|
Updated Sunday 15 May, 2011 12:18 PM |
|
|
Join Writer Development Section Writer Development Member Section
This Day in Alternate History Blog
|
Henry of Monmouth, King
of Nations The man who would become Henry V of England (1387?-1422; r. 1413-1422) is one of the more enigmatic figures of English history, in his case because reality is obscured by the legends owing their origins to his own self-publicity, and by their elaboration by future generations. The eldest son of Henry Duke of Hereford (1366-1413; reigned as Henry IV 1413-1422), he was brought to the royal court – the word “hostage” was never used – after his father was exiled in the fiasco over the alleged treason by the Duke of Norfolk in 1398. Although Richard II (1366-1400; r. 1376-1399), his father’s first cousin, undoubtedly looked upon him as a guarantee of his father’s good behavior, he seems that he also had a genuine affection for the young Henry. Hereford’s usurpation of the throne made Henry heir to the kingdom, with the usual title of “Prince of Wales”. As such, he was the nominal leader of the effort to put down the Welsh rebel Owain Glyn Dwr (Anglicized by Shakespeare in Henry IV, Part I to “Owen Glendower”, and there given a character that owes as much to English prejudice as to any reality). His mentor – and later enemy – was Henry “Hotspur” Percy (1366-1403), the seasoned warrior and scion of the Percies of Northumbria who rebelled against Henry IV. Young Henry of (<em>i.e.</em> born at) Monmouth, after the distraction (albeit an important one) of the Percy rebellion, returned to Wales and continued his suppression of the Glyn Dwr rebellion. In this period, he learned that impressive victories in the field might be glorious, but holding and taking castles, walled towns, and other strong-points (and the financing to do so – at one point he was paying for the entire campaign out of his own, admittedly deep, pocket) was the real determinant of victory. His French campaigns show that this lesson remained with him. Even before the final reduction of the Glyn Dwr rebels, Henry had been appointed to the small council (the body of immediate royal advisors and ministers; as opposed to the great council, <em>i.e.</em>, the House of Lords). Here, Prince Henry led a faction far more militant, especially with regard to the dormant but not forgotten or formally terminated French war, than his aging and insecure father liked. Here, Henry was undoubtedly motivated not only by the confidence – or arrogance – of youth and military success, but that he had enjoyed genuinely good relations with the man that his father usurped. In 1411, Henry was dismissed from the council; the final two years of his father’s reign saw a series of accusations, counter-accusations, and armed demonstrations that differed from open rebellion only in that actual warfare was avoided. A sort of reconciliation was patched together only when it was clear that Henry IV was dying and, like it or otherwise, Henry V would shortly be king. Henry V demanded absolute loyalty from his lords. In return, however, he was willing to forgive past opposition to his father (the more so as many of those who had opposed him had done so out of affection or partisanship for Richard II). The fruits of this policy were demonstrated in 1415, when Edmund Mortimer 5th Earl of March (1391-1425) revealed a plot to depose Henry…and enthrone him! (March was the designated heir of Richard II and genealogically senior to Henry; Henry had nonetheless freed him from captivity and restored his estates when he became king). In 1415 Henry led his first campaign into France, reviving what we call the “Hundred Years’ War”. His target was apparently Normandy; he took the port of Harfleur, although only after a siege that was costly in terms of both money and lives (Henry may have lost two-thirds of his army here, mostly to disease). His decision to march overland to Calais was deeply criticized by his surviving commanders, although Henry was seemingly anxious to rest and refit his surviving soldiers out of sight (and thus, hopefully, out of mind) of England. At Agincourt, the dubious strategic decision of Henry was far more than counter-balanced by the much worse tactical decisions of the French. The victory was a spectacular one, but had little immediate military effect. However, it <em>did</em> have a considerable political and psychological one; Henry became the invincible, conquering hero, the new Alexander the Great, whose alliance the emperor Sigismund sought and who the French lords were afraid to face in open battle. In 1417, having come to an understanding with John “the Fearless” Duke of Burgundy (and first cousin of the intermittently mad French king Charles VI; 1371-1419), Henry re-invaded Normandy. Having won a splashy (if largely accidental) victory at Agincourt, Henry was not tempted to overreach himself by trying to repeat it, but settled down to the serious work of conquering and occupying Normandy strong-point by strong-point. He was – at least initially openly and initially – serious about representing himself as rightful king of France; opponents to his cause must be punished as rebels, but those who submitted to him could be forgiven as misguided but not evil. In this, he was acting contrary to the traditional English tactic in France of the <em>chevauchée</em> -- a plundering expedition designed to combine the maximum of loot gathered with the maximum harm to the region. As it became more apparent that many French commanders and lords were loyal to France, however, whatever the failings of Charles VI, Henry became more brutal and violent. He was <em>sufficiently</em> brutal and violent, in fact, for John the Fearless to open negotiations with his bitter opponents, variously called Orleanists (after Charles VI’s late brother, Louis Duke of Orleans) or Armagnacs (after Louis’ son Charles’ father-in-law, Bernard Count of Armagnac). In a piece of colossal stupidity, however, the Armagnacs openly murdered John at Montereau (and, allegedly, cut off his right hand to prevent him from raising Satan; to be fair, John <em>had</em> had Louis murdered in 1407). John’s son and heir, Philip “the Good” (1396-1467) naturally preferred even the arrogant English over his father’s murderers, and struck the Treaty of Troyes with Henry in 1420; the dauphin was formally declared a bastard (Queen Isabeau was made to confess, probably wrongly, that she was an adulteress) and thereby ineligible to succeed, Henry would (and did) marry Katherine, youngest daughter of Charles VI, and was declared heir-matrimonial of France. (It should be noted that Henry <em>still</em> had no genealogical claim to <em>any</em> throne. The “rightful” king of England was the Earl of March; leaving the dauphin aside, the heir to France, depending on whether you accepted “Salic law” or not, was either Charles de Orleans or François of Brittany, Charles’ grandson through Jeanne, Catherine’s elder sister. OTOH, Henry <em>did</em> have a victorious army, which often counts for more in such matters.) Needless to say, the Armagnacs rejected Troyes, and continued the war. Moreover, Henry’s support in England was drying up, due to the heavy cost of the French war and Henry’s increasingly domineering ways. In 1421, Henry had to return to England to pressure Parliament into granting him new subsidies. Returning to France a few months later, he continued the campaign against the Armagnacs, but fell ill at the siege of Meaux, dying at Bois de Vincennes on 31 August 1422. He missed becoming King of France by about two months (Charles VI died on 21 October); he was succeeded by his only son, Henry VI, an infant of nine months and arguably the worst king that England has ever had. So much for OTL. Now, what of the ATL? The obvious PoD is Henry’s early death of dysentery (although a variety of others are certainly plausible). Butterfly this out, and Henry could easily have lived another quarter-century (although nothing is certain; his brother Thomas Duke of Clarence was killed in a battle in 1421, and another brother, John Duke of Bedford died, probably of the combined stresses of battle and trying to uphold the deteriorating English position in France, in 1435). He undoubtedly would have had more children by Catherine; indeed, after Henry V’s death, she secretly married her bodyguard, a Welsh squire named Owain Tudor (who was the grandfather of Henry VII). The ATL family of Henry V (1387-1444): 1.
Henry (1421-1479), later Henry VI So much for Henry’s pleasures (and siring eight children implies a certain amount of pleasure, for Henry at least). What of his other activities? As noted above, Charles VI would shortly die, making Henry titularly Henry II of France. A shrewd politician, Henry would certainly have undergone formal coronation at Reims, the site of the consecration of the French kings (the OTL Henry VI was never crowned at Reims; the OTL Charles VII was not until 1429, at the insistence of Joan “of Arc”). This would have given him a considerable propaganda advantage over the “king of Bourges” (the dauphin); many would have argued (and some might have even believed) that Henry’s claim to the French crown (backed by his troops) combined with his consecration, made him the true and rightful king of France. Of course, an equal if not greater number would have rejected that argument. Could Henry, even if he had lived, had conquered France? I would argue that we are misled by recent history, with its nationalistic and ideological empires, into thinking that something like the current notion of “conquest”, with its bureaucratic nature tending towards totalitarianism, would have been necessary, desirable, or even imaginable. England at the time was not so much governed as managed; a small, albeit already quite bureaucratic, royal establishment carried out a few indispensable functions (most importantly, from its own point of view at least, the collection of taxes), but local authority was almost entirely in the hands of the nobility and gentry, using the devices of “bastard feudalism” or “livery and maintenance” to maintain and increase their influence. “Bastard feudalism” – so slightingly termed by 17th century writers – was an inevitable consequence of the growth of the money economy; the lord granted his vassal not lands, with their in-kind revenues, but direct grants of money and other personal property. Although the economy of France – particularly of those areas in the north devastated by the Hundred Years’ War – had been greatly diminished, there can be little doubt that it would have revived with peace (as it in fact did), and something like livery and maintenance would have appeared there, too. Indeed, Henry was fairly free in giving out French titles to his associates and soldiers, which often involved a step or two up the social ladder for them. Henry made clear, however, that these titles were not to be seen as mere sinecures or marks of honor, but carried actual administrative and territorial responsibilities. We can imagine Henry and Bedford carrying out, over the next decade or so, a slow, bloody, but successful conquest of much of France, as supporters of the dauphin are “turned” or overcome. At the same time, and as part of this process, a sort of reverse “Norman Conquest” occurs in the north, principally in Normandy and the Île de France, where English soldiers and nobles are given (or seize) control of conquered lands and provide a new French nobility. The Duchy of Guyenne (remnant of the medieval Duchy of Aquitaine, and under the suzerainty of the Plantagenets since 1154) remains under the control of its traditional nobility and estates; southern France (the border has moved considerably eastward since then) would have formally submitted, but its lords would not (and could not – England simply did not have the manpower to successfully colonized France) have been replaced. A considerable suspicion towards the restive southern nobility would have remained on Henry’s part; his perceptions of the political realities would have contended with his demands for expressions of loyalty from his lords. A major role in which way this turns out will be the role played by Bedford. With his elder brother seated firmly on the throne, he will not of course be the effective ruler of France for an infant king, but his undoubted abilities will likely mean that he will still be a major influence in Henry’s French establishment. Bedford was not only able and conscientious; he appears to have genuinely liked the French (when they weren’t in arms against him). Bedford’s influence on Henry may restrain him somewhat from acts of savagery against imperfectly pacified regions. Equally, the strain of having to uphold the English position in France no longer falls solely on Bedford, and is not as great without the dark days after Orleans; Bedford also lives longer in this TL (until 1446), and also sires a son, Henry (1424-1498). The matter of Burgundy and Brittany remains to be considered. There can be no doubt that the English position in France was gained and maintained through the estrangement of Duke Philip “the Good” from the Armagnacs, particularly after the murder of his father (although John “the Fearless” and his father, Philip “the Bold”, brother of Charles V of France and first Valois duke of Burgundy, had always striven to exercise more than their share of influence at court). Philip, however, was never a whole-hearted friend or partisan of the English, and was irritated by the tactless remark of his brother-in-law, Bedford, at Orleans (when the citizens offered to surrender to Burgundian troops rather English ones, Bedford retorted that he didn’t beat the bushes so that others could take the birds) and by the conduct of Henry’s youngest brother, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had married Philip’s cousin Jacqueline, Countess of Hainaut and Holland, and attempted to oppose Philip’s claims by military force. Philip eventually broke with the English and recognized Charles VII as king after the death of Bedford in 1435…although in the same year he also began to style himself “Grand Duke of the West”. Henry will sit on both Philip and Humphrey; he will require homage of Philip (thus not only marking Philip’s formal acknowledgement of him as king, but extinguishing any claim that he might have on the throne) and certainly not allow him to style himself “Grand Duke of the West”. OTOH, he’s definitely not going to allow Humphrey to hare off to the Low Countries with an army. Factor in that Bedford may or may not have occasion to make his cutting remark, and Philip will, I think, be about as disgruntled as in OTL (albeit over different things), no more and no less. Perforce, however, he will maintain his allegiance to Henry, as there will be no Charles to give it to. The timeline for this ATL: 1421 Birth of Henry “of Windsor” (later Henry VI). 1423 Siege of Orléans by Henry and Bedford. After seven weeks, the city is taken by storm. Horrible atrocities committed in the sack, blamed by later historians on Burgundian troops (although contemporary chroniclers agree that English troops took full part in them). 1429 English armies from the north, commanded by Salisbury, link up with Anglo-Gascon forces from Guyenne, commanded by Armand Captal de Buch. Henry formally crowned at Reims. 1430 Normandy legally separated from France and erected into a separate duchy. 1432 Charles flees to Basel. 1434 Henry grants Philip the Good Champagne and Artois; Philip renews his homage and promises Henry a ninth of all Burgundian revenues (a promise that he does his best to avoid fulfilling). 1435 The “Great Idea”: Henry calls upon the English Parliament and the various French estates to send delegations of nobles and commons to Rouen (“Convention”, the “Coming Together”). The Norman and French delegations are mostly (but not entirely) composed of English colonists (“France” is held to exclude Normandy, Brittany, Guyenne, and the Burgundian lands). The Convention is by no means an imperial or supra-national parliament; in particular, it is not seen as having independent powers of taxation. 1436-1438 Henry’s dissatisfaction with the English domination of the Convention (with its reliance on Magna Carta) leads to some reaction in favor of the more docile (or cowed) French. 1437 Henry names his uncle Henry Beaufort Patriarch of the West; diversion of annates to the Western church (and the Anglo-French government). No break with Catholic doctrine, but an assertion that the Pope is primus inter pares, not autocratic head of the Church. 1438 The Louisiere. Uprising of the French nobility against Henry, led by Louis de Valois, son of Charles. The rebels defeated; Louis escapes to Savoy, where he continues his intrigues. 1444 Death of Henry; accession of his son Henry “of Windsor”, King of England and France, Duke of Normandy, etc. Henry the Younger (so-called to avoid the various numbering schemes in his realms) was physically feeble and mentally lethargic; the first decade of his reign saw his domination by unscrupulous though able advisers. 1444 Anglo-French alliance with the Swiss cantons. Many thousands of Swiss in English service; Swiss mercenaries replace the (much-depleted) national English army. 1445 Second Convention (including delegates from Ireland). The Convention agrees to apportion regional shares of the Henrician expenditures; Henry names a Collector and a Chef du Guerre to administer affairs. 1446 James Hart (an English merchant; later Baron Montpensier of the French crown) begins Anglo-French commercial penetration of the Mediterranean and the Levant. Death of the Patriarch Henry; Henry names Pope Hieronymus I (1431-1449) as Patriarch of the West; nominal reunion of the Church. 1448-1460 Great rebellion in France against the English; gradual reduction by Anglo-Norman, Swiss, and Irish troops, who largely displace the French nobility. 1451 Alliance with the Alsatian towns and with Saxony. Feeble protests of Emperor Frederick III (r. 1440-1464). Formal alliance with Francesco Sforza of Milan and Alfonso I of Sicily; Venice and the Empire opposed; Florence holds the balance of power, switching from side to side as the threats of serious Anglo-French and Imperial influence wax and wane. 1455 Henry 2nd Duke of Bedford named Chef du Guerre and
Royal Secretary. 1466 Death of Prince Philip; accession of his son, Charles “the Brave”. John W. Braue, III <braue@ratsnest.win.net> "Be not as those who serve in hopes of a reward, but rather as those who serve whether or no there be a reward." - Antigonos of Sokho
|
