The story of the territory of Liège being annexed in the zone of influence of Burgundy seems like the typical story in feudal Europe of a small entity being swallowed by an ambitious bigger one.
Yet the relations between those two seem surprisingly tense and bloody. Liège, seemingly a rather abundant region (therefore having a lot to lose) but with no real military resources to start a revolt with hopes of success still did so multiple times. The dukes then seemed especially harsh in crushing these small revolts, going from throwing hundreds of people into the river to burning and pillaging whole cities under their control. Wikipedia doesn't go into explaining much of the context.
How do Liège's revolts and the Burgundian repression compare to similar events in the same timeframe? And what were the motivations and expectations of the actors?
Edit: I'll push my luck and page some people that could have the relevant expertise: /u/baronzaterdag /u/NewYorkeroutoftown /u/sunagainstgold
Wow, I'm so glad you thought of me as this question is right up my alley.
So, I guess my main point would be that the events in Liège during the end of the reign of Phillip the Good and Charles the Bold fit into the wider patterns of the Low Countries in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. It is largely analogous to similar revolts in other urban centers, most notably the revolts in Ghent and Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries, the Hook and Cod Wars in Holland and many other towns. The urban autonomy won during the High Middle Ages was one of the main impediments to the Burgundian efforts to create a centralized (as much as that word can be used in the later middle ages) polity, as they Dukes wanted to access the vast wealth of the towns through taxes and extend their legal jurisdiction throughout their sphere of influence.
The Valois Dukes of Burgundy continually strove to move the prince-bishoprics of the Low Countries and the liminal space between France and the Empire. Besides Liège, they attempted or achieved this in the bishoprics of Cambrai, Utrecht, Metz, Toul, Verdun and even under Charles the Bold in the archbishopric of Cologne (although even there it began earlier). The first time Liège was brought into the Burgundian orbit was in 1408, when Duke John the Fearless put down a Liegeois revolt against his brother-in-law John of Bavaria, who was prince-bishop of Liège. Although the battle give John the Fearless his awesome epithet, it also cemented John of Bavaria's power, but turned him into a puppet of his Burgundian allies rather than a free actor. John the Fearless was given the ability to move troops through the principality and de facto made the Duke of Burgundy hegemon of the Low Countries.
This pattern was repeated time and time again, as pro-Burgundian bishops relied on the Dukes of Burgundy to cement their power. This culminated with the installation of Phillip the Good's nephew Louis of Bourbon as prince-bishop of Liège, which resulted in a series of revolts that Charles the Bold put down. The revocation of the city's privileges and de facto annexation of the principality was therefore the culmination of decades of conflict and part of a much wider conflict between the Dukes of Burgundy and the town. Liège was once again able to free itself from Burgundian rule in the chaos after Charles the Bold's death, and remained largely autonomous thought the Early Modern Era and right up to French revolutionary wars, the only principality of the low countries to do so after the annexation of Utrecht, Guelders and Friesland in the first half of the 16th century (obviously that era rebelled in the later 16th century but that's not pertinent here).
Sources: -Richard Vaughan, Phillip the Good and Charles the Bold. -Wim Blockmans, Walter Prevenie , The Promised Lands: The Low Countries Under Burgundian Rule, 1369-1530.
Hope this helps, let me know if you've got any questions.
FYI, you can't summon someone in a post, you need to do it in a comment (and only three per comment).