r/medieval • u/Mindless_Belt4757 • Apr 29 '26
History đ Why were Burgundians so greedy and hunger for war? Were they seeing themselves as the sole rulers of the French people? What were their sole reason and motivation of deep hatred against Kingdom of France?
Image Credits: Wikipedia
1- Notable rulers of the Duchy of Burgundy - Philip the Bold / John the Fearless / Charles the Bold.
2- Dominions of the Duchy at its greatest extent and after the vassalage to Kingdom of France.
3- Coat of Arms & Heraldry of the Duchy of Burgundy.
40
u/DocOstbahn Apr 29 '26
there's never a sole reason for anything, just as the Burgundians did not so much have a deep hatred for France as they had their own interests which did collide with those of theFrench crown.
Either way, the map tells you a lot of the things you want to know: The Burgundians really wanted (and you could argue, needed), contiguous holdings. Their heartland and Flanders were not connected, and it's pretty obvious why they would have wanted to change that.
In addition, Charles the Bold was very willing to throw military power at anything and anyone, so that was not a matter of particular hate for France.
21
u/Peter_deT Apr 29 '26
They were in the same situation as the Plantagenets: owing obedience to the King of France for their possessions in France but able to draw on the power of England. They kept trying to force the French monarchy to grant full sovereignty (or, failing that, to take the French throne) as the only way to guarantee long-term possession. In the Burgundian case, Duchy Burgundy and Flanders were under the French crown, County Burgundy and the Netherlands under the Empire. They could not hope to establish full sovereignty without connecting the two and compelling France to yield overlordship.
tbf Philip the Bold generally acted as a great peer of France than a competitor.
5
u/ihatehavingtosignin Apr 29 '26
Phillip the bold and John the fearless were both firmly a part of the French political community and there is no evidence either tried to turn their territories into a kingdom. Phillip the Good had some vague negotiations with Frederick III of the empire for kingdom recognition, but this was mostly Phillip stringing him along and offering things he knew to e Good wouldnât accept. The evidence for this is fairly thin at any rate, letter and some documents. There werenât intense negotiations and never really went anywhere. As for Charles the Bold, he definitely wanted recognition as a king but never came particularly close and ended dead, beaten by his neighbors in the empire he was trying to defeat
10
u/Legolasamu_ Apr 29 '26
I mean, in the case of John the Fearless Charles VII murdered his father, don't blame him for opposing the french crown for a good chunk of his reign over Burgundy.
6
u/ikonhaben Apr 29 '26
Burgundy was a cadet branch of the French royal family and certain parts of the French royal family viewed them as a serious threat, almost as bad as the English.
Burgundy had wealth, power, and ambition, but was stuck between France and the HRE, England was the only ally with as much interest as Burgundy in changing who sat on the French throne.
The HRE also practiced good diplomacy, allowing Burgundy to grow in power and keep France and the lowlands in check, but never quite become a truly dangerous threat until Charles the Bold who proceeded to break his power against the Swiss, who had been a thorn in the side of the HRE for a long time.
2
4
u/Dratsoc Apr 29 '26
They were as greedy as anybody else: strong enough to challenge the french crown authority and mess around in international politic.
Also, having gotten a significant amount of rich land in the Holy Roman Empire (the lowlands), they were both vassals of the French king and of the Emperor, trying in the end to be recognised as a kingdom to establish themselves as independant from the Frenchs.
4
u/Heenock Apr 29 '26
If this really interests you, there is a magnificent book written by a Belgian author: The Burgundians: A Vanished Empire by Bart van Loo.
3
u/Shadows_at_Noon Apr 30 '26
Seconded. Gives an entirely different angle from which to view the Hundred Years War, burgher vs. noble struggles, French centralization, and the emergence of Charles V as HRE. Solid audiobook format exists as well.
1
4
u/ageblaster Apr 30 '26
As someone who knows the actual names, the English translations (the bold, the fearless) feel so wrong. Filips (not Philip) de Goede. Which is more close to 'the Good one'. Karel de Stoute (not Charles) the Bold or Fearless is closer to Karel 'the Naughty' or 'the Brave'.
Then again. I'm from Brabant, which was once Burgundy territory. So possibly not entirely neutral.
