Charles the Brilliant

[Faeelin]

We've discussed Charles the Bold before, but I think we always come to the (IMO right) conclusion that by 1477, he was in a lot of trouble anyway. And he comes off less than impressively in history, alienating a lot of his neighbors, expanding rapidly, etc.

But let's give him a personality transplant. Instead of being Charles the Rash, he's Charles the Brilliant; as devious as the Spider King, as skilled in war as Henry V.

What is the optimal Burgundian strategy?

 

[Van555]

When I tried to do something with this I and others came to the conclusion that Burgundy could do better by not pissing off everyone at once. Meaning that they should aim for the long term goal of becoming a player in the HRE.

 

[LSCatilina]

What is the optimal Burgundian strategy?

No "Let's build my own kingdom" non-sense to begin with. It would force Burgundy to fight on too many fronts.
His first focus would be the...*sigh* "Spider King" (XIXth called) : he's the more powerful threat to a Burgundian hegemon on the region. Building alliances with unhappy nobles, Ligue du Bien Public-like.

He would need to be as, apparently, conciliant than Louis XI : ready to concede advantage, if not lands or revenues, to his allies or soon-to-be.
I stress this point : the goal there wouldn't to increase his principality power, but to weaken royal power, would it be at the (limited) cost of his own.

Eventually the better strategy in a first time would be to re-impose the Bourguignon political hemegony on Northern France, early XVth style. Without this, Louis XI would still beneficy from more legitimacy and ressource than him.

The second issue is the extreme disparity of his holdings : Netherlands are working autonomously on several matters (and are wary of their freedoms), and while administrative and political uniformisation is required, Charles have a clearly less unified background than Valois to work with.

Again, it means a lesser fiscal pressure : no shiny and glorious wars as Charles did IOTL (but I'll point that it would cost him on the other hand, as such behavior was extremly "fashionable" in Burgundy where heads were full of knighthood tales) but more political and subtle touchs.

Critically, no action in HRE before France is dealt with, except to make compromises and eventual concession to gain support or at least non-intervention at Louis' behalf.
Anything contrary (but it's bound to happen, Charles couldn't ignore Germany even if he'd want to) is eventually a gain '(of time, of ressource, of diplomacy) for the king.

---

That said, it would be (I stress it) completly out of the cultural background that existed in Burgundy at this time (and arguably in many of the last important feudal principalities in the kingdom).
What I tried to point would be an ideal stance, but realistically, would have to deal with the mentalities (and even without considering that, doesn't counter-balance entierly the more favourable ground for Valois)

 

[Janprimus]

Trying to carve out his own kingdom, what he eventually ended up doing IOTL is not the way to go. OTOH having a royal crown as one of the subjects discussed in negotiations with the HRE is still possible, IOTL Philip did the same thing, but he was more realistic about his goal, demands and price he was willing to pay.
It can be done, provided he's willing to accept both sides can and have to profit from it. IOTL what Philip the Good wanted and what Frederick III could offer was too far apart.
IMHO you can look at the OTL negotiations of both Philip the Good and Charles the Bold with Frederick III and what the latter offered (IIRC Kaspar Schlick did some of the negotiations for Frederick III with negotiators of Philip).

However even under such a scenario Burgundy would still have a French and an imperial part. OTOH Burgundian rule had made the Burgundian Netherlands more united. Yet the Northern (Burgundian Netherlands) and Southern halves didn't have the same capital (nor did each half really have only one).

 

[LSCatilina]

However even under such a scenario Burgundy would still have a French and an imperial part. OTOH Burgundian rule had made the Burgundian Netherlands more united. Yet the Northern (Burgundian Netherlands) and Southern halves didn't have the same capital (nor did each half really have only one).

Supporting a bit your point, if you allow me so, the huge problem with Burgundy is that it was the prototype of what I called on another thread "Border kingdoms". Basically a principality built thanks to relative farness and weakness of two entities, filling the geopolitical gap; critically thanks to opportunistic and ressourceful policies and rulers.

