If the angevin "empire" was was england occupying france, was independent burgundy the netherlands occupying France?

Pretty sure both countries see it as an abomination to national identity where the English see it as people of foreign ancestry ruling England and the French seeing it as English kings taking their land with some of the money going to England

It was an autistic Anti-French breakaway France occupying the Netherlands.

The House of Burgundy was french.

enterpenurial and industrious as france, kultured as germany, brutal as the netherlands and efficient as belgium*

fix'd

the netherlands where pretty brutal in their colonial ventures , the germans where the cultural center of europe pre ww1 and the belgians have been prettyeffecient with their small land and influence for most of history

all their governing institutions where in the netherlands and flanders though and they embraced the culture of the lowlands

To normal people it was a hegemony based in agincourt

A burgundian state would've only furthered German hegemony, by taking land from France, weakening it, and replacing it with a Franco-Beneluxian realm that is inferior to either France or Germany.

burgundy was wealthier than Germany and France(this can be debated) though. Realm would also most likely take on a dutch identity in its later years because the biggest population centers, the economic powerhouses and most important governing bodies where in the Netherlands though. if the netherlands and belgium could be a player in 18th century europe, burgundy most definitely could

>germany

germany wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the french revolution

I doubt the Burgundian lands would have left the HRE when it would have stayed together.

>In the Netherlands

That's a strange way of saying Belgium

>Belgium
>most of history

>What are the Spanish Netherlands
At least more than a meme state

>XV century Burgundian realm
>""""Spanish Netherlands"""""

You are the meme

>what are the Spanish Netherlands

A meme name, like Burgerland to mean USA, with no historical basis. It was just the way anglo and dutch historians referred to mean the part of the Burgundian realm under the Spanish Habsburg Monarchy.

In reality, it was called the General Government of the Low Countries and Burgundy, with the General Governor standing in Bruxelles and a Lieutenant General Governor in the County of Burgundy (Franche-Comte nowadays).

>while it was as much french as english.
It wasn't "as much"
The ruling class was French and spoke French, it was basically a French colony.

Wasn't half of the empire in England though? Also it's most important territory was England and England was the territory of refuge when the empire collapsed. The Angevin kings spent most of their rule fighting the French for their french possessions which were constantly in flux.

>it's most important territory was in england

I don't get how you can think that. England and normandy generated the most revenue because of their better tax base but their administrative and economic center was still chinon and all the most industrious lands were aquitaine and Anjou

Oh it's another thread with people applying XIX century concepts to feudal states

More like making fun of people doing that, no way OP was serious.

Calling the possessions of the Angevin Kings an empire, is a travesty to the name empire. Actual medieval empires were the Abbasids, Byzantine, Mongol, Frankish and the HRE under the Saxon monarchs.

Burgundy was neither purely french nor dutch. Their court was french, but most of the artists, artisans, and intellectuals were flemish. The country itself was however very artificial because the various ethnicities barely interacted with each other, and holdings were inherited and not gained by conquest, apart from belgium. It did not surive because neither France, nor the HRE desired a powerful third country in the middle, only England supported them and when they lost the 100 year war they were on their own.

England not only produced more revenue, but it was the most administered province and it was most firmly under Angevin control. It was the base for the Angevin empire as it gave the rulers the title 'King' and made them equal with the French king. Also they had complete jurisdiction over England as opposed to their French land which were held as fiefs from the king of France.

>Wasn't half of the empire in England though?
This is why it was a colony.

>The Angevin kings spent most of their rule fighting the French for their french possessions which were constantly in flux.
Obviously, they didn't wish to give up their core territory.

They spent a heck of a lot of time fighting over their 'core' territory and sometimes losing it. Also see

Forget about countries and nations when thinking about those times. Think about mob families with turfs.
It was not the netherlands doing anything, it was that mob family having parts of france and the netherlands on their turf.