WI: Charles the Bold crowned King of Burgundy

What were the "positive" qualities of Charles? He seemed to just piss off all his neighbors.
Very few from the standpoint of his subjects. What appeals to a "modern" outlook is his efforts to create a what we would recognize as a nation-state, with a standing army, a rational taxation scheme, and a bureaucracy to collect those taxes.

In fact he was not the only noble personage to go down this road: Matthias Corvinus of Hungary also created a standing army during the 15th century (the so-called "Black Army"). Like Charles he raised unpopular taxes unpopular to pay for it. But Matthias ended up with an army that could conquer big chunks of Bohemia, while Charles' army got slapped around. I'm trying to figure out how Matthias succeeded while Charles utterly failed.
 
Very few from the standpoint of his subjects. What appeals to a "modern" outlook is his efforts to create a what we would recognize as a nation-state, with a standing army, a rational taxation scheme, and a bureaucracy to collect those taxes.

In fact he was not the only noble personage to go down this road: Matthias Corvinus of Hungary also created a standing army during the 15th century (the so-called "Black Army"). Like Charles he raised unpopular taxes unpopular to pay for it. But Matthias ended up with an army that could conquer big chunks of Bohemia, while Charles' army got slapped around. I'm trying to figure out how Matthias succeeded while Charles utterly failed.

Louis XI outperformed Charles. If only Charles VIII had not wasted so many of his father's successes...
 
Charles died in failure while Matthias died before Hungary failed, and fail hard it did.
But one could make a strong argument that Hungary failed because Matthias' innovations were rolled back by a nobility that refused to pay for them. Combined with decaying fortifications and unpaid garrisons it is no wonder that Suleiman the Magnificent took full advantage.
Louis XI outperformed Charles. If only Charles VIII had not wasted so many of his father's successes...
True, but he was briefly vulnerable at the end of the War of the Public Weal. Suppose that this war had occurred later, after Charles had become Duke of Burgundy, and that the League of the Public Weal had achieved complete victory over Louis XI. Could an ATL Treaty of Conflans include recognition of Charles as an independent sovereign?
 
I'm in favour of his marriage to Margaret of York being fruitful

Philip of Burgundy b 1469
Isabella of Burgundy b 1472 m Charles VIII of France
John of Burgundy b 1476
 
I'm trying to figure out how Matthias succeeded while Charles utterly failed.
Matthias ruled a single kingdom whereas Charles ruled a collection of fiefs under personal union, also Matthias has the personality to hold the unruly Hungarian aristocracy and the skills to manage it, plus the Ottomans were a scary enemy.

Not to say that the system built by Matthias was efficient, the hold in Austria and Bohemia evaporated as soon as he died and the fact that the magnates were quick to roll back everything meant he built a charismatic royalship rather than an administrative one.
 
Would official recognition of the title Grand Duke of the West or simply Grand duke of Burgundy be palatable to Charles & Frederick III? I believe Philipp the Good assumed the title and Charles maintained it until his death.
 
Would official recognition of the title Grand Duke of the West or simply Grand duke of Burgundy be palatable to Charles & Frederick III? I believe Philipp the Good assumed the title and Charles maintained it until his death.
The best title remains "general procurator of the Devil for all parts of the West" :p
 
Maybe we can have Charles just have a son compared to OTL.
At least with his daughter Mary you would have the power of her marriage to the Habsburgs to protect against an invasion by Louis the XI. If he had a son after Mary then that might deprive Burgundy of the one ally that could hold Louis at least partially at bay. If Charles' son was born early enough to take over after his father's death in battle then he is still going to need more allies than Savoy to counter France. Is there any way to get the Papacy to have an interest in Burgundy's survival?
 
At least with his daughter Mary you would have the power of her marriage to the Habsburgs to protect against an invasion by Louis the XI. If he had a son after Mary then that might deprive Burgundy of the one ally that could hold Louis at least partially at bay. If Charles' son was born early enough to take over after his father's death in battle then he is still going to need more allies than Savoy to counter France. Is there any way to get the Papacy to have an interest in Burgundy's survival?
A son with Margaret of York means the child is under english and habsburg influence.
 
At least with his daughter Mary you would have the power of her marriage to the Habsburgs to protect against an invasion by Louis the XI. If he had a son after Mary then that might deprive Burgundy of the one ally that could hold Louis at least partially at bay. If Charles' son was born early enough to take over after his father's death in battle then he is still going to need more allies than Savoy to counter France. Is there any way to get the Papacy to have an interest in Burgundy's survival?
Eh, if Charles has a son that son has a very powerful ally: legitimacy/clarity.

In Ducal Burgundy, there was some legal challenge to Mary's continued rule, because it had been a Valois appanage - while in all the Imperial possessions there was not (nor was there in Flandres/Artois). Rather than momentarily look on in confusion, any French invasion of Burgundy against Charles' son would immediately be clear as a naked landgrab to even the fractious Burgundian possessions, and taken together they had the power to halt France (as indeed they did during Mary's reign without, so far as I can find, serious Imperial support - only when they went about retaking formerly Burgundian Artois did they need the help).
 
Top