I've recently became interested in the late Capetian dynasty and am surprised to find that no one has (apparently) asked this before. So I think we all know who Philippe IV 'le Bel' is, but for those who don't know, he was the father of the modern bureaucratic state, the man who restored royal finances, placed the Papacy itself as subordinate to France and the destroyer of the Templar Order. He was, unarguably, one of the greatest Capetian Kings of France and a true successor to Philippe August. So what if, instead of dying in a hunting accident in 1314, he lived for another ten years, to 1324 (BTW chose ten years as mid-fifties seemed to be the average life-span of the Capetians, but he could live longer if it seems reasonable)? Would the Flemish revolts be solved earlier? Would the Capetian line potentially survive? What would relations with England look like? How would an extra decade of le Bel's reign affect France and the rest of Europe?
WI: Another ten years for Philippe IV of France?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
Philippe IV of France was famously difficult to deal with. France went to war with both England and Flanders during his reign, with his own imperious personality and dishonest actions being principle causes of these wars. In order to finance his wars, Philippe IV both destroyed the Templar Order, expelled Jews from France, and persecuted a group of Lombard merchants confiscating the wealth of all three groups while doing so. He persecuted these three groups because he owed them all more than he could repay.
Philippe IV also gained permission from the Papacy to divert Church tithe in France to the Crown purse, which resulted in a considerable increase in Crown revenue. Philippe IV managed to spend the Crown back into debt in less than two years.
Philippe's wife died in 9 years before he his own passing, and he refused to remarry. He was survived by three adult sons, two of which died within ten years of Philippe's death.
If Philippe had lived another 10 years, he would have aggravated relations with both England and Flanders, probably sparking additional wars. He also would have witnessed 2 of his three sons die, which may have encouraged him to remarry in order to produce more male heirs.
His first marriage gained the French Crown the province of Champagne, which had previously been semi-autonomous, greatly increasing the strategic and financial position of the Crown in northern France. A second marriage could have further increased the wealth and power of the Crown, and may have produced another male heir.
So, if he remarried, it is entirely possible the succession crisis sparked by the death of his third son would have been averted by the presence of an additional son. This would remove the formal justification for the Hundred Years War, but in all likelihood during his extra decade of life he would have provoked wars with both England and Flanders anyway. Since England and Flanders would be linked by the marriage of Edward III to Philippa of Hainault, war with one would likely mean war with both to some extent. Depending upon who he married, the French Crown could likely be in a strengthened financially and strategically in the run up to this war, but given his record of overspending he still would have left France in debt upon his death in 1324.
On the bright side, if he had a son by his second wife, this fourth son would have become King when the third and last historic son died in 1326. This would have prevented the disputed succession between the Valois line and the English Crown, and would have imposed a Regency upon the Crown due to the new King being less than 10 years old. This regency would be a chance for peace and financial stability for France.
Philippe IV also gained permission from the Papacy to divert Church tithe in France to the Crown purse, which resulted in a considerable increase in Crown revenue. Philippe IV managed to spend the Crown back into debt in less than two years.
Philippe's wife died in 9 years before he his own passing, and he refused to remarry. He was survived by three adult sons, two of which died within ten years of Philippe's death.
If Philippe had lived another 10 years, he would have aggravated relations with both England and Flanders, probably sparking additional wars. He also would have witnessed 2 of his three sons die, which may have encouraged him to remarry in order to produce more male heirs.
His first marriage gained the French Crown the province of Champagne, which had previously been semi-autonomous, greatly increasing the strategic and financial position of the Crown in northern France. A second marriage could have further increased the wealth and power of the Crown, and may have produced another male heir.
So, if he remarried, it is entirely possible the succession crisis sparked by the death of his third son would have been averted by the presence of an additional son. This would remove the formal justification for the Hundred Years War, but in all likelihood during his extra decade of life he would have provoked wars with both England and Flanders anyway. Since England and Flanders would be linked by the marriage of Edward III to Philippa of Hainault, war with one would likely mean war with both to some extent. Depending upon who he married, the French Crown could likely be in a strengthened financially and strategically in the run up to this war, but given his record of overspending he still would have left France in debt upon his death in 1324.
