WI: Habsburg Holland?

No, I don't mean that during the 80YW the province of Holland stays pro-Habsburg (although that COULD be interesting too).

When Jan of Holland (son-in-law of Edward I of England) died, Albrecht of Habsburg attempted to claim Holland as a lapsed imperial fief for his son, Rudolf (OTL King Porridge of Bohemia). Ultimately he was unsuccessful for various reasons, one of which I presume, was the fact that the comte d'Hainaut (husband/son of Jan's aunt, Aleid) was pro-French, so Philippe le Bel backed Hainaut as a way of expanding his own influence in the Low Countries.

How could Albrecht be successful in this venture? How would a Habsburg Holland affect things (Rudolf's death OTL seemed pretty situational, so I suspect that in Holland he might not die as OTL).

@Old1812 @Janprimus @isabella @pompejus @HJ Tulp @Parma @VVD0D95
 
No, I don't mean that during the 80YW the province of Holland stays pro-Habsburg (although that COULD be interesting too).

When Jan of Holland (son-in-law of Edward I of England) died, Albrecht of Habsburg attempted to claim Holland as a lapsed imperial fief for his son, Rudolf (OTL King Porridge of Bohemia). Ultimately he was unsuccessful for various reasons, one of which I presume, was the fact that the comte d'Hainaut (husband/son of Jan's aunt, Aleid) was pro-French, so Philippe le Bel backed Hainaut as a way of expanding his own influence in the Low Countries.

How could Albrecht be successful in this venture? How would a Habsburg Holland affect things (Rudolf's death OTL seemed pretty situational, so I suspect that in Holland he might not die as OTL).

@Old1812 @Janprimus @isabella @pompejus @HJ Tulp @Parma @VVD0D95
Well given he richness of the Netherlands, there is always the possibility of the Netherlands gradually becomming the centre of gravity for the Hapsburg fiefs, instead of Austria. Not sure how feasible that is though.
 
Well given he richness of the Netherlands, there is always the possibility of the Netherlands gradually becomming the centre of gravity for the Hapsburg fiefs, instead of Austria. Not sure how feasible that is though.
The richness of the Netherlands during the middleages is often exaggarated. The wealthy part of the low countries was in Flanders and later Brabant, both part of Belgium now (the wealthy part of Brabant was Antwerp, Brussels and Leuven, not Den Bosch or Eindhoven).

That said my knowledge of the Dutch Middleages is rather spotty, so I will be reading this discussion, but probably not participating in it.
 
That said my knowledge of the Dutch Middleages is rather spotty, so I will be reading this discussion, but probably not participating in it.
Fair enough. My own knowledge of the region's medieval history is pretty weak as well. But thought that this was an interesting tidbit
 
Well given he richness of the Netherlands, there is always the possibility of the Netherlands gradually becomming the centre of gravity for the Hapsburg fiefs, instead of Austria. Not sure how feasible that is though.
AIUI it was never intended to "replace" Austria, simply case of "more land/extension of influence" down the Rhine (although I could be wrong)
 
The richness of the Netherlands during the middleages is often exaggarated. The wealthy part of the low countries was in Flanders and later Brabant, both part of Belgium now (the wealthy part of Brabant was Antwerp, Brussels and Leuven, not Den Bosch or Eindhoven).
Oh I totally agree though I do think that we shouldn't see Holland as simply a collection of fishery villages. Places like Dordrecht were pretty rich and economically important. The Northern Netherlands were especially economically successful in times where they could redirect English trade from Flanders northwards. And if the Hapsburgs expand beyond Holland...
AIUI it was never intended to "replace" Austria, simply case of "more land/extension of influence" down the Rhine (although I could be wrong)
Could very well be, I couldn't possibly comment on that. There were lots of opportunities for strive and expansion in the Northern Netherlands in the 13th century though. It also depends what Rudolf is doing with it. Is he just going to be a absent lord of these lands? In that case nothing much is going to happen but what if he - or maybe a second son? - is taking residence in The Hague?
 
what Rudolf is doing with it. Is he just going to be a absent lord of these lands? In that case nothing much is going to happen but what if he - or maybe a second son? - is taking residence in The Hague?
Oh for sure. While this ISN'T the 16th century, I do feel that Rudolf being an absentee landlord à la Felipe II will not do well. And granted, Bohemia was MORE important than Holland, but I could see him winding up in residence in Amsterdam (or wherever the capital of the county of Holland was). Simply because he might have SEEN with his father that a blatant landgrab happens because you piss the powerful players off (like Borsselen and there was another one that was also Edward I's man in Holland).
 
My knowledge of the Medieval Low Countries is basically nonexistent, does anyone know of some books that cover them?
 
My knowledge of the Medieval Low Countries is basically nonexistent, does anyone know of some books that cover them?
I know a great book about the Burgundians written by the Belgian writer Bart van Loo. Not sure if it is translated into English though. Basicly that is it. I would be interested in any other book suggestions, since I want to learn more about that period too.
 
You could always take the Bavarian-Straubing rulers of Holland(1337-1433) as an example.

HH could only exist for a generation or two, like the Bavarian line. Much would be counted upon Albrecht I.´s reign to be longer, to help his son with imperial authority. The netherlands back then weren´t really a region where the authority of the Emperors was strong. Though a successful attempt by Rudolf might change that. Albrecht would need his son as his local head of authority while Rudolf would need his father authority in reverse, as said above.

