Instead of dying at the hands of the Dauphin's (future Charles VII) companions at a false diplomatic meeting, let's assume that John is rescued by his bodyguards and flees to Paris, which had been captured by his forces the previous year. My understanding is that John had great popularity with the commoners of France and Paris in particular. I would expect that John's standing would rise even higher in the aftermath of a dishonorable attempt on his life at a supposed peace conference. How can he use that in his ongoing conflict with the Dauphin? Would he likely ally with England to defeat his enemy even at the risk of his domestic popularity?
John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, escapes assassination, 1419
- Thread starter cincpac overboard
- Start date
OOOHHHH YES I LOVE MYSELF A GOOD JOHN THE FEARLESS POD. I would agree with all of the following but there is just one thing that I would disagree with is that the alliance with England. The death of John the Fearless basically shattered the entire pro-Burgundian faction although I definitely would argue that its faction was already in crumbles due to the loss of Normandy to the English. Henry V's strict and large negotiations was also quite maddening as he demanded basically all of the Angevin Empire back in full sovereignty which neither side would acquiesce. At this point the whole set up was to move France back into a union with Burgundy and quite possibly bring France whole. I would argue under the wording we assume the Dauphin's bodyguards are dead from the rescue of John the Fearless hence he capturing the Dauphin. (If he doesn't do that expect the same scenario but perhaps taking a bit longer) The Dauphin who is now secure would essentially be brainwashed by the royal council, John and his mother Isabeau of Bavaria who all agreed that the Armagnac faction could not be trusted. Assuming John the Fearless was confident in his control of Royal France expect that the hundred year's war ends far earlier in a French victory but Burgundy gains even further domains, perhaps Champagne, Picardy (Touraine could even be possible) Arguably you'll see this weird dynamic until Charles VIII's death in which he technically controls Burgundy but in reality the entire kingdom is dominated by Burgundian officers and Burgundian partisans. The reason why Philip the Good chose the English Alliance was the complete collapse of his own Burgundian faction (that was arguably winning at this point) due to his own negligence in French matters (possibly due to John's death) this wouldn't happen and you essentially see a Burgundian-controlled France. Hopefully this helps
@cincpac overboardWas John the Fearless the type to arrange for an 'unfortunate accident' to befall a captive Dauphin? If the Dauphin dies does that open the way for John to become king of France?
No absolutely not, the peace of Treaty of Pouilly-le-Fort which OTL was an agreement to reconcile the two parties into a royalist council would be definitely pursued by John the Fearless. The important thing here is that Charles VIII is 16 and still easily influenceable, John the Fearless has complete control of "Royal France" or the Ile de France. The only reason for the assassination of John by the Armagnacs was fear that this faction would be dissolved with the Dauphin abandoning them. Which was rightfully true as their faction/government's only legitimacy came from the dauphin. I will note while Charles VIII is more than likely complicit in the assassination he most likely did not order it himself.
Importantly by Salic Law, if Charles VIII died it would be passed to Charles of Orleans who was an armagnac partisan himself. John the Fearless would prefer Charles VIII over Charles de Orleans for a few key reasons but importantly it is because John had the support of Charles' mother Isabeau of Bavaria.
The thin line of relationship between the Dauphin and the Duke would once again be severed and the prospect of a reconciliation between the two parties would be shattered. After all, it all depends on how events unfold.
If John the Fearless gets away with it and the Dauphin flees in response then the Duke would be quite capable of dealing with Henry V of England - his son, Philip, is quite a moderate spirit and yet he has treaty with Lancaster by ratifying the "shameful Treaty of Troyes". But unlike the Good, the Fearless has significantly more ambition and pride and quickly the Anglo-Burgundian alliance will break up. For example John, if Henry V dies as OTL, will claim the regency or even the throne on the pretext of the double dynastic rupture and the escheat of the crown.
If John the Fearless gets out of this and he has the Dauphin under his control then the Duke would become the master of France but for what purpose? I imagined a scenario in which Charles de Ponthieu was captured by the Burgundians during the capture of Paris in 1419 and would end up dying (his weak constitution coupled with such an ordeal and perhaps the Burgundian black hand...) would cause a dynastic crisis - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/idea-for-a-french-war-of-the-roses.537077/. Out of the question for Charles of Orléans to be king, perhaps to make arrangements with the Anjou or to monopolize the throne since it will be de facto empty.
Perhaps to add more territories to the expanding 'Burgundian State' John the Fearless had created? I don't imaging he could simply seize territory from neighboring French nobles, but perhaps he could stuff the government offices of the kingdom with handpicked men to divert national revenue to his proto-state? With wealth to spare could he simply buy titles to baronies and larger entities? His grandson Charles was obsessed with adding more territories from the Low Countries and uniting his northern and southern fiefs by attempting to conquer the duchy of Lorraine. Would John be willing to go to war if it could unite his territories?
Last edited:
The difference between John and his descendants (Philippe like Charles) is that he remains a French prince and defines his policy under this prism - Philippe by opportunism extends his principate while maintaining his role as prince of blood while Charles rejects his Frenchness for the benefit of his future “kingdom”.
Yes. John the Fearless will infiltrate the royal state as he did in times of Burgundian domination during the civil war, and Philippe continues his father's work in this direction. But then ?
The eldest branch is totally discredited and the youngest is the mortal enemy of the duke but he still considers himself "From France", it would not occur to him to emancipate himself from the kingdom or to leave to the English (the treaties and agreements concluded in this sense only served to win the civil war against the Armagnacs). The figure of John the Fearless is similar to that of Richard the Third, certainly the context and their trajectories are different, but the metamorphosis of the aristocracy as well as the political and religious crisis pushes me to imagine him advancing towards a throne empty. But these are just my projections.
Here's just a summary of my thoughts regarding what if John survived if the Dauphin wasn't captured.
You can probably see an Anglo-Armagnac alliance because with this attempted murder the unpopularity would basically skyrocket and the faction would collapse due to lack of support. I can definitely see the armagnac's negotiate with the English in the attempts of saving their land due to the now great pressure of Burgundy and Paris against them. In this case I would also see the dauphin fleeing from the Armagnac camp back into Paris to reconcile and basically say "I was manipulated by the armagnacs." Whether or not Burgundy or Armagnac/Lancastrian France wins is debatable but considering the collapse of the faction in general and the amount of neutral parties in the war now deciding to ally Burgundy due to the attempted murder probably something along the lines of OTL with England losing and being driven out of France.
I already discussed the capture of the Dauphin at length but I can definitely see Michelle of Valois possibly given a larger dowry (such as Champagne) by either Charles VI or the Dauphin as a apology gift for the attempted assassination. I can also definitely see Michelle living longer due to her not suffering from depression after John's death and possibly Philip just not allowing her to be sick. In the future, I can definitely see John expanding eastward to gain further lands in the Low Countries perhaps with more success than Philip OTL, (the conquest of Ferrente, no Gloucester meddling in Hainaut, Holland and Zeeland, the conquest of Frisia etc.)
I would also point out the most powerful family in the armagnac faction after Bernard VII's death was the house of Valois-Anjou so we can see definitely John or Philip conquering Lorraine and Bar from the house. I do think that at some point either Burgundy inherits the French throne due to the eventual destruction of the house of Valois from inbreeding (at the time of Charles VII it was too far gone) or Burgundy would gain full independence from France due to an ambitious dauphin/king wishing to get rid of the Burgundian influence over them.
You can probably see an Anglo-Armagnac alliance because with this attempted murder the unpopularity would basically skyrocket and the faction would collapse due to lack of support. I can definitely see the armagnac's negotiate with the English in the attempts of saving their land due to the now great pressure of Burgundy and Paris against them. In this case I would also see the dauphin fleeing from the Armagnac camp back into Paris to reconcile and basically say "I was manipulated by the armagnacs." Whether or not Burgundy or Armagnac/Lancastrian France wins is debatable but considering the collapse of the faction in general and the amount of neutral parties in the war now deciding to ally Burgundy due to the attempted murder probably something along the lines of OTL with England losing and being driven out of France.