As long at least one of the players there remained weak, no real issue to deal with. But there, with both Valois and Habsburg rise, it's being hard.

Eventually, the best odds are either to expect a collapse or huge defeat of at least one of these (meaning keeping the wishful thinking policies as IOTL), or to play within one of these in order to definitely secure its position (as Phillipe le Bon, that you mentioned, was more wary to do).

Even there, I'm not sure it would mean a survival (safe complete takeover, that is not unthinkable, of the realm Valois-Bourgogne were theorically dependent from) with the parallel rise of modern states (even if we're talking of a different situation, see Charles III de Bourbon's fate)

 

[Faeelin]

Supporting a bit your point, if you allow me so, the huge problem with Burgundy is that it was the prototype of what I called on another thread "Border kingdoms". Basically a principality built thanks to relative farness and weakness of two entities, filling the geopolitical gap; critically thanks to opportunistic and ressourceful policies and rulers.

I'm not so sure I buy the idea that Burgundy was fated to collapse. After all, the Low Countries managed to be the nucleus for a powerful state even in OTL...

 

[LSCatilina]

I'm not so sure I buy the idea that Burgundy was fated to collapse. After all, the Low Countries managed to be the nucleus for a powerful state even in OTL...

There's a whole room between "collapse" and "not emerge as a competing state".
Not reaching regional hegemony doesn't mean disappear (ask any HRE entity about it).

That said, the equation Low Countries = Burgundy isn't convincing. First, you had a distinct cultural and political identity in the Netherlands you didn't have in Burgundy that again, was a rag-tag of diverse entities some as much closely tied to France or Germany than ducal sovereignity itself.
Burgundian States unity attempts were far , really far, from being at the same scale than Netherlands (or to have recieved a similar diplomatic or even military help than them)

The successful multi-ethnical/cultural/political entities are really rare (critically on the long run), and Burgundy is not exception. Dynastical charisma can play, but given late feudal Burgundian culture, it's going to be a bit more as OTL, and not going to last forever with the appearance of more national states.

At the risk of repeating myself, the lack of political, cultural and administrative unity was a huge obstacle : think more of a personal union than a same entity there (less formal than the Agevine demesne in France in its time, granted).
Of course, the dukes tried to deal with that (Thionville Ordinances, for example), but they had to face both a huge inner reorganisation (from, again, a mosaic personal union from an unified bureaucracy) at the same time they had to face not only the rise of Valois but as well Habsburgs.

It is why I think that while collapse wasn't doomed to happen, giving the conditions of your OP, the best odds would have be to play inside the late feudal entities existing rather than attempting creating their own.

 

[Janprimus]

A state ruled by dukes of Burgundy doesn't need to disappear, even though they might lose certain territories to neighbouring states.

Even the here often discussed royal crown isn't a magic solution. At best it could help enormously to further integrate and 'centralize' (it might still be decentralized to a certain degree) their imperial territories and perhaps some of the neighbouring (peripheral) originally French fiefs.
However at the time of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold, that was still an ongoing process. IOTL even when the Burgundian Netherlands were loyal to Mary the Rich and her dynasty, they still used the opportunity to reverse some of the measures taken by her predecessors to further integrate their territories.

However there is some disagreement on what Burgundian means, due to OTL the first unifying entity in the Low Countries was Burgundian. Granted it's not Burgundy proper, but they did organize their lands in a Burgundian fashion and with similar institutions.
Also it depends on which Netherlands is one talking about: Burgundian Netherlands, Habsburg Netherlands, Spanish Netherlands, Republic of the 7 United Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands etc.
These were at best federal, but none of those was unitary. IMHO having 'Burgundy'* survive as an entity more federal than unitary is achievable, so some central institutions, but it will take a long time to become more unitary (as for the IOTL Northern Netherlands that only started with the Batavian Republic).
(*= in a broad sense)

With a royal crown for their imperial territories, it would probably start out as a 'Lands of the Burgundian* Crown' (*= or one of the other options Frisia/Friesland, Brabant, Lotharingia etc. IMHO the last one seems unlikely).
Again it isn't necessary, but certain steps can be taken. A relatively early step could be something like the OTL Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 (within the Burgundian Circle) and the treaty of Augsburg of 1548 (between the Burgundian Circle and the HRE).
IOTL Charles V had a much easier time to convince the Estates General of the Burgundian Circle, than convincing the Imperial Estates.