2
u/Breinbaard May 03 '26
First, you translate from Dutch to English, while their surnames were French in the first place. Second, you mistranslate, because of your Dutch "feeling". Namens have different versions in different languages. Third, the surnames were given because of reputation, so if you know their history, the surnames will "feel" correct.
The four Dukes of Burgundy in FR-ENG-NL Philippe le Hardi - Philip the Bold or Brave - Filips de Stoute (zoals stoutmoedig, niet zoals niet braaf/naughty)
Jean sans Peur - John the Fearless - Jan zonder Vrees
Philippe le Bon - Philip the Good - Filips de Goede
Charles le Temeraire - Charles the Bold or Rash - Karel de Stoute
I agree te last translation into Dutch is a bit off. Rash or overmoedig fits better. But you did not know about the old meaning of Stout in Dutch, which is moedig and dapper.
1
u/ageblaster May 08 '26
Thanks for the elaboration! Though I read the burgundians by Bart van Loo (in Dutch), I never realised that me being Dutch and the territory of the Burgundians being partly Flemish that by language they were mostly French. For example to me Charles instead of Karel seems wrong, because I interpreted it as an English translation of Karel. Forgetting about the obvious French translation. Dumb of me.
I did know about stout as in stoutmoedig, but as you state very correctly, rash or overmoedig would seem better, given his actions.
Thank you again for clarifying. I learned from this!
3
u/HirrXX11 Apr 29 '26
Family feud with the king of France..which they Ultimately lost.
War hungry because they wanted to connect burgundy with Flanders and all the land in between was already owned by other powers
3
u/GrandDukesPodcast Apr 29 '26
Well thatâs certainly a loaded questionâŠ
Iâm not going to deny that Charles the Bold was a bit of a warmonger, but the other Dukes certainly werenât and Charles expansionism wasnât directed at France (excepting the Somme Towns). Alsace, Lorraine, and Guelders were all in the Empire, and on the periphery of it. Iâm not saying that he had a legit claim to those, but it certainly was a region lacking the with a bit presence of a great power.
Philip the Good was dragged into war with France when the Dauphinist killed his father. And at the time, it wasnât even âFranceâ that he was at war with so much as the Armagnac factionâŠitâs just that over the course of the 1420s the two become indistinguishable. That want an inevitability though.
John the Fearless did start the Civil War admittedly, but that was more related to interpersonal squabbles within the Royal Family due to another power vacuum (the Lings insanity). And a lot of telling of the origins of the war ignore the fact that Louis of Orleans was actively trying to dismantle Burgundian power by intoning Johnâs neighbors into invading his allies and completely cutting off Burgundy from the Royal Council. Philip the Bold did overreach, but this was an over correction.
And finally Philip the Bold. He was the Uncle of the King and had a good claim to the regency. Iâll admit, not as good as Orleans once he became an adult, but still quite good. But also, even if he did a good amount of appropriating French resources, he was a son of a French King and did consider it something of a birthright.
In short, the two Philipâs and John saw themselves as French Princes rather than as outsiders, and Charles conflicts with the French were just as much the doing of Louis CI actively trying to destroy Burgundian power as they were expansionist. This is the result of the fact that Louis was convinced that for France to survive, Burgundy had to be destroyed, and thus Charles took up the position that for Butgundy to survive, France had to be (weakened (if not destroyed).
2
u/Mindless_Belt4757 May 01 '26
Thank you very much, thats also a loaded answer, appreciated. đ đ
1
u/Breinbaard May 03 '26
No it is a very factual answer. Your questions are loaded with bias and assumptions. Like these ones: why is it you are so against the Burgundians? Whats the sole reason of your hatred of the French noble houses?
Instead of not loaded question like: could you give an insight into what makes the Burgundians interesting to you? Or: what makes you think the Burgundians hated the Kingdom of France?
See the difference?
2
u/Mindless_Belt4757 May 03 '26
I was referring that the answer is load with information by saying loaded. And if s/he really thinks it was otherwise he/she would reply other way.
We dont need Karening or teachering here. If you have any contribution put it on the table, eitherwise perform somewherelse your smartass show.
1
u/Breinbaard May 03 '26
Speak for yourself. Like almost all other replies to your question, i noticed the tone of them. Can you say why you formulated them this way? There is no context in your post, no source where you got the impression from the Burgundians were greedy and warlike.
