Why was France such a clusterfuck in the Middle Ages?

Most of that "English" clay was actually held by French dukes who simply picked the English claimant to the French throne over the French one.

All countries were clusterfucks during the middle ages because feudalism.

To be fair, England enjoyed central authority because they were not a large state to begin with. Between it's late formation by the kings of Wessex, and its period under Danish rule, the central authority in England was pretty firmly established. Then the Normans come, oust the existing crop of nobles, and set up an even leaner operation. Had France been formed by, say, the Bretons conquering Gaul, then they'd be comparable.

And, as for the invasions of France, we can't forget that those invasions were facilitated by the wealthy French holdings owned by the Kings of England. Aquitaine in particular was among the richest parts of France.

Just not true, feudalism worked fine for some countries such as England. France suffered because its feudal lords were often richer and more powerful than their king, this is a failing both of the early French monarchs but also a symptom of the extreme wealth and fertility of France.

If French went all out, they could divide their country into tiny region know as pagi.

>Had France been formed by, say, the Bretons conquering Gaul, then they'd be comparable.
>tfw no breton french kingdom speaking a celtic language again

>And, as for the invasions of France, we can't forget that those invasions were facilitated by the wealthy French holdings owned by the Kings of England. Aquitaine in particular was among the richest parts of France.
That's my point tho. You couldn't have done this in England, because English lords lacked the wealth to effectively oppose their king.
>it's late formation
England is older than France, tho. It was one of the first states to form after the end of Rome.
>Had France been formed by, say, the Bretons conquering Gaul, then they'd be comparable.
What? The two countries are perfectly analogous, both were Latinzed Celts who were conquered by Germans, yes the English got conquered twice but really so did the French, the Normans took over France as surely as they did England, just without one clear decisive battle to mark it.

England was a mess as well if you draw it as a dutchy-divided map.

Furthermore, England had just been "united" by William the Conqueror, before that, 9th century England was a mess on par with France. Over time, marriages and weird inheritances causes holdings and borders to get screwed up.

Other than Flanders, France was not particularly wealthy.

Most French lords were not super rich and powerful, other than the Count of Flanders. They also have problems dealing with small barons, since their land was also decentralized. On the average, the German high nobles were more powerful than the French ones (which caused tons of headaches to the Holy Roman Emperors).

>England was a mess as well if you draw it as a dutchy-divided map
Except no, it wasn't. English dukes had a fraction of the power of French dukes, and they were mostly fully subservient to their king and didn't form alliances with rival kings or back rival claimants, not for very long anyway, and nothing like to the extent that French dukes did.
>England had just been "united" by William the Conqueror
And yet France wasn't, why was this? Because England was small enough and poor enough for one army to dominate it, while France was too wealthy for any single effort to subdue all the players.
>Other than Flanders, France was not particularly wealthy.
France has some of the best soils in all of Europe, in terms of wealth and population it was at least double the size of England.
>
Most French lords were not super rich and powerful, other than the Count of Flanders. They also have problems dealing with small barons, since their land was also decentralized. On the average, the German high nobles were more powerful than the French ones (which caused tons of headaches to the Holy Roman Emperors).
I don't disagree. I'm talking about the powerful dukes who made and broke kings, there is no real equivalent for these in England, where no noble was wealthy enough to challenge the king.

>France has some of the best soils in all of Europe, in terms of wealth and population it was at least double the size of England.

I'm comparing with Europe in general, not only in England. Yes, France was much richer than England.

>I don't disagree. I'm talking about the powerful dukes who made and broke kings, there is no real equivalent for these in England, where no noble was wealthy enough to challenge the king.

I think that it depends on the era... Harold Godwinson (and his father) were more powerful than Edward the Confessor. I think that the issue with France was that the early Capetian kings were too weak in the beginning. If you look at a map, you may think that the Duke of Burgundy was super strong. He was actually just a robber who went around pillaging his subjects.

>He was actually just a robber who went around pillaging his subjects.
True of all feudal lords to be fair.
>I think that the issue with France was that the early Capetian kings were too weak in the beginning.
I don't think so, look at other wealthy regions such as Germany and Italy, they also failed to unify while poor regions such as England, Denmark, and Poland all managed it. Feudal monarchies are simply weak by nature, they can only unify a region when that region is too poor for any part of it to successfully resist.

Because apart from Ile de France, France doesn't actually exist.

Modern "France" is just stolen territory from Burgundians, Bretons, Aquitanes, Occitanes and Normans.

>True of all feudal lords to be fair.

