Wikipedia

Talk:Charles the Bold: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
B by now
 
(39 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Peer review|archive=2}}
{{Old peer review|ID=1225441952|reviewedname=Charles the Bold|date=31 May 2024|archive=1}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Charles the Bold|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Cstart
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
|B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> =ny
|B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> =y
|B3 <!-- Structure --> =y
|B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> =yno
|B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y
|Biography=y|French=y|Medieval=y}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=C|listas=Charles the Bold|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Low|royalty-work-group=yes|royalty-priority=low}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Belgium|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Netherlands|class=}}
{{WikiProject France|importance=}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2007-01-05|oldid1=98054192|date2=2008-01-05|oldid2=182088278|date3=2010-01-05|oldid3=335766541}}
{{GOCE |user=PacificDepths |date=3 August 2024 }}
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians|class=C}}
== Sources and stuff ==
 
===More sources===
==Burgundian Succession==
*''Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne: Histoire par ordre alphabétique de la vie publique et privée de tous les hommes'', vol V 56-562.
A bit of confusion deriving from my lack of understanding regarding inheritance laws at that time...
*Boehm, L., 'Burgundy and the Empire in the Reign of Charles the Bold', The International History Review (1979)
Charles was described in this article as 'The last Duke of Burgundy'. References were made here and in Maximilian's article to the Duchy of Burgundy escheating to the French crown following Charles' death due to Salic law. Is this quite true? In ''Isabel of Burgundy'', no mention is made of the Duchy lawfully returning to the French crown following Charles' death; it is, however, said that Louis sent troops against Burgundy, and that this was resisted by Marie and Maximilian, but that 'repeated inroads into Burgundian territory continued to dissipate the duchy's strength.' After Marie died, it says, "Within months, Burgundy was carved up between the empire and France. By July, Flanders made it known to Louis XI that the Flemish wanted peace with France irrespective of Maximilian's wishes. On 23 December the Three Estates of the Lowlands signed the Treaty of Arras with Louis XI, securing that peace...Thus, the French acquired the Burgundian Lowlands, the Duchy of Burgundy, Picardy and the county of Boulogne. In addition, Mary's three-year-old daughter, Margaret of Austria, was betrothed to the dauphin of France, and brought in her dowry the counties of Burgundy and Artois. The remainder of the great duchy that Charles had sought to build fell back into the control of the empire."
*Brown, A.,'Bruges and the Burgundian ‘Theatre-state’: Charles the Bold and Our Lady of the Snow', History (1999)
*Evans, J., 'The Garter of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy', The Antiquaries Journal (1952)
*Mantel, G., ''The Encyclopedia of Diplomacy: Charles the Bold (1433-77)''
*Smith, J., 'Portable Propaganda—Tapestries as Princely Metaphors at the Courts of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold', Art Journal (1989).
*Walsh, R., ''Charles the Bold and Italy 1467-1477: Politics and Personnel''
*Weightmann, ''Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy, 1446-1503''
 
