AHC: England and France are weak elective monarchies by 1500s

Post by Rob
There's the challenge- how can we have them develop a constitution reminiscent of the Polis-Lithuanian Commonwealth? And what are the consequences of the two powerful states not being able to perform cohesively?

In both cases it should go few centuries back: constitution of the Commonwealth simply reflected the existing situation. So, start with some point in the Middle Ages, make royalty elective, royal domain too small to make a current ruler independent and you have something to start with.

After all, there were elective monarchies besides the Commonwealth: HRE, Hungary, Bohemia.

Just keep in mind that a weak constitutional monarchy does not mean a peaceful monarchy. The Commonwealth was at war probably more time than it was not and pre-Ottoman Hungary also was not the most peaceful state in Europe. BTW, this includes the aggressive wars, not just the defensive ones.

Pete Barrett

2018-03-17 19:48:06 UTC

Post by Rob
There's the challenge- how can we have them develop a constitution
reminiscent of the Polis-Lithuanian Commonwealth? And what are the
consequences of the two powerful states not being able to perform
cohesively?

The English monarchy was formally elective until 1066, though the Witan
certainly didn't have as free a choice as the Sejm - usually they elected
either the closest relative of the late king, or the most militarily
powerful warlord! If William hadn't had any sons when he died in 1087,
perhaps the English monarchy could have become elective.

The French monarchy is probably more difficult, because it was hereditary
in the Merovingians, then in the Carolingians, and then in the Capets. It
could probably only become elective at one of those crisis points, but in
each case, there was a militarily powerful landowner who was the obvious
choice to take over (Charles Martel in the first crisis, Hugh the Great
in the second). You'd probably have to remove them so that the choice
wasn't an obvious one, or perhaps have all their children predecease them.

Post by Alex Milman
After all, there were elective monarchies besides the Commonwealth: HRE, Hungary, Bohemia.
Just keep in mind that a weak constitutional monarchy does not mean a
peaceful monarchy. The Commonwealth was at war probably more time than
it was not and pre-Ottoman Hungary also was not the most peaceful state
in Europe. BTW, this includes the aggressive wars, not just the
defensive ones.

--
Pete BARRETT

Alex Milman

2018-03-17 20:39:02 UTC

Post by Rob
There's the challenge- how can we have them develop a constitution
reminiscent of the Polis-Lithuanian Commonwealth? And what are the
consequences of the two powerful states not being able to perform
cohesively?

Actually, this was pretty much the case with the Polish Sejm even if the list of pretenders was not _formally_ limited. There were multi-person dynasties, individuals with a known qualities of a military leadership (Batory, Sobiesski) or the people with the "name recognition" (like Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, a nincompoop who was a son of the famous anti-Cossack leader).

Post by Pete Barrett
If William hadn't had any sons when he died in 1087,
perhaps the English monarchy could have become elective.

Could it happen during the reign of King John, as a part of the baronial demands or during the reign of Henry II when for a while the power was held by Simon de Monfort?

Post by Pete Barrett
The French monarchy is probably more difficult, because it was hereditary
in the Merovingians, then in the Carolingians, and then in the Capets.

Well, Hugh Capet was elected. The archbishop of Reims in his promotional speech said: "The throne is not acquired by hereditary right; no one should be raised to it unless distinguished not only for nobility of birth, but for the goodness of his soul." A perfect theoretical foundation for the elective monarchy.

Strictly speaking, the 1st Valois also was elected and later there was at least some discussion about the candidacy of the future Henry IV with at least one more candidacy being brought up and rejected (daughter of Phillip II).

Post by Pete Barrett
It
could probably only become elective at one of those crisis points, but in
each case, there was a militarily powerful landowner who was the obvious
choice to take over (Charles Martel in the first crisis, Hugh the Great
in the second). You'd probably have to remove them so that the choice
wasn't an obvious one, or perhaps have all their children predecease them.

Or just stick to the principle declared at the election of Hugh Capet. Strictly speaking, the principle does not exclude a dynastic succession but it clearly states the prerequisites and at least a formal election.

