Chapter 3: , page 89 (43)

"In the south-east of Gaul, the Burgundians had, after many
wars and some reverses, established themselves (443) with the
consent of the Romans in the district then called Sapaudia and
now Savoy. Their territory was somewhat more extensive than
the province which was the cradle of the present royal house
of Italy, since it stretched northwards beyond the lake of
Neufchatel and southwards as far as Grenoble. Here the
Burgundian immigrants under their king Gundiok, were busy
settling themselves in their new possession, cultivating the
lands which they had divided by lot, each one receiving half
the estate of a Roman host or 'hospes' (for under such gentle
names the spoliation was veiled), when the news came that the
terrible Hun had crossed the Rhine [A. D. 451], and that all
hosts and guests in Gaul must unite for its defence."

_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 3._

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 451.
At The Battle Of Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.
Extension Of Their Kingdom.

"Their [the Burgundians] domain, considerably more extensive
than when we last viewed it on the eve of Attila's invasion,
now included the later provinces of Burgundy, Franche-Comté
and Dauphiné, besides Savoy and the greater part of
Switzerland—in fact the whole of the valleys of the Saone and
the Rhone, save that for the last hundred miles of its course
the Visigoths barred them from the right bank and from the
mouths of the latter river." At the time now spoken of (A. D.
500), the Burgundian kingdom was divided between two
brother-kings, Gundobad, reigning at Lyons and Vienne, and
Godegisel at Geneva. Godegisel, the younger, had conspired
with Clovis, the king of the Franks, against Gundobad, and in
this year 500 the two confederates defeated the latter, at
Dijon, driving him from the most part of his kingdom. But
Gundobad presently recovered his footing, besieged and
captured his treacherous brother at Vienne and promptly put
him to death—thereby reuniting the kingdom.

_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 9._

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 534.
Final Conquest By The Franks.

"I am impatient to pursue the final ruin of that kingdom [the
Burgundian] which was accomplished under the reign of
Sigismond, the son of Gundobald [or Gundobad]. The Catholic
Sigismond has acquired the honours of a saint and martyr; but
the hands of the royal saint were stained with the blood of
his innocent son. … It was his humble prayer that Heaven
would inflict in this world the punishment of his sins. His
prayer was heard; the avengers were at hand; and the provinces
of Burgundy were overwhelmed by an army of victorious Franks.
After the event of an unsuccessful battle, Sigismond … with
his wife and two children, was transported to Orleans and
buried alive in a deep well by the stern command of the sons
of Clovis, whose cruelty might derive some excuse from the
maxims and examples of their barbarous age. … The rebellious
Burgundians, for they attempted to break their chains, were
still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the
obligation of tribute and military service; and the
Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom whose
glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of
Clovis."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 38.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

ALSO IN: _W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3._

----------BURGUNDIANS: End----------

BURGUNDY: A. D. 534-752.
The Merovingian Kingdom.

After the overthrow of the Burgundian monarchy by the sons of
Clovis, the territory of the Burgundians, with part of the
neighboring Frank territory added to it, became, under the
name of Burgundia or Burgundy, one of the three Frank kingdoms
(Austrasia and Neustria being the other two), into which the
Merovingian princes divided their dominion. It occupied "the
east of the country, between the Loire and the Alps, from
Provence on the south to the hill-ranges of the Vosges on the
north."

_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 13._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
Divisions of the early kingdom.
The later kingdoms of the south and the French dukedom of the
northwest.

By the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, which formally divided the
empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, a part of
Burgundy was taken to form, with Italy and Lorraine, the
kingdom of the Emperor Lothar, or Lothaire. In the further
dissolutions which followed, a kingdom of Burgundy or Provence
was founded in 877 by one Boso, a prince who had married
Irmingard, daughter of the Emperor Louis II., son of Lothaire.
It "included Provence, Dauphiné, the southern part of Savoy,
and the country between the Saone and the Jura," and is
sometimes called the kingdom of Cis-Jurane Burgundy. "The
kingdom of Trans-Jurane Burgundy, … founded by Rudolf in A.
D. 888, recognized in the same year by the Emperor Arnulf,
included the northern part of Savoy, and all Switzerland
between the Reuss and the Jura."

_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 6, and appendix, note A._

{330}

"The kingdoms of Provence and Transjuran Burgundy were united,
in 933, by Raoul II., King of Transjuran Burgundy, and formed
the kingdom of Arles, governed, from 937 to 993, by Conrad le
Pacifique."

_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
lecture 24._

_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 4._

"Several of the greater and more commercial towns of France,
such as Lyons, Vienne, Geneva, Besançon, Avignon, Arles,
Marseille and Grenoble were situated within the bounds of his
[Conrad the Pacific's] states."

_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
France Under the Feudal System,
chapter 2._

"Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the northwestern part,
forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in
the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or
the Western Kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for
its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of
dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon, and then
at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to
bear its modern sense may be distinguished as the French
Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal
Burgundy" of the Cis-Jurane and Trans-Jurane kingdoms
mentioned above.

_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 6, section 1._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032.
The French Dukedom.
The Founding Of The First Capetian House.

