John the Fearless killed in the Battle of Nicopolis?

John the Fearless, then just John of Valois, heir to the duchy of Burgundy, was one of the leaders of the French forces sent to aid King Sigismund of Hungary in his war/crusade against the Ottoman Turks in 1396. OTL, the Battle of Nicopolis (25 September 1396) earned him the moniker "the Fearless", though the battle itself ended badly for the crusading forces. John was captured by the Turk, and later ransomed for a princely sum.

What if instead of merely being captured, John of Valois had been killed on the battlefield? His future heir, Philip (later "the Good"), had just been born around the time he left for Hungary, but the reign of one of the most important rulers of Valois-Burgundy being cut short years before it even begun OTL would surely carry with it consequences for Burgundy, France, the Hundred Years War and western Europe as a whole.

Assuming Philip the Bold dies roughly according to schedule, this would leave his 8 year old grandson as the duke of Burgundy.

How would Philip the Bold deal with the immediate consequences of losing his primary heir?

How would the minority of Philip III play out? How would Burgundy's lack of a proper leader influence French politics in the period that would historically lead to the murder of Louis of Orléans?

Would the Burgundians still be able to carry out as much of their OTL scheming and opportunism in the Low Countries under these circumstances?
 
How would Philip the Bold deal with the immediate consequences of losing his primary heir?
More or less badly, but his succession wouldn't be put on jeopardy. Even assuming Philip III dies ITTL, you have heirs as Antoine de Barbant being avaible.

How would the minority of Philip III play out? How would Burgundy's lack of a proper leader influence French politics in the period that would historically lead to the murder of Louis of Orléans?
I wonder if Burgundy will actually lack influence at this point. Antoine de Barbant was a skilled man, and if he does seem to have been les hostile to Orléans his brother was, it was mainly due to a sense of unity with Lancaster presence in early 1410's. Not too much unlike John of Burgundy did eventually (before being killed, delaying the Armagnac/Bourguignon alliance), and I'm not too sure it would mean an absence of tensions.

That said...Would Antoine, as a regent, be that focused on royal matters? It's hard to answer outright, but while I think he will never abandon the position of dominance that Burgundy had (would it be only because they were Valois), he might be more focused on Burgundy proper and have sort of uneasy compromise with Orléans.
Meaning probably no murder of Louis d'Orléans, no civil war, and eventually maybe no Lancaster Phase as we know it.

Would the Burgundians still be able to carry out as much of their OTL scheming and opportunism in the Low Countries under these circumstances?
I'd tend to think they could do more than IOTL, not being "distracted" by civil war and late phase of HYW, critically while reaching a compromise with Orléans/Berry.
 
Top