However, in all these cases there is one more very important component which you, so far, ignored: financial power of a monarch. As long as this power is being (very) restricted by will of the nobles, the royalty can do little to restrict power of a nobility: to do this you need an army and without money you can't have one. Of course, it is even better if at the point of decision, someone manages to add certain "liberties" which are closer to those of the Commonwealth (like legalizing a right of the open rebellion and restricting potential punishment of the disobedient nobles).

In France Charles VII, even at the lowest ebb of his fortunes had an income from his personal domains that was greatly exceeding income that the English side was receiving from the occupied French territories and could keep financing the military effort in what was essentially a war of exhaustion.

OTOH, personal domain granted to a King of Poland was not quite enough for maintaining a marginally decent court and to pay for the very small regular army. The extras could be provided only by the Sejm so neither Batory nor Sobiessky could REALLY win (as in "crush the enemy") the long wars even if these wars had been initially popular and their troops were initially successful.

Pete Barrett

2018-03-18 09:49:01 UTC

Post by Rob
There's the challenge- how can we have them develop a constitution
reminiscent of the Polis-Lithuanian Commonwealth? And what are the
consequences of the two powerful states not being able to perform
cohesively?

Actually, this was pretty much the case with the Polish Sejm even if the
list of pretenders was not _formally_ limited. There were multi-person
dynasties, individuals with a known qualities of a military leadership
(Batory, Sobiesski) or the people with the "name recognition" (like
Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, a nincompoop who was a son of the famous
anti-Cossack leader).

On occasion they elected the brother of the King of France, the Elector
of Saxony, the King of Sweden (or was it the brother of the King of
Sweden?); the Witan never did that - all those they elected had a
presence and military support in the country.

Of course, if England _had_ become an elective monarchy, and the elective
nature had lasted as long, then they might have invited foreign princes
in as kings.

Post by Pete Barrett
If William hadn't had any sons when he died in 1087,
perhaps the English monarchy could have become elective.

Could it happen during the reign of King John, as a part of the baronial
demands or during the reign of Henry II when for a while the power was
held by Simon de Monfort?

I would doubt it. The monarchy had been hereditary for 150 years at that
time (and to be honest, mostly hereditary before that - the number of
changes of dynasty (including restoration of a previous dynasty) by
election since Alfred can be counted on the fingers of one hand), so it
was well established that it passed to someone in the royal house (though
primogeniture hadn't been established yet).

I think what would be needed would be a series of elections, so a series
of dynasties which by chance only lasted one or two generations, to
establish the elective precedent. The Plantagenets tended to have
housefuls of kids, so not likely. Perhaps if Stephen had established his
dynasty, and it had died out with Eustace.

Post by Pete Barrett
The French monarchy is probably more difficult, because it was
hereditary in the Merovingians, then in the Carolingians, and then in
the Capets.

It is. And absolutely nothing came of it! The Capetians were able to
transfer the throne from father to son for a couple of centuries.

Post by Alex Milman
Strictly speaking, the 1st Valois also was elected and later there was
at least some discussion about the candidacy of the future Henry IV with
at least one more candidacy being brought up and rejected (daughter of
Phillip II).

But the first Valois was a male line descendant of the first Capet. Did
they think they were electing a king, or even a new dynasty? Or did they
think they were defining the laws of succession? I'm pretty sure it was
the last.

Post by Pete Barrett
It could probably only become elective at one of those crisis points,
but in each case, there was a militarily powerful landowner who was the
obvious choice to take over (Charles Martel in the first crisis, Hugh
the Great in the second). You'd probably have to remove them so that
the choice wasn't an obvious one, or perhaps have all their children
predecease them.

I don't think there were any medieval kingdoms where no nobles ever
exercised the Right to Rebel!

The way I look at it is this. In 1100, an individual magnate could fight
the king so successfully that the king had to compromise when making
peace (not every magnate who rebelled was that successful, but it could
happen). By 1300, the expense of fighting a war had become so great that
only a combination of all the magnates in the kingdom could successfully
challenge the king and force him to a compromise peace. By 1600, that
imbalance had become so great that the magnates had to mobilise other
groups (lower nobility, merchants, burghers) in order to withstand the
king.

The dates are approximate, and would depend on the exact imbalance in
income between the king and the great landowners, which would be
different for each kingdom. As you point out, the King of France was
probably the wealthiest king, in comparison to his magnates, in western
Europe.

