WI: No Magna Carta?

[Kellan Sullivan]

Given the importance of this document to the history of the English speaking world, I imagine this will unleash a butterfly storm but here goes.

What if King John actually manages to defeat the Barons- despite what the common thought says, John was actually a capable military commander, plus he had William Marshal on his side- thus being able to consolidate. After all, the pope had already declared the Magna Carta invalid, and the king defeating the barons would no doubt cause it being consigned to the dusty archives with the rest of barroom trivia.

But what would the further effects of this be? Despite what is often claimed, parliament existed independently of the Magna Carta, rather than the Magna Carta "establishing" the parliamentary precedent (which only became a thing under John's grandson, Longshanks). So the English parliament would still "exist", it's not nullifying it.

The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the United States Constitution, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.

Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries

So...what would the results be if John manages to defeat the barons before Leighton has a chance to attempt to broker a compromise (that neither side upheld, anyway). Would the barons rise again? Would they wait until John is attempting to reconquer the lands in France or worse, dead, to reassert themselves? Or would a defeat by the king so discredit them as to make any future rising reluctant to channel the comparisons between the two?

@CaptainShadow @Alex Zetsu @material_boy @anybody else

 

[Derek Pullem]

Given the importance of this document to the history of the English speaking world, I imagine this will unleash a butterfly storm but here goes.

What if King John actually manages to defeat the Barons- despite what the common thought says, John was actually a capable military commander, plus he had William Marshal on his side- thus being able to consolidate. After all, the pope had already declared the Magna Carta invalid, and the king defeating the barons would no doubt cause it being consigned to the dusty archives with the rest of barroom trivia.

But what would the further effects of this be? Despite what is often claimed, parliament existed independently of the Magna Carta, rather than the Magna Carta "establishing" the parliamentary precedent (which only became a thing under John's grandson, Longshanks). So the English parliament would still "exist", it's not nullifying it.





So...what would the results be if John manages to defeat the barons before Leighton has a chance to attempt to broker a compromise (that neither side upheld, anyway). Would the barons rise again? Would they wait until John is attempting to reconquer the lands in France or worse, dead, to reassert themselves? Or would a defeat by the king so discredit them as to make any future rising reluctant to channel the comparisons between the two?

@CaptainShadow @Alex Zetsu @material_boy @anybody else

You are basically deferring the moment when the divine right of kings to rule is qualified in England.

John would almost certainly be the subject of more rebellions - as was the case in OTL

There were follow on Charters in 1216, 1217, 1225 and 1297 all of which were basically down to the King compromising his absolute authority in return for money. I see nothing unique about the Charter of 1215 apart from that it was the first of its kind in England.

I think we would still have a Magna Carta - just not dated 1215.

 

[Lalli]

John would indeed face just more revolts. Either him or then Henry III are sooner or latter enforced to agree with Magna Charta.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I'm just not seeing him winning the Baron's War without him keeping Normandy to begin with. Despite Enlgand having a much higher population than Normandy, after William the conqueror came over he still earned triple for his Normandy holdings compared to his English ones. A lot of the English taxes under the Anglo-Norman system was going to the nobility. If you're wondering where I am going with this, the loss of Normandy was incredibly humiliating for John and I'm surprised he had any support left after this. To put down the barons he needs to retain some support and I'm surprised in OTL he had any.

I'm also surprised it was the Barons which revolted instead of the Earls. Most of the Earls were Anglo-Normans who were... also not very impressed with John losing his lands in France. But most of them either supported John or (more commonly) gave him lip service support and told rebels to vamoose off their personal lands ("hey you can't stay here, go away") but did nothing active to put them down.