Of the earliest princes of this northwestern fragment of the
old kingdom of Burgundy little seems to have been
discoverable. The fief and its title do not seem to have
become hereditary until they fell into the grasping hands of
the Capetian family, which happened just at the time when the
aspiring counts of Paris were rising to royal rank. In the
early years of the tenth century the reigning count or duke
was Richard-le-Justicier, whose distinguishing princely virtue
is recorded in his name. This Richard-le-Justicier was a
brother of that Boso, or Boson, son-in-law of the Emperor
Louis II., who took advantage of the confusions of the time to
fashion for himself a kingdom of Burgundy in the South
(Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or Provence,—see above). Richard's son
Raoul, or Rudolph, married Emma, the daughter of Robert, Count
of Paris and Duke of France, who was soon afterwards chosen
king, by the nobles who tired of Carlovingian misrule. King
Robert's reign was short; he fell in battle with the
Carlovingians, at Soissons, the next year (A. D. 923). His son
Hugh, called Le Grand, or The Great, found it more to his
taste to be king-maker than to be king. He declined the
proffered crown, and brought about the coronation of his
brother-in-law, the Burgundian Rudolph, who reigned for eleven
years. When he died, in 934, Hugh the Great still held the
crown at his disposal and still refused to wear it himself. It
now pleased this king-maker to set a Carlovingian prince on
the throne, in the person of Louis d'Outre Mer, a young son of
Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England by his
English mother. But, if Duke Hugh cared nothing for the name,
he cared much for the substance, of power. He grasped dominion
wherever it fell within his reach, and the Burgundian duchy
was among the states which he clutched. King Rudolph left no
son to inherit either his dukedom or his kingdom. He had a
brother, Hugh, who claimed the Duchy; but the greater Hugh was
too strong for him and secured, with the authority of the
young king, his protegé, the title of Duke of Burgundy and the
larger part of the domain. "In the Duchy of France or the
County of Paris Hugh-le-Grand had nothing beyond the
regalities to desire, and both in Burgundy and the Duchy he
now became an irremovable Viceroy. But the privileges so
obtained by Hugh-le-Grand produced very important political
results, both present and future. Hugh assumed even a loftier
bearing than before; Burgundy was annexed to the Duchy of
France, and passed with the Duchy; and the grant thereof made
by Hugh Capet to his son [brother?] Henri-le-Grand, severing
the same from the crown, created the premier Duchy of
Christendom, the most splendid appanage which a prince of the
third race [the Capetians] could enjoy—the rival of the
throne."

_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, part 2, chapters 1-4._

Hugh-le-Grand died in 956. "His power, which, more than his
talents or exploits, had given him the name of Great, was
divided between his children, who were yet very young. …
There is some doubt as to their number and the order of their
birth. It appears, however, that Otho was the eldest of his
three sons. He had given him his part of the duchy of
Burgundy, and had made him marry the daughter and heir of
Gislebert, duke of another part of Burgundy, to which Otho
succeeded the same year. The latter dying in 963 or 965, the
duchy of Burgundy passed to his third brother, sometimes named
Henry, sometimes Eudes. Hugues [Hugh], surnamed Capet, who
succeeded to the county of Paris and the duchy of France, was
but the second son."

_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
The French under the Carlovingians,
chapter 15._

In 987 Hugh Capet became king of France and founded the
lasting dynasty which bears his name. His elder brother Henry
remained Duke of Burgundy until his death, in 1002, when his
royal nephew, Robert, son and successor of Hugh, annexed the
Duchy to the Crown. It so remained until 1032. Then King Henry
I., son of Robert, granted it as an appanage to his brother
Robert, who founded the first Capetian House of Burgundy.

_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
book 1, chapter 2._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
The Last Kingdom.
Its Union With Germany, And Its Dissolution.

The last kingdom which bore the name of Burgundy—though more
often called the kingdom of Arles—formed, as stated above,
by the union of the short-lived kingdoms of Provence and
Transjurane Burgundy, became in 1032 nominally united to the
dominions of the Emperor-King of Germany. Its last independent
king was Rudolf III., son of Conrad the Pacific, who was uncle
to the Emperor Henry II. Being childless, he named Henry his
heir. The latter, however, died first, in 1024, and Rudolf
attempted to cancel his bequest, claiming that it was made to
Henry personally, not as King of the Germans. When, however,
the Burgundian king died, in 1032, the then reigning Emperor,
Conrad the Salic, or the Franconian, formally proclaimed the
union of Burgundy with Germany. "But since Burgundy was ruled
almost exclusively by the great nobility, the sovereignty of
the German Emperors there was never much more than nominal.
Besides, the country, from the Bernese Oberland to the
Mediterranean, except that part of Allemannia which is now
German Switzerland, was inhabited by a Romance people, too
distinct in language, customs and laws from the German empire
ever really to form a part of it. … Yet Switzerland was
thenceforth connected forever with the development of Germany,
and for 500 years remained a part of the empire."

_C. T. Lewis,
History of Germany,
book 2, chapter 6-7._

{331}

"The weakness of Rodolph-le-Fainéant [Rodolph III., who made
Henry II. of Germany his heir, as stated above], gave the
great lords of the kingdom of Arles an opportunity of
consolidating their independence. Among these one begins to
remark Berchtold and his son, Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains (the
White-handed), Counts of Maurienne, and founders of the House
of Savoy; Otto William, who it is pretended was the son of
Adalbert, King of Italy, and heir by right of his mother to
the county of Burgundy, was the founder of the sovereign house
of Franche-Comté [County Palatine of Burgundy]; Guigue, Count
of Albon, founder of the sovereign house of the dauphins of
Viennois; and William, who it is pretended was the issue of a
brother of Rodolph of Burgundy, King of France, and who was
sovereign count of Provence. These four lords had, throughout
the reign of Rodolph, much more power than he in the kingdom
of Arles; and when at his death his crown was united to that
of the Empire, the feudatories who had grown great at his
expense became almost absolutely independent. On the other
hand, their vassals began on their side to acquire importance
under them; and in Provence can be traced at this period the
succession of the counts of Forcalquier and of Venaissin, of
the princes of Orange, of the viscounts of Marseille, of the
barons of Baux, of Sault, of Grignau, and of Castellane. We
can still follow the formation of a great number of other
feudatory or rather sovereign houses. Thus the counts of
Toulouse, those of Rouergue, the dukes of Gascony, the counts
of Foix, of Beam, and of Carcassone, date least from this
epoch; but their existence is announced to us only by their
diplomas and their wills."

