Okay, why did France, Germany, and Italy grow up to become nation-states with distinct identities, while Burgundy fell by the wayside? It was probably the most significant non-nation in Europe I would guess.
Was there a Burgundian national identity?
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
I disagree - I'd say the Lombards, or maybe the Occitan, were. Bu I think the answer to your question is that the Dukes of Burgundy started out as vassals to the King of France and were ultimately unsuccessful in their attempts to break free. When Burgundy was finally properly absorbed by the French, their policies effectively removed all of the regional distinctions in government, tradition, etc. Over time the entire region just got turned into a clone of the north of France, as several other regions did.
Again, simplistic answer here.
Again, simplistic answer here.
Detroitman32
Banned
Yeah, you'd have to somehow get the Franche-Comte to identify with Flanders.
Wait- there wasn't a Burgundy after the death of Charles the Bold! It was annexed by France, and the title went to the Habsburgs!
Susano
Banned
Actually, most the territories fell to Habsburg, though yes, the titulatory territory (the Duchy of Burgundy) fell to the French crown (of coruse, even before technically it belonged to France, as a feudal fief) with Habsburg keeping the title nontheless. But they also got the majority of the territory...
Now, the early medieval Burgundian Kingdom, that probably most definitly had a national identity at some earyly point. The Burgundians were a tribe, after all, those do tend to have national identities. Of course, after the Frankish conquest all "Kingdom of Burgundy" states were purely dynastical, too, even if they did cover the Burgundian territory (unlike Charles' Burgundy, which had only a very small part of that original Burgundy)...
Susano
Banned
Its a start for an own national identity to develop, but that doesnt always work (see: Austria).
I'm actually talking about any of the Burgundies, just whichever one was closest to being a viable surviving country with a national identity. What about the Kingdom of Arles/the Arelate?
What about Savoy? And I thought the Lombards were just Italians and the Occitan was just a minority linguistic group not unlike the Catalans.
What about Savoy? And I thought the Lombards were just Italians and the Occitan was just a minority linguistic group not unlike the Catalans.
Susano
Banned
Arelate as in the post-Frankish Kingdom of Upper and Lower Burgundy sans the Duchy of Burgundy? Well, as said, territorially its more or less congruent with pre-Frankish Burgundy, but all post-Frankish Burgundies were mostly dynastical affairs, based upon noblemens powerplays. I dont think that at those time many Burgundians (as in the original Germanic tribe) were around anyways, so... yeah, Id already say at that point in time there was not much of a Burgundian identity left.
Yeah, in the context of what Falastur meant, the Lombards were simply Italians - more or less even THE Italians, seeing how in the middle ages most definitions of Italy excluded the south. Its just that the Lombards and their city leagues were at the forefront of the Italian struggle, so to say...
Of course, then there are the Langobards (mostly called Lombards in English, too, and thats where "Lombard" comes from, but I find that confusing), another Germanic tribe. Like the Burgundians, they had a national identity., of cours,e before being conquered by the Franks
Valdemar II
Banned
Arelate as in the post-Frankish Kingdom of Upper and Lower Burgundy sans the Duchy of Burgundy? Well, as said, territorially its more or less congruent with pre-Frankish Burgundy, but all post-Frankish Burgundies were mostly dynastical affairs, based upon noblemens powerplays. I dont think that at those time many Burgundians (as in the original Germanic tribe) were around anyways, so... yeah, Id already say at that point in time there was not much of a Burgundian identity left.
Yeah, in the context of what Falastur meant, the Lombards were simply Italians - more or less even THE Italians, seeing how in the middle ages most definitions of Italy excluded the south. Its just that the Lombards and their city leagues were at the forefront of the Italian struggle, so to say...
Of course, then there are the Langobards (mostly called Lombards in English, too, and thats where "Lombard" comes from, but I find that confusing), another Germanic tribe. Like the Burgundians, they had a national identity., of cours,e before being conquered by the Franks
I would say that while the Langobards adopted Vulgar Latin cultural Italy are descendent of them,.
Susano
Banned
Well, yes. I would date modern Italy as a nation to the establishment of the Langobard Kingdom. After all, for a time in the middle ages, King of Italy and King of the Langobards was the same title (even if mostly as a subsidary title only), and the modern Italian nation surely doesnt go back to Ancient Rome. So yes, I would say the Langobards formed (modern) Italy.
So, lemme get this straight. Only the earliest Burgundians (that is, the Burgundians) had an actual identity, and all of the polities called Burgundy afterwards were just people who took up the name? Well, did any of those states have a chance of surviving past the Middle Ages?
Right. Note that
(i) the Burgundians had an idently on the same level as other Germanic tribes (or 'combat unions') had, e.g. the Saxons, the Frisians, the Franks. They all don't exaclty have a country of their own today either.
(ii) Those who took up the name also held (part of) the originally Burgundian territory,or at least at the beginning.
Of course. The most probable way seems to be: Let Lotharingia live longer (could be a political slogan, what about that?), i.e. take care that we have a stable situation of three rather than two succession staes of Charlemagne's Empire.
Otherwise, you would have to make sure it secedes from the HRE and/or France, respectively. Plenty of opportunities here, but not really something obvious.
Susano
Banned
Well, as said, Arelate was mostly congruent with old Burgundy except for the Duchy of Burgundy - but the later Burgundy (of Charles the Bold etc.) had only said Duchy and the Franche Comte in common with old Burgundy. Not really a lot...
As for Germanic tribal national identities, they surely did exist. Both Odoakers Realm and the Ostrogothic Realm in Italy had rules about keeping the people of their Germanic support nbase seperate from the Romance Italians, and in the early German Kingdom the differences between Saxons and Franks were in lage parts not only sucession squabbles, but competiting national identitis.
I dont see what Lotharingia has to do with it. In fact, if you mean by that the original Lotharingia that means Burgundy not surviving as own identity, as it was part of it. And Lotharingia in the narrower definition (those territories between France and Germany) has few to do with Burgundy, Id say. Also, Burgundy/Arelate only came to the HRE later (*looks up* AH, 1032), so with an early enough PoD it doesnt need to seceed - it was independant. Of course, with the HRE formed Arelate borders it in the north (Germany) and in the east, so probably an independant Italy would be better for an independant Arelate, meaning 4 or 5 Frankish Successor states: Germany, France, Italy, Arelate, and maybe Lotharingia (as said I dont think it makes much difference either way
).How about this:
Which incarnation of Burgundy is most likely to continue to exist into the 21st century as a nation of its own? The one around Benelux and northeastern France? The once near Provence and southeastern France? Any other ones? What?
Some maps would be illustrative, please.
Which incarnation of Burgundy is most likely to continue to exist into the 21st century as a nation of its own? The one around Benelux and northeastern France? The once near Provence and southeastern France? Any other ones? What?
Some maps would be illustrative, please.
Philip
Donor
I think this one is far more likely. First, it existed more recently. Second, there are OTL examples of nations surviving here. Sure, this Burgundy will get run over time and again in wars, but so did OTL Netherlands.
Charles the Bold living longer helps, especially if he has a son.
So it would be Burgundy in name only? (As opposed to the Arelate and the Duchy of Burgundy).
National identity as we know it is a 19th century invention.
Sure, there was a vague idea of we're Germans, English, French, etc... but...it wasn't too important.
Burgundy is a good example of the system of the time, disparate areas with their own local identities united because one guy had the titles for all.
Sure, there was a vague idea of we're Germans, English, French, etc... but...it wasn't too important.
Burgundy is a good example of the system of the time, disparate areas with their own local identities united because one guy had the titles for all.