On the bright side, if he had a son by his second wife, this fourth son would have become King when the third and last historic son died in 1326. This would have prevented the disputed succession between the Valois line and the English Crown, and would have imposed a Regency upon the Crown due to the new King being less than 10 years old. This regency would be a chance for peace and financial stability for France.
Of course that's also assuming that two of Philippe le Bel's sons (and his grandson) still die the same way and at the same time, having Philippe live ten years longer is a hell of a thing and there could be events in place where any one of the four (Louis X, Jean I, Philippe V and Charles IV), any of Charles IV's sons that predeceased him (Philippe and Louis) or all the above could've not died before his father if Philippe lived.
Granted Ameteur is right on one thing, Philippe living ten years longer is not going to be pretty to French finances.
Granted Ameteur is right on one thing, Philippe living ten years longer is not going to be pretty to French finances.
I never understood the spendthrift accusations leveled against Philippe IV. I mean all his expenses were military in nature, no wasting money on mistresses, no huge grandiose palace projects, no overly luxurious court. And he was dealt a pretty bad hand at his accession; his father's Aragonese crusade, the "most unjust, unnecessary and calamitous enterprise ever undertaken by the Capetian monarchy", according to H. K. Chaytor, nearly bankrupted France and the loans accrued from that war were still being paid off in 1306. Nor can I say his campaigns against Flanders were without reward, as Philippe annexed the cities of Lille, Douai and Orchies directly to the Kingdom. The only outright waste was the 1294-1303 war against England that resulted in the restoration of Aquitaine to Edward I, instead of copying Philippe II Auguste and annexing the Duchy to the Crown lands. If he had permanently seized Gascony it would have saved France a lot of grief. So how exactly would al longer living Philippe IV keep French finances in disarray? Also, agree with @Noblesse Oblige ; with a 1314 POD we have no guarantee that all three of Philippe's sons will die without surviving male issue.
History tells us that Philippe IV borrowed money year after year, and when the debt became overwhelming he persecuted his bankers. He did it several times.
Apparently war is expensive? Remember that the Crown of France did not control most of the land or revenue in France -- his income was limited.
(This is why the Pope's grant of the tithe of France to Philippe was such a big boost to the Crown finances -- the tithe was a tax on all of France)
As for the life expectancy of his sons and grandsons, I would imagine it came as quite a shock that the whole swarm of them died within about 12 years. If Philippe remaining on the throne for 10 more years would prevent some of their untimely deaths, that would prevent the Valois-Plantagenet dispute over the Crown as well. It would not, however, prevent the next century being lousy with periodic wars with England. If anything, another decade of Philippe would probably accelerate the cycle of wars.
Preventing the constant war between England and France would require the butterflies to land 150+ years earlier on the shoulder of Eleanor of Aquitaine while she was married to Louis of France and have her give birth to a son or two instead of a long run of daughters. If Louis never annuls Eleanor she never marries Henry II of England and transfers much of southern France to English rule, limiting English possessions in France to Normandy and Anjou.
IIRC people at the time explained it as divine punishment for Philip's persecution of the Templars.
I'm sure people even today still think it's divine punishment for Philip's persecution of the Templars...
...As for preventing the constant war between England and France, Louis VII having a son with Eleanor isn't going to prevent it (so long as England retains claims to Normandy and Anjou). Honestly, your best bet is either prevent the Norman conquest of England (have either Harold win) or failing that (and Eleanor), have the English barons reinforce Louis VIII's flimsy claim to the English throne (helped by having King John live longer), there'd be no war between England and France if the King of England is also the King of France...
...At least so they say, I don't think it works that way.
There is a way have Arthur of Brittany have Anjou and Aquitaine, Philippe Auguste have Normandy while John gets England that would be good for both England and France.