_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
France under the Feudal System,
chapter 2._

See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, AND FRANCHE COMTÉ.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.
The Franco-Germanic Contest For The Valley Of The Rhone.
End Of The Kingdom Of Arles.

"As soon as the Capetian monarchs had acquired enough strength
at home to be able to look with safety abroad, they began to
make aggressions on the tempting and wealthy dependencies of
the distant emperors. But the Rhone valley was too important
in itself, and of too great strategical value as securing an
easy road to Italy, to make it possible for the emperors to
acquiesce easily in its loss. Hence a long conflict, which
soon became a national conflict of French and Germans, to
maintain the Imperial position in the 'middle kingdom' of the
Rhone valley. M. Fournier's book ['Le Royaume d' Arles et de
Vienne (1138-1178)'; par Paul Fournier] aims at giving an
adequate account of this struggle. … From the times of the
mighty Barbarossa to the times of the pretentious and cunning
Charles of Luxemburg [see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268, and A. D.
1347-1493], nearly every emperor sought by constant acts of
sovereignty to uphold his precarious powers in the Arelate.
Unable to effect much with their own resources, the emperors
exhausted their ingenuity in finding allies and inventing
brilliant schemes for reviving the Arelate, which invariably
came to nothing. Barbarossa won the hand of the heiress of the
county of Burgundy, and sought to put in place of the local
dynasties princes on whom he could rely, like Berthold of
Zäringen, whose father had received in 1127 from Conrad III.
the high-sounding but meaningless title of Hector of the
Burgundies. But his quarrel with the church soon set the
clergy against Frederick, and, led by the Carthusian and
Cistercian orders, the Churchmen of the Arelate began to look
upon the orthodox king of the French as their truest protector
from a schismatic emperor. But the French kings of the period
saw in the power of Henry of Anjou [Henry II., of England—see
ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189] a more real and pressing danger than
the Empire of the Hohenstaufen. The result was an alliance
between Philip Augustus and his successors and the Swabian
emperors, which gave Frederick and his successors a new term
in which they could strive to win back a real hold over
Burgundy. Frederick II. never lost sight of this object. His
investiture of the great feudal lord William of Baux with the
kingdom of Arles in 1215; his long struggle with the wealthy
merchant city of Marseilles; his alliance with Raymond of
Toulouse and the heretical elements in Provence against the
Pope and the French; his efforts to lead an army against
Innocent IV. at Lyons, were among the chief phases of his
constant efforts to make the Imperial influence really felt in
the valley of the Rhone. But he had so little success that the
French crusaders against the Albigenses waged open war within
its limits, and destroyed the heretic city of Avignon [see
ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229], while Innocent in his exile
could find no surer protection against the emperor than in the
Imperial city of Lyons. After Frederick's death the policy of
St. Louis of France was a complete triumph. His brother,
Charles of Anjou, established himself in Provence, though in
later times the Angevin lords of Provence and Naples became so
strong that their local interests made them enemies rather
than friends of the extension of French power on their
borders. The subsequent efforts of the emperors were the
merest shams and unrealities. Rudolf of Hapsburg acquiesced
without a murmur in the progress of Philip the Fair, who made
himself master of Lyons, and secured the Free County of
Burgundy for his son [see FRANCHE-COMTÉ]. … The residence
of the Popes at Avignon was a further help to the French
advance. … Weak as were the early Valois kings, they were
strong enough to push still further the advantage won by their
greater predecessors. The rivalry of the leading states of the
Rhone valley, Savoy and Dauphiny, facilitated their task.
Philip VI. aspired to take Vienne as Philip IV. had obtained
Lyons. The Dauphin, Humbert II., struggled in vain against
him, and at last accepted the inevitable by ceding to the
French king the succession to all his rights in Dauphiny,
henceforth to become the appanage of the eldest sons of the
French kings. At last, Charles of Luxemburg, in 1378, gave the
French aggressions a legal basis by conferring the Vicariat of
Arles on the Dauphin Charles, subsequently the mad Charles VI.
of France. From this grant Savoy only was excepted. Henceforth
the power of France in the Rhone valley became so great that
it soon became the fashion to despise and ignore the
theoretical claims of the Empire."

_The Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1891,
reviewing "Le Royaume d'Arles et de Vienne,"
par Paul Fournier._

[Image: POSSESSIONS OF CHARLES THE BOLD, DUKE OF BURGUNDY, ABOUT 1475.]

{332}

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1207-1401.
Advance Of The Dominions Of The House Of Savoy Beyond Lake
Geneva.

See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1364.
The French Dukedom.
The Planting Of The Burgundian Branch Of The House Of Valois.