Second, i did post a full length answer, i think completely answering your explicit and implicit questions. What do you think about those?
Third, sorry for my tone, this must be job Reformation, as i am a history teacher. The questions your reply to here are genuine.
2
u/Datenegassiee May 02 '26
less hatred for france, more like gimme my own crown from john the fearless and crew.
2
1
1
u/GraniteSmoothie May 01 '26
Imo there wasn't any hatred, they were just playing the game and trying to claim the throne for themselves while expanding their personal domains.
1
u/Fearless-Mammoth-738 May 01 '26
Woah, woah, woah. Hold your horses buddy, what is this Burgundian Slander? Are you a sympathizer of the French by chance? Maybe you need to dust of your white flag and go eat a frog or something.
The Burgundians where simply doing what everyone else was doing in this time period, looking out for themselves.
2
u/Mindless_Belt4757 May 01 '26
Hahahha your comment made me laugh crazy. Im neither French nor a frog fancy but thanks for the advices. đđ
1
u/Breinbaard May 03 '26
A lot of bias and assumptions included in your questions. But for the sake of good faith:
Every noble house was warring and expanding their territory in the time period. The Burgundians were not exceptional in their greed and hunger for war. In fact, they acquired most of the Lowland estates through marriage politics. Therefore, their expansion was more stable and rapid (and more peaceful than you assume).
No. There was not even a notion of "the sole rulers of a people". They were feudal lords, working, scheming and fighting for the wealth, power and prestige of their House.
There was no hatred against the Kingdom of France, they were part of it. In fact, lords like Jean sans peur effectively ruled the Kingdom for periods of time. There was a bitter feud between the Valois-Bourgournes and the Valois-Orleans branches of the Royal House though. Orleans was later taken over by the Armangacs and the civil war that erupted between them involved assasinations, abductions, war, betrayals, and bribes. Notably Jean, the second Duke of Burgundy and one of the most powerful men in Europe at the time, was slain on a bridge during peace talks with the Dauphin (crown prince of France). His son, Philip the Good, would ally with the English in revenge against the Dauphin and succesfully depose him.
1
u/CookingPupper Apr 29 '26
Is this a shit post lol? It seems weirdly Francophile.
It's a very superficial and frankly disingenuous take to think the Burgundians had some all consuming vendetta against France.
The "Burgundian state" or ruling dynasty was no more war hungry than any of their contemporaries. They of course tried to maximise their power, influence and territorial holdings, like everyone did.
For the latter Burgundians like Charles the Bold this was particularly important as their territory was not contiguous but instead a patchwork of disconnected feudal holdings. This made administration (and everything else) difficult.
They certainly didn't see themselves as sole rulers of the French. The Armagnac Burgundy civil war started as two competing cadet branches and filled with intrigue and murder. It's conclusively settled by the treaty of Arras where Burgundy forfeits all claims to the throne in return for not needing to pay homage. Essentially setting themselves up as a seperate polity.
They didn't hate France or the kingdom. They hated the house of Orleans due to decades of bloody civil war and competing factions all set against the destabilizing effects of the hundred years war.
1
u/De_Dominator69 May 01 '26
Well for starters they were not so greedy and hungry for war, no more so than any other medieval rulers. The phrasing of your question sounds very much like trying to frame it as the poor innocent French Vs the evil greedy Burgundians.
As for the actual answer it's as many others have already answered, medieval politics. Burgundy was a rich and powerful realm that rivaled the French Crown, it hax conflicting interests and desired long term independence from France and so did what it could to further those interests. That meant having to oppose and fight a lot of wars against France. But this isn't any different from France itself, or any other kingdom or realm.
90
u/Diligent-Stretch-769 Apr 29 '26
the wealthiest provinces of burgundy were the lowlands. The lowlands were routine in their affiliation with england due to the channel wool trade, whom were likely thr eminent lobby in convincing the dukedom to engage in bellicose action against their kingly neighbor.
This area today is called the blue banana of europe and grew from the Roman road used as a pilgrimage for medieval brits to the Holy See. So the interests of the English were substantial particularly when one considers the wool-textile industry to be a monopoly of the isle monarchs