Mine Puttnam and Vaughan to a far greater degreee than they are used already. Lose the old PD sources, and while biographies of Charles' contemporary rulers might be useful for gleaning material—particularly international relations—[[Charles Ross (historian)|Charles Ross]]'s or [[Michael Hicks (historian)|Michael Hicks]]'s ''Edward IV'' would be more useful than JA-H. By that token, also look at [[James Cleugh]]'s 1970 ''Chant Royal: The Life of King Louis XI'', and find something about Fred III. {{u|Ceoil}}, have you done something on either his tomb or book of hours? And {{u|Johnbod}}, was it [[Max Ernst]] who did a curious thing with Jean Hatchett and Charles the Bold? If so, we can add that to 'Cultural depictions' section and get rid of some of those books. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:blue">SN54129</span>]] 15:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Thus, it sounds more as if the Duchy of Burgundy and the various other titles were inherited by Marie (though clearly disputed, one way or another, by Louis), and that the seizure of the Duchy was a conquest rather than a rightful reversion to the crown. This would explain why the Habsburgs continued to maintain the title of Duke of Burgundy: they had lost the land by conquest, but continued to view themselves as rightfully possessing the title (just as the Navarro King's maintained their title, despite losing the Upper Navarre from which the title derived).
:I have Vaughan at hand but it's probably available at archives.org. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 15:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
:I have Bart van Loo, ''The Bugundians: A Vanished Empire'', 2021, Head of Zeus, {{ISBN|9781789543438}} (a lucky charity shop buy) with 65 pages on Charles' reign. He's not an academic historian though. Sorry "[[Max Ernst]] who did a curious thing with Jean Hatchett and Charles the Bold" rings no bell with me (or Google) - ok [https://www.clevelandart.org/art/1982.39 this]. It is [[Jeanne Hachette]], not "Jean". [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
::That produced the moronicwiki gem "She is currently known for an act of heroism on 27 June 1472, when she prevented the capture of [[Beauvais]] by the troops of [[Charles the Bold]], [[Duke of Burgundy]]." [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks both! {{u|Johnbod}}, I've never heard of 'moronicwiki' before (but then, IIRC, you were also the one who introduced me to 'cite banditry' too!), but thanks for listing that source here. I'm going to dig out a few in French too, there must be plenty. Yes, that collage was the Ernst piece I was thinking of, although on a re-read, I see that my original comment ({{tq|Max Ernst... did a curious thing with Jean Hatchett and Charles the Bold}}) has a certain innuendo to it, fnarr fnarr! Thanks again, [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:blue">SN54129</span>]] 14:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 
== Copy edit questions ==
Furthermore, I don't see anything in the history of the times to suggest that a duchy and land in want of a male heir would revert to the crown: Brittany and Bourbon were both inherited by women (Bourbon, despite the claims of Charles de Montpensier, who believed he as the senior male heir had the right of it over Louise of Savoy, who had the better dynastic claim).
 
> Charles was around this age when he began partaking in public affairs of his father's duchy.
So could someone please explain this matter to me? [[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Is this the age of 8 when Philip appointed d'Auxy as Charles's guardian? Or is this in 1445 (age 12) when Charles accompanied Philip to Holland and Zealand?
::I'm no sort of expert, but I think the French regarded the title of Duke of B, B being a French fief, as being capable of being withdrawn & handed to anyone the King wanted - just as an English King would have regarded the title of Duke of Norfolk. The French Crown certainly regarded themselves as D's of B thereafter, & used the title for the Dauphin's eldest son at times - eg the father of Louis XV (d1712 odd). I think under French rules titles in theory went with possession of the land, so by seizing it back they settled the matter. On reflection, ''the last independent Duke of..'' would make the point better in the article. What Salic law had to say on the matter I'm not sure [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:He was born in 1433, so the latter.
> During the actual journey, Charles managed to break sixteen or eighteen lances and received prizes from two princesses.
 
What is the "actual journey"? Is this an actual tourney and not the practice tourney?
:::Wasn't Maximilian Duke of Burgundy by virtue of his marriage to Marie? [[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, in that 'journey' is a mistransliteration for 'tourney'
> He returned to his lines before getting captured.
 
