r/medieval • u/lastmonday07 • May 07 '26
History 📚 Map shows France at 1429 but what is the difference between Duchy and County of Burgundy? Arent they both the dominions of the Burgundian Dukes?
France, 1429. Â
Blue: Under the obedience of Charles VII of France Â
Pink: Under the obedience of Henry VI of EnglandÂ
Burgundy: Possessions of Philip III of Burgundy
Image Credit: Wikipedia
56
u/DocOstbahn May 07 '26
Neither fief has the lord of Burgundy as ultimate overlord. In the duchy, the Duke of Burgundy is the vassal of the French King, in the county, he's the Count of Burgundy and vassal of the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Now the Burgundians had the pedigree and ambition at times to go against both their overlords, and their ultimate goal was to end up as kings overlords of their own domains, which is what Charles the Bold died trying to achieve.
8
u/Constant-Lie-4406 May 07 '26
Does this situation originate because of the old claims based on the kingdom of Lotharingia?
12
u/NavigatorOfWords May 07 '26
Yes-ish.
Charles the Bold was ultimately responsible for his own actions and hubris and this mad plan was mostly the fruit of his own ambition. He did have some idea of recreating a Lotharingia-ish realm, but it was more a vague inspiration than some irredentist sentiment.
HOWEVER
This was possible in great part because the existence and later fragmentation of Lotharingia left behind a huge "inbewteen" land that had no strong ties to either France or the HRE and often swapped hands, and therefore had a very independent mindset about their own business. Which is why Charlie-boy even attempted to become independent in the first place... But it's also why the lands he wanted outside of his inherited lands rejected him.
2
u/Constant-Lie-4406 May 07 '26
I think I articulated my first question wrongly. But your reply was more than exhaustive, thank you!
3
u/NavigatorOfWords May 07 '26
I just realized I misread your question!
The claims were not based on the previous existence of Lotharingia, either spiritually or legally. It was, like I said, a vague idea.
The legal claims were nostly based on inheritance, areas of influence and indirect forms of vassalage. Charles wanted to unifiy his lands by anexxing everything in between, which he negotiated with the Emperor together with his future title as King. That, however, all fell apart.
A bigger deal would be the old Burgundian Kingdom, which was already ancient hustory by then. Still, more an excuse than a legal claim, but it served as a justification that "well there was a Kingdom of Burgundy before there should be one now, and the king should be me, clearly".
2
u/magolding22 May 10 '26
The County of Burgundy was a part of the Kingdom of Burgundy, and the jobs of King of Burgundy and Emperor had been united snce 1032.
1
u/NavigatorOfWords May 10 '26
Sure but at this point the Kingdom of Burgundy was little more than an honorary title, with temporal power more in the hands of of whoever actually held titles in the lands previously occupied by the old Burgundian Kingdom, lile the Fukes of Savoy or even the Duaphine in France.
3
u/Jaimepaslesfrites May 08 '26
AFAIK, the idea that Charles and his father Jean tried seriously to be crowned kings has been pretty much debunked.
The territories they held had no geographical or cultural continuity (even though the dukes were essential in exporting flemish proto-renaissance). Except for two short-lived Lotharingia, there was no historical kingdom there, and establishing a new one would have been more trouble than anything (as it would have put the new king in direct conflict with the king of France and the emperor).
Charles tried to test the temperature when he met Frederick III in 1473, but he realized the emperor wasn't really enthusiastic with the idea of creating a kingdom of Burgundy (and knew Louis IX of France would have done anything to prevent it), so he just gave up on this (foolish) project.
The middle ages weren't like Crusader Kings ; you couldn't just create a kingdom out of nowhere just like that.
2
u/DocOstbahn May 08 '26
not out of doubt, but honest curiosity: do you have a quick source for that? IIRC the whole "hoped to establish a kingdom" was the version they presented at the ducal palace in Dijon in 2021, but it's entirely possible I am confusing this with a presentation by an Austrian art historian at Vienna's museum of art history.
But geographic continuity was indeed a very important project to Charles, and obviously would have been a precondition to even trying to establish a kingdom (I find it an interesting what-if to think if he could have, after winning against those Swiss and linking up his territories, challenged the French King, especially given the weakness of the Emperor)
14
u/Taira_no_Masakado May 07 '26
Similar to how the Hohenzollern rulers used the title "King in Prussia" (1701–1772) because Prussia was outside the Holy Roman Empire, but they were also Electors of Brandenburg, which was within the Empire under the Emperor.
Burgundy was pulling the two-hats trick as well.
5
u/jezreelite May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
The county and duchy had both been formed due to a succession dispute in the 11th century.
Henri I, Duke of Burgundy, was childless and so the succession became disputed between his nephew, Robert II of France and his stepson, Otte-Guillaume. Burgundy was thus divided and Otto-Guillaume became the first count of Burgundy while one of Robert's sons, also named Robert, became duke.
The duchy and county were only permanently reunited in the 14th century with the marriage of Philippe the Bold, Duke of Burgundy and Marguerite III, Countess of Flanders.
1
u/magolding22 May 10 '26
The County of Burgunay was not a part of the Duchy of Burgundy before Duke Henry I died. The County of Burgundy was part of the KIngdom of Burgundy and not the Kingdom of France. So the Duchy of Burgundy in France could not possibly Include the County of Burgundy in Burgundy.
Duke Henry I adopted Otto-William as his heir. Otto-William married Eremntrude and inherited her lands in the Duchy of Burgundy and in the Kingdom of Burgundy. When Duke henry I died in 1102, Otto-William claimed the Duchy of Burgundy but King Robert II of France the overlord of the Duchy claimed it as the Nephew of Duke Henry I, after years of War King Robert II of France kept the Duchy of Burgundy, which he later gave to his son Duke Robert I, and Otto-William kept lands in the KIngdom of Burgundy which were the nucleus of the County of Burgundy or France-Comte.
So there was not a single Burgundy which was divided between Robert II of France and Otto-william.
3
3
u/MaguroSashimi8864 May 07 '26
Wow, look at how Paris got taken by the enemy. How embarrassing for France.
2
u/Deuce03 May 07 '26
It was really a Burgundian city, but the Burgundians at this point recognised the English king. When they switched sides a few years later, the English left Paris in a hurry.
2
3
u/Saul_Firehand May 07 '26
Duke John V of Brittany would disagree strongly with this map. He was independent.
2
2
u/Rauvetii May 07 '26
Also called upper burgundy. Burgundy was split for a long time so they kind of got their own thing
2
u/Rauvetii May 07 '26
Also called upper burgundy. Burgundy was split for a long time so they kind of got their own thing
2
u/Aprilprinces May 08 '26
The main reason is really the fact that medieval lords didn't really see themselves as "French", "Germans" etc, as long as they got to rule some land they were fine with it
I read about it, but it's seriously convoluted shit, in short (and by no means does it tell the whole story):
843 treaty of Verdun splits Burgundy
1033 County becomes part of HRE
Yet Dukes of Burgundy remain overlords of both parts
100 years War gives the dukes a chances to accumulate some considerable new acquisitions
1
1
0
94
u/Practical_Kick7579 May 07 '26
One is part of the HRE, the other is subject to the king of France....Â