WI: Angevin-Welf forces win the battle of bouvines

Doesn't really matter for Plantagenet.

Their deafeat at Battle of Roche-aux-Moines, probably as much decisive than Bouvines if not more, prevented John Lackland to really pose a threat in western France.
With that, the Baron's revolt is still likely to happen nevertheless.

Imagining an Honestaufen victory (rather than a Welf-Angevine victory, Angevine forces being much reduced politically and strategically), I would rather see an OTL mirror situation with the emperor letting Phillip August going free after a reasonable ransom; as his ally was a caricature of the incompetent sidekick and that the inner situation in Germany prevented him to launch himself on a invasion of Northern France with one front, and which he had relativly little interest on.

(EDIT : Part of the post was swallowed up)

Now, it would have mean more independent Flanders and a loss of prestige for Philippe II. I could see an harder unification of the crown, still mainly helped by John's defeat. A more independent Flanders from the XIIIth century, would be a given, with a peace of compromise passed between HRE and France.

The most important implication would be in HRE, regarding the conflict with the pope and german princes supporting it.
 
Last edited:
What John wanted was to get Normandy back. If his forces contribute to a victory at Bouvines, he can have it.

Something about John inspired disloyalty from everyone he ruled; the English barons might still revolt even if the Bouvines campaign is a success.
 
What John wanted was to get Normandy back. If his forces contribute to a victory at Bouvines, he can have it.
.

AFter La Roche aux Moines? Doubtful. And even if he does (a gift from the HRE? French sell it for enough money to pay Phillipes' ransom - assuming he gets captured rather than killed ( as nearly happened OTL ) - ), Louis will conquer it back thenext year or so....
 
It would have interesting implications for Italy and Germany, at least in the short to medium term. With that kind of prestige (and obvious divine favour) on Otto's part, I can't see Frederick gaining much traction as the 'legitimate' emperor. At the same time, neither he nor the pope are liable to back off, so we're likely to see a Holy Roman Emperor in control of much of the Empire in direct contravention of papal decree and winning. With the money Otto is liable to take away from the venture and his considerable Hausmacht, he'll be hard to depose. I can't see much of an effect on France (maybe Flanders seizes the opportunity to remove itself more, and King John might make some temporary gains). Emperor Otto will be too focused on Italy, and the economic and political power of France proper remains untouched. Even an exorbitant ransom did not ruin England, and I don't think his lords will allow Otto to demand that much for a captive French king.

So, Italy. The worst possible idea (and perhaps the most likely one :( ) would be Investiture Contest 2.0. Otto comes roaring down the mountains and

a) takes Rome, instals his own pope, and leaves, finding this has zero effect in the long run

b) suffers a nasty defeat at the hands of Lombard militias and looks like an idiot

c) manages to capture/kill/drive away Frederick and conquer Sicily as well as deposing the pope?

I don't think any of these things will have a lasting effect on the HRE, though all would likely hurt Otto in the medium term. What would be ever so cool would be a two-state solution with Frederick playing Emperor in Sicily and Otto reigning in Germany. On the one hand, it would create a Mediterranean imperial state with real potential down the line (the resources of Sicily and the power of the papal-aligned maritime republics would be in line, at least initially, and the Med is a target-rich environment: Malta, the Balearics, Anbdalusia various North African statelets, maybe a dynastic union with Barcelona...) On the other, it would give the emperor a real stake in developing political power in Germany at a crucial juncture and make the papacy look terminally weak. There may be a German-induced Anagni in its immediate future.

This could get interesting.
 
What John wanted was to get Normandy back. If his forces contribute to a victory at Bouvines, he can have it.
Unlikely. His forces at this point were not only defeated and crushed, it lost its capacity to occupy a territory, having lost its siege weapons.
And it's doubtful that Frederick would do a sngle-handled campaign to resolve that.
 
Unlikely. His forces at this point were not only defeated and crushed, it lost its capacity to occupy a territory, having lost its siege weapons.
And it's doubtful that Frederick would do a sngle-handled campaign to resolve that.

Obviously, enough has to change prior to Bouvines so that John can link up with Otto and the Germans.

John's forces hadn't been annihilated at Roche-au-Moine, if that's the battle you're writing about. As often happened with John, he couldn't command loyalty from his vassals, this time the continental ones. They wouldn't support his English forces and John retreated from Roche-au-Moines to La Rochelle.

The English force itself, while large, wasn't as overwhelming as it might have been because many English nobles refused to send forces to the continent (notice the pattern here) so John had to hire mercenaries. It would have been nice for John if he could have had both.

I was assuming a peace agreement immediately after Bouvines. The siege equipment, even if it had all been lost, wouldn't be needed.

If badly defeated, Philip would have been ready to live without Normandy until he had rebuilt his forces.

Frederick?
 
Top