WI: No Norman England, no centralised French Kingdom

[Crim]

This - and it ties in with the "castle topic" you raise later - is another thing that needs consideration. Just how "stable" would this Anglo-Saxon monarchy be, how would its conflicts transform (for we can't just assume that in Late Middle Ages they take on the same forms we know from the Early Middle Ages of OTL)?

I think if Harold Godwinson managed to beat back the Normans and the Norse, we'd be looking at the most stable realm in the British Isles ever up to that point. Earl Godwin was the biggest landowner in England and Harold inherited most of this. He has the power to reward or pay off people with lots of land. His runner-up was Morcar, whose daughter Harold had married so they had an alliance.

We may see a revolt of Edgar the Ætheling, we may not. Harold might just marry one of his daughters to the last known male member of House Wessex, maybe Edgar spawns some sort of cadet branch of House Wessex with very little power, maybe he ends up becoming a monk or a corpse, as frequently happened. I think Edgar the Ætheling may have some overlap with the English Investiture Crisis, so that could form a good reason for Edgar to revolt.

Harold had decent relations with the middle nobility of the north, as we see with how he handled Tostig. I think when Harold dies, though, there's going to be an absolute shitstorm because he had a lot of sons from two different mothers. This could range from a couple of short wars to a dynasty-destroying dogpile, with Morcar & sons supporting the sons of Edith of Mercia, some loyalists supporting a son of Edith the Fair, and maybe a wild card or two doing some wild card stuff.

That would mean interference in succession disputes and the like? Or more?
How about the Northern parts of the HRE - they were economically closely tied to Scandinavia and England. IOTL, the commercial initiative lay there, e.g. with the Hanseatic League who sprouted contors from London to Novgorod. Any large trends foreseeable here with an Anglo-Saxon monarchy focusing on its role as North Sea hegemon?

The King of Denmark also had a claim on England. Denmark was something of a center of power, but compared to an England at peace it was a paper tiger. I think we could expect some alliances between the sons of Harold and Denmark, perhaps with the dynamic of North Sea power being turned on its head. If we really want to force a Hundred Years War analogue here, it's absolutely going to be England vs Denmark for who asserts hegemony over the North Sea, but that's pushing it. Regarding the Hansa, that's an interesting story because it partially rose out of a similar league in Visby going tits up because of a number of factors. One wonders how a lasting North Sea sphere would affect the growth of Baltic Trade Leagues. iirc, the Anglo-Saxons had some pretty unique trade methods that could have utterly transformed trade in the North Sea, though I need to delve a bit more into that. But yes, absolutely, we can expect medieval trade leagues to be a massive part of English trade in the 13th century on up.

I could see England aligning closely with the HRE over an investiture crisis, which may put it at odds with Denmark simply by association with the HRE, though to what degree I'm not sure.

I find both paths plausible and interesting to pursue...

I'll have to think of that. I'm pretty sure you're right here. That would require checking in which key battles English knights played crucial roles. Currently no time for that, but it could escalate butterflies into the Eastern Med much faster than I had thought.

Another thing to consider is how the Normans in France would fare. Would this open up opportunities for adventurer who otherwise would have gone to England to instead try their hands in Sicily, possibly solidifying a lasting Norman hegemony?

 

[Xenophonte]

Another thing to consider is how the Normans in France would fare. Would this open up opportunities for adventurer who otherwise would have gone to England to instead try their hands in Sicily, possibly solidifying a lasting Norman hegemony?

