As I understand it, Charles, Duke of Burgundy, was to be crowned king of his domains by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1473 at Trier, but the emperor fled in the night the day before the coronation was to have happened. If the coronation had actually occurred, what benefit would have been to Charles, aside from the prestige associated with the title? Would it have allowed him to purchase more cities and counties than without the title? Could his daughter Mary have inherited his holdings intact? Would being an independent sovereign materially help his ambitions to centralize control of his realm?
WI: Charles the Bold crowned King of Burgundy
- Thread starter cincpac overboard
- Start date
Deleted member 92195
I had search previously about Charles the Bold on my university library, but this time it came up with a book titled "Burgundy and the Empire: Late medieval foreign policy with the example of the government of Charles the Bold (1465-1477)." For me, it's completely free, it's in German but patching it through google translate would solve that issue. I think I will download it all, I can imagine reading it later in life.
Becoming King for Charles is either becoming king of all his possessions, french or imperial fiefdoms, or becoming king only of his imperial possession. The second meaning gives him few advantages aside from the title. He may create centralized institutions (justice) for his "kingdom", but the larger and richer half would not be ruled by these institutions. If he went the first way, he would have to fight France at every step, not only his dear cousin the King, but also the jurists of even his own administration. The idea of independence from the Empire is tantamount to the french jurists since the 13th c., no one would accept to break the link so easily. Even the vassals of Charles would continue to appeal to the french court rather to the "burgundian" ones (or after them). If Charles should die as OTL, the confiscation of his french fiefdoms by the King would probably go smoothly, as it would not be a contentious decision, arduously justified, but something quite in tune with the burgundian jurists line of thought.
There's something the Emperor could and/or would have done, and just things no Emperor would ever have agreed to. If duke Charles of Burgundy would have been raised to a King, it would have been on terms of the Emperor, or it wouldn't have been possible at all. The Emperor would not want to alienate France, but he was interested in formally strengthen the ties Burgundy had to the Empire, through its' numerous Imperial possessions. Anything more just is not acceptable for any Emperor, getting it by force is no option either, the Emperor would flatly refuse and in France he has a very useful ally to make sure, the Pope wouldn't grant a crown either.
Yes, I know about the French idea of independence of the Empire, but realistically the best Burgundy could ever get from the Emperor, was a Kingdom in the Empire with a similar status as Bohemia ((initially) without an electorate). That would basically mean, that the only one accountable to Imperial courts, since his subjects could not appeal to them, was the king of Burgundy or Friesland or Brabant. That's the other thing, perhaps the Emperor might resurrect Friesland as kingdom, or raise Brabant to such a dignity, but he would make sure, that even Burgundy would be an elevation of the Count Palatine/Free County of Burgundy, and NOT the Imperial kingdom of Burgundy-Arles.
And let's not forget the final condition of the Habsburg Emperor (Friedrich III), his heir, Maximilian, will marry the heiress of Burgundy, Mary. 'Bella gerant alii tu felix Austria nube'.
@Cornelis; yes, Flanders and Artois were 'fat ducks', but you're forgetting that Brabant had a golden age under the dukes of Burgundy and let's not for the developments in the county of Holland. Simply put, when you take Flanders and Artois, out of the equation, the Burgundian possessions in the Empire (Low Countries and Franche Comté) were more wealthy than the duchy of Burgundy proper. Need I remind you, that the great port of Antwerpen, is a Brabantian town
Yes, I know about the French idea of independence of the Empire, but realistically the best Burgundy could ever get from the Emperor, was a Kingdom in the Empire with a similar status as Bohemia ((initially) without an electorate). That would basically mean, that the only one accountable to Imperial courts, since his subjects could not appeal to them, was the king of Burgundy or Friesland or Brabant. That's the other thing, perhaps the Emperor might resurrect Friesland as kingdom, or raise Brabant to such a dignity, but he would make sure, that even Burgundy would be an elevation of the Count Palatine/Free County of Burgundy, and NOT the Imperial kingdom of Burgundy-Arles.
And let's not forget the final condition of the Habsburg Emperor (Friedrich III), his heir, Maximilian, will marry the heiress of Burgundy, Mary. 'Bella gerant alii tu felix Austria nube'.
@Cornelis; yes, Flanders and Artois were 'fat ducks', but you're forgetting that Brabant had a golden age under the dukes of Burgundy and let's not for the developments in the county of Holland. Simply put, when you take Flanders and Artois, out of the equation, the Burgundian possessions in the Empire (Low Countries and Franche Comté) were more wealthy than the duchy of Burgundy proper. Need I remind you, that the great port of Antwerpen, is a Brabantian town
There's something the Emperor could and/or would have done, and just things no Emperor would ever have agreed to. If duke Charles of Burgundy would have been raised to a King, it would have been on terms of the Emperor, or it wouldn't have been possible at all. The Emperor would not want to alienate France, but he was interested in formally strengthen the ties Burgundy had to the Empire, through its' numerous Imperial possessions. Anything more just is not acceptable for any Emperor, getting it by force is no option either, the Emperor would flatly refuse and in France he has a very useful ally to make sure, the Pope wouldn't grant a crown either.