Post by Alex Milman
In France Charles VII, even at the lowest ebb of his fortunes had an
income from his personal domains that was greatly exceeding income that
the English side was receiving from the occupied French territories and
could keep financing the military effort in what was essentially a war
of exhaustion.
OTOH, personal domain granted to a King of Poland was not quite enough
for maintaining a marginally decent court and to pay for the very small
regular army. The extras could be provided only by the Sejm so neither
Batory nor Sobiessky could REALLY win (as in "crush the enemy") the long
wars even if these wars had been initially popular and their troops were
initially successful.

Poland, obviously, was unusual, in that the king was actually _less_
wealthy, and thus _less_ able to support a modern army or prosecute
modern warfare, than his great magnates! (unless he had external
resources, of course).

--
Pete BARRETT

Alex Milman

2018-03-18 17:01:40 UTC

Post by Rob
There's the challenge- how can we have them develop a constitution
reminiscent of the Polis-Lithuanian Commonwealth? And what are the
consequences of the two powerful states not being able to perform
cohesively?

Actually, this was pretty much the case with the Polish Sejm even if the
list of pretenders was not _formally_ limited. There were multi-person
dynasties, individuals with a known qualities of a military leadership
(Batory, Sobiesski) or the people with the "name recognition" (like
Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, a nincompoop who was a son of the famous
anti-Cossack leader).

On occasion they elected the brother of the King of France, the Elector
of Saxony,

Three of them. Election of August III caused a war between his supporters and party of Leszczyński (former king installed by Charles XII) supported by France. Leszczyński got more votes but the Saxon party had Russian troops on its side. Conflict expanded into the War of the Polish Succession.

Post by Pete Barrett
the King of Sweden (or was it the brother of the King of
Sweden?);

Son of John III of Sweden and his mother was daughter of Polish king Sigismund I the Old and Queen Bona Sforza of Italy.

Post by Pete Barrett
the Witan never did that - all those they elected had a
presence and military support in the country.

Which made a fundamental difference: most of the elected Polish monarchs had very little of it or not at all (which was the whole idea). So, to fit this ATL the Witan should start looking for the outside candidates.

Post by Pete Barrett
Of course, if England _had_ become an elective monarchy, and the elective
nature had lasted as long, then they might have invited foreign princes
in as kings.

Exactly.

Post by Pete Barrett
If William hadn't had any sons when he died in 1087,
perhaps the English monarchy could have become elective.

Could it happen during the reign of King John, as a part of the baronial
demands or during the reign of Henry II when for a while the power was
held by Simon de Monfort?

Well, we are talking about the prerequisites for this ATL, not a real life. At least in THEORY, we can assume that making a king powerless would be the 1st step in a "right direction": diminishing of the royal power could (or should) result in a greater power of the magnates, especially if the notion that all land belongs to the king is abolished thus making the great lords into the Polish "little kings".

Post by Pete Barrett
I think what would be needed would be a series of elections, so a series
of dynasties which by chance only lasted one or two generations, to
establish the elective precedent.

Reasonably quick change of the dynasties happened between overthrow of Richard II and victory of Henry VII but by this time there was no tradition of election.

Post by Pete Barrett
The Plantagenets tended to have
housefuls of kids, so not likely. Perhaps if Stephen had established his
dynasty, and it had died out with Eustace.

Yes, as I understand, the things were not settled enough to exclude the elective process. Let's say, Henry II is elected and later baronial war against King John produced legislatively meaningful results by codifying election as a necessary part of a process. This would need one more component: limit royal land in England barely adequate for maintaining his household and provide the barons with the quasi-royal rights in _their_ lands (as in Poland). The same can be done for the major cities which are not on the baronial territories.

Post by Pete Barrett
The French monarchy is probably more difficult, because it was
hereditary in the Merovingians, then in the Carolingians, and then in
the Capets.

It is. And absolutely nothing came of it! The Capetians were able to
transfer the throne from father to son for a couple of centuries.

