stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 25, 2016 15:14:46 GMT
Hey, all of this is only fantasy, after all. I only expect people discussing it not to have double standards. In this situation, I do not see why it is worse for Europe's future to have the French in control of the Netherlands instead of the Spanish. In fact, the Habsburg concentration is one of the most impressive in history, so any alternative must be good, isn't it ? To resume the point, at this time, which countries really exists as neighbours ? The unification of Spain is just beginning (and Ferdinand II was not that happy about it), the HRE, including Italy, is a mess with no leader, England's War of the Two Roses has not settled yet. If the French Crown takes control of the Netherlands, I do not see anyone to challenge it from the outside. From the inside, however, a weak king can bring the nobles to rise and challenge his power. That is not a bad thing : in 1484 the States Generals did bring up the idea of the Common Will and the control of the State's finances. True the Hapsburg concentration was a great threat to the rest of Europe as well, and took quite a lot of fighting to withstand. However a French controlled Burgundy, including the combined Netherlands, provides a continuous stretch of territory that might be more lasting and as you hinted in your previous post could be the start of an even greater bid for power. Unlike the Hapsburg one, which Charles V decided to divide because it was too large and widely spread for one man to rule its less likely that France would be forced to concede the Netherlands for instance without a lot of conflict. Any such concentration is likely to lead to war as it would be too dangerous to other powers, even if France wasn't immediately planning further expansion. Reading up on it on Wiki I thought you had made a mistake initially because the article on Charles VIII mentioned a possible marriage to Mary of Burgundy's daughter Margret of Austria but reading deeper I see that his father tried to get Charles married to Mary before the latter married into the Hapsburg family. Of course if either marriage occurred, although only the one to Mary would give the French a claim to the full Burgundian inheritance, then Charles wouldn't have been able to force his marriage to Anne of Brittany, although I suspect the French would still attack that country, especially if a marriage to the Hapsburg emperor was a possibility.
|
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 26, 2016 8:55:02 GMT
Brittany was utterly unable to make a stand in front of France. It was part of the Kingdom since the Central Middle Ages and the Dukes (themselves part of the Capetian dynasty) were only able to gain autonomy due to the Hundred Years War. Even an Austrian marriage (especially if the Habsburgs stay an Austria-only dynasty) is not enough to protect the Duchy. OTL, the marriages came after the military conquest.
I agree that the Burgundian marriage is more likely to benefit France even more than it did the Habsburgs, but really at the time who could challenge it ? Sure, other sovereigns are not happy about it, but how can they act ? If the Habsburg as HRE try to wage war to France, all the French King has to do is to deal with some german princes who have everything to gain for in a further loosing of the imperial rule. As history has shown, it is quite difficult to make war across the Pyrenées. With no foothold on the Continent, how can the English act ?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 26, 2016 10:56:27 GMT
Brittany was utterly unable to make a stand in front of France. It was part of the Kingdom since the Central Middle Ages and the Dukes (themselves part of the Capetian dynasty) were only able to gain autonomy due to the Hundred Years War. Even an Austrian marriage (especially if the Habsburgs stay an Austria-only dynasty) is not enough to protect the Duchy. OTL, the marriages came after the military conquest. I agree that the Burgundian marriage is more likely to benefit France even more than it did the Habsburgs, but really at the time who could challenge it ? Sure, other sovereigns are not happy about it, but how can they act ? If the Habsburg as HRE try to wage war to France, all the French King has to do is to deal with some german princes who have everything to gain for in a further loosing of the imperial rule. As history has shown, it is quite difficult to make war across the Pyrenées. With no foothold on the Continent, how can the English act ? Brittany is unable to resist conquest without support and that is unlikely to occur before the French march in. However if the trigger is elsewhere then it might preserve its independence for a while. Or possibly find allies once it starts. The Hapsburgs and a lot of German states might feel threatened by such a large increase in French territories, especially since the northern part of the Burgundian inheritance was never part of historical France and it also makes the French king a very big player in the HRE. The Pyrenees are a barrier but that goes for both sides. Aragon has influence in Italy at the time as well so Spain could possibly provide a threat to southern or western coasts. England still has Calais at this point, and until the 1550's so has a potential point of entry as well as by sea. Also I note that the Wiki entry for Mary is that, as soon as her father Charles the Bold died she was forced, within a month of inheriting, to make major concessions to the assorted provinces of her state, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Burgundy#The_Great_Privilege . If Charles VIII comes in and seeks to maintain control in a centralised fashion you are likely to see a lot of internal opposition. Its possible you might get a parallel to his conquest of Naples and early retreat or of the Spanish problems with the Netherlands, but earlier and with a markedly larger state. I could see France keeping the original province of Burgundy and possibly some elements on the Flanders region but you could see a greater Netherlands established a century or so earlier as an independent state or at least a very bloody war developing. A lot depends on the exact timing of events. If the French move immediately after Charles the Bold's death in 1477 then England is still in the War of the Roses, although you might see the Yorkists under Edward IV staying in power and leading an English intervention. Especially since Edward was the brother in law of Charles the Bold who has supplied funds to Edward when he had been threatened by Warwick, who was himself in alliance with the French. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses#Edward_IV, especially the section about the clash between Edward IV and Warwick. I'm not saying the French won't win, or at least gain significant territories but its likely to require a lot of costly fighting if they try and force a marriage between Mary and the then very young Charles. I would expect a long and bloody conflict, one side effect of which might be no Tudors in England, another possibly a unified Netherlands becoming an independent state prior to the reformation. Which in itself could be drastically altered depending on events.
|
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 27, 2016 8:41:10 GMT
I forgot Calais ! Sure, a foothold for an English intervention.
The issue of the demands of the local elites is very interesting. As I wrote earlier, the French élites also supported a radical change in the royal government by putting the finances under the States General's monitoring in 1484. One of the key proponents was Philippe Pot, himself a former chancellor to Duke Charles. A Burgundian annexion could bring the victory of this "conciliatory" line in all France. Thus, modern France would evolve in a English way (but with very different institutions) of monarchy.
The comparison with Italy is difficult : while southern Italy was months away from Paris, the Netherlands are days close. Even if the area is richer (but the opposition will not be universal), conquest will be easier, with manageable logistic chains. At that time, the crown of Aragon held Sicily and Sardinia, with Naples in the hands of a cousin, but no land close to the French border. Even so, in 1477, Isabel and Fernando were still locked in war with Portugal, King John II of Aragon was one of the most despised monarch of his dynasty. True, the English were in better shape since the victory of Edward IV.
If we boil this to a simple legal inheritance question, one of the strong points of the French position is that there is no other rival heir to both France and Burgundy, while in Spain, Juana la Beltraneja is more entitled than Isabel and in England, the Tudors can compete with the Yorks.
Concessions to the local élites, support to the rival claimants in both Castilla and England, victory over whatever coalition the Habsburgs could manage : a clear road to victory, it seems. But I agree this is a best case.
On a larger scale, I do not think any state did completely sever his links with his sovereign prior to the Reformation (save the Swiss, maybe) : a legitimate monarch is necessary, even one with less than sure claims.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 27, 2016 13:24:09 GMT
I forgot Calais ! Sure, a foothold for an English intervention. The issue of the demands of the local elites is very interesting. As I wrote earlier, the French élites also supported a radical change in the royal government by putting the finances under the States General's monitoring in 1484. One of the key proponents was Philippe Pot, himself a former chancellor to Duke Charles. A Burgundian annexion could bring the victory of this "conciliatory" line in all France. Thus, modern France would evolve in a English way (but with very different institutions) of monarchy. The comparison with Italy is difficult : while southern Italy was months away from Paris, the Netherlands are days close. Even if the area is richer (but the opposition will not be universal), conquest will be easier, with manageable logistic chains. At that time, the crown of Aragon held Sicily and Sardinia, with Naples in the hands of a cousin, but no land close to the French border. Even so, in 1477, Isabel and Fernando were still locked in war with Portugal, King John II of Aragon was one of the most despised monarch of his dynasty. True, the English were in better shape since the victory of Edward IV. If we boil this to a simple legal inheritance question, one of the strong points of the French position is that there is no other rival heir to both France and Burgundy, while in Spain, Juana la Beltraneja is more entitled than Isabel and in England, the Tudors can compete with the Yorks. Concessions to the local élites, support to the rival claimants in both Castilla and England, victory over whatever coalition the Habsburgs could manage : a clear road to victory, it seems. But I agree this is a best case. On a larger scale, I do not think any state did completely sever his links with his sovereign prior to the Reformation (save the Swiss, maybe) : a legitimate monarch is necessary, even one with less than sure claims. Agree it would be logistically easier to hold the Burgundian inheritance than Naples in terms of logistics. If reformists and devolvers of power win in France, possibly in part because of the Burgundian inheritance there are two potential problems with this: a) Their power is going to be a serious check on royal authority, so at some point this is likely to lead to some sort of struggle and possibly a civil war. b) If it doesn't wealthy merchants and lords often look with disfavour on centralised military spending so future wars of expansion could be difficult to maintain. This was a major factor in the run up to civil war in England, that parliament had gained authority over spending and restricted what Charles I could do so he sought to rule without it. Similarly with the Dutch revolt, while religion played a factor an equally important one was demands from Spain for taxes to fight wars that seemed to have no benefits for the Dutch merchants. In both cases Britain had the advantage of being an island nation and hence less vulnerable to invasion by neighbours, plus the British civil war(s) came at the tail end of the 30 Year's War when the rest of Europe was rather preoccupied and war weary. France in either case is going to have the additional problem if social conflict leads to either civil war or paralysis of the government that this could prompt foreign intervention. Although depending on the circumstances that is likely to make the immediately threatened area more accepting of royal authority. Another factor is that the reformation in some form or another is just around the corner so that could throw everything into the mix again. Especially in large states such as the proposed greater France with a multitude of interests and cultures. We're likely as OTL to see a lot of bloody conflict and chaos with the would be hegemony power facing the biggest challenge.
|
|
cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 28, 2016 14:44:02 GMT
Sure, a civil war the scale of the British one is hard. We are too butterflied away to make reasonable assumptions (after all, in this TL, the line of french Kings is entirely unknown, they could be either Henri IV-type or Louis XVI's). One remark, though : OTL the French monarchy managed to crush the Fronde civil war, supported by a sizeable part of the nobility and Spain. So, foreign intervention in a civil war is not always a gamechanger.
|
|