Possible contenders might be the capetian dukes of Burgund, and also the later Valois-line of dukes, and also the House of Luxemburg.

Another interesting change might be that with Rudolf being sent to the North-west, Albrecht´s nephew John might have a pretty good claim to Bohemia and also might be able to claim some parts of the Habsburgian lands.
 
I know a great book about the Burgundians written by the Belgian writer Bart van Loo. Not sure if it is translated into English though. Basicly that is it. I would be interested in any other book suggestions, since I want to learn more about that period too.
Nobel Streven by Frits van Oostrom is really nice! I can recommend it. Don't know if it's in English though @Old1812
 
You could always take the Bavarian-Straubing rulers of Holland(1337-1433) as an example.

HH could only exist for a generation or two, like the Bavarian line. Much would be counted upon Albrecht I.´s reign to be longer, to help his son with imperial authority. The netherlands back then weren´t really a region where the authority of the Emperors was strong. Though a successful attempt by Rudolf might change that. Albrecht would need his son as his local head of authority while Rudolf would need his father authority in reverse, as said above.
Alright, so a sort of weird little symbiotic relationship then? Albrecht needs Rudi to enforce imperial authority, Rudi needs dad to back him up? Moment Johann Parracida goes for the jugular (as it were), Rudi position would be severely undermined. Unless he's consolidated his rule in Holland in the meantime?

Another interesting change might be that with Rudolf being sent to the North-west, Albrecht´s nephew John might have a pretty good claim to Bohemia and also might be able to claim some parts of the Habsburgian lands.
Any particular reason Johann would act differently? Mean, its hardly as though Rudi was an only son (Albrecht had four younger sons IIRC) that might simply step into the vaccuum Rudi "leaves".
 
Alright, so a sort of weird little symbiotic relationship then? Albrecht needs Rudi to enforce imperial authority, Rudi needs dad to back him up? Moment Johann Parracida goes for the jugular (as it were), Rudi position would be severely undermined. Unless he's consolidated his rule in Holland in the meantime?



Any particular reason Johann would act differently? Mean, its hardly as though Rudi was an only son (Albrecht had four younger sons IIRC) that might simply step into the vaccuum Rudi "leaves".
Rudolf claimed the crown of Bohemia in 1305, by marrying Wenzel II´s widow. Last king was his son Wenzel III. John had a much better claim, being Wenzel´s nephew. It would not hurt TTL Albrecht to agree to have John claim the Bohemean throne when his son is on his way to create another stronghold for his house. What WOULD hurt him would be John´s claim to his paternal heritage, some part of the habsburgian estates. Though a John as king of Bohemia might prevent the House of Luxemburg getting a foot in there, and perhaps Albrecht is able to reconcile with his nephew, who as King of Bohemia is also an Elector, and manages to assure that Rudolf is chosen as a King by Electors, securing the imperial succession of his house.

A therefore invested John(Non-parricida) of Bohemia might be not as averse to his uncle than the real one.
 
What WOULD hurt him would be John´s claim to his paternal heritage, some part of the habsburgian estates.
Problem is that Johann HAD no claim to those. FWIG, his dad gave up claims to Austria in exchange for being named "duke of Swabia" (more appropriately only Further Austria). Johann's "issue"/"reason" for murdering Albrecht was because Al refused to hand over those portions (which he administered on the "minor" Johann's behalf). Now, I'm not sure what the majority age was for Johann's inheritance, but considering that he was 17/18 when he killed Albrecht, I'd say a LOT of his "hatred" for his uncle was teenage resentment at being treated as a kid that Al's opponents made use of.

I agree that I could see Al pushing Johann forward as a Habsburg claimant to Bohemia as a way of BOTH hanging onto Further Austria and MOLLIFYING Johann
 
I kinda drifted away from Holland, sorry about that. *g*

One thing I remembered suddenly: the daughters of Wenzel II. Perhaps a marriage between cousins?
 
Would there be any possibility of a separate Habsburg line developing?

The Wittelsbachs, Wetttins, and Hohenzollerns all had two or more lines running; why not the Habsburgs?

If so, then if and when there is a Reformation, the Netherlands branch might go Protestant.
 
Would there be any possibility of a separate Habsburg line developing?

The Wittelsbachs, Wetttins, and Hohenzollerns all had two or more lines running; why not the Habsburgs?
The Habsburgs split into more than one line after Albrecht (three of his sons left issue, although two didn't last beyond a generation). Then his second youngest son left multiple boys from whom the Albertone and Leopoldine branches stemmed. The Albertine line never had big families but the Leopoldine branch had four or five sons in the first generations, of whom only two (Ernst der Eiserne - father of Emperor Friedrich III - and his youngest brother) left issue.

The Albertine line's last male died with Ladislaus the Posthumous, but the Leopoldine line still had two branches (imperial and further Austrian) until the 1490s. Maximilian and his son were the last male Habsburgs standing when Karl V was born.
 
so, then if and when there is a Reformation, the Netherlands branch might go Protestant.
With a POD in 1300 I SERIOUSLY doubt that we can COMFORTABLY predict that the Reformation would look ANYTHING like OTL, even IF it still took place. Especially given that, AIUI the MAIN thing that KEPT the Habsburgs going Protestant OTL was inheriting Spain.
 
The big precedent there is that it confirms the Emperor's right to confiscate lapsed fiefs for their own choice, IOTL they did so, but due to precedents and nobilar resistance they often granted it to claimants or supporters.
 
Top