I already discussed the capture of the Dauphin at length but I can definitely see Michelle of Valois possibly given a larger dowry (such as Champagne) by either Charles VI or the Dauphin as a apology gift for the attempted assassination. I can also definitely see Michelle living longer due to her not suffering from depression after John's death and possibly Philip just not allowing her to be sick. In the future, I can definitely see John expanding eastward to gain further lands in the Low Countries perhaps with more success than Philip OTL, (the conquest of Ferrente, no Gloucester meddling in Hainaut, Holland and Zeeland, the conquest of Frisia etc.)
I would also point out the most powerful family in the armagnac faction after Bernard VII's death was the house of Valois-Anjou so we can see definitely John or Philip conquering Lorraine and Bar from the house. I do think that at some point either Burgundy inherits the French throne due to the eventual destruction of the house of Valois from inbreeding (at the time of Charles VII it was too far gone) or Burgundy would gain full independence from France due to an ambitious dauphin/king wishing to get rid of the Burgundian influence over them.
Philip the Good was the best to happen to the Low Countries, he basically is the Grandfather of the Netherlands and Belgium, the only true heirs of Burgundy still standing. No we revere Filips de Goede (Philippe le Bon) in the Low Countries, John (Jan, Jean), seems to be more like his grandson Charles (or Karel in Dutch)....
I can see the Burgundy faction in court achieving near absolute dominance for a generation, possibly more, but such dominance always provokes a reaction. I speculate that eventually an 'Alliance of the Public Weal' forms, composed of the major noble houses that have been shut out of the halls of power by Burgundian supremacy. Decrying the influence of 'wicked counselors' on a puppet king, they would rebel to restore the privileges of the nobility in the face of increasing absolutism by the crown.
Let's assume this ATL War of the Public Weal is a much longer, bloodier affair than the OTL one. If the rebels win then perhaps the nobles impose a French version of the Magna Carta upon the king, requiring a yearly assembly of the nobles (a sort of Parliament). Most importantly it would enshrine the nobility's right to rebel should a majority of noble determine that the king is acting 'willfully', in defiance of law and custom. I would love to see a timeline where France's OTL march to absolutism is halted in its tracks.
Let's assume this ATL War of the Public Weal is a much longer, bloodier affair than the OTL one. If the rebels win then perhaps the nobles impose a French version of the Magna Carta upon the king, requiring a yearly assembly of the nobles (a sort of Parliament). Most importantly it would enshrine the nobility's right to rebel should a majority of noble determine that the king is acting 'willfully', in defiance of law and custom. I would love to see a timeline where France's OTL march to absolutism is halted in its tracks.
I think the details of John's escape are important to how ATL plays out. If he manages to escape unscathed and tell this tale of an attempt on his life, then I'm not sure how much it changes the direction of the Burgundian cause. There was so much propaganda being pumped out by both sides that the Armagnacs could just say he was making it all up and the civil was just continues, with England playing each side off the other as before.
If John escapes but bears some obvious physical scars, like he's lost part of his hand after being attacked by an ax, then I think this event could be very seriously weaponized by the Burgundians to rile up north of France against the Armagnacs -- including possibly attempts to disinherit the dauphin, which rather indirectly buoys England's position since the next in line (via the Valois succession) is the duke of Orléans, who is an English captive, or an open Anglo-Burgundian alliance, like we saw in OTL. (Though perhaps one sealed with a marriage between Henry V and a Burgundian girl instead.)
If John escapes, but manages to wound the dauphin, then it's the Armagnacs who could perhaps try to make this a bit of propaganda about being set up.
If John escapes but bears some obvious physical scars, like he's lost part of his hand after being attacked by an ax, then I think this event could be very seriously weaponized by the Burgundians to rile up north of France against the Armagnacs -- including possibly attempts to disinherit the dauphin, which rather indirectly buoys England's position since the next in line (via the Valois succession) is the duke of Orléans, who is an English captive, or an open Anglo-Burgundian alliance, like we saw in OTL. (Though perhaps one sealed with a marriage between Henry V and a Burgundian girl instead.)