For almost 4 centuries (from 987 to 1328). Yes, I know but the Piast dynasty in Poland existed for a slightly longer time (930 - 1370) and the local magnates had been doing just fine in the terms of their "liberties" even if most of the time the elections had been just formally endorsing a legal heir. The important thing was that the institution was in place and when Piast dynasty became extinct (leaving only a daughter), this institution was used to get pretty much what the nobility wanted out of an outsider candidate (Grand Duke of Lithuania).

In Hungary, after being fed up with a powerful local monarch, Sejm was electing the foreign kings who were willing to sign any paper. This, of course, was a suicidal policy similar to one of the Commonwealth and, because of the "worse geography", it ended with the Ottoman conquest of Hungary during the reign of the 2nd of these clowns.

But the first Valois was a male line descendant of the first Capet. Did
they think they were electing a king, or even a new dynasty?

As I said, _formally_ it was an election and _formally_ this was a new dynasty (somehow, Louis XII and Francis I and his descendants were also considered Valois). But they elected not just the closest male relative but also a most powerful person in the land (in the terms of both territorial possessions and family connections). Which means, they did something OPPOSITE to the Polish tradition. :-)

Post by Pete Barrett
Or did they
think they were defining the laws of succession? I'm pretty sure it was
the last.

I'm not sure even about this: IIRC, application of the Salic Law did not become a "must" until later (not sure even about that). They were more or less improvising to exclude a foreigner and to get the most popular local candidate.

Post by Pete Barrett
It could probably only become elective at one of those crisis points,
but in each case, there was a militarily powerful landowner who was the
obvious choice to take over (Charles Martel in the first crisis, Hugh
the Great in the second). You'd probably have to remove them so that
the choice wasn't an obvious one, or perhaps have all their children
predecease them.

I don't think there were any medieval kingdoms where no nobles ever
exercised the Right to Rebel!

I'm not sure if such a right was "constitutional" or that it was extended to the same degree as in the Commonwealth. Of course, a feudal could resist if the king was infringing on his personal rights but in the Commonwealth this was extended to the disagreement on a general policy. Of course, in the Western Europe similar rebellions were routine (in France they ended only with Fronde) but they were not as legal as in the Commonwealth.

Post by Pete Barrett
The way I look at it is this. In 1100, an individual magnate could fight
the king so successfully that the king had to compromise when making
peace (not every magnate who rebelled was that successful, but it could
happen). By 1300, the expense of fighting a war had become so great that
only a combination of all the magnates in the kingdom could successfully
challenge the king and force him to a compromise peace.

Of course, it can be argued that Charles the Bold was considered too strong an opponent for the King of France to engage him directly so Louis XI subsidized the Swiss. But this case is rather tricky because Charles was not just a _French_ feudal.

Post by Pete Barrett
By 1600, that
imbalance had become so great that the magnates had to mobilise other
groups (lower nobility, merchants, burghers) in order to withstand the
king.

Well, in France there was a problem well-illustrated by the Wars of Religion and then by Fronde: until after the Fronde France did not have a regular army subordinated to the King. Even after the regular army was created by the end of the reign of Louis XIII it was for a while considered to be something of its commander's property, which allowed the popular commanders like Turenne and Conde to act as the independent players with which royal power had to communicate directly trying to get them (or at least Turenne) on its side.

During the earlier Wars of the Religion situation was even worse because there was no staying army in King's disposal and the government had to rely upon the mercenaries and the troops raised by the loyal feudals or simply the popular military commanders. Which made the royal side and the oppositions (as you know, there was more than one) more or less equal militarily.

Post by Pete Barrett
The dates are approximate, and would depend on the exact imbalance in
income between the king and the great landowners, which would be
different for each kingdom. As you point out, the King of France was
probably the wealthiest king, in comparison to his magnates, in western
Europe.

Now, compare this with the situation in the Commonwealth were in 1665 Grand Marshal Lubomirski started a Rokosz against the royal attempt to introduce the constitutional reforms and in 1666 completely defeated the royal army (leader of the royal troops and the future Polish hero, Jan Sobiessky, screwed up "royally" wrestling defeat from the jaws of victory), forcing the King to abandon the planned reforms and eventually to abdicate. Even before this happened, Lubomirski (who was at that time exiled) used his influence to have two sessions of the Sejm dissolved and during the Rokosz he had a considerable number of the regular army troops on his side.

