The Problem of Survival for the Angevin “Empire”: Henry II’s and His Sons’ Vision Versus Late 12th Century

Realities.

Ralph V. Turner

Author’s Thesis

Henry II and his sons lacked the vision to create a true territorial empire versus a collection of disparate territories.

Supporting Arguments

Angevin Empire lacked a central core. Within Empire the king’s power was variable. The concept of a modern empire was an

anachronism in the 12th and 13th centuries. Henry II’s succession plans (“Parage”) prove that

he never meant the empire to be unified or centrally controlled.

As vassals of Phillip II, Henry’s heirs never had ability to unify territories into an empire.

Critique of Ralph V. Turner

Lack of vision or lack of opportunity. Richard’s refusal to take an oath of fealty to

Henry the Young King. Henry II’s belated backing of John’s

inheritance. Underestimates Role of Eleanor of

Aquitaine. Turner notes two historians point of view of

possible “sea-borne empire.”

Turner Quotes

“Richard the Lionheart and his brother King John, both concentrated their energies and resources on preserving this nameless empire…”

“Not only Henry II but the entire Plantagenet line believed that the Angevin ‘empire’ was worth preserving as a family enterprise possessing some measure of political cohesion.”

Course Relevance

Establishing original intent. Distinguishing reality of ends from possible

means. Conflicting roles of authority yield

resistance. Emergence of cultures under unifying

literature and myths leads to cultural clashes.

And Now…..

“Rare Archival Footage” (Dr. Perron)