When did the Valois realize Burgundy was a mistake? Also Fiefdom

DANNY!

>>1159160
Probably around the time they started inheriting and expanding around in the Lowlands, both asserting rights of a sovereign state while still also demanding rights as a powerful vassal of France (which is regency rights and what not)

You have to remember that the Burgundies were related to the Valois, since they were both Capetian cadet branches. Though this brings up the question as to why the Burgundy branch never really pressed their claim to the French throne, and it's probably because it was more of a stretch than Edward III's was.

Edward III was the oldest direct male descendant of the French King, while the Burgundies were from the French King's youngest son who was probably (I'm not aware of the rules here as much, so excuse my inaccuracies.) Given the duchy as both a formality and as a way to let him have something since he couldn't have the French Crown.

File: its a conspiracy.jpg (72KB, 288x400px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 288x400px

>>1159160
When John the fearless had Louis I, Duke of Orléans assassinated during one of the kings bouts of madness.

Well to be honest shit went sideways when Phillip the Bold died and John the Fearless took over which resulted in a fucking civil war.

I highly recommend Richard Vaughan's book series on the Dukes of Burgundy if you are interested.

>>1161507
Giving younger sons an appanage was quite common in those days, the thing is that once you're 3 generations further the guy will be a distant cousin rather than brother of the King which makes ties of loyalty ebb away.

When I come to think of it quite a few major wars in medieval Europe resulted from this, the war of the roses being another one.

>>1161545
Pretty much, all the cadet branches of any house any where is the cause of most royal wars in history. Though it happens less if the separate lines don't intermingle.