Even later, in the 2nd half of the XVIII, there was more than one confederation (military rebellion) opposing or supporting reforms with the royal government being quite helpless.

As I understand, situation in pre-Ottoman Hungary was pretty much the same and even later in Hapsburg Hungary it was up to the Sejm to grant Maria-Theresa money and troops for fighting the War of the Austrian Succession (she appealed to the Sejm wearing the Hungarian national costume to play a patriotic card :-)).

For a while, situation was somewhat similar in the XVIII Sweden between the death of Charles XII and a coup of Gustav III (1772) that ended Age of Liberty - most of the power belonged to the Riksdag.

Even in the XVIII Russia there was an attempt to create a weak monarchy subservient to the nobility: after the death of Peter II members of the Supreme Council (mostly representatives of the leading aristocratic families) chose as the future ruler the widowed duchess of Curland, Anne. She was supposed to sign "the conditions" which had been passing most of a real power to the Supreme Council. Schema did not work out because Russian nobility preferred royal tyranny to the aristocratic one.

Pete Barrett

2018-03-19 19:15:32 UTC

Post by Rob
There's the challenge- how can we have them develop a
constitution reminiscent of the Polis-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
And what are the consequences of the two powerful states not
being able to perform cohesively?

Actually, this was pretty much the case with the Polish Sejm even if
the list of pretenders was not _formally_ limited. There were
multi-person dynasties, individuals with a known qualities of a
military leadership (Batory, Sobiesski) or the people with the "name
recognition" (like Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, a nincompoop who was
a son of the famous anti-Cossack leader).

On occasion they elected the brother of the King of France, the Elector
of Saxony,

Three of them. Election of August III caused a war between his
supporters and party of Leszczyński (former king installed by Charles
XII) supported by France. Leszczyński got more votes but the Saxon party
had Russian troops on its side. Conflict expanded into the War of the
Polish Succession.

Post by Pete Barrett
the King of Sweden (or was it the brother of the King of
Sweden?);

Son of John III of Sweden and his mother was daughter of Polish king
Sigismund I the Old and Queen Bona Sforza of Italy.

Post by Pete Barrett
the Witan never did that - all those they elected had a presence and
military support in the country.

Which made a fundamental difference: most of the elected Polish monarchs
had very little of it or not at all (which was the whole idea). So, to
fit this ATL the Witan should start looking for the outside candidates.

Post by Pete Barrett
Of course, if England _had_ become an elective monarchy, and the
elective nature had lasted as long, then they might have invited
foreign princes in as kings.

Exactly.

Post by Pete Barrett
If William hadn't had any sons when he died in 1087,
perhaps the English monarchy could have become elective.

Could it happen during the reign of King John, as a part of the
baronial demands or during the reign of Henry II when for a while the
power was held by Simon de Monfort?

Well, we are talking about the prerequisites for this ATL, not a real
life. At least in THEORY, we can assume that making a king powerless
would be the 1st step in a "right direction": diminishing of the royal
power could (or should) result in a greater power of the magnates,
especially if the notion that all land belongs to the king is abolished
thus making the great lords into the Polish "little kings".

I think that the idea that all land belongs to the King is a purely
English phenomenon, and came in with William I, who was in a very
favourable position in that respect, having killed or driven out most of
the existing magnates. In France, when the magnates did have to choose a
king, they tended to choose the _most_ powerful of their number - why
would that be? I suppose they must have thought that a strong (not _too_
strong!) royal authority was in their interests.

Post by Pete Barrett
I think what would be needed would be a series of elections, so a
series of dynasties which by chance only lasted one or two generations,
to establish the elective precedent.

Reasonably quick change of the dynasties happened between overthrow of
Richard II and victory of Henry VII but by this time there was no
tradition of election.

They weren't changes of dynasty - they were all male line descendants of
Edward III (though the Yorkists claimed through the female line), so all
Plantagenets. The Tudors were the first change of dynasty since Henry II.

However, Henry IV did get a Parliamentary authority for his replacement
of Richard II, so there's an opportunity there. If he hadn't had any
children, instead of the large number (even by Plantagenet standards)
which he did have, then there might have been another election in the
next generation.

Post by Pete Barrett
The Plantagenets tended to have housefuls of kids, so not likely.
Perhaps if Stephen had established his dynasty, and it had died out
with Eustace.