In the Battle of Montlhéry, Charles was not captured, correct? [[User:PacificDepths|🌊PacificDepths]]<sup>[[User talk:PacificDepths|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/PacificDepths|contrib]]</sup> 18:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
(first reply)Yes, but he was not the ruler of an independent state (in any real sense). I don't think he even spent much time there. Nor was Charles the last Valois D of B, as the French continued to regard themselves as having the title. One could make the point more long-windedly by saying Charles was the last Duke to rule the combined territories of Burgundy & Flanders etc. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:No he wasn't; does the article say so? I couldn't see it. Thanks for addressing the copy edit {{u|PacificDepths}}, much appreciated! [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 20:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
:Actually, I'm pretty sure Charles definitively ''was'' the last Valois Duke: I do know that if a title reverts to the crown, it is considered extinct, and the monarch is not ''also'' the noble (if he inherits it, on the other hand - as in the Brittany case - he is). Thus, if this was the state of affairs (and does now sound as though the French did legally end the title by their reckoning rather than simply steal the land), 'Duke of Burgundy' would have existed ''in potentia'', but the title would be merged in the crown (I don't think, for example, that the Queen would be described as Duchess of Clarence, say). Then again, I may be confusion legal fictions and actualities. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 12:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
::The prior wording was unclear. I tried to make it more clear.
::About about the other questions about "actual journey" and Charles's age when he began to engage in public affairs? [[User:PacificDepths|🌊PacificDepths]]<sup>[[User talk:PacificDepths|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/PacificDepths|contrib]]</sup> 05:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::{{reply|PacificDepths}} Indeed, I answered inline. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 10:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Hello @[[User:PacificDepths|PacificDepths]], thanks for all the work! Regarding your questions, 1. the actual tourney is the correct wording. 2. The source itself does not actually specify his age. It says 'tender age' between 1440 and 1453. [[User:Amir Ghandi|Amir Ghandi]] ([[User talk:Amir Ghandi|talk]]) 09:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
 
Hello [[User:Amir Ghandi]] and [[User:Serial Number 54129]]: I believe I have finished my copy edits. Please review for correctness. Some general thoughts:
:::Maybe so. In fact the Queen is Duchess of Lancaster (Loyal toasts are made in that form in the county) & Countess of Chester, & the Prince of Wales is Duke of Cornwall and Lord of the Isles. This is exactly because these are the ones which once were relatively independent - unlike Clarence. The remaining Valois may have kept DofB in their full titles, precisely because it was in dispute with the Hapsburgs. But I don't know. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 
* The article states that Charles struggled for power before he became Duke. There could be more examples.
::::Notwithstanding the form of the loyal toast, it's by no means clear that the sovereign is Duke of Lancaster, although of course he or she enjoys the revenues of the ''Duchy'' of Lancaster. (The heir apparent of the sovereign is usually created Earl of Chester as well as Prince of Wales.) But this is off-topic. The title of "Duc de Bourgogne" was used, not by the French sovereigns, but by junior members of the Royal Family, who generally bore a sort of "courtesy title" chosen from among the otherwise extinct dukedoms which had returned to the crown. Again, see Velde.[http://heraldica.org/topics/france/frroyal.htm] [[User:Choess|Choess]] 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
* I'm confused about the enmity between Charles and de Croÿ.
* Background is still too long and can be shortened.
 
[[User:PacificDepths|🌊PacificDepths]]<sup>[[User talk:PacificDepths|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/PacificDepths|contrib]]</sup> 05:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Anyone? (I know that this is going slightly off topic, but it is interesting: and helps us ignorant mortals understand the machinery of inheritance set in motion with Charles' death). [[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 12:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:::To elaborate...how much power did the King actually have? If he could simply order a Duchy conquered, for example, why would he try to marry Marie to his son? Why did Anne of Beaujeu have to marry her brother to Anne of Brittany in order to bring the Duchy under French control? Why was it necessary to marry Claude of Brittany to Francis I in order to keep hold of the Duchy? And, going further back, John II of France claimed Burgundy not because of the lack of a direct male heir, but because he considered himself the rightful heir (by proximity of blood). And if the French King revoked Burgundy without a good reason, was it valid? Should we call Henry IV prior to becoming King of France 'Duke of Bearn' or whatever his titles were? Please can someone clarify this. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 23:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 
:Hi, @[[User:PacificDepths|PacificDepths]], can you please elaborate on your second point? What is confusing about the Charles-de Croy rivalry? Regarding your first point, I don't think there's anything else we can add. And unfortunately, I must disagree with you on the Background section. See [[Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor|Henry IV]], whose background was twice as long as this article. [[User:Amir Ghandi|Amir Ghandi]] ([[User talk:Amir Ghandi|talk]]) 20:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
::Flanders & other bits of Burgundy were parts of the Empire, not part of the Duchy of Burgundy. Marriage was much easier than war, especially with both Brittany and Burgundy having histories as allies of England. Any legal status is vague - there were clearly no courts one could go to on these sorts of things. If a French King did it, & the Parlement approved it, as they always did, it was valid for French purposes. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 23:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
::What was the cause of the feud between Charles and Philip de Croÿ? Was it a struggle for power in Philip the Good's court? Was it a suspicion of motives?
::> Charles resented de Croÿ, whom he considered at fault for his father's humiliation by the king of France, as Charles VIII had reportedly bribed de Croÿ numerous times.
::When was Philip the Good humiliated? And is Charles VIII correct? If it's the French monarch contemporaneous with Philip the Good, would it be Charles VII? I might rewrite this as:
::> Charles suspected that Philip de Croÿ accepted money from Charles VII to undermine Philip the Good.
::For other points, that's fine. [[User:PacificDepths|🌊PacificDepths]]<sup>[[User talk:PacificDepths|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/PacificDepths|contrib]]</sup> 00:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::That's a good amendment. Done. [[User:Amir Ghandi|Amir Ghandi]] ([[User talk:Amir Ghandi|talk]]) 11:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
 