The Duke of Burgundy was a peculiar noble

Throughout his reign, he was little more than a robber baron who had no control over his vassals, whose estates he often plundered, especially those of the Church. He seized the income of the diocese of Autun and the wine of the canons of Dijon. He burgled the abbey of St-Germain at Auxerre. In 1048, he repudiated his wife, Helie of Semur followed by the assassination of her brother Joceran and the murdering her father, his father-in-law, Lord Dalmace I of Semur, with his own hands. In that same year, the Bishop of Langres, Harduoin, refused to dedicate the church of Sennecy so as not "to be exposed to the violence of the duke."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_I,_Duke_of_Burgundy

>I don't think so, look at other wealthy regions such as Germany and Italy, they also failed to unify while poor regions such as England, Denmark, and Poland all managed it. Feudal monarchies are simply weak by nature, they can only unify a region when that region is too poor for any part of it to successfully resist.

The German nobles were powerful, but Germany itself was not rich.

It's middle ages, no one was rich except the nobles.

>Modern "France" is just stolen territory from Burgundians, Bretons, Aquitanes, Occitanes and Normans.
None of those actually exists either, dimwit. National identities are socially constructed, "France" is as real as "Normandy" or "Burgundy".

>The German nobles were powerful, but Germany itself was not rich.
Not in the early medieval certainly, but once the rhine became a trade hub the region became too prosperous for any one feudal lord to dominate, hence the (somewhat ingenious) elected emperor fix they came up with.
>Duke of Burgundy
He was just more overt in his predation, feudalism is an inherently extractive economic system.

Don't get me started with Germany. It makes France united by comparison

>England enjoyed a long period of strong central authority during the same period
Meanwhile. In the Kingdom of England.

>FUCKING SIGN THE DOCUMENT JOHN.
>NO
>HOLY FUCKING SHIT WE WILL REBEL AGAIN IF YOU DONT SIGN.

Centralized indeed.

That's literally one weak king, and the fact their sole ambition was to force the king to sign a law is a pretty clear indication that they thought the state was strong enough and centralized enough to impose its laws upon the whole land, otherwise what would be the point of making a weak puppet sign a law he can't enforce?

Proper OP image

France is a meme country on the level of HRE

the second systems got to a state they could effectively control these sizes of areas it got realised as a buffer state due to everything around it (germany britain spain) being able to do its job, only better, so you got an exodus of any real power or important and it fell into its second tier classification.

>is a pretty clear indication that they thought the state was strong enough and centralized enough

The very fact that petty barons can enforce their will upon a despotic king shows that the central authority is worthless.

>what would be the point of making a weak puppet sign a law he can't enforce?

Enforce what? A document that increased the power of the Barons, such as less payments and legal protection has no need of enforcement since if the King refuses to comply the barons will have a just cause to kick his ass, which they did, in the First Barons' War ending with Lous VIII invading England and nearly getting the throne.

Not him, but there's a big difference between centralized governance and a despotic, arbitrary king. It's why the Barons established a royal council which eventually became the English Parliament.

How the fuck did this even work?

>King gives some land to high nobles
>High nobles give land to middle nobles
>Middle nobles give land to low nobles

Each level keeps the land they don't give out for themselves.
In theory, the land receivers are subordinate to their corresponding land giver.
(In practice, lol no)

Peasants come with land as neat accessory.

Am I understanding this right?

The issue is what happens when the middle noble dies - or, if the middle noble inherits the estate of a high noble whom he has a distant relationship with.

Germany situation, for example, is almost entirely the case of the high nobility either splitting their titles ad infinitum or dying out. The areas of Baden Wurttemberg, parts of Bavaria, and I believe bits of Switzerland became autonomous as fuck after the Hohenstauffens died, for example.

In the other case, we have a weird case where a noble can operate at various levels of vassalage. The King of England being a vassal of the King of France with relation to the Duchy of Normandy, and other French fiefdoms, being a prime example.

There are other examples, like rebelling, excommunicated, or interdicted lords losing control over some of their vassals.

The entire kingdom belonged to the king who gaves titltes to whoever he wanted, a title was only passed from father-to-son when the family holding it was powerful enough.

>when the family holding it was powerful enough.

And this was fairly common in the case of France?

Yes

The Capetians were counts, then "dukes", before overthrowing the Carolingians, obviously after becoming kings their power wasn't firm enough to dispossess/grant titles like the Merovingians and Carolingians did.

Furthermore, when the Capetians were crowned they were crowned not just by the French but by the Normands, Bretons, and Aquitains so they obviously wouldn't disposess their (former) allies and weaken their own power(keep in mind the HRE was eyeing West at that time).

So if a king wanted to, he could completely wipe all of the current title holders in his lands and reorganize the kingdom into new fiefdoms with new rulers?

He could try. In practice medieval kings, especially french ones, lacked the hard power to do that.

lol

Play CK2 and try to do this.

The results are basically exactly what would have happened in real life.

you can just execute whoever you want but that's how a civil war starts

t.Machiavelli