WI: Burgundian Netherlands stays united

I've been having discussions in a number of other threads about the Dutch revolt, and the subsequent division of the Netherlands between the Dutch Republic and the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands (which ended up becoming Belgium basically).

I'm thinking what if the Burgundian Netherlands was inherited by someone other than the Hapsburgs. Either the House of Valois-Burgundy remains in control, and they convert to protestantism to prevent revolt, or the whole shebang is inherited by a protestant German prince. I'm thinking protestant is necessary to prevent revolt.

Could we see a second Kingdom (second to Bohemia) within the HRE? Would there be difficulty in centralizing these lands into a Kingdom? Once centralization occurs, would they want to separate from the HRE? Or could they be a strong state within the HRE like Prussia?

I'm thinking all of this because it seems to me that Flanders and the Netherlands really "should" be the same state, and the only reason they're not is the history of the Netherlands being inherited by the Habsburgs. I'm thinking the Walloons would be suppressed, assimiliated, and/or driven out in this scenario....
 
I'm thinking all of this because it seems to me that Flanders and the Netherlands really "should" be the same state, and the only reason they're not is the history of the Netherlands being inherited by the Habsburgs. I'm thinking the Walloons would be suppressed, assimiliated, and/or driven out in this scenario....

The idea that the "Netherlands" should be a united entity instead of seventeen separate ones is a really weird one, historically speaking.

I'm not sure about culturally here - just politically.
 
PS I'm saying "Burgundian Netherlands", because I'm specifically trying to exclude the Burgundians lands that were inside the Kingdom of France, only talking the parts that were in the HRE and were inherited by the Hapsburgs. So, France would still win back the Duchy of Burgundy, because otherwise we have a whole extra set of complications...
 
yeah, I know my POV is coming from the post-nationalist world where I think that entities which share a cuture "should" be together. It just seems to me that it almost happened, and wondering what could have gone differently...
 
yeah, I know my POV is coming from the post-nationalist world where I think that entities which share a cuture "should" be together. It just seems to me that it almost happened, and wondering what could have gone differently...

Well, the point is that them staying united is far from a given - even if you have a Protestant inherit or some other no-revolt situation.

It's a lucky inheritance of a multitude of territories, how it lasts until the age of "share a culture, be the same country" is going to be tricky for that reason.
 
Yeah, and this is where I probably don't have a good enough understanding of historical persepctive. I've read about Charles the Bold wanting to be crowned King in 1473, and I was assuming that that meant that all his lands would have been united as an indpendent Kingdom within the HRE, although I'm not sure if that would have been the case. More likely it would have been one of his Duchies that would have become a Kingdom, and the rest would have stayed independent.
 
IIRC there was talk about elevating Brabant to a kingdom and attaching all of Charles' Imperial territories to it, among other crown-related plans. Not a chance you'll get a lasting Burgundian kingdom with a PoD during Charles reign though.


Anyway, the religion of the ruling prince wouldn't change much. The House of Valois-Bourgogne had to deal with a shitton of large-scale revolts in the Netherlands in their time, and that was before religion played any part whatsoever. (Unless you count different factions supporting different Popes, that is)

Thing is, the wealthy cities of the Low Counties despised anything resembling centralization or a ruler imposing their will on them. Under Philip the Good, they were centralized to quite a great extent, but this was all undone when Mary the Rich was forced to sign the Great Privilege.

Your best bet would probably be a more level-headed heir for Philip the Good, and a more stable line of succession. I'd wager they'd still eventually be forced to give up their French fiefs somewhere down the line, but they might be able to keep the Low Countries minus Flanders united. (And who knows, maybe they'll even be in a position to keep Flanders if the situation is ideal)
 
Maybe something with Gothelo I, Duke of Upper and Lower Lorraine actually manage to have the privilege passed to his son and it becoming part of Ardennes-Verdun land much like the Hapsburgs managed it with their Marches?
 
Simplest way might be if the Habsburgs didn't inherit Spain. Even OTL, Maximilian II was suspected of Protestant sympathies - but of course while there was any chance of one of his family inheriting the Spanish throne, he could never convert.

Given that when the Reformation was at the peak of its success, the Habsburgs and half of the Wittelsbachs were the only major ruling houses still Catholic, if you take away the Spanish connection it is easy to imagine them going the way of the others, so that all the HRE, the Netherlands included, turns Protestant.
 
Even the Habsburgs don't have to be an issue, preventing the Spanish Inheritance and/or have the Burgundian Circle pass to a different branch might help too. Either a totally different Burgundian branch, but even the Austrian branch would, due to circumstances, have to be more pragmatic.
Besides both Philip the Fair and Charles V were pretty ''Burgundian''...

If the ruler would stay a domestic prince or at least a more pragmatic one, then the ruler doesn't even need to convert. In fact both religious groups were pretty even, but with a majority staying Catholic, however converting was more interesting for certain groups.

The elevation of Brabant to a kingdom, an imperial fief (like Bohemia) with the other Burgundian imperial lands attached to it was already suggested by the imperial Chancellor (Kaspar Schlick) to Philip the Good. With Friesland (Frisia) as an alternative. Both seem more plausible than the more ambitious Lotharingia or Burgundy, either of these also had the drawback of implicit claims on other imperial vassals, not mention the connection with the emperor (or ruling king of the Romans).
Charles the Bold is an possibility, but IMHO Philip the Good would have been better. Both were flattered by the idea, however where Charles was so ambitious, that he would accept relatively easy; his father was more cautious and didn't want a crown at all costs, if it meant he would be worse off. Another issue is that both men actually desired something the HRE just couldn't and wouldn't offer, a crown independent of the empire; so for both a crown of an imperial fief in part seemed second best, though it was the best they could hope for.