== Bart van Loo ==
:::Well, the Parlement was the court one would go to for such. But take Anne of Brittany: Louis XII had to go through the mess of divorcing his wife and hurriedly marrying her in order to keep Brittany. Maximilian tried to marry Anne so that ''he'' could inherit the Duchy (and Brittany required a war anyway, to force Anne to marry Charles VIII). Clearly, this is a complicated issue, so if there is anyone that is either an expert or can quote an expert, please could they ''explain''. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 
Hello, @[[User talk:Serial Number 54129]], with the copyediting done, I was thinking to nominate the article for FAC, though I have one concern. It seems Bart van Loo's book, The Burgundians: A Vanished Empire is not considered a reliable source. Will I have to delete this source all together? [[User:Amir Ghandi|Amir Ghandi]] ([[User talk:Amir Ghandi|talk]]) 11:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, the starting point is that fiefs without heirs would automatically pass to the crown. Charles had an heir, but, as described in the article below, Louis' lawyers came up with this theory that said in essence that apanages (fiefs granted to younger sons of a King of France), such as Burgundy, were inalienable from the crown and were therefore compelled to follow Salic law, notwithstanding the original terms of the grant (which in the case of Burgundy permitted female heirs). In the case of Brittany, the Duchy was a normal fief held by nobles rather than an apanage, so marriage with the heir was necessary in order to bring it to the crown. Oddly enough, by the terms of the [[Treaty of Guérande]], [[Jean II de Brosse]], [[Count of Penthièvre]] should have inherited the Duchy upon the failure of the male line of Montfort, but was shoved aside (albeit the claim resurfaced during the Wars of Religion in France). [[User:Choess|Choess]] 17:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:"Seems" how? I'd think it is reliable for facts, but rather opinionated. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 12:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
 
::It might be my misunderstanding but it seems this [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359#Bart Van Loo|discussion]] deems the source as unacademic. [[User:Amir Ghandi|Amir Ghandi]] ([[User talk:Amir Ghandi|talk]]) 13:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::And Burgundy still had a male Valois heir at Charles' death: John II, Count of Nevers (d.1491, according to his father's article).[[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Well it isn't an academic work for sure - nor are others you use. Quoting from that discussion "...a topic with more than its fair share of Serious Academic Commentary. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!)". The trouble is, Van Loo's 8 page introductory note to his 20 page bibliography lists 4 biographies in French and 2 in German from recent(ish) years. None of these are used here (though some articles etc by the same authors are). I don't think the copyediting ''is'' done btw - not to FAC standards. The English needs attention. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 13:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
 
