The Ruthless Cœur de Lion

[Othniel]

An idea for a timeline, kind of a spin-off of my research for OATWS;

Basically Richard I of England goes off on the Third Crusade to do his thing, but instead of leaving his bum of a brother in charge, he decides on a competent advisor.

Like OTL he comes back from the Third Crusade, relatively unharmed, and now with a burning hate for the king of France, more intense than that of a thousand bright & burning suns. However unlike OTL he doesn't have to clean up after his two-timing brother.

Like OTL he starts a campaign of vengeance against Phillipe-Auguste, and is pretty much tearing through the French army like a bull in a china shop. However unlike OTL he doesn't die while doing so...

All the more interesting while he was gone his brother John managed to do the one thing that he could do better than his brother. That is making allies. Richard never
really needed to play nice with others anyways, but this alliance is interesting. It’s with a few rebellious noblemen, and the Holy Roman Emperor himself.

So France now has a major problem, a war with two fronts. And on one side, you have the superstar general of Europe, and on the other you have the top dog, the man everybody who matters respects, or that at least what the Germans tell me.

Like a tidal wave the King of France is destroyed, and forced to abdicate. The eastern boarder bits, (Flanders, Champagne) find themselves valued contributors to the HRE, whilst most of France proper finds its self in the dominion of the Lionhearted.

Ile-de-France itself is demoted to a lowly county of Paris under the rule of a non-Capet.(Perhaps a Boulogne) The title 'King of France' is transferred Richard, and the remaining lands under French rule find themselves vassals to the king of England, Duke of Normandy, and Aquitaine. The capital of the French kingdom is moved to Rouen.

(Paris was pretty much guaranteed after France managed to pull off a victory against the HRE around this time in OTL, but sense they lost a capital in Normandy makes sense)

A few years later the Cathars start acting up and Richard uses this opportunity to bring the county of Toulouse into the family. Ousting the excommunicated Raymond, he replaces him with his last remaining bum of a brother.

 

[Jammy]

Interesting. . .

Needs some fleshing out i think, also if Richard dosen't die he should hopefully produce some kids.

I like the idea though and hope you do flesh it out more.

 

[Shadow Knight]

A good start but a few questions.

Without John in charge of England who did you pick?
What is the state of the royal coffers when Richard gets back (I thought he practically bankrupted himself to go on the Crusade)?

Further comments:

I think you are having it a bit too easy for Richard. Just to make it interesting I'd have the interior of France just not except his rule and successfully get away with it (for now). Say the Duke of Burgundy, the Count of Toulouse, etc. successfully fend off the English armies.

What is the reaction from the other monarchs of Europe?

 

[Jammy]

I wouldnt think he would- he was reputedly as bent as a nine bob note....

Yeh i know that but for the Kingdom i reckon he'd force himself.

James I for example.

 

[Hermanubis]

Interesting. Its always said that Richard had planned another Crusade when he left the Levant, though I suppose he could just be too busy in France in this scenario to get to that again...

 

[Jammy]

Interesting. Its always said that Richard had planned another Crusade when he left the Levant, though I suppose he could just be too busy in France in this scenario to get to that again...

As long as he has a war somewhere i can't imagine him being to fussed where.

 

[Faeelin]

The Holy Roman Emperor at this point is Henry VI; shortly due to die, and if not, invade Byzantium.

May not be the best place to turn for help.

 

[Valdemar II]

Honestly John was quite competent as a ruler even if he tried to steal the throne from his brother, even if he had a bit of bad luck and a terrible PR-agent. While Richard was well away most of the time, and while he were a excellent warrior, there little evidens that he would have been a competent king even without John.

 

[Jammy]

Instead of John as his heir he could change it to his nephew, get chummy with Arthur, son of Geoffrey.

Thats a good call to.

Personally i still think he'd force himself for the kingdom though.

 

[bill_bruno]

Richard's goals

I doubt that Richard I would've gone so far as to overthrow the French king. His goal was the maintenance of the Angevin succession. This entailed 1) preserving lands such as the Vexin and Berry from Philip, 2) securing the succession of John over Arthur of Brittany, 3) the suppression of rebellious nobles within his own domain and 4) maximalist claims regarding the eastern border of the Duchy of Aquitaine (including perhaps receiving homage from the Count of Toulouse).

