The Angevin Empire was ruled over by the Plantagenet kings of England who also had vast territories in France. The origins date back to William I's conquest of England who at the time was Duke of Normandy.
My question is this: At the point of official formation in the mid 12th century, was it actually an English empire? It is true that the highest title of the ruler was king of England, but they originated in France. Was it a French empire? Or is it incorrect to assign a nationality to the empire so it should just be Anglo-Norman empire?
I thought that Normandy was separate from France at the time. Also the nobility spoke mostly French and probably spent more time in France, although the empire ended in England. Was it just the empire of one man?
Charles Myers
1) They never called it that. >The Angevin Empire (/ˈændʒəvJn/; French: L'Empire Plantagenêt) is, in modern usage, the collective term for the possessions of the Angevin kings of England, who also held lands in France, during the 12th and 13th centuries. Its rulers were Henry II (ruled 1154-89), Richard I (r. 1189-99), and John (r. 1199-1216). 2) It's neither an English Empire, nor a French one. It's a dynastic entity. There's a reason why Euronig monarchs have long ass titles in which they are the King of X, the duke of Y, and the Count of Z. Lrn2Context.
Ian Thompson
If you asked one of the kings that ruled it they would probably answer with "It's *my* empire" rather than any one nation's. Back then they viewed territory as being owned by a single person rather than the state.
Nathan Price
Yeah that makes sense. However did the kings of the empire identify with a particular nationality? For example did Henry II see himself as French, did Edward III see himself as English?
Zachary Watson
Nationalities meant little back then, power and religion was everything.
Josiah Bailey
You don’t have concepts of nationalities until after the 100 YW But you do have concepts of foreigners Henry II alienated most of the Norman lords by creating new laws and also using ‘new men’ rather than these lords for council Also a reminder that Henry II was far better than Richard ever was, who was a traitor and kinslayer
Parker Long
Would you say the territories in France were the primary element of the Empire? So if anything, it was administered in France and was from a modern view, a French empire?
Sebastian Morris
>implying a unified French identity If anything it was a Gascon empire As Aquitaine was the richest part, and as shown by its single lion, the most importnanr part of it
Gavin Gutierrez
THIS Henry II = Henry VII Richard I = Henry VIII
Jayden Walker
>implying Henry VIII wasn't the best king before Arthur Although i agree Richard was barely English and spent most his time crusading and bleeding the country
Jonathan Sanders
Did the empire then evolve to become a nationalised unity such as during the reign of the kings following Edward III who started to speak more English and refused vassalage to the kings of France?
Ethan Russell
It was by all mean a French Empire (started in France by French nobles before expanding to England)
>It is true that the highest title of the ruler was king of England Only because "king" is the higest title, and that the Plantagenets couldnt be king of France But the capital was still Angers, and even Rouen was above London in relevance
Ryan Anderson
It originated in Anjou (hence the name) The Plantagenets spoke Angevin French, not Gascon
Noah Gomez
>Henry II alienated most of the Norman lords by creating new laws and also using ‘new men’ rather than these lords for council
Not because he was seen as a foreigner. His father raised him as a Norman.
Jaxson Miller
Henry II was raised as a Norman, while Richard I due to his mother's influence (and because at first he was supposed to inherit the Duke of Aquitaine) felt more like someone from Southern France.
Michael Morales
Why are you trying so hard to force a nationality on this polity? To do so would be historically inaccurate. It would completely misrepresent the nature of the polity. What is the fault in accepting that states worked differently at this time and place than they do at this time and place?
Brayden Allen
The way he's wording his questions makes it seem like he's trying to get us to answer some essay question for an assignment or something, to be honest.
Parker Cruz
And he's too much of a brainlet to realize we've handed him the secret A+ answer
Brayden Hall
this. I see this all the fucking time.
Can brainlets do their essays themselves?
William White
Nop. Just a nationalist who needs national validation.
Wyatt Russell
>t. Normanaboo
Ian Lopez
>nor a French one This is what anglos actually believe
Mason Taylor
High level of discourse from the nationalist pseuds
Justin Cox
Others have already responded, but to give you an idea of just how much it wasn’t “English” (at first at least): Richard Lionheart only spent a few months in total in England. You said “who also had vast territories in France”, but it would be more accurate to say that they were ridiculously powerful vassals of the French crown who also happened to hold the English crown thanks to dynastic shenanigans (Aliénor, that bitch). Calling it an empire is inaccurate, an historiographical convenience.
Also Normandy wasn’t separate from France at the time. Feudalism is weird like that. Normandy was part of the kingdom of France, it’s ruler was the duke of Normandy, a vassal of the king of France/of the Franks (depending on the century), who also was the king of England.