:::Of the books, I can only find two others (Potter and Querengässer) that I might be slightly leery of—but not badly so, and among everything else, that's pretty insignificant. There is no major problem with Van Loo as long as he's not given weight over, say, Vaughan. And the articles and 'paedias used are all high quality. I agree with JB wrt the copyedit. It's a great improvement, but not so great it cannot be further improved. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 14:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
See doi:10.2307/286114 (JSTOR). It's rather a dense read, but the gist of it is that the second bestowal of the Duchy of Burgundy was claimed to be as an apanage (see Velde, [http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/apanage.htm]), rather than a fief, and that such apanages were inalienable from the crown of France, and hence could not pass through the male line, regardless of the original terms of the grant. It was outstanding legal fiction — the existing precedents were certainly in favor of Marie — but Burgundy was crippled and Louis was intent on centralizing royal power to prevent any possible resurgence of the Armagnac-Burgundian conflict which had drawn out the Hundred Years' War. [[User:Choess|Choess]] 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
:I added that poorly-worded statement to the intro because I knew I'd read something about Burgundy being an apanage somewhere (probably here in Wikipedia), so I'm sorry for the confusion. Glad to have a more precise explanation. The new Intro and Legacy paragraphs are great! [[User:Laura1822|Laura1822]] 03:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 
I just realised that I didn't thank Choess for the explanation. Thanks for the elucidation - the issue makes sense now. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michaelsanders]] 16:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Featured on Main Page ==
This article was featured on the Main Page on [[5 January]] for the anniversary of the Duke's death in 1477. [[User:Laura1822|Laura1822]] 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 
::Great - it's good we improved it just in time! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 14:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 
== Requested move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
 