One the other hand, her certainly would've helped his allies obtain their claims. Baldwin of Flanders would've fought to regain Artois.

 

[Othniel]

The Holy Roman Emperor at this point is Henry VI; shortly due to die, and if not, invade Byzantium.

May not be the best place to turn for help.

I'm specfically trying to rengineer the Anglo-Flemish-German Coalition of 1213. The problem with this I think is that it requires a weaker and more social king than Richard to work.

Specifically I'm tring to recreate the Battle of Bouvines under Richard rather than John.

 

[Othniel]

The Holy Roman Emperor at this point is Henry VI; shortly due to die, and if not, invade Byzantium.

May not be the best place to turn for help.

Probably right. However the Duke of Burgundy, Hugh III was a staunch allie during that time.

 

[Othniel]

A good start but a few questions.

Without John in charge of England who did you pick?

Geoffrey, his half-brother, the bishop of York.

What is the state of the royal coffers when Richard gets back (I thought he practically bankrupted himself to go on the Crusade)?

Without John squandering a good portion of it (Or using it to attempt and keep Richard imprisioned) I think they'd be better off.

Further comments:

I think you are having it a bit too easy for Richard. Just to make it interesting I'd have the interior of France just not except his rule and successfully get away with it (for now). Say the Duke of Burgundy, the Count of Toulouse, etc. successfully fend off the English armies.

The Count of Toulouse is surely in no postion, given that his country is a nobel man's target during this era. Burgundy was staunch allie of Richard under Hugh III (who was only a year off from dieing...)

What is the reaction from the other monarchs of Europe?

Spain is divided and focusing on the reconquista, Richard doesn't have the problems with the Pope that John, or his father had. Low countries I believe are on his side... I'm finding no obivious weaknesses, besides that of Richard being overly agressive.

 

[Othniel]

Honestly John was quite competent as a ruler even if he tried to steal the throne from his brother, even if he had a bit of bad luck and a terrible PR-agent. While Richard was well away most of the time, and while he were a excellent warrior, there little evidens that he would have been a competent king even without John.

Richard is one of those that generally found someone he thought he could trust. It had worked with his mother, Eleanore of Aquitaine, but not with John. How Richard is precieved in the long run depends on whether he choses the right people to govern his kingdom in his stead. Most of the time I think Richard will be on the battlefield.

 

[Othniel]

Not sure I want the Bishop of Ely.

 

[Othniel]

I doubt that Richard I would've gone so far as to overthrow the French king.

For what I can see, subjecting all of France to vassalship would be in Richard's favour. More of France was under his claim than any other power, including Phillip II.

One the other hand, he certainly would've helped his allies obtain their claims. Baldwin of Flanders would've fought to regain Artois.

Flanders and Burgundy probably help France because of their ambitious leaders.

 

[bill_bruno]

The basis for Richard's claims

For what I can see, subjecting all of France to vassalship would be in Richard's favour. More of France was under his claim than any other power, including Phillip II.

Except it's not a question of it's being in his favor. He has no basis for reducing France to vassalship. He would've have been just as concerned about keeping the pretence of acting under color of right as a modern ruler would be.

 

[Othniel]

Except it's not a question of it's being in his favor. He has no basis for reducing France to vassalship. He would've have been just as concerned about keeping the pretence of acting under color of right as a modern ruler would be.

His father, Henry II did so to Louis VII, reducing him to the immeadiate lands in Ile-de-France, and to being just a vassal. Richard would probably do the same as that plus some more. It was more than just land aims, but a war of venegence against Phillipe.

And later on Otto of Brunswick gets ousted from being the grand pumba of the HRE for losing his war against Phillipe-Auguste in the Battle of Bouvines.

 

[bill_bruno]

Not a vassal

At no point did Louis VII swear homage to Henry II. At no point did Henry II seek Louis's overthrow. Angevin policy was to reduce French overlordship to purely nominal status, not to get rid of it (a legal justification for which would've been difficult to find).

 

[Othniel]

At no point did Louis VII swear homage to Henry II. At no point did Henry II seek Louis's overthrow. Angevin policy was to reduce French overlordship to purely nominal status, not to get rid of it (a legal justification for which would've been difficult to find).

From what I've been reading it points to the early Angevins being complete bastards when it came to sulterization. Richard and his brothers were poltical oppertunists, as was Phillipe II Auguste. Plain and simple.