Finally the counties Flanders and Artois were integral parts of Burgundian Netherlands; Flanders, together with Brabant and Holland were the core of the region. Though these regions might stay (theoretic) French fiefs much longer. Burgundy proper OTOH probably is more vulnerable.
 
Simplest way might be if the Habsburgs didn't inherit Spain. Even OTL, Maximilian II was suspected of Protestant sympathies - but of course while there was any chance of one of his family inheriting the Spanish throne, he could never convert.

Given that when the Reformation was at the peak of its success, the Habsburgs and half of the Wittelsbachs were the only major ruling houses still Catholic, if you take away the Spanish connection it is easy to imagine them going the way of the others, so that all the HRE, the Netherlands included, turns Protestant.

That would be neat. Yeah, I always had the idea that the Emperor had to be Catholic by necessity, as he had to be crowned by the Pope. So I had always assumed that the HRE was by necessity Catholic at the top. One idea I had running through my head is what would have happened if the Protestant German Princes broke away and formed their own Empire: Maybe the Lutheran German Empire, which was basically a Protestant HRE, but I had never considered the HRE actually become Protestant....
 
Even the Habsburgs don't have to be an issue, preventing the Spanish Inheritance and/or have the Burgundian Circle pass to a different branch might help too. Either a totally different Burgundian branch, but even the Austrian branch would, due to circumstances, have to be more pragmatic.
Besides both Philip the Fair and Charles V were pretty ''Burgundian''...

If the ruler would stay a domestic prince or at least a more pragmatic one, then the ruler doesn't even need to convert. In fact both religious groups were pretty even, but with a majority staying Catholic, however converting was more interesting for certain groups.

The elevation of Brabant to a kingdom, an imperial fief (like Bohemia) with the other Burgundian imperial lands attached to it was already suggested by the imperial Chancellor (Kaspar Schlick) to Philip the Good. With Friesland (Frisia) as an alternative. Both seem more plausible than the more ambitious Lotharingia or Burgundy, either of these also had the drawback of implicit claims on other imperial vassals, not mention the connection with the emperor (or ruling king of the Romans).
Charles the Bold is an possibility, but IMHO Philip the Good would have been better. Both were flattered by the idea, however where Charles was so ambitious, that he would accept relatively easy; his father was more cautious and didn't want a crown at all costs, if it meant he would be worse off. Another issue is that both men actually desired something the HRE just couldn't and wouldn't offer, a crown independent of the empire; so for both a crown of an imperial fief in part seemed second best, though it was the best they could hope for.

Finally the counties Flanders and Artois were integral parts of Burgundian Netherlands; Flanders, together with Brabant and Holland were the core of the region. Though these regions might stay (theoretic) French fiefs much longer. Burgundy proper OTOH probably is more vulnerable.

Yeah, I'm thinking the POD would have been during the reign of Phillip the Good, with Charles the Bold thus being replaced by his AH "brother". But that much of Phillip's reign would be the same as OTL, with just minor changes leading to a more major change when Charles the unBold takes over.

Also, about Flanders and Artois. Somehow, thinking of today's national boundaries led me to think that France and Burgundy could reach an agreement where the Duchy of Burgundy (at least the part that is a French fief) could be given up in exchange for France giving up overlordship of Flanders (and maybe Artois), either to the HRE or to an independent Kingdom.

At one point I was thinking of the title "King in Flanders" as an allusion to the "King in Prussia" who couldn't be King inside the HRE, but because Prussia itself was outside, could be King there. Having the same happen with Flanders is probably less plausible, but I thought it might be fun.
 
One of the things I'm learning from this thread is that while the renaissance/reformation era is one of my favourite in history, I clearly don't have a good enough grasp of attitudes from that time. And wikipedia, my usual source of info about subjects I know too little about, clearly doesn't go into another depth. Does anyone know any good books that I could take out from a local library that cover the 15th and 16th centuries? I'm looking more for something that covers trends and attitudes and common practices than who did what when, as in AH, of course, the who did what when is always going to change.
 
That would be neat. Yeah, I always had the idea that the Emperor had to be Catholic by necessity, as he had to be crowned by the Pope. So I had always assumed that the HRE was by necessity Catholic at the top. ....


Iirc, the last one ever to be crowned by the Pope was Frederick III, some time around 1440.

There were seven Electors in the 16C, so the three Catholic Archbishops (Mainz,Trier Cologne) plus the Habsburgs as Kings of Bohemia gave the Catholics a one-vote majority. Iirc, though, Cologne would have gone Protestant but for military intervention by Charles V.
 
@ Mikestone8: though Maximilian got the right to use the title emperor elect of the Pope, his grandson Charles V was the last to have an Imperial Coronation by the Pope in 1530, however the location was Bologna and not Rome.
 
Also, about Flanders and Artois. Somehow, thinking of today's national boundaries led me to think that France and Burgundy could reach an agreement where the Duchy of Burgundy (at least the part that is a French fief) could be given up in exchange for France giving up overlordship of Flanders (and maybe Artois), either to the HRE or to an independent Kingdom.
While that might seem sensible to us, you must keep in mind that to the King of France, you might as well just have asked "Hey, I stole this from you. I'll give it back to you if you acknowledge my rightful ownership of this other thing I stole from you. Deal?"

There were treaties like that OTL, but I doubt we would see anything like them without a Habsburg ruler of Burgundy. (Or someone else with similar amounts of political clout)
 
Top