[[Charles I, Duke of Burgundy]] → [[Charles the Bold]] – The current title is rarely, if ever used (I have never seen it), as well as showing Habsburg POV ([[Charles II, Duke of Burgundy]], redirects to [[Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor]]). The replacement, however, is the most common name used. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 
=== Survey ===
''Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
*'''Support''' as nominator [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per johnk & other arguments above [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 23:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''', although the question here is "would it be surprising to see him called Charles I". I think it would, but am open to persuasion otherwise. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I definitely agree that the ordinal is inappropriate. The Library of Congress name heading is "Charles, Duke of Burgundy, 1433-1477". The English-language biographies (Kirk, Putnam, Vaughan) all call him "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy". Only the recent work by Walsh calls him just "Charles the Bold". I would support a move to "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy". [[User:Mcferran|Noel S McFerran]] 23:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I vote for belt and braces: ''Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy''. This should help people not intimately acquainted with him to place the chap immediately. [[User:Nick Michael|Nick Michael]] 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Comment - this would be better than the present title. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Perhaps: the issue, however, is if that combination is more commonly used than 'Charles the Bold'. The simple version gets [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-40,GGGL:en&q=%22Charles+the+Bold%22 96300 results]; the extended version gets [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2006-40%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=%22Charles+the+Bold%2C+Duke+of+Burgundy%22&btnG=Search 17600 results]. [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::This is an article title. It hardly matters how much the form of the title is used. One could read in a book "...the duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, who..." and that would be, for all intents and purposes, the same as "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy." The real question is: Is "Charles the Bold" on its own sufficiently distinct and recognisable? [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 05:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 
=== Discussion ===
''Add any additional comments
:I have heard '''Charles the Rash''' more often then the proposed destination. [[User:Srnec|Srnec]] 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 
::Ghits 1,630 for "Charles the Rash", 103,000 for "Charles the Bold" [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] 02:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 
''Charles the Rash'' is an accurate translation of the usual French appellation, ''Charles le téméraire''. However, I have read (but of course cannot recall the source) that during his lifetime Charles was called ''le hardi'', which translates as ''the bold''. It may well be that the English epithet has survived from Charles' lifetime, whereas the French one has changed to suit historians. Still, everyone knows Charlie B as ''the Bold'' as far as I know. Why can't the title encompass all things, and read ''Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy''? [[User:Nick Michael|Nick Michael]] 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:Perhaps. I'd personally say that "Charles the Bold" unappellated is the most common name (in English, if not French), and that there is 1)no need and 2)less use of "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy". However, does anyone else have any thoughts? [[User:Michaelsanders|Michael]] [[User talk:Michaelsanders|Sanders]] 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
::There is a comment, which should probably be found and added, that the translation varies from "the Bold" to "the Rash" to "the Foolhardy" - depending on how closely the translator has been reading Charles' history. ;-> [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->
''No-one argues in favour of "Charles I, …", which only leaves the question of whether to include the title "Duke of Burgundy". The two oppose votes are in favour of "Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy", but this looks like needless disambiguation, and such a title would probably be moved within a few months to simple "Charles the Bold". There does seem to be only one "Charles the Bold", so I see no reason not to move the article there now, with redirects from all other reasonable versions, of course.'' ''This article has been renamed {{{{{subst|}}}#if:Charles I, Duke of Burgundy|from [[Charles I, Duke of Burgundy]] to [[Charles the Bold]]}} as the result of a [[wikipedia:requested moves|move request]].'' --[[User:Stemonitis|Stemonitis]] 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 
== Additional Information ==
I hope this note ends up in the correct place and with the correct form. I saw some interesting information about Charles the Bold on James Burke's Connections 1, Volume 8: Eat, Drink, and Be Merry. Specifically, his love of credit and Italy and financing his army. Also mentioned is his dress and fashion sense. [[User:Alpinebixby|Alpinebixby]] ([[User talk:Alpinebixby|talk]]) 05:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 
==Map==
This article (and perhaps others, for example [[Kingdom of Burgundy# The Burgundian lands, and the failed proposal to create a third Kingdom of Burgundy|Kingdom of Burgundy]]), could benefit from a map of the Kingdom Charles hoped to create. I will look for one but perhaps someone could draw one? [[User:Avalon|Avalon]] ([[User talk:Avalon|talk]]) 08:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 
== Command capabilities? ==
As depicted in [[Dorothy Dunnett]]'s [[The House of Niccolò|House of Niccolò]] series, he seems to have been a military imbecile. Is this accurate, or dramatic licence? Perhaps a paragraph or two in the article would not go amiss? [[User:Paul Magnussen|Paul Magnussen]] ([[User talk:Paul Magnussen|talk]]) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 
:I haven't read the book you mention, but we do know that Charles' favourite books included [[Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus|Vegetius]] and of course Caesar. It seems incredible that over 1000 years later, these sorts of author were still considered ''the'' military authorities, but Charles was by no means the only European prince to take his military inspiration from such sources: in fact I would hazard that just about all European military leaders read these Roman authors avidly and probably based their tactics on them to some extent. As for being a military imbecile, it has been suggested that Charles became mentally unbalanced in the last years of his life. But consider that he was militarily the most powerful ruler in Europe: a reading of the events of the battles of Grandson, Morat (Murten) and Nancy show that there was no particular "imbecility" in the tactics he employed; just rather bad luck. I mean, he could and should have made mincemeat of the Swiss in the first two battles, with the numerical and technical superiority he enjoyed. If anything, it was over-confidence that caused his downfall, together with over-employment of mercenary forces. Remember too that Charles was not acting alone as a commander - he had several experienced and presumably competent generals together with him. I do agree that it would improve the article to mention something along these lines. [[User:Nick Michael|Nick Michael]] ([[User talk:Nick Michael|talk]]) 22:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 
::Was [[Dorothy Dunnett]] an historian? Or simply a popular writer? Any "incompetence" by [[Charles the Bold|Charles]] would need to be [[Wikipedia:Reliable Source|supported by a reliable source]]. --[[User:Kansas Bear|Kansas Bear]] ([[User talk:Kansas Bear|talk]]) 23:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 
== Byname ==
 
In the section [[Charles the Bold#Byname|Byname]], the epithet ''Téméraire'' is translated as "reckless". That is certainly a possible meaning, one that conveys a strongly negative connotation. But the French word can also mean, in a much more positive vein, "audacious". The same equivocacy is already found in Latin ''temerarius''. The English and German versions (''Bold'' and ''Kühn'', respectively) are positioned on the positive side of the spectrum. Do we have evidence that his contemporaries, writing in French or Latin, used the term somewhat disapprovingly rather than, say, admiringly? &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 00:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_the_Bold"