Aug you kiddings right. I've thought about this somewhat myself. Let me give you some possible timelines here. Burgundy is seen as the necessary "Neutral Zone" between the Protestants and Catholics and is generally the first to reform.
The reformed countries that are between the two power blocks form a religious union around the Burgundian family line and or the benelux noble families. After a while Wars between Germany and France are turned more towards the colonies until they are pissed off at each other that one or both sides just occupy Burgundy and kill 15 million europeans to prove a point.
Sometime in the 's or so Burgundy falls as a European Thinker says that all secular evolutionists should belong to the same state and some kind of bastardized blob rises in central europe, beyond that is anyons guess.
In short, if the 2 major powers of Franks and Germans agree to maintain a Neutral Zone between them that they can alteratingly blackmail for money for "raids" when times are tough but neither side is allowed to attack, the country could survive for a long time, only if Franks and Germans understand with foresight what will happen to europe if they keep trying to wave their metal dongs at one another for years Of course that in OTL our timeline Burgundy is gone.
After the Treaty of Arras France recognised Burgundy as indipendent. Yet the duke managed to squander that achievement quite hastefully, in merely 40 years. So, most likely point of divergence would be having him a male hair with Margaret of York, sister of king Richard III of England in married in Surviving the next two centuries in this timeline will most likely be very challenging. But that, recognising the key events, is exactly goal of this project.
One of early ripples of the survival of Kingdom, would be avoidance of egzistence of spanish Netherlands and their 80 year war for indipendence. To be continued Last edited: Jan 9, Librarian said:. Cyan Very good points. So, the next challenge would be surviving the Reformation. As Kingdom, it shall have it own Royal court, newly created local nobless who could use titles but not the lands previosly belonging to the royal house, with its own Royal council and Parliament.
Becose of history of local selfrule, this parliament, with many city representatives, would be very supportive to the king, making him as strong as the king of England, with unparalleled riches in Europe. During the 30 year war it will make an alliance with Austria in responce to Franco-swedish alliance. The war shall devastate the country, but it will participate in Westfalian Conference, what shall guarante its further survival.
Dec UK. How much of Charles the Bold's Burgundy do you see continuing as a single kingdom? His lands were disparate and there was no central border to defend. Perhaps over time, the Low Countries would have broken away from French Burgundy - the provinces were rivals in many areas and needed a strong ruler to keep them together. There is one wee little problem in that the House of Valois-Burgundy came directly after the main branch, so if that one dies out, like it did in OTL, the dukes of Burgundy upgrade to King of France, which does offer some very interesting possibilities but means an end to Burgundy as a separate entity.
How much of a problem the HRE will be depends in a large part on the alternate development of the Habsburgs, which will be completely different without a marriage to Mary of Burgundy probably and with no Habsburg Netherlands. France OTOH, will still want to expand to the east. Larus Marinus. What I've come to understand from reading about the topic is that the main obstacle in the path of a surviving Burgundian state is the personality of Charles the Bold. His brilliant policy of pissing off every major country in western Europe would have ensured the eventual downfall of Burgundy regardless of whether he survived the Battle of Morat or if he had male heirs.
It's not like the ambitious French kings would just sit idly by as a weakened Burgundy without any major allies tried swallowing what it attempted to gobble up in Charles' ill-conceived wars. Charles the Bold needs to be more willing to compromise, and less likely to act like an arrogant and over-ambitious prick.
Having him agree to return the Vorlande when prompted by the Duke of Tyrol would probably be a good start. Would at the very least get him benevolent neutrality and possibly an alliance against the Swiss from the Habsburgs and the Empire. Charles the Bold having male heirs is by no means necessary for the survival of the Burgundian state. There are plenty of potential suitors for Mary the Rich available other than the Habsburg and Valois candidates, after all. What I have planned for my own timeline is for Philip the Upright of the Palatinate to agree to the OTL proposed marriage instead of declining it, for instance.
Kuld von Reyn said:. Click to expand Hrvatskiwi said:. Maybe it would be easier just to have the PoD pre-Charles the Bold, and a different person runs Burgundy?
Xavier, could Burgundy become France like that, but with Burgundy becoming the centre of power? An Uber-Burgundy, France only in name? As for your question to Xavier; no. This is a bit of pet peeve of mine too, in fact. It might be a France with an economical powerhouse in the Low Counties, but it's France nonetheless. France is simply too big and too populated to be supplanted by the comparatively tiny Low Countries in importance.
Simreeve said:. I've read that he was angling for the imperial grant of a royal title, too: If those parts of 'Burgundy' that lay within the HRE had become "again" a kingdom, might that have helped even though probably only very slightly to stabilise matters?
Charles the Bold also demanded the Bohemian Electoral Vote. He had a lot of very unreasonable demands and ambitions, and his reckless tendency to act on them was what led to his downfall. The prestige of a crown would most likely have gone to his head and made him even more arrogant, unreasonable and rash than he was already. All of which were personality traits that cost him the crown OTL. There's a reason why he was also known as "the Rash" Had Philip the Good been crowned King, however, things might have happened very differently.
Philip the Good would be less likely to use the crown as a pretext for military expansion, and a Burgundian Kingdom under his rule might have time to stabilize politically.
France was weaker during Philip's time as Duke of Burgundy, and so he would have less fear of French intervention as well. Depending on when he gets the crown Charles might have messed things up regardless though.
Last edited: May 21, Xavier said:. Janprimus said:. Yes, Charles the Bold had some character issues. However might make a difference if he manages to somehow get the crown himself or that he inherits the crown from his father. Furthermore the first negotiations for a royal crown of a vassal kingdom of the empire between the duke of Burgundy and the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III started during the reign of Philip the Good.
His demands were more reason than the demands later made by his son Charles the Bold. He wanted all his imperial territories being made a part of this kingdom and neighboring territories like Julich, Cleves and Berg as vassals.
Not as demanding as Charles, who also had liked to see Lorraine and Savoy as his vassals. Yet Philip the Good didn't want to get a royal crown under each condition, he wouldn't just accept the terms of the emperor without any negotiation. Regarding territorial expansion Lorraine, Bar, Metz, Verdun, Toul, Stassburg and the rest of the Alsace will remain interesting imperial territory to expand to, if these are made a part of a kingdom.
Since that would connect the Northern and the Southern Burgundian Lands.
0コメント