The last Duke of Burgundy of the Capetian house which
descended from Robert, son of King Robert, died in December,
1361. He was called Philip de Rouvre, because the Château de
Rouvre, near Dijon, had been his birth-place, and his
residence. He was still in his youth when he died, although he
had borne the ducal title for twelve years. It fell to him at
the age of four, when his father died. From his mother and his
grandmother he inherited, additionally, the county of Burgundy
(Franche Comté) and the counties of Boulogne, Auvergne and
Artois. His tender years had not prevented the marriage of the
young duke to Margaret, daughter and heiress of the Count of
Flanders. John II. King of France, whose mother was a
Burgundian princess, claimed to be the nearest relative of the
young duke, when the latter died, in 1361, and, although his
claim was disputed by the King of Navarre, Charles the Bad,
King John took possession of the dukedom. He took it by right
of succession, and not as a fief which had lapsed, the
original grant of King Robert having contained no reversionary
provision. Franche Comté, or the county of Burgundy, together
with Artois, remained to the young widow, Margaret of
Flanders, while the counties of Boulogne and Auvergne passed
to John of Boulogne, Count de Montfort. A great opportunity
for strengthening the crown of France, by annexing to it the
powerful Burgundian dukedom, was now offered to King John; but
he lacked the wisdom to improve it. He preferred to grant it
away as a splendid appanage for his favorite son—the
fourth—the spirited lad Philip, called the Fearless, who had
stood by his father's side in the disastrous battle of
Poitiers, and who had shared his captivity in England. By a
deed which took effect on King John's death, in 1364, the
great duchy of Burgundy was conferred on Philip the Fearless
and on his heirs. Soon afterwards, Philip's marriage with the
young widow of his predecessor, Philip de Rouvre, was brought
about, which restored to their former union with the dukedom
the Burgundian County (Franche Comté) and the county of
Artois, while it gave to the new duke prospectively the rich
county of Flanders, to which Margaret was the heiress. Thus
was raised up anew the most formidable rival which the royal
power in France had ever to contend with, and the magnitude of
the blunder of King John was revealed before half a century
had passed.

_Froissart (Johnes)
Chronicles,
book 1, chapter 216._

ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 22._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1383.
Flanders Added To The Ducal Dominions.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1405-1453.
Civil war with the Armagnacs.
Alliance with the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; 1415-1419;
1417-1422; 1429-1431; 1431-1453.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1430.
Holland, Hainault And Friesland Absorbed By The Dukes.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND AND HAINAULT): A. D. 1417-1430.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467.
Charles The Bold.
His Position, Between Germany And France.
His Antagonism To Louis Xi.
The "Middle Kingdom" Of His Aims.

Charles, known commonly in history as Charles the Bold, became
Duke of Burgundy in 1467, succeeding his father Philip,
misnamed "The Good." "His position was a very peculiar one; it
requires a successful shaking-off of modern notions fully to
take in what it was. Charles held the rank of one of the first
princes in Europe without being a King, and without possessing
an inch of ground for which he did not owe service to some
superior lord. And, more than this, he did not owe service to
one lord only. The phrase of 'Great Powers' had not been
invented in the 15th century; but there can be no doubt that,
if it had been, the Duke of Burgundy would have ranked among
the foremost of them. He was, in actual strength, the equal of
his royal neighbour to the west, and far more than the equal
of his Imperial neighbour to the east. Yet for every inch of
his territories he owed a vassal's duty to one or other of
them. Placed on the borders of France and the Empire, some of
his territories were held of the Empire and some of the French
Crown. Charles, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders and
Artois, was a vassal of France; but Charles, Duke of Brabant,
Count of Burgundy, Holland, and a dozen other duchies and
counties, held his dominions as a vassal of Cæsar. His
dominions were large in positive extent, and they were
valuable out of all proportion to their extent. No other
prince in Europe was the direct sovereign of so many rich and
flourishing cities, rendered still more rich and flourishing
through the long and, in the main, peaceful administration of
his father. The cities of the Netherlands were incomparably
greater and more prosperous than those of France or England;
and, though they enjoyed large municipal privileges, they were
not, like those of Germany, independent commonwealths,
acknowledging only an external suzerain in their nominal lord;
Other parts of his dominions, the Duchy of Burgundy
especially, were as rich in men as Flanders was rich in money.
So far the Duke of Burgundy had some great advantages over
every other prince of his time. But, on the other hand, his
dominions were further removed than those of any prince in
Europe from forming a compact whole. He was not King of one
kingdom, but Duke, Count, and Lord of innumerable duchies,
counties, and lordships, acquired by different means, held by
different titles and of different overlords, speaking
different languages, subject to different laws, transmitted
according to different rules of succession. … They lay in
two large masses, the two Burgundies forming one and the Low
Countries forming the other, so that their common master could
not go from one capital to another without passing through a
foreign territory.
{333}
And, even within these two great masses, there were portions
of territory intersecting the ducal dominions which there was
no hope of annexing by fair means. … The career of Charles
the Bold … divides itself into a French and a German
portion. In both alike he is exposed to the restless rivalry
of Lewis of France; but in the one period that rivalry is
carried on openly within the French territory, while in the
second period the crafty king finds the means to deal far more
effectual blows through the agency of Teutonic hands. … As a
French prince, he joined with other French princes to put
limits on the power of the Crown, and to divide the kingdom
into great feudal holdings, as nearly independent as might be
of the common overlord. As a French prince, he played his part
in the War of the Public Weal [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468],
and insisted, as a main object of his policy, on the
establishment of the King's brother as an all but independent
Duke of Normandy. The object of Lewis was to make France a
compact monarchy; the object of Charles and his fellows was to
keep France as nearly as might be in the same state as
Germany. But, when the other French princes had been gradually
conquered, won over, or got rid of in some way or other by the
crafty policy of Lewis, Charles remained no longer the chief
of a coalition of French princes, but the personal rival, the
deadly enemy, of the French King. … Chronologically and
geographically alike. Charles and his Duchy form the great
barrier, or the great connecting link, whichever we choose to
call it, between the main divisions of European history and
European geography. The Dukes of Burgundy of the House of
Valois form a sort of bridge between the later Middle Age and
the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation. They
connect those two periods by forming the kernel of the vast
dominion of that Austrian House which became their heir, and
which, mainly by virtue of that heirship fills such a space in
the history of the 16th and 17th centuries. But the dominions
of the Burgundian Dukes hold a still higher historical
position. They may be said to bind together the whole of
European history for the last thousand years. From the 9th
century to the 19th, the politics of Europe have largely
gathered round the rivalry between the Eastern and the Western
Kingdoms—in modern language, between Germany and France.
From the 9th century to the 19th, a succession of efforts have
been made to establish, in one shape or another, a middle
state between the two. Over and over again during that long
period have men striven to make the whole or some portion of
the frontier lands stretching from the mouth of the Rhine to
the mouth of the Rhone into an independent barrier state. …
That object was never more distinctly aimed at, and it never
seemed nearer to its accomplishment, than when Charles the
Bold actually reigned from the Zuyder Zee to the Lake of
Neufchâtel, and was not without hopes of extending his
frontier to the Gulf of Lyons. … Holding, as he did, parts
of old Lotharingia and parts of old Burgundy, there can be no
doubt that he aimed at the re-establishment of a great Middle
Kingdom, which should take in all that had ever been
Burgundian or Lotharingian ground. He aimed, in short, as
others have aimed before and since, at the formation of a
state which should hold a central position between France,
Germany and Italy—a state which should discharge, with
infinitely greater strength, all the duties which our own age
has endeavoured to throw on Switzerland, Belgium and Savoy.
… Undoubtedly it would have been for the permanent interest
of Europe if he had succeeded in his attempt."

_E. A. Freeman,
Charles the Bold
(Historical Essays, 1st series, number 11)_.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.
The war of Charles the Bold with the Liegeois
and his troubles with Louis XI.

"Soon after the pacification of the troubles of France [see
FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], the Duke of Burgundy began a war
against the Liegeois, which lasted for several years; and
whenever the king of France [Louis XI.] had a mind to
interrupt him, he attempted some new action against the
Bretons, and, in the meantime, supported the Liegeois
underhand; upon which the Duke of Burgundy turned against him
to succour his allies, or else they came to some treaty or
truce among themselves. … During these wars, and ever since,
secret and fresh intrigues were carried on by the princes. The
king was so exceedingly exasperated against the Dukes of
Bretagne and Burgundy that it was wonderful. … The king of
France's aim, in the meantime, was chiefly to carry his design
against the province of Bretagne, and he looked upon it as a
more feasible attempt, and likelier to give him less
resistance than the house of Burgundy. Besides, the Bretons
were the people who protected and entertained all his
malcontents; as his brother, and others, whose interest and
intelligence were great in his kingdom; for this cause he
endeavoured very earnestly with Charles, Duke of Burgundy, by
several advantageous offers and proposals, to prevail with him
to desert them, promising that upon those terms he also would
abandon the Liegeois, and give no further protection to his
malcontents. The Duke of Burgundy would by no means consent to
it, but again made preparations for war against the Liegeois,
who had broken the peace." This was in October, 1467. The Duke
(Charles the Bold) attacked St. Tron, which was held by a
garrison of 3,000 of the men of Liege. The Liegeois, 30,000
strong, came to the relief of the besieged town, and were
routed, leaving 6,000 slain on the field. St. Tron and Tongres
were both surrendered, and Liege, itself, after considerable
strife among its citizens, opened its gates to the Duke, who
entered in triumph (Nov. 17, 1467) and hanged half-a-dozen for
his moderate satisfaction. In the course of the next summer
the French king opened war afresh upon the Duke of Bretagne
and forced him into a treaty, before the Duke of Burgundy, his
ally, could take the field. The king, then being extremely
anxious to pacify the Duke of Burgundy, took the extraordinary
step of visiting the latter at Peronne, without any guard,
trusting himself wholly to the honor of his enemy. But it
happened unfortunately, during the king's stay at Peronne,
that a ferocious revolt occurred at Liege, which was traced
beyond denial to the intrigues of two agents whom king Louis
had sent thither not long before, for mischief-making
purposes. The Duke, in his wrath, was not easily restrained
from doing some violence to the king; but the royal trickster
escaped from his grave predicament by giving up the unhappy
Liegeois to the vengeance of Duke Charles and personally
assisting the latter to inflict it.
{334}
"After the conclusion of the peace [dictated by Charles at
Peronne and signed submissively by Louis] the King and the
Duke of Burgundy set out the next morning [Oct. 15, 1468] for
Cambray, and from thence towards the country of Liége: it was
the beginning of winter and the weather was very bad. The king
had with him only his Scotch guards and a small body of his
standing forces; but he ordered 300 of his men-at-arms to join
him." Liége was invested, and, notwithstanding its walls had
been thrown down the previous year, it made a stubborn
defense. During a siege of a fortnight, several desperate
sallies were made, by the last one of which both the Duke and
the King were brought into great personal peril. Exhausted by
this final effort, the Liegeois were unprepared to repel a
grand assault which the besieging forces made upon the town
the next morning—Sunday, Oct. 30. Liege was taken that day
almost without resistance, the miserable inhabitants flying
across the Maes into the forest of Ardennes, abandoning their
homes to pillage. The Duke of Burgundy now permitted King
Louis to return home, while he remained a few days longer in
desolate Liege, which his fierce hatred had doomed. "Before
the Duke left the city, a great number of those poor creatures
who had hid themselves in the houses when the town was taken,
and were afterwards made prisoners, were drowned. He also
resolved to burn the city, which had always been very
populous; and orders were given for firing it in three
different places, and 3,000 or 4,000 foot of the country of
Limbourg (who were their neighbours, and used the same habit
and language), were commanded to effect this desolation, but
to secure the churches. … All things being thus ordered, the
Duke began his march into the country of Franchemont: he was
no sooner out of town, but immediately we saw a great number
of houses on fire beyond the river; the duke lay that night
four leagues from the city, yet we could hear the noise as
distinctly as if we had been upon the spot; but whether it was
the wind which lay that way, or our quartering upon the river,
that was the cause of it, I know not. The next day the Duke
marched on, and those who were left in the town continued the
conflagration according to his orders; but all the churches
(except some few) were preserved, and above 300 houses
belonging to the priests and officers of the churches, which
was the reason it was so soon reinhabited, for many flocked
thither to live with the priests."

_Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 2._

ALSO IN:
_J. F. Kirk,
History of Charles the Bold,
book 1, chapters 7-9; book 2._

_P. F. Willert,
The Reign of Louis XI._

_Sir W. Scott,
Quentin Durward._

See, also, DINANT.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.
Charles The Bold And The Swiss.
His Defeats And His Death.
The Effects Of His Fall.

"Sovereign of the duchy of Burgundy, of the Free County, of
Hainaut, of Flanders, of Holland, and of Gueldre, Charles
wished, by joining to it Lorraine, a portion of Switzerland,
and the inheritance of old King René, Count of Provence, to
recompose the ancient kingdom of Lorraine, such as it had
existed under the Carlovingian dynasty; and flattered himself
that by offering his daughter to Maximilian, son of Frederick
III., he would obtain the title of king. Deceived in his
hopes, the Duke of Burgundy tried means to take away Lorraine
from the young René. That province was necessary to him, in
order to join his northern states with those in the south. The
conquest was rapid, and Nancy opened its gates to Charles the
Rash; but it was reserved for a small people, already
celebrated for their heroic valour and by their love of
liberty, to beat this powerful man. Irritated against the
Swiss, who had braved him, Charles crossed over the Jura,
besieged the little town of Granson, and, in despite of a
capitulation, caused all the defenders to be hanged or
drowned. At this news the eight cantons which then composed
the Helvetian republic arose, and under the very walls of the
town which had been the theatre of his cruelty they attacked
the Duke and dispersed his troops [March 3, 1476]. Some months
later [June 21], supported by young René of Lorraine,
despoiled of his inheritance, they exterminated a second
Burgundian army before Morat. Charles, vanquished, reassembled
a third army, and marched in the midst of winter against Nancy,
which had fallen into the hands of the Swiss and Lorrainers.
It was there that he perished [January 5, 1477] betrayed by his
mercenary soldiers, and overpowered by numbers."

_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 2._

"And what was the cause of this war? A miserable cart-load of
sheep skins that the Count of Romont had taken from the Swiss,
in his passage through his estates. If God Almighty had not
forsaken the Duke of Burgundy it is scarce conceivable he
would have exposed himself to such great dangers upon so small
and trivial an occasion; especially considering the offers the
Swiss had made him, and that his conquest of such enemies
would yield him neither profit nor honour; for at that time
the Swiss were not in such esteem as now, and no people in the
world could be poorer." At Granson, "the poor Swiss were
mightily enriched by the plunder of his [the Duke of
Burgundy's] camp. At first they did not understand the value
of the treasure they were masters of, especially the common
soldiers. One of the richest and most magnificent tents in the
world was cut into pieces. There were some of them that sold
quantities of dishes and plates of silver for about two sous
of our money, supposing they had been pewter. His great
diamond, … with a large pearl fixed to it, was taken up by a
Swiss, put up again into the case, thrown under a wagon, taken
up again by the same soldier, and after all offered to a
priest for a florin, who bought it, and sent it to the
magistrates of that country, who returned him three francs as
a sufficient reward. [This was long supposed to be the famous
Sancy diamond; but Mr. Streeter thinks that the tradition
which so connects it is totally disproved.] They also took
three very rich jewels called the Three Brothers, another
large ruby called La Hatte, and another called the Ball of
Flanders, which were the fairest and richest in the world;
besides a prodigious quantity of other goods." In his last
battle, near Nancy, the Duke had less than 4,000 men, "and of
that number not above 1,200 were in a condition to fight." He
encountered on this occasion a powerful army of Swiss and
Germans, which the Duke of Lorraine had been able to collect,
with the help of the king of France and others. It was against
the advice of all his counsellors that the headstrong,
half-mad Duke Charles dashed his little army upon this greater
one, and he paid the penalty.
{335}
It was broken at the first shock, and the Duke was killed in
the confused rout without being known. His body, stripped
naked by the pillagers and mangled by wolves or dogs, was
found frozen fast in a ditch. "I cannot easily determine
towards whom God Almighty showed his anger most, whether
towards him who died suddenly, without pain or sickness in the
field of battle, or towards his subjects, who never enjoyed
peace after his death, but were continually involved in wars
against which they were not able to maintain themselves, upon
account of the civil dissensions and cruel animosities that
arose among them. … As I had seen these princes puissant,
rich and honourable, so it fared with their subjects: for I
think I have seen and known the greatest part of Europe, yet I
never knew any province or country, though of a larger extent,
so abounding in money, so extravagantly fine in their
furniture, so sumptuous in their buildings, so profuse in
their expenses, so luxurious in their feasts and
entertainments, and so prodigal in all respects, as the
subjects of these princes in my time; and if any think I have
exaggerated, others who lived in my time will be of opinion
that I have rather said too little. … In short, I have seen
this family in all respects the most flourishing and
celebrated of any in Christendom: and then, in a short space
of time, it was quite ruined and turned upside down, and left
the most desolate and miserable of any house in Europe, as
regards both prince and subjects."

_Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 5, chapters 1-9._

"The popular conception of this war [between Charles the Bold
and the Swiss] is simply that Charles, a powerful and
encroaching prince, was overthrown in three great battles by
the petty commonwealths which he had expected easily to attach
to his dominion. Grandson and Morat are placed side by side
with Morgarten and Sempach. Such a view as this implies
complete ignorance of the history; it implies ignorance of the
fact that it was the Swiss who made war upon Charles, and not
Charles who made war upon the Swiss; it implies ignorance of
the fact that Charles's army never set foot on proper Swiss
territory at all, that Grandson and Morat were at the
beginning of the war no part of the possessions of the
Confederation. … The mere political accident that the
country which formed the chief seat of war now forms part of
the Swiss Confederation has been with many people enough to
determine their estimate of the quarrel. Grandson and Morat
are in Switzerland; Burgundian troops appeared and were
defeated at Grandson and Morat; therefore Charles must have
been an invader of Switzerland, and the warfare on the Swiss
side must have been a warfare of purely defensive heroism. The
simple fact that it was only through the result of the
Burgundian war that Grandson and Morat ever became Swiss
territory at once disposes of this line of argument. … The
plain facts of the case are that the Burgundian war was a war
declared by Switzerland against Burgundy … and that in the
campaigns of Grandson and Morat the Duke of Burgundy was
simply repelling and avenging Swiss invasions of his own
territory and the territory of his allies."

_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Essays,
volume 1, number 11._

ALSO IN:
_J. F. Kirk,
History of Charles the Bold,
book 5._

_L. S. Costello,
Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy,
chapters 14-27._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.
Permanently restored to the French crown

Louis XI. of France, who had been eagerly watching while
Charles the Bold shattered his armies and exhausted his
strength in Switzerland, received early news of the death of
the self-willed Duke. While the panic and confusion which it
caused still prevailed, the king lost no time in taking
possession of the duchy of Burgundy, as an appanage which had
reverted to the crown, through default of male heirs. The
legality of his claim has been much in dispute. "Charles left
an only daughter, undoubted heiress of Flanders and Artois, as
well as of his dominions out of France, but whose right of
succession to the duchy of Burgundy was more questionable.
Originally the great fiefs of the crown descended to females,
and this was the case with respect to the two first mentioned.
But John had granted Burgundy to his son Philip by way of
appanage; and it was contended that the appanages reverted to
the crown in default of male heirs. In the form of Philip's
investiture, the duchy was granted to him and his lawful
heirs, without designation of sex. The construction,
therefore, must be left to the established course of law.
This, however, was by no means acknowledged by Mary, Charles's
daughter, who maintained both that no general law restricted
appanages to male heirs, and that Burgundy had always been
considered as a feminine fief, John himself having possessed
it, not by reversion as king (for descendants of the first
dukes were then living), but by inheritance derived through
females. Such was this question of succession between Louis
XI. and Mary of Burgundy, upon the merits of whose pretensions
I will not pretend altogether to decide, but shall only
observe that, if Charles had conceived his daughter to be
excluded from this part of his inheritance, he would probably,
at Conflans or Peronne, where he treated upon the vantage
ground, have attempted at least to obtain a renunciation of
Louis's claim. There was one obvious mode of preventing all
further contest, and of aggrandizing the French monarchy far
more than by the reunion of Burgundy. This was the marriage of
Mary with the dauphin, which was ardently wished in France."
The dauphin was a child of seven years; Mary of Burgundy a
masculine-minded young woman of twenty, Probably Louis
despaired of reconciling the latter to such a marriage. At all
events, while he talked of it occasionally, he proceeded
actively in despoiling the young duchess, seizing Artois and
Franche Comté, and laying hands upon the frontier towns which
were exposed to his arms. He embittered her natural enmity to
him by various acts of meanness and treachery. "Thus the
French alliance becoming odious in Flanders, this princess
married Maximilian of Austria, son of the Emperor Frederic—a
connexion which Louis strove to prevent, though it was
impossible then to foresee that it was ordained to retard the
growth and to bias the fate of Europe during three hundred
years. This war lasted till after the death of Mary, who left
one son Philip and one daughter Margaret."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 2._

{336}

"The king [Louis XI.] had reason to be more than ordinarily
pleased at the death of that duke [of Burgundy], and he
triumphed more in his ruin than in that of all the rest of his
enemies, as he thought that nobody, for the future, either of
his own subjects, or his neighbours, would be able to oppose
him, or disturb the tranquillity of his reign. … Although
God Almighty has shown, and does still show, that his
determination is to punish the family of Burgundy severely,
not only in the person of the duke, but in their subjects and
estates; yet I think the king our master did not take right
measures to that end. For, if he had acted prudently, instead
of pretending to conquer them, he should rather have
endeavoured to annex all those large territories, to which he
had no just title, to the crown of France by some treaty of
marriage; or to have gained the hearts and affections of the
people, and so have brought them over to his interest, which
he might, without any great difficulty, have effected,
considering how their late afflictions had impoverished and
dejected them. If he had acted after that manner, he would not
only have prevented their ruin and destruction, but extended
and strengthened his own kingdom, and established them all in
a firm and lasting peace."

_Philip de Commines,
Memoirs,
book 5, chapter 12._

"He [Louis XI.] reassured, caressed, comforted the duchy of
Burgundy, gave it a parliament, visited his good city of
Dijon, swore in St. Benignus' church to respect all the old
privileges and customs that could be sworn to, and bound his
successors to do the same on their accession. Burgundy was a
land of nobles; and the king raised a bridge of gold for all
the great lords to come over to him."

_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 17, chapters 3-4._

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477-1482.
Reign of the Burgundian heiress in the Netherlands.
Her marriage with Maximilian of Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1512. Formation of the Circle.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1544. Renunciation of the Claims of Charles V.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

----------BURGUNDY: End----------

BURH, The.

See BOROUGH.

BURI, The.

A Suevic clan of Germans whose settlements were anciently in
the neighborhood of modern Cracow.

_Tacitus,
Germany,
translated by Church and Brodribb.
Geographical notes._

BURKE, Edmund, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BURKE, Edmund, and the French Revolution.

See ENGLAND A. D. 1793-1796.

BURLEIGH, Lord, and the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.

BURLINGAME CHINESE EMBASSY AND TREATIES.

See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

BURMA:
Rise of the kingdom.
First war with the English (1824-1826).
Cession of Assam and Aracan.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

BURMA: A. D. 1852.
Second war with the English.
Loss of Pegu.

See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

BURNED CANDLEMAS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.: Expedition to Roanoke.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Command of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Retirement from command of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
(JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Deliverance of East Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER:
TENNESSEE.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
Defense of Knoxville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.
At the siege of Petersburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA).

BURR, Aaron.
Duel with Hamilton.
Conspiracy.
Arrest.
Trial.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

BURSCHENSCHAFT, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

BUSACO, Battle of (1810).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

BUSHMEN, The.

See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BUSHY RUN, Battle of (A. D. 1763).

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BUSHWHACKERS.

A name commonly given to the rebel guerrillas or half-bandits
of the southwest in the American Civil War.

_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 6, page 371._

BUSIRIS.
Destroyed by Diocletian.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

BUSSORAH AND KUFA,
The rise and importance of.

In the first years of their conquest and occupation of
Mesopotamia and the Delta of the Euphrates and Tigris—as
early as A. D. 638—the Moslems founded two cities which
acquired importance in Mahometan history. In both cases, these
cities appear to have arisen out of the need felt by the Arabs
for more salubrious sites of residence than their predecessors
in the ancient country had been contented with. Of Bussorah,
or Bassorah, the city founded in the Delta, the site is said
to have been changed three times. Kufa was built on a plain
very near to the neglected city of Hira, on the Euphrates.
"Kufa and Bussorah … had a singular influence on the
destinies of the Caliphate and of Islam itself. The vast
majority of the population came from the Peninsula and were of
pure Arabian blood. The tribes which, with their families,
scenting from afar the prey of Persia, kept streaming into
Chaldæa from every corner of Arabia, settled chiefly in these
two cities. At Kufa, the races from Yemen and the south
predominated; at Bussorah, from the north. Rapidly they grew
into two great and luxurious capitals, with an Arab population
each of from 150,000 to 200,000 souls. On the literature,
theology, and politics of Islam, these cities had a greater
influence than the whole Moslem world besides. … The people
became petulant and factious, and both cities grew into
hotbeds of turbulence and sedition. The Bedouin element,
conscious of its strength, was jealous of the Coreish, and
impatient of whatever checked its capricious humour. Thus
factions sprang up which, controlled by the strong and wise
arm of Omar, broke loose under the weaker Caliphs, eventually
rent the unity of Islam, and brought on disastrous days."

_Sir W. Muir,
Annals of the Early Caliphate,
chapter 18._

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

BUTADÆ, The.

See PHYLÆ.

BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
In command at Baltimore.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861
(APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
In command at Fortress Monroe.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).

{337}

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
The Hatteras Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
Command at New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
(MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.
Command of the Army of the James.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).

BUTLER, Walter,
The Tory and Indian partisans of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER). and (JULY).

BUTTERNUTS.

See BOYS IN BLUE;

Also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

BUXAR, OR BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, Battle of (1764).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BYRON, Lord, in Greece.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

BYRSA.
The citadel of Carthage.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYTOWN.

The original name of Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion of
Canada.

See OTTAWA.

BYZACIUM.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The Eastern Roman Empire, having its capital at Byzantium
(modern Constantinople), the earlier history of which will be
found sketched under the caption ROME: A. D. 394-395, to
717-800, has been given, in its later years, the name of the
Byzantine Empire. The propriety of this designation is
questioned by some historians, and the time when it begins to
be appropriate is likewise a subject of debate. For some
discussion of these questions,

See ROME: A. D. 717-800.