Without being chauvinistic I'd say 'Burgundy'* could be great power for a while, but seems destined to eventually relegate one tier, though that would still make it one of the more powerful states in Europe.

 

[Faeelin]

That said, the equation Low Countries = Burgundy isn't convincing. First, you had a distinct cultural and political identity in the Netherlands you didn't have in Burgundy that again, was a rag-tag of diverse entities some as much closely tied to France or Germany than ducal sovereignity itself.
Burgundian States unity attempts were far , really far, from being at the same scale than Netherlands (or to have recieved a similar diplomatic or even military help than them)

Hrm. I wonder, though. The Autrian Empire was similarly diffuse, wasn't it? But it held together pretty well, unless you think Bohemians and Hungarians had more in common in 1750 than the Dutch and Rhinelanders did. And even a Burgundian state that's basically the Low Countries would be pretty powerful.

 

[LSCatilina]

Hrm. I wonder, though. The Autrian Empire was similarly diffuse, wasn't it? But it held together pretty well, unless you think Bohemians and Hungarians had more in common in 1750 than the Dutch and Rhinelanders did.

I'm not sure if you're talking about Habsburg hegemon on HRE, or Austria proper. I'll suppose that it's the former, sorry if I midunderstood you.
The Habsburg domination had several benefits that didn't have Burgundy.

First, legitimacy. Habsburg *were* the imperial line, and therefore a reason for imposing their authority, and such more easily and more tolerated than late feudal upstarts.
It's as well important on regard of unification : the creation of Imperial circles, for instance, served well their purposes.
So, I won't say it was similarly diffuse : Habsburg's holdings were relativly more unified on most of their history.

You have of course exceptions, such as Charles V demesne, but it was arguably cut off in two for quite good reasons.

It should be noted, though, that some places, as Spanish then Austrian Netherlands, enjoyed important autonomy. It held out because of the "divorce" with Northern Netherlands, but as well because Habsburgs (up to the later period) decided to not meddle too much with the region : something they could get over (mostly because it was no longer the political and economical focus it once was).

But something Burgundy couldn't get over, giving Netherlands was the economic core and therefore their favourite piggy bank to finance their political operations.

It doesn't mean they were immune to huge inner problems : for holding together well, it would require not looking at Dutch, or Protestants, or Prague's Defenestrations, etc.

Finally, for Hungarians, I'll keep it short : Ottomans.

And even a Burgundian state that's basically the Low Countries would be pretty powerful.

And even an British Empire only located in Indias would be pretty powerful. Not that British, tough (except in Peshawar Lancers)
The same for there, crticially, when we're talking about Charles the Bold's policies.

 

[Janprimus]

It could also be the Habsburg Empire. Though in this context IMHO the best comparison would be the Austrian Hereditary Lands (including Austria proper (the arch duchy), Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Tyrol, Further Austria, Windic March...), maybe also the Lands of the Bohemian Crown.

Actually the Habsburgs completed their 'Hausmacht' Austrian Hereditary Lands, during a period, when other dynasties (Luxembourg, also Wittelsbach) sat on the throne. In fact for a while they were forced to focus on that.

Furthermore Charles V authority in the Low Countries was more based on the fact, that he was their sovereign lord (duke, count palatine, margrave, count, lord etc.) than him being Emperor; so IMHO internally there doesn't need to change much.
However changing the relationship with the Empire for their part of the Empire will be harder.