Normandy and Anjou were significant holdings, but real problem is ownership of the Aquitaine. The Aquitaine was not only a large fief, it was by far the wealthiest fief in France.
If Eleanor remains Queen of France revenues from the Aquitaine (her possession) flow to the French Crown and pass to her son and future King, essentially tripling the cash revenue directly available to the King of France (prior to the Albigensian Crusades the French Crown was a relatively small landholder) and depriving the English Crown of its OTL principle cash revenue source.
(Cash taxation in the Middle Ages was most efficient when focused on the transport of goods at ports. The wine, wool, and textile trade between Bordeaux, London, and Flanders was extremely lucrative, and in the OTL the English Crown owned two and had allies in the third.)
Retention of the Aquitaine by the French Crown would have been a real game changer. It is doubtful the English (or their allies, the Flemish) would have risked war with France under such conditions, and the motivation of the French for war would have been greatly reduced.
Interesting but this is getting away from my original post. Would Philippe restart the Flemish crisis, like Louis X did? Would another round of Anglo-French conflict break out or would it be pushed back to his son's reign? And how would the French bureaucratic state continue to develop?
Philippe IV was the father-in-law of Edward II of England (King since 1307), and the two got along very well during Edward's visit to France in 1312. As long as both were on the thrones of their two nations, and as long as Edward II was focused on losing wars with Scotland, there would be a decent chance for peace between England and France. This peace would not survive either of them being replaced, so I would expect a new war within a few years of the ATL death of Philippe.
The HRE was embroiled in civil war during this period and one would presume Philippe would focus on matters in France, which would cause trouble in France.
Relations between the Crown and groups within France would degrade as Philippe would continue his efforts to build a centralized French state. This would mean more strife with Flanders, the Church, and those involved with minting and loaning money (centralization and manipulation coinage was a significant trend during this period). Couple this with Philippe's inability to limit his own spending (he had severe financial problems even before the wars in Flanders and Gascony), and one can imagine a real chance of revolts breaking out in along the Flanders model elsewhere in France.
People resent a heavy handed King breaking traditions so he can ruin their families in order to finance huge loans and lavish parties for his in-laws and other relatives, as Philippe did for Edward II in 1312.
The HRE was embroiled in civil war during this period and one would presume Philippe would focus on matters in France, which would cause trouble in France.
Relations between the Crown and groups within France would degrade as Philippe would continue his efforts to build a centralized French state. This would mean more strife with Flanders, the Church, and those involved with minting and loaning money (centralization and manipulation coinage was a significant trend during this period). Couple this with Philippe's inability to limit his own spending (he had severe financial problems even before the wars in Flanders and Gascony), and one can imagine a real chance of revolts breaking out in along the Flanders model elsewhere in France.
People resent a heavy handed King breaking traditions so he can ruin their families in order to finance huge loans and lavish parties for his in-laws and other relatives, as Philippe did for Edward II in 1312.
I think Philippe IV living longer will have huge effects on the whole succession’s debacle...
First his sons will be likely divorced by their unfaithful wives earlier and so remarried earlier and is possible who also the wedding between Philip (V) and Joan will be dissolved here and he remarried to another princess... Butterflies can easily altering the deaths of Louis and his son by Clementia (who likely will be called Philip and not John here)
First his sons will be likely divorced by their unfaithful wives earlier and so remarried earlier and is possible who also the wedding between Philip (V) and Joan will be dissolved here and he remarried to another princess... Butterflies can easily altering the deaths of Louis and his son by Clementia (who likely will be called Philip and not John here)
But we need to keep in mind the underlying reasons for the sporadic wars between England and France, which began well before the succession crisis.
Continuing the Capetian line through the entirety of the 14 century would not prevent war between Edward III of England and whoever sat on the French throne, nor would it change the dramatic difference in the ability of the English to command and control their troops compared to the French. Philippe Valois was a capable general, but the French feudal host did not have a unified command structure. This lack of central control was the fatal flaw that led to the slaughters at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt -- the French army became a mob that rushed into an English trap again and again.
It is doubtful Philippe "Capet" VI would have had better luck than Philippe "Valois" VI. There still would have been war, and the English would have very likely led the bulk of the French army into a trap (as they did against 3 different French commanders in the OTL). The English goal would probably be limited to securing titles in and around Normandy, Anjou, and the Aquitaine, and NOT challenging Philippe "Capet" for the Crown of France, but terms similar to the Treaty of Bretigny would still result from continued conflict.
So until Edward II or Philippe IV dies we can reasonably expect peace between England and France then? That means one less issue for Philippe to deal with. Good to know.
As for the HRE, this actually reminds me of something else I was going to post; could Philippe IV turn towards the Empire as a potential crown for one of his sons? I mean in 1308 there was an attempt to get his brother the Comte de Valois elected after the assassination of Albert I, but lacked the support of the secular Prince-Electors. So that could be an interesting development.
It seems to me that Philippe's later reign could end up resembling the various feudal uprisings of the later 15th century against Charles VII, Louis XI and the early reign of Charles VIII, and that further revolts would depend on how Flanders is handled; if the Flemish are dealt with decisively and quickly then the regional leagues will likely remain loyal; if the Flemish revolt spreads and lingers, then we could see something similar to the Public League and Mad wars.
I can understand that, but really Phililippe IV is simply guilty of being the first monarch to move away from the traditional feudal system and towards a more Romanesque state.
Well actually that depends on how quickly Philippe replaces Clement V. OTL the reason that it took so long to annual the marriages was because of the lack of a Pope between 1314 and 1316. That's why Louis X's wife Margaret of Burgundy was briefly Queen of France and why she had to die in order for her husband to marry Clementina of Hungary. But yes, assuming that Philippe is able to get his candidate elected in 1314 (Jacques Duèze was Philippe V's candidate and considering that he was the most like his father of the three princes, I would assume Duéze would still be the likely choice), then yes a remarriage could happen a little earlier and perhaps Margaret has a happier ending like her sister-in-law, imprisoned/becoming a nun instead of getting murdered. And yeah the name John was always odd to me; any idea where that came from?
Well Philip IV was surely in a stronger position than his son and I think Clementina choised the name of her son
True, it was mainly over ownership of Aquitaine and the question of homage.
Now that I didn't know. I was under the impression that such charges were normal and that most of the English success was due to the Longbow. Had no idea that any kind of unified command structure could even exist in a Feudal host. However, wouldn't such a feat be more likely to occur under the Capetians? I mean the late Capets led the centralization of France and weakening of the feudal lords, so it would be in their interest to create a unified command structure. Compare this to the Valois, whose founder was the leader of the feudal party, and whom were more traditional than their cousins.
But without a claim to the French throne, would the English even campaign in northern France or would they still focus in and around Guyenne/Aquitaine? I mean I can't find an example of an English campaign anywhere in Normandy, Flanders or Picardy (and only one attempted invasion of Brittany) between the reigns of John I and Edward III. So in my opinion, Edward III is more likely to follow "tradition" and focus on the territories adjacent to English Aquitaine, rather than shift to multiple fronts.
I just meant it was an odd choice; the name John didn't seem to exist on either side of Jean I's family and he wasn't born on a Saint John feast day. It just seems out of left field is all.
I had not explored much the side of family of Clementina and I thinked maybe was from her side of family... Maybe she was devoted to a Saint John
In the Accursed Kings it mentioned that the name came from some kind of oath to St. John.
By the way, in the world of surviving Philip IV, is it guaranteed that Louis X would remarry to Clementina of Hungary and not some other princess (the abovementioned Joan of Bar?)?
Philip IV can remarry to Joan of Bar not Louis X, Clementina can marry to an OTL dead elder brother of Casimir III...we might see Louis X marry an Aragonese or Sicilian Princess.
The side of Clementina has John Paricida.
Last edited: