What if the Angevin Empire hadn't collapsed?

[Rogal Dorn 229]

Title says it all. If, for whatever reason, the Angevin empire didn't collapse. How would the next 800 years of European history be effected?

[+Marius+]

It probably would not last though.
If the Frankish Empire was divided in such haste, imagine how much the Channel would speed up the process.

[Rogal Dorn 229]

I realise that there was next to no chance of the Angevin Empire lasting, however I find the possibility of it shppening interesting and wnder what other people think would happen and what would change.

[+Marius+]

Well, for one thing, England would probably become to France what Scotland is to England

[Condottiere 40K]

Depends.

Assuming Richard survives long enough to start a dynasty and secure France, he'd have enormous prestige to an almost legendary degree, but the political centre will be on the continent; he might decide he wants to Crusade nearer to home and move into Spain.

After that, it would depend on the competence of his successors to hold together both a Mediterranean and Atlantic empire; possibly more local autonomy, and without French support, the absorption of Scotland. The major players would the Angevins and the Holy Roman Empire, but the chances are that the Angevins would be more cohesive.

The Italian city states and the Pope might try playing off those two against each other.

The Angevins might be more inclined and in a position to aid the Byzantines, both to pressure the HRE and contain Islam, probably secure the prestigious prize of Jerusalem, which could give them a legitimacy that would be hard to dispute.

All empires eventually disintegrate, but that could depend o the rather (un)willingness for the Plantagenets to surrender political power, but it's possible if they have the equivalents of Edward I, Edward III and Henry V, they might well secure for quite a while, since they would have eliminated their major competitor, France, and possibly Spain, and can expand a colonial empire with only the natives as opposition.

That could well mean that the gold of the Americas flow into their coffers, as well as the spices of Asia.

[+Marius+]

Assuming Richard survives long enough to start a dynasty and secure France, he'd have enormous prestige to an almost legendary degree, but the political centre will be on the continent; he might decide he wants to Crusade nearer to home and move into Spain.

Actually, the plan was for him to invade Egypt once he deals with the troubles at home.
This was the plan even before he left the Holy Lands and was especially probable once Saladin died.

[isa0005]

First of all as a Plantagenet enthusiast I just want to note that the notion of an "Angevin Empire" is a modern concept, there was no such thing. The only nations in Europe that held such titles were the HRE, the Romans (Byzantines and their ancient counterparts) but again the title would only be ascribed to these nations much later on in history. Second the "Angevin Empire" or the Kingdom of England wasn't an Empire in the typical sense of the word, it was more a blood union set up by Henry II whose aim was to essentially secure his legacy and a future for his sons, in this regard he failed, despite his various successes. Thirdly in answer to your question, if England had maintained the control it had over France and expanded upon it, I imagine that England would have been far less interested in establishing its colonial holdings in the Americas, Africa and India as the wealth and riches of a combined England and France, what with the latter being the proverbial food basket of Europe, could have supported such a kingdom both in regard to necessary resources such as food as well as wealth and riches. This would also pretty well butterfly any chance of what would become modern European/Western democracy as the Baron's Revolt against John would never happen and thus the Magna Carta would never have been created...

What I find interesting is more how this could have been achieved and from what I can tell there is really only one way that Angevin dominance could have happened. First of all, I think, despite his success Richard the Lionheart, while he was a brilliant general, his administrative skill is less then desirable and his severe dislike of England itself makes him a poor candidate for Angevin ascendance, his father on the other hand I feel is far more reliable.

If Henry II maintains control of his Kingdom and ensures that his sons are sufficiently provided for so that they do not feel the need to rise up and oust him and his successor from their throne then I think it would be pretty smooth sailing. As we all know, all of Henry II sons all tried to remove him from power and eventually they were successful in doing so, furthermore his wife Elanor of Aquitaine was also quite the rambunctious individual, so she'll need to properly dealt with in an effort to ensure that her sons remain loyal to their father... so basically Henry II needs to play house. He also seriously needs to overhaul the succession laws so that he either centralizes his control over the kingdom, or ensures that somehow the union he created doesn't loose its cohesiveness after his death... the only way I can see this happening is if he kills off all his sons bar one, thus ensuring that there is only one person to ascend to the throne.

If he can do this whilst also securing and alliance with France by ensuring that Henry the Young King marries Princess Margaret of France and thus nailing the final nail in the French coffin then the Angevins are in for the win. We mustn't however diminish the significance of Philipe Augustus, the man who was solely responsible for the end of English dominance of French lands, it would be very useful if he was either assassinated or butterflied from the picture, along with any other male heirs to the throne... What Henry II heirs will then have to watch out for is the disgruntled French nobility and the English barons, who proved to be quite the thorn in Richard I and John's reign... how that happens I have no idea... Also as mentioned above, the behemoth that was the HRE would have most likely proved quite the enemy so some form of alliance would have to be constructed either through marriage or some other means, furthermore the Italian states would have to be dealt with as would Spain, but I doubt they would be much of a problem, especially if Henry can marry of his daughters and granddaughters (which he did so successfully in the original timeline) With regard to the Holy Lands and the Byzantines... again I can't really see that far tbh haha, though I'm sure all sorts of this would go down

Check this little forum out if you want to read something along the lines with which I have suggested
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=136672

[Condottiere 40K]

Give Philippe Palestine, after you kick his ass.

[Boogie Knight]

Personally I just can't see the sons of Henry II NOT screwing up spectacularly. Simplifying horribly, Henry the Young was too impressionable (look at how Louis led him astray) and died early anyway, Richard was a terrific commander but a diplomatic troglodyte (look at Wales - his father made similar mistakes there but was able to make good on them), John's only success in Ireland was to upset EVERYONE and Geoffrey was seemingly the most rebellious of the lot. I don't know much about his other kids but I can't see the four most famous ones succeeding in anything but losing the "empire" completely. Maybe one of his illegitimate sons would've done better? Or a daughter?

The only way I can see it working is if Henry's children perhaps died in a different order or at different times, allowing each one's strengths to advance the Angevin interest before their flaws could damage it irreparably, which is exactly what happened.

Well, for one thing, England would probably become to France what Scotland is to England

It basically already was, I thought - at least as regards the individuals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the relationships between the kings of Scotland and of England resemble very closely the relationships between the kings of England and of France? I'm still not sure how exactly Cumbria was held, but the Earldom of Huntingdon was held from the kings of England in much the same way Normandy, Maine, Anjou etc. were held from the kings of France. I'm in the middle of a biography (by WL Warren) of Henry II and he makes this exact point that the relationships were very similar.

[Rogal Dorn 229]

The relationship between the King's of England and France was more complex than that between the Kings of the Scots and the English(at this stage). During this time period, up until Edward I tried to conquer the Scots, the Scots had never questioned the fact that England was the stronger Kingdom by quite a long way but they had never sworn fealty to the Kings of England whereas the Kings of England did swear fealty to the King of France due to their enormous continental lands(although quite what that fealty entailed was often hazy). A more accurate analogy for this period would be England and Wales