We've had threads aplenty discussing military disasters, but what about political missteps? Throughout the ages, rulers have walked a tightrope between effectiveness of rule and ability to stay in power and maintain that rule. Sometimes these two aims lined up neatly, but other times doing the correct thing administratively or militarily was absolutely not the right way to go about staying in power. With this in mind, what major political blunders (or honourable political sacrifices) can you think of that either cost a ruler or politician their throne or position, or severely destabilised/depleted that role? Foreign policy blunders don't count unless they also lead to a massive loss of political support or resulted in the monarch being deposed militarily by the described offended foreign power or brought very close to losing power.
For the one example I can think of and articulate, I'd have to post John Balliol of Scotland's blunder of promising Edward I of England allegiance as the English king's vassal in order to get the throne, which resulted in Edward undermining his position so badly that Balliol's Councillors ultimately lost all respect for him and pushed him out of the way, signing an agreement with France that essentially amounted to a betrayal of Balliol's oath of allegiance to Edward. This then brought the enraged Edward I (who really should not have been so surprised given his steady undermining of his own vassal's position) up north, resulting in Balliol's military defeat and usurpation.
This isn't entirely Balliol's fault, and I'm honestly not sure who to blame more; him or Edward. Edward I did everything possible to undermine his position and noble confidence in him by intervening in Scottish affairs as much as possible and making harsh demands which ultimately destabilised his own vassal's political base. It was ultimately a guardian council of 12 nobles, not Balliol himself, who made the fatal decision to ally with France just as Edward was building up for a campaign against her. But Balliol gets the spot for his contemptible decision to seize the Scottish throne by selling that throne down river to such a ruthless opponent. After that moment, I don't think it matters what Balliol did. If he hadn't had his powers taken away by the Scottish nobility, then Edward would have slowly undermined him anyway until he held no real power at all, or was ultimately driven into rebelling himself... or worse, the Scottish nobles themselves might have rebelled against him. Whatever Balliol did from that point on, he was going to lose.
Of course it's possible, maybe even probable, that Balliol had to make that promise in the first place to get Edward to back him, so I suppose he needed to make it to take power. Still, it's the kind of deal with the devil that I'm sure Balliol deeply regretted making only a short time after his coronation as it became clear what life as a client king really meant.
Of course Edward doesn't get off scot-free (hur) either; it was still his decision to put Balliol in that position, and by undermining Balliol steadily Edward ensured that Balliol's position would crumble. I'm not quite sure what Edward was expecting, but I do get the impression, based on my memories of reading "A Great And Terrible King" by Marc Morris, that Edward may have genuinely expected Balliol to behave like any other vassal, and as such had an unrealistic view of the Scottish court and its willingness to submit to the demands of an English king. As such he felt entitled to treat Balliol like any other vassal, and of course his treatment of the Scots in the aftermath of the invasion of Scotland (he burnt Berwick!) was abominable. The hatred generated by Edward in the Scots means that Edward I, an otherwise highly capable king and savvy politician, also gets an honourable mention here for creating a situation that meant that Scotland would always hate the English occupation. That systematic alienation of a state that had actually been quite close to England politically (many Scottish nobles also held land in England) ensured that Edward's less competent son, Edward II, would ultimately lose Scotland itself. Had Edward maintained a lighter hand, or had his reaction to the allegiance with France not been so completely over the top, it is possible that he might ultimately have gained some measure of political control over Scotland. As it was Edward could never permanently control Scotland by force, and it was ultimately his weak son and the leadership of Robert I that lost the country.
So, in summary, points go to John Balliol for making a deal with the devil he couldn't keep, and Edward I, for making the keeping of that deal impossible anyway.
For the one example I can think of and articulate, I'd have to post John Balliol of Scotland's blunder of promising Edward I of England allegiance as the English king's vassal in order to get the throne, which resulted in Edward undermining his position so badly that Balliol's Councillors ultimately lost all respect for him and pushed him out of the way, signing an agreement with France that essentially amounted to a betrayal of Balliol's oath of allegiance to Edward. This then brought the enraged Edward I (who really should not have been so surprised given his steady undermining of his own vassal's position) up north, resulting in Balliol's military defeat and usurpation.
This isn't entirely Balliol's fault, and I'm honestly not sure who to blame more; him or Edward. Edward I did everything possible to undermine his position and noble confidence in him by intervening in Scottish affairs as much as possible and making harsh demands which ultimately destabilised his own vassal's political base. It was ultimately a guardian council of 12 nobles, not Balliol himself, who made the fatal decision to ally with France just as Edward was building up for a campaign against her. But Balliol gets the spot for his contemptible decision to seize the Scottish throne by selling that throne down river to such a ruthless opponent. After that moment, I don't think it matters what Balliol did. If he hadn't had his powers taken away by the Scottish nobility, then Edward would have slowly undermined him anyway until he held no real power at all, or was ultimately driven into rebelling himself... or worse, the Scottish nobles themselves might have rebelled against him. Whatever Balliol did from that point on, he was going to lose.
Of course it's possible, maybe even probable, that Balliol had to make that promise in the first place to get Edward to back him, so I suppose he needed to make it to take power. Still, it's the kind of deal with the devil that I'm sure Balliol deeply regretted making only a short time after his coronation as it became clear what life as a client king really meant.
Of course Edward doesn't get off scot-free (hur) either; it was still his decision to put Balliol in that position, and by undermining Balliol steadily Edward ensured that Balliol's position would crumble. I'm not quite sure what Edward was expecting, but I do get the impression, based on my memories of reading "A Great And Terrible King" by Marc Morris, that Edward may have genuinely expected Balliol to behave like any other vassal, and as such had an unrealistic view of the Scottish court and its willingness to submit to the demands of an English king. As such he felt entitled to treat Balliol like any other vassal, and of course his treatment of the Scots in the aftermath of the invasion of Scotland (he burnt Berwick!) was abominable. The hatred generated by Edward in the Scots means that Edward I, an otherwise highly capable king and savvy politician, also gets an honourable mention here for creating a situation that meant that Scotland would always hate the English occupation. That systematic alienation of a state that had actually been quite close to England politically (many Scottish nobles also held land in England) ensured that Edward's less competent son, Edward II, would ultimately lose Scotland itself. Had Edward maintained a lighter hand, or had his reaction to the allegiance with France not been so completely over the top, it is possible that he might ultimately have gained some measure of political control over Scotland. As it was Edward could never permanently control Scotland by force, and it was ultimately his weak son and the leadership of Robert I that lost the country.
So, in summary, points go to John Balliol for making a deal with the devil he couldn't keep, and Edward I, for making the keeping of that deal impossible anyway.
Last edited:
