Charles the Bold doesn't die at Nancy

What if Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, had survived and won the Battle of Nancy. How long could the Duchy survived?
 
In reality he ruled over a number duchies and counties in a personal union.

He was (by the grace of God) duke of Burgundy, Lothier, Brabant, Limburg, Guelders and Luxembourg; count palatine of Burgundy; margrave of Namur; count of Flanders, Artois, Hainaut, Holland, Zeeland and Zutphen.
Even though he did expand into more territories, the control over those were recognized (although Guelders & Zutphen were disputed by some).

So even if his distant French relatives would seize his French fiefs, then there would still be a part of the Burgundian state, which will survive.
 
In reality he ruled over a number duchies and counties in a personal union.

He was (by the grace of God) duke of Burgundy, Lothier, Brabant, Limburg, Guelders and Luxembourg; count palatine of Burgundy; margrave of Namur; count of Flanders, Artois, Hainaut, Holland, Zeeland and Zutphen.
Even though he did expand into more territories, the control over those were recognized (although Guelders & Zutphen were disputed by some).

So even if his distant French relatives would seize his French fiefs, then there would still be a part of the Burgundian state, which will survive.

So if we assume that after Nancy, Burgundy is generally safe from total annexation by a foreign power, could Burgundy have survived to the modern day, maybe expanding and colonising in the process?
 
So if we assume that after Nancy, Burgundy is generally safe from total annexation by a foreign power, could Burgundy have survived to the modern day, maybe expanding and colonising in the process?

Maybe not the whole of ''Burgundy'', but IMHO the Burgundian Netherlands are doable.
Even IOTL they were never annexed by foreign powers, firstly they were inherited by the Habsburgs, secondly then they went to the Spanish Habsburg branch and thirdly later to the Austrian Habsburg branch; though France did end up annexing parts of it.
 
A victory at the battle of Nancy (which would be difficult to achieve) would not have won the Burgundian wars for Charles the Bold. Charles was in bad shape after losing the battle of Morat and the alliance of Lorraine and the Lower League would still seek to drive him from their territories. Charles also would have to deal with the machinations of Louis XI of France. Louis could take advantage of Charles’s troubles and revoke his French fiefs. Louis could also seek to incite revolts among Charles’s overtaxed subjects. So a victory at Nancy would not be the end of Charles’s troubles.
 
Yeah. Honestly, dying was the best thing Charles could do for his holdings at this point--it's easy to forget this due to the nifty sounding nickname, but he was a very bad ruler, who was increasingly insane as the years went by...
 
Even if he does survive that doesn't prevent the Burgundian Lands from being inherited as they were historically because he still doesn't have a Male Heir and winning the battle of Nancy really doesn't improve his chances of getting one. When the battle happened he had already been married to his 3rd Wife for the past 10 years, and had spent 11 years married to his second wife before that, all without male issue, and really almost without any issue at all.

I don't see why his survival at Nancy would change that track record.

It also doesn't change the fact that Burgundy is a rich but vulnerable and geographically scattered territory with lands spread across the realms of the most Powerful state in Europe and it's constant Rival. It will have to be ruled with a type of political and diplomatic skill that Charles really didn't have. If it were to get such a ruler it will still be pretty much under the influence of a Foreign State. If it doesn't it winds up like Lothringia before it.
 
Ironically, if Charles the Bold marries and have a male heir, and his line in the male line survives:

Assuming that the Valois goes extinct in 1589, the line of Burgundy will become king of France!!

What will happen to Burgundy in this scenario?
 
Charles the Bold is already married to a woman who wouldn't die until 1503. Again, this isn't just a "Survive=Have Son" situation. Charles is 44. He's not some strapping young lad who was cut down before he had a chance to make a family. He's not Young, and neither is his Wife, she's 31.

Assuming he does manage to father a son with Margaret that if anything puts him closer to the English Throne, but there's still a million things that could keep his descendants from getting either the throne of France or of England. If Burgundy's relations with either are poor, and they'll almost assuredly be poor with one or both, they'll laugh in its face and choose someone else.

If a Duke of Burgundy does become King of France then they're unlikely to keep many of their non-French Holdings while the Duchy of Burgundy itself will probably just become another Duchy in the Kingdom of France. If the Dutch have not already rebelled they'll do it then with Imperial and English support at the very least, Spain will probably also get involved because none of them will want such a massive France to exist. You'll see a "War of Burgundian Succession" similar to the "War of Spanish Succession" except France will probably be in a weaker situation.