I didn't study John's tactical skills that much or look into his campaigns that much. Judging only by the results, it is hard to say he was a capable military commander, but given that more than one historian claimed he was not so much incompetent but unlucky, maybe there is some truth to it, I just didn't bother to check any primary sources. John was dealt a bad hand. A lot of people say Richard made England broke by crusading, but actually those expenses were planned for and not so devastating but pissing off a German noble, getting captured by the same German, and having to pay a gigantic ransom was far most devastating to the crown's finances than the Third Crusade which had at least some other parties paying for it. Still, protecting Château Gaillard would be cheaper than a protracted war against the Barons.

 

[BlueFlowwer]

A lot of people say Richard made England broke by crusading, but actually those expenses were planned for and not so devastating but pissing off a German noble, getting captured by the same German, and having to pay a gigantic ransom was far most devastating to the crown's finances than the Third Crusade which had at least some other parties paying for it. Still, protecting Château Gaillard would be cheaper than a protracted war against the Barons.

Richard dying in the crusade might be the best option for John to avoid the humiliating shitshow that he did. But John was also dealing with Philippe August and Pope Innocent III so it's no wonder things went sideways.

 

[Elfwine]

Richard dying in the crusade might be the best option for John to avoid the humiliating shitshow that he did.

I'm not sure we can blame Richard that much for John's failures, unless the situation in 1199 was vastly different than I have been lead to believe.

As relates to no Magna Carta - I think you really need a John with better than OTL political skills to avoid such issues with the barons even if he wins this war.

 

[Liminia1]

My personal opinion is that John was destined to lose the Angevin Empire and by extension causing the rebellions that create the Magna Carta. John lost Normandy under the justification that he didn't attend a summons by the King of France who was technically his feudal overlord. The only way I see how John can avoid the Magna Carta was to be military and political genius. John would have to convince Aquitaine, Poitou, Anjou, Normandy and Brittany to revoke their feudal contracts with France and sign a new one with England. Which is like near impossible without France being absolutely destroyed, at no point in the Hundred Years War did France lose those feudal contracts with the other duchies. Like even if he was Richard level of military skill all he could do is delay the inevitable French confiscation of English holdings. The same logic on how the Habsburgs seized Austria from Ottokar and etc.

 

[Elfwine]

Like even if he was Richard level of military skill all he could do is delay the inevitable French confiscation of English holdings.

What is inevitable about it?

Philip was his feudal overlord, but not destined/guaranteeed to be able to be able to enforce what he wound up succeeding at.

 

[Liminia1]

What is inevitable about it?

Philip was his feudal overlord, but not destined/guaranteeed to be able to be able to enforce what he wound up succeeding at.

Succession laws, weak justification and bad luck. John lost everything except Aquitaine because he didn't negotiate a proper annulment of his wife's engagement which is a flimsy justification at best and an excuse at worst. All that needs to happen is a bit of bad luck which can cost him everything. Maybe England has a child regency and the French king takes everything as he wants to appoint separate regents compared to England who knows? (The Child King will never get it back)

 

[modelcitizen]

Either England has a more authoritarian flair to it or the backlash from the suppressed hits extra hard later on.

It might kill the Enlightenment as we know it and democracy will be something the Greeks and some eccentric mountain folks indulged in.

Edit: I bet other things done away by butterflies etc are the metric system, Versailles as we know it, the collaboration of Queen Elizabeth and Francis Drake, and maybe the Pope's decree to split the world between Spain and Portugal holds true a bit longer.

 

[Elfwine]

Succession laws, weak justification and bad luck. John lost everything except Aquitaine because he didn't negotiate a proper annulment of his wife's engagement which is a flimsy justification at best and an excuse at worst. All that needs to happen is a bit of bad luck which can cost him everything. Maybe England has a child regency and the French king takes everything as he wants to appoint separate regents compared to England who knows? (The Child King will never get it back)

It took far more than a bit of bad luck for John for Philip to do anything with that. John had to actually, to put it plainly, lose in the field.

 

[Liminia1]

It took far more than a bit of bad luck for John for Philip to do anything with that. John had to actually, to put it plainly, lose in the field.

Bad luck can cost battles tho