (roughly) shows spheres or control or influences in 1419 France. Champagne, Somme, and basically North-Eastern France were already under Bourguignon control, not Lancastrian.
As for the impossibility to grab more, the IOTL development not only in the Empire, but as well in France prooves that it was actually very possible.

So all your point is devoid of plausibility and possibility : ASB.

And your's devoid of basic reading abilities, and sadly limited to repeat "Armagnac-French stronk".

 

[Matteo]

I know it very well. I studied the question with the best french specialists of the question at the Sorbonne.

From the moment Charles VII became the leader of the Armagnac party, they were less the Armagnac party than the party of the Valois line. The house of Anjou then became more important than the house of Armagnac who had been one leading the faction that fought against the bourguignons before the English changed the nature of the conflict.

And I think you understood I had a point since you add a new element : the death of Louis XI as a child. This would not change very much the way you would want to. If Louis XI dies, the new legitimate king becomes the prisoner duke of Orleans. Do you think he is going to deal with the bourguignons against the english who hold him prisoner ?

This renforces the position of the Lancasters, not of the bourguignons.

I won't reassert any more my analysis. History, even alternate History, is déterminés by logic, and especially by geography, including economic geography.

Any AH ignoring such key factors just is not very serious.

It is the same as imagining : would Britain have considered giving Canada and all its caribean islands to the US and Spain done the same with all its colonies from Mexico to Venezuela included to secure the mexicain and venezuelan oil fiels for the US ?

Does Bill Gates give me his Microsoft stock because it's becoming really tough to adapt Microsoft to the new marketing conditions ?

Nobody makes such bad deals.

 

[LSCatilina]

From the moment Charles VII became the leader of the Armagnac party, they were less the Armagnac party than the party of the Valois line. The house of Anjou then became more important than the house of Armagnac who had been one leading the faction that fought against the bourguignons before the English changed the nature of the conflict.

It doesn't make it more the French party, at least outside the immediate control of the faction, and it wouldn't be acknowledged as such before the 1430's (while being still called Armagnac party by almost everyone, in spite of power shifts).

Critically with Charles VII dying, the faction would have huge problems of legitimacy and unity. Pierre de Giac or Georges De La Trémoille, for instance, would still have enough influence to assert their power, and their policies wouldn't really be that profitable for the House of Anjou (and that pushed more to reconciliation then their successors).