Editor says, what if King John had won the Battle of Bouvines? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s).

Defeat in our timeline caused his authority to suffer a catastrophic setback leading to him being labelled with the insulting nickname "Softsword"

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, in reality Bouvines was a conclusive medieval battle ending the twelve year old Angevin-Flanders War that was important to the early development of both the French state by confirming the French crown's sovereignty over the Angevin lands of Brittany and Normandy.
The Magna Carta defined free man in the narrow sense of the moneyied elite - the very people who forced the King to reluctantly sign the agreement.

Christopher Lee commented on 2011-10-24 21:26:07 ~ I actually think this is possibly a game-changer. What made John vulnerable to be forced to sign Magna Carta was not so much his cruel and despotic rule, that was what medieval kings did, his predecessor William the Conqueror was extremely cruel. John made the error of uniting opposition against himself but I thin that was probably more to do with his heavy financial demands, combined with his failure to apply successful control and defence over his French territories united that opposition. The magnates might have stood his demands if he had been a winner, but he lost many of them their continental, ancestral birthrights. If he had been militarily successful and held onto the bulk of his patrimony he would probably not have had to sign Magna Carta. This might have led to England developing more along continental lines of absolute monarchy with no set of general principles to cling onto. I cannot see John forcing the barons to sign anything, he already held power, he simply had to enforce his control and their acceptance of his position and power. The Magna Carta did not in itself define a free man, that was legally defined as anyone who was not a serf (villein, cottar, bordar, etc). This was certainly a narrow group but was not entirely confined to the absolute elite. It certainly included moneyed but not noble individuals such as merchants, etc. It certainly referred to a small minority in terms of absolute numbers, but the implications for the future were immense as serfdom broke down in the later Middle Ages and more men became free they were covered by the provisions of Magna Carta as everyone in England is today.

Christopher Lee commented on 2011-10-24 21:27:56 ~ I do not mean to imply William was John's direct predecessor, he was not, of course!

Jeff Provine commented on 2011-11-01 14:22:02 ~ That'd set the stage for absolute rule in England years ahead of the attempts by the Stuarts. A very different world stage as Butterfly Effect plays out, but if the Wars of the Roses are minimized, England could come out as the top European power in the 1500s.

Eric Oppen commented on 2011-11-01 18:42:01 ~ Difficult to say how this would play out, but John had a gift for uniting people against him. His nobles in OTL actually invited the French king to come and rule them in preference to him; the French invasion only petered out when John died and his young son took the throne...with William Marshall, one of the Middle Ages' greatest asskickers, backing him.