I expect in that situation the Netherlands will either become independent or, depending on the religious situation, may be ruled by The Emperor, seized via the Imperial Ban. Most likely I think you'll see a big Netherlands that is friendly to and part of The Empire while the French lands of Burgundy are absorbed into France itself.
 

Hecatee

Donor
in the "line of Burgundy becomes king of France" we could actually see a France that extends more rapidly to the Rhine border, and keeps its border there with much less wars than OTL, and lets its holdings beyond the river go to the Empire.
Spain, on the other hand, would have much less interest to go that far north, but the wars in Italy would be much more hardly fought, as it and not modern day Belgium would become the battlefield of Europe.

The territories of modern day Belgium and Luxembourg would also provide France with much more wood for naval construction, and more importantly much more metalworking industry much earlier.

Of course France would have to face a few revolts in Flanders, due to the english wool issue, but it would be only for one or two centuries.

An independant Netherlands might well appear, more closely linked to the Empire or even becoming a part of the Empire to insure more protection. This would mean more German influence on the language and culture. This would probably mean less drive for colonies in the New World, Asia and Africa coming from the Netherlands.

On the art front, Flemish painting might be much less brilliant (no court of the Dukes of Brabant/Spanish governors to sponsor artists) and what there would be would probably influence French art to a much greater degree, while Spain would get more influence from Italian art.

On the linguistic front, Flanders would become fully French speaking and French would have more influence on Dutch, as would German.

On the longer term, maybe more French exiles toward some "cosmopolitan" colonies (Cape in southern Africa,...); a very different context at the time of the british revolution (no english-dutch wars at sea ?); less drive for revolutionary expension north at the time of the french revolution against absolutism ?
 
Charles the Bold is already married to a woman who wouldn't die until 1503. Again, this isn't just a "Survive=Have Son" situation. Charles is 44. He's not some strapping young lad who was cut down before he had a chance to make a family. He's not Young, and neither is his Wife, she's 31.

Assuming he does manage to father a son with Margaret that if anything puts him closer to the English Throne, but there's still a million things that could keep his descendants from getting either the throne of France or of England. If Burgundy's relations with either are poor, and they'll almost assuredly be poor with one or both, they'll laugh in its face and choose someone else.

If a Duke of Burgundy does become King of France then they're unlikely to keep many of their non-French Holdings while the Duchy of Burgundy itself will probably just become another Duchy in the Kingdom of France. If the Dutch have not already rebelled they'll do it then with Imperial and English support at the very least, Spain will probably also get involved because none of them will want such a massive France to exist. You'll see a "War of Burgundian Succession" similar to the "War of Spanish Succession" except France will probably be in a weaker situation.

I expect in that situation the Netherlands will either become independent or, depending on the religious situation, may be ruled by The Emperor, seized via the Imperial Ban. Most likely I think you'll see a big Netherlands that is friendly to and part of The Empire while the French lands of Burgundy are absorbed into France itself.

True, of course, Charles, looking towards the future, could always have the Pope annul marriage if he wanted to secure his line. Assuming he did that..

And his descendants still rule Burgundy, the French chose the Duke of Burgundy. After all, they chose a Protestant King of Navarre as king even if he was, by Salic Law, incredibly distant. How many degrees was Henry IV related to Henry III in the male line? A surviving House of Burgundy would undoubtedly be chosen as long as they are Catholic, and when the Duke of Burgundy become the heir presumptive, he will make the right noises to the French to ensure his succession.

Remember, during the 16th century, the French are fanatical about Salic Law. That's the only reason Henry of Navarre became king.

The Netherlands won't revolt. They would see it as them conquering France. It would be the same way when James VI became king of England. The Scots see it as a victory of them over England! The Dutch would only see the benefits of getting to the French market, etc. The Dutch did not rebel when Charles V became King of Spain, so it won't rebel until the Duke of Burgundy become King of France, not unless the King of France does something incredibly stupid to piss the Dutch off.

The French speaking parts of the Southern Netherlands would be indistinguishable from the rest of France. And if there are Protestants, they could easily become indistinguishable politically from the Huguenots.

Even if the Dutch revolt, the French would still keep the southern Netherlands. If Spain did it, the French, much closer, speaking the same language, etc, would keep modern Belgium.

As for the War of French succession, as long as he is Catholic, if the French are willing to have the Duke of Burgundy to be king, and the Burgundians, Dutch, Flemings, etc. are willing to have their Duke be King of France (which in their eyes would be a victory for themselves), what, exactly could the other powers do? I doubt they'd do much. After all, in OTL, they didn't go to war to stop Charles V from becoming King of Spain when he already controlled the Low Countries, and when he was elected HRE, they didn't go to war.

My guess is that unless the future Kings of France does something incredibly stupid, the whole Burgundian inheritance would remain French.
 
Last edited:
What if Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, had survived and won the Battle of Nancy. How long could the Duchy survived?

Winning a battle is not winning a war. Charles was stuborn. He just did not know how to fight the swiss pikesmen. Going to Nancy was a suicide : he was terrible weakened after his 2 defeats at Grandson and Morat.

You had to take into account that Charles the bold had missed off too many people at the time : The king of France, the Habsburgs, the swiss. He was surrounded.

So the best he could do was dying.
 
@ Tonifranz: the house of Valois-Burgundy was closer related to the house of Valois and later Valois-Orléans than the house of Bourbon. The house of Bourbon descends from Robert of Clermont, youngest son of Louis IX of France; whereas all Valois branches descend from Charles of Valois, fourth son of Philip III of France (heir of Louis IX).

@ Matteo: you have a strange definition of best.;)

I do agree with most of your analysis though, he had made too many enemies and alienated most of the rest.
Charles inherited a complicated relation with the main Valois branch and the Valois-Orléans cadet branch, which can be traced back to John the Fearless of Burgundy and Louis I of Orléans.
The Habsburgs is more on him, he like his father Philip the Good played diplomatic games with the Habsburgs, however he lacked the skills of his father. The whole royal crown (within the empire) in exchange for closer ties to the empire plot can be seen in that light. That relationship only got worse after Trier.

Charles had bought the Upper Austrian territories in the (Upper) Alsace and Breisgau from archduke Sigismund ruler of Further Austria and princely count of Tirol, however there was a clause to buy these back.

Charles might be able to defeat Lorraine, Upper Austria-Tirol and even the Swiss, but Nancy is too late to do so and keep Burgundy in a good shape, at that point a victory would be Pyrrhic. Even when he wins, he would still have problems. Including internal ones; the various Estates weren't too happy with all these war expences.
Externally there still is France, he has bad relations with the Habsburgs, but a Maximilian and Mary match could do miracles.
Perhaps a compromise with Sigismund, like keep the Alsatian territories, but give back the Swabian ones (Breisgau); that might be out of character, but such a thing might be needed to mend things with the Habsburgs for a victorious Charles. (Maybe a secret promise to help Sigismund regain the Aargau and Thurgau from the Swiss.)

Still after Trier (1473) Charles seemed to have took on too many, but also his 'luck' seemed to have run out.
OTOH his disturbed relations with the Swiss (former allies) started around the time he bought the Upper Alsace and Breisgau from Sigismund.

Not to mention his lack of a male heir.
 
A more interesting POD, at least to me, is to reverse the personalities of Charles and Louis XI.
Louis the Rash and Charles the Spider? :cool:

Very interesting proposal. I'm waiting for a reserved library book on the Spider - research for a planned TL. I only really know about him based on his dealings with England and, to a lesser extent ,Burgundy & Brittany. I'm looking forward to finding out more about his wider machinations.
 
Louis the Rash and Charles the Spider? :cool:

Very interesting proposal. I'm waiting for a reserved library book on the Spider - research for a planned TL. I only really know about him based on his dealings with England and, to a lesser extent ,Burgundy & Brittany. I'm looking forward to finding out more about his wider machinations.

I think you'll be surprised at how likable he is. Really, one of the more sensible monarchs of his age.
 
I think you'll be surprised at how likable he is. Really, one of the more sensible monarchs of his age.
I'm hoping so. It's Murray-Kendall's biography, so I know he tends to "re-imagine" some scenes, but he's quite an interesting writer. I've read his Warwick and Richard III, and as long as one remembers to take some of the more 'emotional' scenes with a pinch of salt, his work can be quite informative.
 
Top