John’s character and personal failings had definitely played a big part in the
loss of Angevin France by the end of 1204, however it would be inaccurate to
blame it entirely on his character and personal failings as Philip II was
politically and strategically a better king and there were factors out of John’s
control which contributed to the loss of Angevin France by the end of 1204.
John’s
character and personal failings certainly contributed to the loss of Angevin
France between the years 1199 to 1204 as he demonstrated his notoriously
treacherous and untrustworthy characteristics which led to a series of events,
resulting in the loss of Angevin France. A key incident involving John’s
character and personal failings was with William des Roches. John had managed
to gain a valuable ally due to having the support of Emperor Otto IV and Pope
Innocent III as well as the convenience of Philip and des Roches falling out. The
most powerful baron in France who had came from Philip’s side to support John’s
cause and had brought his two allies: Arthur of Brittany and his mother
Constance. However, surely if John had learnt to deal with his nephew Arthur
and his mother more effectively in terms of trust and negotiations, he could’ve
held Brittany and extended his royal authority in France. Failing to use this
opportunity to his advantage, both Arthur and Constance had fled to Philip’s
court the same day that had formalised the official submission. Furthermore,
later when John had decided to siege Mirebeau, having made a deal with des
Roches regarding Arthur’s treatment once he was captured – he had failed to
keep his word and this had proved to be a big mistake. Losing the trust and
support of the most powerful baron in France due to his untrustworthiness, had contributed
to the loss of Angevin France as it allowed two enemies to side together
against John. Both des Roches and Aimery de Thouars had raided Anjou which fell
into their hands in 1203, revealing that the loss of Angevin France was most
certainly a consequence of John’s character and personal failings.
Another
view on what contributed to the loss of Angevin France would be John’s
opponent, Philip II of France, a king who had 20 more years of experience in
ruling and was also seen as far more capable than John, politically and
strategically. Unlike Henry II or Richard I who did homage to be recognised as
the successor, John had to agree to numerous terms laid out in the Treaty of Le
Goulet in May 1200. John who had little skill in negotiating, John had signed
away his rights to the castles for which ‘the whole war had been fought’ as
suggested by French writer, Andreas of Marchiennes. The peace terms were
heavily skewed towards France and John who had agreed to the terms had little
knowledge of the long term impacts. As a result, John had lost the Norman Vexin
which was seen to be a strategically important as it had four castles that
bordered Normandy and the French royal demesnes. John also granted away Evreux,
Issoudun, Graçay and Bourges, demonstrating that rather than John’s character
or his personal failings, it was solely due to his incompetent political and
negotiating ability and therefore was no match for Philip and thus this factor contributed
to the loss of Angevin France. Not only this, but Philip II was able to force
John to renounce his alliances with Flanders and Boulogne which he earlier
renewed in 1199, this meant that he had fewer alliances to side with him when
required. It is clear from the Treaty of Le Goulet that John had easily granted
away the lands and castles which his brother, father and grandfather had taken
almost 100 years to establish as by agreeing to the peace terms, the French
were able to hammer the border fortresses of Normandy and this was made easier
as the Vexin was now in Philip’s hands. From this it suggests that rather than
the loss of Angevin France being a consequence of John’s character and personal
failings, it was more the fact that Philip II was a better king, who had 20
more years of experience in ruling and was far more cunning and competent in
terms of negotiating.
Additionally,
there were factors outside of John’s control which resulted in further losses
of Angevin France. Rather than the loss of Angevin France being a consequence
of John’s character and personal failings, there were numerous events which
happened to not be of John’s fault. The timings weren’t so convenient as the
majority of John’s allies (Counts of Flanders, Blois and Perche and Marquis of
Montferrat) had left to fight in the 4th Crusade. Furthermore,
Baldwin of Flanders had insulted John by negotiating peace with Philip which
removed John’s ability to fight in two fronts in Normandy. If John had more
allies by his side, this would enable him to advance into Normandy, Brittany
and other French lands to assert his authority however it wouldn’t be ideal as
he wouldn’t be able to raise funds as Richard had deprived England via
financial exactions. As a result of that, it left John no choice but to
negotiate peace terms with Philip and hence led to the loss of Angevin France.
However, John had also been hit with bad luck as he attempted to defend Château
Gaillard but the boats couldn’t keep up with it and hence lost it to those
support Philip’s cause. By 1203, the Normans began to lose morale as they
didn’t believe in John and therefore allowed Philip to siege Conches and
Vaudreuil. This exemplifies that although this was a factor that was out of
John’s control; it could have been to some extent due to John’s character and
personal failings as he had supposedly murdered Arthur and Philip declared for
John to ‘produce Arthur’ or else there would be ‘no peace’. Moreover, it didn’t
help that John’s mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine had also passed away in 1204
allowing Philip to advance into Aquitaine. All these factors enabled Philip II
to advance into Angevin France, seizing the lands and castles with ease and
hence the loss of Angevin France could not have been solely due to the
consequence of John’s character and personal failings.
Thus
to conclude, John’s character and personal failings resulted in a loss of
support of important and valuable allies such as William des Roches, Arthur of
Brittany and Constance and to some extent was a reason to why Angevin France
had weakened. The factors outside of John’s control had equally contributed to
the loss of Angevin France as did Philip’s peace terms of the Treaty of Le
Goulet, as if we were to compare the impact of how far Angevin France had
declined between Philip’s peace terms and factors outside of John’s control
against John’s character and personal failings – it is evidently shown that the
loss of Angevin France by the end of 1204 was mainly due to John’s unluckiness
as demonstrated by the attempted defence of Château Gaillard, factors outside
of his control such as Eleanor’s death and Philip’s aptitude as a king who
managed to regain the French lands.
Casino, Hotel & Event Center - Mapyro
ReplyDeleteCompare 전라북도 출장안마 real-time driving 동두천 출장마사지 directions 안동 출장마사지 (at Real Time) at 나주 출장마사지 Casino, Hotel & Event Center, 3775 S. Chicago, IL 51501. 안산 출장안마