renaud vibien said:
The agenda of Philippe le Hardi and Jean sans Peur was to have the more possible influence in the french royal government. For this they used situation such that king's minority, king's madness, civil war or foreign war. (It was the same agenda what motivated Philippe le Bon in accepting the Treaty of Troyes. He hoped that Henry VI would be the nominal regent of the kingdom but that he would let him take the real work. But Henry V didn't. So Philippe le Bon changed his agenda, his objective became to create a coherent Burgundian House state.
However, the Regency was offered to Philippe, as stipulated in Henry V's will, and Philippe rejected it. So, I don't really see Philippe too terribly motivated to gain control over French affairs. If such motivation existed, then it was merely transient.
The primary motivations of Philippe le Bon seem more likely to be greater independence, and not mastery over the affairs of the Crown of France -- as you essentially noted. Consolidating and solidifying the Burgundian state was the ends and the real motivation to interefere with French affairs (C. VI's madness provided the necessary opportunity) and ally with ENG.
The english allliance what was hopless for the previous agenda became a usefull tool, then in 1435 it was reconciliation with cHarles VII who was the most usefull for this new agenda.)
I don't think the agenda changed insofar as the lowlands and unifying the Burgundian state was concerned. Fluctuating allegiance to ENG and then FRA served as means to futher de facto independence.
In august-september 1419,Jean sans Peur didn't want to add Picardie or Auxerrois to his patrimonial properties, he didn't want to have exemption of the hommage to the King. What he wanted was that the Dauphin abandon the Armagnac Party, former advisors of Louis d'Orléans or the Connétable d'Armagnac, like Jean Louvet or Tanguy du Chastel, that the Dauphin came to live in Troyes witrh his father, his mother and his sister because he wanted to phisically control the entire royal family, and that the Dauphin recognize him as regent of France during the King's desease, like the queen did.
Jean's position is unattainable. The Dauphin is being asked to sacrifice his greatest asset: his independence. Moreover, the Dauphin is not a boy, he is well within the age expected of a prince to assume the responsibilities of a Regency. The logical settlement would be an Arras-like situation, involving the disputed territories, and Burgundy's freedom to persue consolidation in the lowlands (if there was to be a happy settlement), or as you suggest, a neutral one. However, we should consider removing the option for Jean to live.
If the Dauphin Charles submits to Jean Sans PEur, I see no point for an BUR event accept/refuse.
There should not be a choice to accept Jean's demands, they're simply too unrealistic. They're as silly as ENG's demands during the Congress of Arras.
But between assassinate Jean Sans Peur and submits to him, there is a midterm. The effect of "Treaty of Monterau rejection" are good for the case where at Montereau, the two princes renewed the Peace of Pouilly (no active war between them) but no more. No assassination of the duke, but no submition of the Dauphin.
What do you think would then follow?
Analyze of events prroposed :
#On the bridge of Montereau
.
.
.
the sentence "Tempers flared during the meeting, and John and his retainers were cut to pieces" seems to mean that the murder was without premeditation.
The text you are criticising is from the
original FF event. At any rate, if the murder was premeditated and executed flawlessly without hesitation after a certain point, then this coupled with the unrealistic demands of Jean is a strong indication that there should not be an option to spare Jean...
Besides the fact that without any events before Montereau (and not enough time, seeing as the game begins in 1419), there really isn't much of a reason game-play-wise to give Jean an opportunity to live. So if we choose to buy the story, then this strengthens the argument to kill Jean. If the game start-date was moved earlier, and there were several different choices to make before Montereau which would alter the position at Montereau (or avoid it entirely) then sure, let's give Jean a chance to live.
If independence was what John had sought, then recognition of a government headed by Charles VI and his son would be settled for nothing less than independence. Thus, Duke John would need to be freed from Liege homage, confirmed in his Burgundian estates, and granted the disputed territory along the Somme."
Well, a justified forced death for Jean would solve the issue. It would certainly help historical development by axing a very ahistorical (and not really even plausible) alt-branch. Jean dies, and Philip will still get the choice to back the ENG or reject the ENG and gain a shot at the Crown of France, etc.