Well, this is an interesting idea and one that'd open a whole new set of possibilities... Cause, absent/butterflied Norman England, it might cause that in the short to ,middle term 'd be more Norman mercenaries/freebooters, available to either be hired by the Italian/Lombard/Byzantine rulers or that would join helping to accelerate to the ongoing Norman conquest of Sicily and from Salerno & Calabria...
Also, seem possible that once consolidated the Norman Rule in Sicily and Naples, it would be probable that ITTL with no competence from England it might be strengthened thanks to his undisputed attraction for any Norman fortune seekers warriors... Perhaps, ITTL, it would strengthen their hold on Ifriqiya, and might allow to put down the rebellions and withstand the Almohad Sultanate offensives and avoid that the Norman Kingdom of Africa would fall to them...
Alternatively or even 'd be complementary, that with this greatly increased and constant influx of Normand warriors from Normandy might mean worse news than even OTL for the Croatian Kingdom, for the Byzantine Empire and particularly to Greece...

 

[Salvador79]

I think if Harold Godwinson managed to beat back the Normans and the Norse, we'd be looking at the most stable realm in the British Isles ever up to that point. Earl Godwin was the biggest landowner in England and Harold inherited most of this. He has the power to reward or pay off people with lots of land. His runner-up was Morcar, whose daughter Harold had married so they had an alliance.

And Harold was 44 in 66. So we're looking at 15-20 stable years, 25 if we're really optimistic. By the turn of the century, if the "dogpile" version comes true, we're looking at a chaotic England again, with Danes and Normans and who knows who else interfering, and the Pope trying to pull strings from distant Rome. Now, this is nothing new in Anglo-Saxon history, and we might look at a resolution of the chaos in the early decades of the 12th century again. But these recurring destabilisations could, of course, be taken as an argument that Wales and Scotland aren't necessarily predestined for conquest very soon.

So, is Anglo-Saxon England really not on the path towards stability? Why not, when kingdoms like Denmark, Norway and Sweden often struggled with each other and with neighbors and certainly had unruly nobility, but rarely fell apart wholesale? I know their political traditions are different and except for not featuring Roman law, they don't have all that much in common. Still... I'm utterly OK with Anglo-Saxon England also not being a stable centralised kingdom, but I don't want to force implausible things.
OR would the Scandinavian kingdoms be more unstable ITTL, too? That only makes sense if we argue that their centralised monarchies were somehow influenced by England or another role model. (Which, looking at the chronology, seems a shaky hypothesis?)

We may see a revolt of Edgar the Ætheling, we may not. Harold might just marry one of his daughters to the last known male member of House Wessex, maybe Edgar spawns some sort of cadet branch of House Wessex with very little power, maybe he ends up becoming a monk or a corpse, as frequently happened. I think Edgar the Ætheling may have some overlap with the English Investiture Crisis, so that could form a good reason for Edgar to revolt.

That means not even the above decades are really safe for Harold. Though, he might be able to put down Edgar's revolt relatively easily.

If we really want to force a Hundred Years War analogue here, it's absolutely going to be England vs Denmark for who asserts hegemony over the North Sea, but that's pushing it.

Nah, my OP was really more in the opposite direction: avoiding the kind of centralising impetus which the 100YW was IOTL, especially for France.

Regarding the Hansa, that's an interesting story because it partially rose out of a similar league in Visby going tits up because of a number of factors. One wonders how a lasting North Sea sphere would affect the growth of Baltic Trade Leagues. iirc, the Anglo-Saxons had some pretty unique trade methods that could have utterly transformed trade in the North Sea, though I need to delve a bit more into that.

I am at the edge of my seat and must confess my utter ignorance of the topic, unfortunately. This sounds like stuff I really want to know more about!

Another thing to consider is how the Normans in France would fare. Would this open up opportunities for adventurer who otherwise would have gone to England to instead try their hands in Sicily, possibly solidifying a lasting Norman hegemony?

Well, this is an interesting idea and one that'd open a whole new set of possibilities... Cause, absent/butterflied Norman England, it might cause that in the short to ,middle term 'd be more Norman mercenaries/freebooters, available to either be hired by the Italian/Lombard/Byzantine rulers or that would join helping to accelerate to the ongoing Norman conquest of Sicily and from Salerno & Calabria...
Also, seem possible that once consolidated the Norman Rule in Sicily and Naples, it would be probable that ITTL with no competence from England it might be strengthened thanks to his undisputed attraction for any Norman fortune seekers warriors... Perhaps, ITTL, it would strengthen their hold on Ifriqiya, and might allow to put down the rebellions and withstand the Almohad Sultanate offensives and avoid that the Norman Kingdom of Africa would fall to them...
Alternatively or even 'd be complementary, that with this greatly increased and constant influx of Normand warriors from Normandy might mean worse news than even OTL for the Croatian Kingdom, for the Byzantine Empire and particularly to Greece...

Now, as for Normans being more active elsewhere... it is, of course, a plausible path, but, just to be on the safe side, I'll hint at there being other possibilities:
a) they could indeed do what you proposed or
b) they could engage more in the general crusades (aside from Tunisia), probably making up for English participation, which would minimise butterflies in the Med, or
c) they could do nothing of the above.

As for c): Norman "adventurism" was not only about push factors and a slight military edge. It was also about pull factors - and Southern Italy, Sicily and Ifriqiya aren't stronger pull factors than IOTL, so we might as well see the age of Norman conquest sprees petering out earlier.

If it doesn't, then b) is probably a lazy option, although maybe not the most probable, given how various popes had rather ambivalent stances with regards to Norman engagements.

In the case of a), I'll throw in the observation that the Kingdom of Africa fell really easily, and it would probably need a lot of weight being shifted around to tilt that balance of power in Northern Africa at that point in time. Southern Italy, on the other hand, simply passed on to the Staufens...

 

[Xenophonte]

As for c): Norman "adventurism" was not only about push factors and a slight military edge. It was also about pull factors - and Southern Italy, Sicily and Ifriqiya aren't stronger pull factors than IOTL, so we might as well see the age of Norman conquest sprees petering out earlier.

Yeah, it would seem...
But, I tend to think that among the numbers that IOTL decided immigrated/look to did fortune in the Norman England, now ITTL with it absent many of whom IOTL did it, that wouldn't be able or found attractive enough to its ITTL alternative, Anglo-Saxon kingdom...
Thus, would seem, at least, possible, that in ITTL scenario, that they might be forced to either to stay in Normandy/France or to look for 'opportunities' elsewhere... And, about Ifriquiya/Tunis, I'm thinking that perhaps, with a more bigger manpower availability and/or talent pool, perhaps it, their rule of their African holdings, might be changed and expanded with a firmer and stable hold than OTL...

 

[Wyrd]

And Harold was 44 and 66. So we're looking at 15-20 stable years, 25 if we're really optimistic. By the turn of the century, if the "dogpile" version comes true, we're looking at a chaotic England again, with Danes and Normans and who knows who else interfering, and the Pope trying to pull strings from distant Rome. Now, this is nothing new in Anglo-Saxon history, and we might look at a resolution of the chaos in the early decades of the 12th century again. But these recurring destabilisations could, of course, be taken as an argument that Wales and Scotland aren't necessarily predestined for conquest very soon.

I doubt England would face another '1066' scenario soon. 1066 was unique mainly because strong and stable foreign realms existed (Normandy and Norway) who could press their claims. Those foreign realms could easily collapse into civil war by the time Harold dies. Normandy in particular often descended into chaos. This is probably why Duke William was very aggressive as he knew he had only a brief window of opportunity to conquer England. Furthermore, most of these problems with foreign claimants arose from the Viking Age. As the Viking Age ends, there would be fewer foreign threats for England. England could easily again descent into civil war but 1066 was a freak event.

 

[Salvador79]

I doubt England would face another '1066' scenario soon. 1066 was unique mainly because strong and stable foreign realms existed (Normandy and Norway) who could press their claims. Those foreign realms could easily collapse into civil war by the time Harold dies. Normandy in particular often descended into chaos. This is probably why Duke William was very aggressive as he knew he had only a brief window of opportunity to conquer England. Furthermore, most of these problems with foreign claimants arose from the Viking Age. As the Viking Age ends, there would be fewer foreign threats for England. England could easily again descent into civil war but 1066 was a freak event.

So, recurring destabilisations / civil strife yes, but full-scale conquest no. I think we're on the same page.

Coming back to France:
Central power is said to have disintegrated to a breathtaking degree in the 11th and 12th centuries in what some call the "feudal revolution". At the same time, communalism grew and free cities (villefranche) were established. All of this sounds a lot like what happened in the HRE slightly later. Now, what didn't happen in the HRE, although various emperors attempted it, was the counter-movement, from Philip Augustus over St Louis to the finishing decades of the 100YW, i.e. the formation of an intellectual and political capital like Paris, a more direct royal involvement in jurisdiction, the breaking-up of nuclei of rebellious aristocratic resistance. Now, one can cite the fact that the HRE was an elective monarchy while the Capetians (and later the Angevin) ruled France as a hereditary monarchy, as a reason for why one (France) centralised while the other (HRE) didn't. It might be a factor, and this factor would continue to exist. I've already said that I believe the other factor - the bloodletting of the French aristocracy in the protracted wars with the English, the need to levy taxes for the costly warfare etc. - is at least as important.

So let's look at TTL's France. It is still a hereditary monarchy ruled by Capetian kings who have their royal demesne in the Ile-de-France. Would the foundation of such an important university in Paris still happen? Would Paris grow at the same speed as IOTL?
How else can we envision this alternative medieval France? We've already heard good arguments for why the nucleus of linguistic standardisation might lie in the South with the langues d'oc ITTL. What else? Aquitaine, Normandy, Toulouse and Burgundy being the main peripheral powerbases of potential rivals and enemies of a centralisation of the kingdom? How would developing crafters', merchants' and intellectual elites position themselves and what might be the dominant controversies and conflicts in such a France? It would probably not interfere by far as much with the papacy as IOTL and thus all the papal schisms might be avoided - with massive religious implications down the line. What about HRE meddlings in France? I don't think there is much of a strengthening factor for the HRE here, or am I wrong?

 

[Crim]

Wales and Scotland aren't necessarily predestined for conquest very soon.

Yes, Anglo-Saxon foreign policy was to enforce borders, not expand them. That said, Scotland had made overtures into English Cumbria, so we could expect a war to retake that perhaps. Likewise, as long as the Welsh don't look like they're about to start pouring into England under one king, the English are happy just maintaining a border.

So, is Anglo-Saxon England really not on the path towards stability? Why not, when kingdoms like Denmark, Norway and Sweden often struggled with each other and with neighbors and certainly had unruly nobility, but rarely fell apart wholesale?

No, I foresee trouble simply because Harold had many children with two sets of mothers. Edith the Fair was a woman he'd married under Danish tradition and the sons he had with her were adults by 1066. He had Godwin, Edmund, and Magnus (yes, Harold Godwinson named his son Godwin Haroldson LIKE AN ABSOLUTE UNIT) by Edith, each of whom fought in the Battle of Hastings or were otherwise active in English politics by this point. He also had Harold and Ulf by Edith of Mercia, who were infants in 1066. So theoretically these two would be better choices *politically*, but his sons by Edith the Fair would be accomplished. Veterans. People you'd want to lead your country.

And remember that the Godwins were more Anglo-Norse than Anglo-Saxon. This paints a perfect storm. You have the former Danelaw who would want the Anglo-Norse sons who have a couple of notches in their belt, who represent a new face of England, as King. Then you have the sons of Morcar and the southern Anglo-Saxons who are losing ground but fast. Harold Haroldson is the Anglo-Saxon candidate who represents the whims of older Anglo-Saxon sensibilities. There is something called *frith* which means "peace" that forms the backbone of English law at the time. You want the option that causes the least amount of fighting.

Lots of problems with that though. First, æthelings (princes) expect to be landed. That's a trio of people who are probably earls who want one king versus an important family who want another king. Second, these two are wildcards. Would you rather have a wildcard on the throne who keeps Mercia (effectively null as a political entity at this point) happy, or an experienced king who keeps other landed earls happy?

And we can only hypothesize what Harold Godwinson wanted, naturally he has to choose *someone*, and whoever he chooses is honestly probably going to win... unless he dies before doing so.

You see the problem here, as would any witan. So the odd nature of Harold's marriages causes basically the same sort of problem with succession as Edward the Confessor's habit of naming every Tom, Dick, and Harold his successor. The problem isn't Anglo-Saxon England, it's the kings doing some screwball things regarding succession.

That means not even the above decades are really safe for Harold. Though, he might be able to put down Edgar's revolt relatively easily.

I am going to note that if his happens during Harold's reign, whoever supports Edgar is definitely not going to be involved in what succession crisis happens after and I'm not sure which major vassals would since Mercia would want Harold Haroldson.

Now, as for Normans being more active elsewhere... it is, of course, a plausible path, but, just to be on the safe side, I'll hint at there being other possibilities:
a) they could indeed do what you proposed or
b) they could engage more in the general crusades (aside from Tunisia), probably making up for English participation, which would minimise butterflies in the Med, or
c) they could do nothing of the above.

This is kind of funny because my intro to Anglo-Saxon England comes from a map game where the Normans basically spearheaded the Crusades. Yes, absolutely scenario b could happen. More Normans not being landed in England means more Normans to throw at the First Crusade. Maybe that means more people to defend Jerusalem later? Who knows?

 

[Salvador79]

No, I foresee trouble simply because Harold had many children with two sets of mothers. Edith the Fair was a woman he'd married under Danish tradition and the sons he had with her were adults by 1066. He had Godwin, Edmund, and Magnus (yes, Harold Godwinson named his son Godwin Haroldson LIKE AN ABSOLUTE UNIT) by Edith, each of whom fought in the Battle of Hastings or were otherwise active in English politics by this point. He also had Harold and Ulf by Edith of Mercia, who were infants in 1066. So theoretically these two would be better choices *politically*, but his sons by Edith the Fair would be accomplished. Veterans. People you'd want to lead your country.

And remember that the Godwins were more Anglo-Norse than Anglo-Saxon. This paints a perfect storm. You have the former Danelaw who would want the Anglo-Norse sons who have a couple of notches in their belt, who represent a new face of England, as King. Then you have the sons of Morcar and the southern Anglo-Saxons who are losing ground but fast. Harold Haroldson is the Anglo-Saxon candidate who represents the whims of older Anglo-Saxon sensibilities. There is something called *frith* which means "peace" that forms the backbone of English law at the time. You want the option that causes the least amount of fighting.

Lots of problems with that though. First, æthelings (princes) expect to be landed. That's a trio of people who are probably earls who want one king versus an important family who want another king. Second, these two are wildcards. Would you rather have a wildcard on the throne who keeps Mercia (effectively null as a political entity at this point) happy, or an experienced king who keeps other landed earls happy?

And we can only hypothesize what Harold Godwinson wanted, naturally he has to choose *someone*, and whoever he chooses is honestly probably going to win... unless he dies before doing so.

You see the problem here, as would any witan. So the odd nature of Harold's marriages causes basically the same sort of problem with succession as Edward the Confessor's habit of naming every Tom, Dick, and Harold his successor. The problem isn't Anglo-Saxon England, it's the kings doing some screwball things regarding succession.

I am going to note that if his happens during Harold's reign, whoever supports Edgar is definitely not going to be involved in what succession crisis happens after and I'm not sure which major vassals would since Mercia would want Harold Haroldson.

This is a vivid and very enlightening description of the scenario. I think I am seeing clearer now. How would these sides most probably align during what you aptly labelled the "English Investiture Crisis"?

 

[Brita]

I think the Albigensian Crusade would still happen, as the Church will definitely not allow the Cathar heresy to take root in a region that's getting very powerful - and Aquitaine will certainly make the most of non-unified Northern France. So even if the Kingdom of France doesn't expand, I think there'll be a crusade. Maybe Navarre and Castile would called to join the Crusade?

Re languages, I think the langues d'oc may unify more quickly than the langues d'oil - though I think langues d'oil will still be spoken in the Northern regions. With a POD in 1066 Breton is likely to be still spoken by the court (OTL the last Breton-speaking Duke was Alan IV Fergant, r. 1084-1115). If there's no Norman conquest and no French unification, it's unlikely the Breton dukes will choose French as their official language.
Also, with William killed in 1066, Conan II's muder is unlikely to happen and he may succeed in expanding Breton borders into Mayenne again as he was preparing to do OTL.

 

[perdu42]

Hello @Crim . You have made some very astute observations. However – there is always an however - some errors of fact have crept into your exposition.

Harold Godwinson was half-Swedish

Harold was half-Danish.

His runner-up was Morcar, whose daughter Harold had married so they had an alliance.

Harold’s second wife was Edith, daughter of Earl Ælfgar – Edith was the sister of the earls Edwin and Morcar. (And yes she was also the widow of King Gruffyd of Wales.) Definitely a political marriage but to describe it as an alliance is being generous… would it develop as such in an ATL where Harold survives?

Morcar & sons supporting the sons of Edith of Mercia

Is this a mistake for Ælfgar, who died c.1062? If not, there is no evidence that Earl Morcar (and it is questionable if he retained the earldom of Northumbria following Stamford Bridge) or Earl Edwin had children. Although in this ATL they may get the opportunity and they (or their sons) would, in all probability, support the claims of their nephews (or cousins) over Harold’s sons by his first wife.

Godwin, Edmund, and Magnus <SNIP> each of whom fought in the Battle of Hastings or were otherwise active in English politics by this point.

No evidence of the Haroldson’s being at Hastings. Is it possible that the eldest Godwin was there? I don’t know – he was the only one named in Domesday as having an estate…

æthelings (princes) expect to be landed. That's a trio of people who are probably earls

Yes in the sense that the King grants estates from royal demesne for their use. No in the sense that they are not titled – they do not become earls. This also raises an interesting question: would these three elder Haroldson’s be regarded as athelings?

Yes, Anglo-Saxon foreign policy was to enforce borders, not expand them. That said, Scotland had made overtures into English Cumbria, so we could expect a war to retake that perhaps. Likewise, as long as the Welsh don't look like they're about to start pouring into England under one king, the English are happy just maintaining a border.

I would like to propose an alternative view:
A close reading of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles for the period of the Confessor’s reign (1042-66) shows that there were enough interventions against the Welsh and the Scots to form an argument that the Old English state was pursuing a much more aggressive foreign policy – political murder, regime change – than previously. Was this 23-year period an aberration in terms of Old English relations with its neighbours? Maybe, maybe not.

I think the Welsh conquest just is not going to start with Harold.

Following the murder of King Gruffyd, a peace was brokered with his successors, Prince Bleddyn of Gwynedd and Prince Rhiwallon of Powys. But these are princes of north Wales. Nothing is said of the princes of south Wales. And it is in south Wales – the area that borders Harold’s earldom – that English expansion takes place. Harold’s new hunting lodge at Portskewett is destroyed by Caradog ap Gruffydd in August 1065. Before Harold can retaliate he is overtaken by events ie the Northumbrian revolt, the Confessor’s death, becoming king etc. One imagines in a TL where Harold survives Hastings his attention will return to south Wales.

Apologies @Salvador79 for the lack of creative feedback on your OP but there are reasons...
Best Wishes if you do decide to turn your WI into something more.

 

[Xenophonte]

I think the Albigensian Crusade would still happen, as the Church will definitely not allow the Cathar heresy take root in a region that's getting very powerful - and Aquitaine will certainly make the most of non-unified Northern France. So even if the Kingdom of France doesn't expand, I there'll be a crusade.

The thing it's that,aside of the Curch Papacy wishes and opinions on the matter, at last, it would depend on the bigger French Fiefdoms holders and their political will and military might for first defeat to the Aragonese and later to crush, as IOTL to the Albigenses and their defenders.

Maybe Navarre and Castile would called to join the Crusade?

Unlikely due that, at this time, Castile was very far from there and busied with her own crusade in her backdoor, and while Navarre no so, but barring any major change, to IOTL, the Navarrese would be very weakened as for to face a war against Aragon...
But, I think, worthy to mention that the POD on discussion and the Normand English dynasty 'd affect and alter too the IOTL Iberian dynastic marriages politics. Consequently, it probably would alter at least some of the IOTL heirs and royal inheritance/succession conflicts whom at two hundred years, after the pod, surely many if not all of them would be butterflied.

 

[Quinkana]

I personally think France is probably going to end up like the HRE, which means it will effectively be not a state by the end of the Medieval era. That should favor the Netherlands as I think they would be able to be the only state that is centralised within Western Europe, which means they should be able to expand in the expense of the other duchies.

The question I want to ask is do you guys think a likely possibility that the decentralisation of France ends with a European power that stretches from Northern France to Pomerania in ittl's 20th century?

 

[kasumigenx]

Another possibility is that the HRE dissolves West Francia.

 

[AsukaEMP]

I personally think France is probably going to end up like the HRE, which means it will effectively be not a state by the end of the Medieval era.

This is nearly impossible. Inheritance laws in France meant that (after they had divided the entire kingdom up amongst vassal) France spent centuries slowly (or rapidly) agglomerating into a handful of large domains, not falling further apart into hundreds of tiny states. Secondly, the French kings initially weren't strong enough to control their entire kingdom, but that didn't mean they were too weak to do anything or had no influence whatsoever. For example by 1066 the Capetians had already consolidated their patchwork of lands into a continuous domain, and every single monarch after that kept further expanding it. Later Philip II Augustus used his royal right to interfere in vassal disputes to kick the Angevins out of France after John Lackland got in a dispute with Hugh IX de Lustignan over his marriage.

No centralization doesn't mean no unification. Worst case scenario I see 1 or 2 breakaway states ruled by counts/dukes that are too strong for the king to control (like the Burgundians iotl), not the complete dissolution of France.​

 

[Elfwine]

I personally think France is probably going to end up like the HRE, which means it will effectively be not a state by the end of the Medieval era. That should favor the Netherlands as I think they would be able to be the only state that is centralised within Western Europe, which means they should be able to expand in the expense of the other duchies.

I can see a weak monarchy in France as possible, but not the HRE's developments.

But why would this favor the Netherlands? "The Netherlands" as a single thing isn't really a thing in the first place necessarily - for example, the counties of Flanders and counties of Holland may never fall to the same person TTL (It's possible, just hardly guaranteed).

 

[Xenophonte]

Inheritance laws in France meant that (after they had divided the entire kingdom up amongst vassal) France spent centuries slowly (or rapidly) agglomerating into a handful of large domains, not falling further apart into hundreds of tiny states. Secondly, the French kings initially weren't strong enough to control their entire kingdom, but that didn't mean they were too weak to do anything or had no influence whatsoever.

Would be possible that without an English kingdom, backing them, that Normandy would either pass to be inherited by some other French Aristocratic family or even that it might end owned by the French Crown?

 

[AsukaEMP]

Would be possible that without an English kingdom, backing them, that Normandy would either pass to be inherited by some other French Aristocratic family or even that it might end owned by the French Crown?

Well, I mean, that actually happened iotl lol. The Plantagenets were from Anjou and they inherited Normandy (and England) because Henry II's mother was a Norman (that's the very tl;dr version of it). We just know them more as "Kings of England" rather than for their more numerous and more import French titles.

Likewise it's perfectly possible for the king to inherit Normandy (or any other lands for that matter) through a marriage.​

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

I can see a weak monarchy in France as possible, but not the HRE's developments.

But why would this favor the Netherlands? "The Netherlands" as a single thing isn't really a thing in the first place necessarily - for example, the counties of Flanders and counties of Holland may never fall to the same person TTL (It's possible, just hardly guaranteed).

I'm reading up on early capetian France at the moment, and the impression I'm getting is that while large areas were developing in similar ways to the east Frankish kingdom- such as the relative lack of bureaucratic administration and the dependence on a more personal style of government, backed up by ecclesiastical advocacy.

One of the largest areas that ran counter to this trend was the duchy of Normandy, and Flanders was the other, which leads me to think the Norman dukes have a good shot at dominating and perhaps at some point replacing the capetian monarchy especially if they can figure out an inheritance of Flanders as well. Alternatively, considering attempts OTL to elevate Normandy itself to a kingdom, I could see a greater Normandy seceding from France altogether.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

which leads me to think the Norman dukes have a good shot at dominating and perhaps at some point replacing the capetian monarchy especially if they can figure out an inheritance of Flanders as well.

Well, William's heir would be Robert Curthose - not exactly an capable person, considered weak puppet, easily manipulated by barons. However, his son - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Clito was claimant to Flanders and was about to marry Angevin countess - if Geoffrey of Anjou died without male issue (which is possible ITTL) and there was no Henry I - and that's by a default, than we could have united Flanders-Anjou-Normandy block on the north.
Capetian monarchs were quite capable persons, but we can easily see Eleanor of Aquitaine's marriage to Louis lasting - with unknown outcome. It's possible that she and Louis would still have a son - after all, she birthed five of them to Henry II.
So we might see Capetian powerbase shifting entirely to the south - with Aquitaine in their hands, they'd be in prime position to take Toulouse as well and North under the ATL house of Normandy.

 

[funnyhat]

So, recurring destabilisations / civil strife yes, but full-scale conquest no. I think we're on the same page.

Coming back to France:
Central power is said to have disintegrated to a breathtaking degree in the 11th and 12th centuries in what some call the "feudal revolution". At the same time, communalism grew and free cities (villefranche) were established. All of this sounds a lot like what happened in the HRE slightly later. Now, what didn't happen in the HRE, although various emperors attempted it, was the counter-movement, from Philip Augustus over St Louis to the finishing decades of the 100YW, i.e. the formation of an intellectual and political capital like Paris, a more direct royal involvement in jurisdiction, the breaking-up of nuclei of rebellious aristocratic resistance. Now, one can cite the fact that the HRE was an elective monarchy while the Capetians (and later the Angevin) ruled France as a hereditary monarchy, as a reason for why one (France) centralised while the other (HRE) didn't. It might be a factor, and this factor would continue to exist. I've already said that I believe the other factor - the bloodletting of the French aristocracy in the protracted wars with the English, the need to levy taxes for the costly warfare etc. - is at least as important.

So let's look at TTL's France. It is still a hereditary monarchy ruled by Capetian kings who have their royal demesne in the Ile-de-France. Would the foundation of such an important university in Paris still happen? Would Paris grow at the same speed as IOTL?
How else can we envision this alternative medieval France? We've already heard good arguments for why the nucleus of linguistic standardisation might lie in the South with the langues d'oc ITTL. What else? Aquitaine, Normandy, Toulouse and Burgundy being the main peripheral powerbases of potential rivals and enemies of a centralisation of the kingdom? How would developing crafters', merchants' and intellectual elites position themselves and what might be the dominant controversies and conflicts in such a France? It would probably not interfere by far as much with the papacy as IOTL and thus all the papal schisms might be avoided - with massive religious implications down the line. What about HRE meddlings in France? I don't think there is much of a strengthening factor for the HRE here, or am I wrong?

France was technically still an elective monarchy at this time. The practice of elections ended with Philippe II Augustus. I’m not sure if this could have changed into a genuine elective monarchy or not.