• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

PODs of the Thirty Years War XXIV

I suppose the obvious POD happens before the war begins- what if Henry IV avoids his assassination? He was fifty six, so probably not due too much longer in early modern conditions.

But let's give him another, oh, fifteen years- Good King Henry dies at age 71. That lets him see the war kick off.

What are the consequences? On the one hand, France is probably a tad more stable though possibly slightly poorer. Henry will be viewed with even more suspicion as a pseudo-Catholic at best, but I can't imagine he'll be leaping in any more than Richelieu did.

He did have more luck facing down Spain, though- possibly the Northern Italy intervention goes to France in this timeline?
 
I suppose the obvious POD happens before the war begins- what if Henry IV avoids his assassination? He was fifty six, so probably not due too much longer in early modern conditions.

But let's give him another, oh, fifteen years- Good King Henry dies at age 71. That lets him see the war kick off.

What are the consequences? On the one hand, France is probably a tad more stable though possibly slightly poorer. Henry will be viewed with even more suspicion as a pseudo-Catholic at best, but I can't imagine he'll be leaping in any more than Richelieu did.

He did have more luck facing down Spain, though- possibly the Northern Italy intervention goes to France in this timeline?

Well for starters Marie de' Medici isn't regent here- she goes straight from Queen Consort to Queen-Mother. Still influential at court, but she's had less opportunity to build a powerbase. Richelieu probably still gets his initial breaks that led to him being noticed, but he might be hindered in court. He'd be dying just before, or as, the Valtellina kicks off which might mean we end up with the new king going in half-cocked to prove himself.

The big one, however, is that while the drive for centralisation of power is still going to be a thing, it's unlikely that Louis XIII is going to start his reign by trying to attack the Huguenots. They're on the list certainly, but potentially still a going concern in La Rochelle until the mid 1630s.

Which means France is funding the Swedish to attack the Emperor, while Spain is funding the Huguenots to make trouble for France and the Duke of Buckingham hasn't completely embarrassed himself at La Rochelle, but is embarrassing himself in North Germany and England is paradoxically fighting along side the Swedes, supported by the French, while also being against the French crushing La Rochelle.

Congratulations, you've just found the one way to make the alliance structure of the war even more complicated.
 
Let's note Henri IV was gearing up for war in 1610 when he was assassinated. Some of the theories in favour of conspiracy behind Ravaillac push the idea that Spain or Marie were trying to avert war that way. So a living Henri gets us a conflict in the 1610s that might reignite things before the various truces lapse, or before some of the Austrian Hapsburgs die off. What this might do to the Bohemian Estates is left as an enigma...

Marie was also influential and remained so, despite her chief minister and his wife being brutally murdered in a coup by her own son, because Louis XIII was a desperately lonely boy. She was a natural plotter, but despite having always a poker in the fire for the next court intrigue, she was just not good at it, nor very bright. The only thing she seems to have managed is to screw up her eldest son in a proto-Kensington system. A Louis XIII who grew up educated by Henri (a loving and doting father; bit too much so on the Légitimés) is probably still going to be shy, but not the mess he was OTL and much less dependent on his mother, and probably a lot less tolerant of what Gaston and she try in their inept ways to pull. However, Richelieu, as you note, rose through her and as late as 1622 owed her further promotions even though he was already working against her. In a France with a longer reign of Henri, there'd be less of a vacuum for a relatively minor noble (the du Plessis had risen quite recently, they made themselves useful during the Wars of Religion) to step in. Richelieu is a crafty one, and he could have risen without Marie, but maybe not as much. Now, raison d'état (accept no cheap fakes like realpolitik!) had been a tool of French statecraft for a century or more at this point, with François Ier allying with Suleiman against Carlos, but Richelieu was the one who refined it and theorised it.
 
Its kind of a shame that Cardinal Richelieu will never be more than the villain in the Three Musketeers to 99% of the population. I admit that I myself often conflate the character with the historical figure.
 
Its kind of a shame that Cardinal Richelieu will never be more than the villain in the Three Musketeers to 99% of the population. I admit that I myself often conflate the character with the historical figure.

I don't think he'd mind. Why do they cast me as evil? Because you control all things in France and you pursue your aims ruthlessly without letting morals or sentiment hinder you for the glory of your king and your country. Oh, swell! You mean I succeed?
 
I don't think he'd mind. Why do they cast me as evil? Because you control all things in France and you pursue your aims ruthlessly without letting morals or sentiment hinder you for the glory of your king and your country. Oh, swell! You mean I succeed?
I think the part which he would mind is that he is usually portrayed as a murdering arch traitor seeking to bring war and ruin on France and replace and murder one King usually after having killed his father and is cast down by virtuous Frenchmen and the Queen.

Maybe being the bad guy would be a mark of success but the cinematic versions at least normally portray him as a bit of a scumbag thwarted by better men despite every advantage and only just keeping his skin if indeed he does do so.
 
I think the part which he would mind is that he is usually portrayed as a murdering arch traitor seeking to bring war and ruin on France and replace and murder one King usually after having killed his father and is cast down by virtuous Frenchmen and the Queen.

Maybe being the bad guy would be a mark of success but the cinematic versions at least normally portray him as a bit of a scumbag thwarted by better men despite every advantage and only just keeping his skin if indeed he does do so.

I prefer the TV/cartoon series adaptation that I always recall being far more along the lines of 'we must ensure the Queen's honour remains unstained, the King cannot be allowed to find out about this or the Cardinal will have the excuse he needs to force her to do what he wants her to.'
 
I prefer the TV/cartoon series adaptation that I always recall being far more along the lines of 'we must ensure the Queen's honour remains unstained, the King cannot be allowed to find out about this or the Cardinal will have the excuse he needs to force her to do what he wants her to.'

Honestly they should do something where they fake a scandal. Because everyone hates the Queen for being boring and moral and honorable and France demands scandal and infamy.
 
I think the part which he would mind is that he is usually portrayed as a murdering arch traitor seeking to bring war and ruin on France and replace and murder one King usually after having killed his father and is cast down by virtuous Frenchmen and the Queen.

Maybe being the bad guy would be a mark of success but the cinematic versions at least normally portray him as a bit of a scumbag thwarted by better men despite every advantage and only just keeping his skin if indeed he does do so.


Oh, in the adaptations he's almost always a sneering, melodramatic villain. The 1972 version averts this- Charleton Heston plays Richelieu as steely, ruthless and far more competent than his royal masters.

But the joy of the book is that at no point does anyone suggest that the Cardinal is opposed to France- merely the Queen. The big exciting plot is the Musketeers racing across country to prevent the Queen being exposed for colluding with France's enemies. Then the Musketeers go off and fight for the Cardinal at La Rochelle.

The book ends with Richelieu summoning in D'Artaganan, and essentially telling him that when a young man arrives from the country and manages to thwart Richelieu's carefully laid scheme, kill his most reliable henchman, defeat a second and still has the courage to walk openly in Paris with his head held high, there is only one thing for the Cardinal to do: Promote him and offer him a position in his personal guard.

In the later books, they end up complaining about how much they miss Richelieu- he may have been a total bastard, but he was a much worthier opponent than his successor.
 
It occurs to me there's probably good mileage in a take where our musketeers are called in by A to resolve a domestic intelligence issue that turns out to have been entirely due to R at Foreign Intelligence organising a scheme without telling anyone.

Isn't that basically the 17th Century equivalent of calling the cops on the FBI or something?
 
Back
Top