If John escapes, but manages to wound the dauphin, then it's the Armagnacs who could perhaps try to make this a bit of propaganda about being set up.
Maybe on paper, but the Angevins were in a pretty sorry state. Marie of Blois, widow of the first duke, mortgaged basically everything they had in Anjou and Maine in the 1380s to try and fund the war in Provence, but her son, Louis II, was a weak figure who was never able to leverage Charles VI's madness to line his own pockets as his cousins did. (But he at least manage to not lose his mortgaged lands, which is something.) Louis II's son, Louis III, is the poorest duke in France as a result. More importantly, the greatest piece of his patrimony, Provence, is under threat from Alfonso V of Aragon at the time of POD. It's not until Louis III makes peace with Alfonso and Joanna II of Naples in the 1420s that he becomes a major player in the Armagnacs. All of which is to say that Burgundy can just ignore Anjou for many years to come, unless somehow Aragon and Naples go easier on him in ATL.
Could you elaborate on this? Since you strongly disagree, why isn't Philip the Good the greatest duke of Burgundy from the perspective of the Low Countries? It was our wealth, which made Valois-Burgundy a duke, who could play on the same level as kings, not the very prestigious duchy of Burgundy (premier peer of France).
Yes, comparing John the Fearless with Charles the Bold only works on some levels, but not on all. John greatest flaw was his envy, whereas Charles it is more about being rash and having a slight bout of hubris.
So tell me, what do you strongly disagree with?
Sincerely a Burgundian Brabantian from the ''pays de par-deçà'', the Low Countries, not annexed by France.
Philip the Good arguably was far more lucky than genuinely competent in terms of foreign policy. Yes his inheritance of the Low Countries is perhaps his most brilliant foreign policy achievement and I can definitely see him having some competence when it comes to this, but when you look at his policies in England, France or the Holy Roman Empire especially his failed attempt at trying for a crusade is just down right idiotic. The treaty of Arras at least from a Burgundian geo-political perspective was never fulfilled by the French mostly due to a lack of willpower from Philip. He watched in silence as a pro-French faction built into his court to the point where he isolated his son and heir and nearly turned Burgundy into a complete mess foreign policy was by 1443 (see the Luxembourg affair) His alliance with England which probably wasn't as useful should have been used in order to counterbalance the French or at the very least force the French to actually fulfill the treaty of Arras. His imperial policy was objectively bad, he allowed the Habsburg to retake Further Austria even though he objectively had the better legal claim. Fairly certain he didn't move quick enough to secure Further Austria. He failed in his negotiations to marry Charles the Bold/Rash to Elizabeth of Austria who if the marriage came through would have given Philip favour with the emperor, further Austria and would help further imperial ambitions. It would be this failure as well that nearly screwed Burgundy when Philip seized Luxembourg as the Austrians joined the short-lived coalition or alliance with France.
This is why I personally think Charles the Bold or Charles the Rash was objectively better for the Burgundian state in terms of state building. What he essentially did was fix all of Philip's mistakes and the sad thing is the mistakes piled up too high and would cause him his failure in terms of his early death. The further Austria issue was solved albeit temporarily with the sale of it, if Philip the Good didn't screw the seizure the first time, Charles would have a far easier time in securing the new German lands in Burgundy. His relationship was firmly set under Charles as one of fear and intense rivalry as it should have been instead of the messy withdrawal, one sided rivalry or friendship that Philip foolishly pursued. Charles also reestablished English connections with his third marriage to Margaret of York. If anything Philip's greatest successes were outshined by Charles as while Philip inherited the Low Countries. Charles turned the entire Italian peninsula into a Burgundian alliance network (see treaty of Moncalieri.) Honestly his early death due to his objectively terrible military ideas was completely avoidable and if he lived longer you could see a completely independent Burgundy OTL.