Yes, as I understand, the things were not settled enough to exclude the
elective process. Let's say, Henry II is elected and later baronial war
against King John produced legislatively meaningful results by codifying
election as a necessary part of a process. This would need one more
component: limit royal land in England barely adequate for maintaining
his household and provide the barons with the quasi-royal rights in
_their_ lands (as in Poland). The same can be done for the major cities
which are not on the baronial territories.

Well, as for excluding the elective process, formal election (in the form
of an acclamation by the people) is _still_ in the UK coronation service!
It isn't (obviously) meaningful now, and I suspect wasn't very meaningful
then.

Post by Pete Barrett
The French monarchy is probably more difficult, because it was
hereditary in the Merovingians, then in the Carolingians, and then
in the Capets.

It is. And absolutely nothing came of it! The Capetians were able to
transfer the throne from father to son for a couple of centuries.

Interesting. If the Capetians had totally died out in 1328 (instead of
being able to go back to a male line cousin), would something similar
have happened?

Post by Alex Milman
In Hungary, after being fed up with a powerful local monarch, Sejm was
electing the foreign kings who were willing to sign any paper. This, of
course, was a suicidal policy similar to one of the Commonwealth and,
because of the "worse geography", it ended with the Ottoman conquest of
Hungary during the reign of the 2nd of these clowns.

Post by Alex Milman
Strictly speaking, the 1st Valois also was elected and later there
was at least some discussion about the candidacy of the future Henry
IV with at least one more candidacy being brought up and rejected
(daughter of Phillip II).

But the first Valois was a male line descendant of the first Capet. Did
they think they were electing a king, or even a new dynasty?

As I said, _formally_ it was an election and _formally_ this was a new
dynasty (somehow, Louis XII and Francis I and his descendants were also
considered Valois). But they elected not just the closest male relative
but also a most powerful person in the land (in the terms of both
territorial possessions and family connections). Which means, they did
something OPPOSITE to the Polish tradition. :-)

Post by Pete Barrett
Or did they
think they were defining the laws of succession? I'm pretty sure it was
the last.

I'm not sure even about this: IIRC, application of the Salic Law did not
become a "must" until later (not sure even about that). They were more
or less improvising to exclude a foreigner and to get the most popular
local candidate.

Post by Pete Barrett
It could probably only become elective at one of those crisis
points, but in each case, there was a militarily powerful landowner
who was the obvious choice to take over (Charles Martel in the first
crisis, Hugh the Great in the second). You'd probably have to remove
them so that the choice wasn't an obvious one, or perhaps have all
their children predecease them.

I don't think there were any medieval kingdoms where no nobles ever
exercised the Right to Rebel!

I'm not sure if such a right was "constitutional" or that it was
extended to the same degree as in the Commonwealth. Of course, a feudal
could resist if the king was infringing on his personal rights but in
the Commonwealth this was extended to the disagreement on a general
policy. Of course, in the Western Europe similar rebellions were routine
(in France they ended only with Fronde) but they were not as legal as in
the Commonwealth.

A surprising amount of medieval philosophy was dedicated to the question
of when rebellion against civil authority could be justified. Thomas
Aquinas considered the question repeatedly, and did think it could be
justified in certain circumstances. It would be that tradition which fed
into the rebellions in western Europe (including that of the Guises, as I
recall), and I suppose, must have informed the constitution of Poland-
Lithuania as well.

Post by Pete Barrett
The way I look at it is this. In 1100, an individual magnate could
fight the king so successfully that the king had to compromise when
making peace (not every magnate who rebelled was that successful, but
it could happen). By 1300, the expense of fighting a war had become so
great that only a combination of all the magnates in the kingdom could
successfully challenge the king and force him to a compromise peace.

Of course, it can be argued that Charles the Bold was considered too
strong an opponent for the King of France to engage him directly so
Louis XI subsidized the Swiss. But this case is rather tricky because
Charles was not just a _French_ feudal.

No, and it equally didn't apply to the King of England when (as Duke of
Gascony) he rebelled against the King of France. But when it came to the
relations between kings and those of their magnates whose main territory
was within the kingdom, it's approximately right (can't expect more than
that).