Yes, I know about the French idea of independence of the Empire, but realistically the best Burgundy could ever get from the Emperor, was a Kingdom in the Empire with a similar status as Bohemia ((initially) without an electorate). That would basically mean, that the only one accountable to Imperial courts, since his subjects could not appeal to them, was the king of Burgundy or Friesland or Brabant. That's the other thing, perhaps the Emperor might resurrect Friesland as kingdom, or raise Brabant to such a dignity, but he would make sure, that even Burgundy would be an elevation of the Count Palatine/Free County of Burgundy, and NOT the Imperial kingdom of Burgundy-Arles.
And let's not forget the final condition of the Habsburg Emperor (Friedrich III), his heir, Maximilian, will marry the heiress of Burgundy, Mary. 'Bella gerant alii tu felix Austria nube'.
@Cornelis; yes, Flanders and Artois were 'fat ducks', but you're forgetting that Brabant had a golden age under the dukes of Burgundy and let's not for the developments in the county of Holland. Simply put, when you take Flanders and Artois, out of the equation, the Burgundian possessions in the Empire (Low Countries and Franche Comté) were more wealthy than the duchy of Burgundy proper. Need I remind you, that the great port of Antwerpen, is a Brabantian town
Sure Brabant was richer than Burgundy proper, but as a whole, french fiefdoms (ducal Burgundy, Artois, Flanders, Picardy and other smaller holdings) were richer than imperial ones (Brabant, Holland, Zeeland, comital Burgundy, Hainaut), especially in regard to the ducal income. Brabant and Antwerp really took off after Charles' death.
From what I record, the discussions that were taking place were about which realms in addition of the Burgundian lands would be considered part of the Burgundian Kingdom. Notably, Savoy and Lorraine would be part of the Kingdom of Burgundy. Charles was also very agressive on getting the Swiss confederacy as a vassal.
Faeelin
Banned
I know this is what Charles wanted, but is there any reason the Hapsburgs would agree to this?
Nope. The interpretation I had is that he scared the shits out of Friedrich III by doing so, and thus caused his not becoming King.
So, is there a way we can get Charles to "not" say that he wants Savoy/Lorraine/Swiss Confederacy. At least until Friedrich ponies up the crown, then Charles can say he wants that. Or does this mean we need a different Charles altogether?
Lol what?! Have you actually read the circumstance of why he didn't get crowned?He didn't get crowned because he pissed off the emperor right about when the emperor was about to have him crowned.
Suppose Charles keeps secret his ambitions for Savoy and the Swiss but asks for Lorraine to be added to his holdings, in exchange for his daughter marrying the Emperor's son. If Friedrich III agrees to this, is Charles obligated to accept Lorraine's current duke as his vassal? IOTL the duke in 1473 was an ally of Charles but secretly allied with France when Charles started building garrisons in Lorraine, even without being crowned king.
That has nothing to do with it and frankly does not make sense at all.They are not interrelated.Besides that,Charles managed to get the emperor to agree to come and crown him.The emperor was physically there and was about to have him crowned—he only fled the day before the coronation because Charles pissed him off.
Charles the Bold was too greedy for sure . If i focused more to create a realm withe the low lands, lorraine and his burgundian holding then it was doable. Leave him a male heir smarter (even more than king Louis XI of France) and flanders and burgundy would leave France sphére of influence. I mean even a double kingdom , one with the lowlands and one another with burgundy-lorraine could be a thing. That guy didn't understand he shouldn't mess with the swiss , especially when your cousin is Louis XI.
Actually, Savoy was a friend of Charles', and the Emperor was OK for Savoy.
Switzerland was where the headbutting was. So... If Charles gives up on Switzerland, he could theoretically be crowned King.
Even at that time you don't want to mess with the Swiss without consequences , as every almost youngster were trained to eventually fight. And if i remember Charly was ruthless with them , far more than he can afforded at the very end.
And Charly had a lot of qualities but he was becoming too hot tempered and it make the game easy for Louis XI. Fact the death of his wife (he was REALLY in love with her) make things worse. At the very end that Burgundy was a case of bad luck , in fact that century was a big bad luck case.
Edit : And why the Swiss , because it was part of the territory of Lotharingia and former Burgundy.
Last edited: