Template talk:History of the Low Countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wow 2 Traslation 3 Remarks 4 Image:Bishopric liege flag.gif 5 Luxembourg 6 Answer to Str1977 about Luxembourg

[edit] Wow

Nice template! This should be included on all the historical Low Countries pages; i'll see if i can get round to doing that. One note though: surprised you didnt choose Orange as color for the Netherlands; maybe an idea? :-) --The Minister of War 14:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Traslation

Really nice schematic, i'm gonna use it for the spanish wikipedia. Greetings!!

[edit] Remarks

I guess this (pretty!) new template makes others like Template:Netherlands state obsolete. I have one remark: Spanish Netherlands and Austrian Netherlands are currently redirects to Southern Netherlands, which covers the history of the southern half of the Seventeen Provinces between 1579 (the treaties of Utrecht and Atrecht/Arras) and the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. This seems a sensible division to me, and the template should reflect that. BTW were the Seventeen Provinces referred to as such between 1556 and 1579?Markussep 11:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bishopric liege flag.gif

Image used in the template has no source information. Please use the image with appropriate copyrights, else it would effect the template because of deletion of the image. Thanks -- Shyam ^(T/C) 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luxembourg

The template is nice but it says on History of Luxembourg that Luxembourg was one of the Seventeen Provinces. Crix 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, and it seems that it was part of the Austrian Netherlands as well. Furthermore, it seems that the Bishopric of Liège is now more or less co-extensive with the Belgian provinces of Limburg and Liège, and not with Luxembourg. On the other hand, Luxembourg always was a County and a Duchy of the Holy Roman Empire, so it probably should get its own column in the template, so the template could better reflect the various stages Luxembourg went through. From what it is said in History of Luxembourg, this would be:

1. until 1354: County of Luxembourg / Imperial estate of the Holy Roman Empire
2. until 1443: Duchy of Luxembourg / Imperial estate of the Holy Roman Empire
3. until 1477: part of Burgundian Netherlands
4. until 1556: part of the Seventeen Provinces
5. until 1581: part of the Spanish Netherlands
6. until 1713: part of the Southern Netherlands
7. until 1794: part of the Austrian Netherlands
8. until 1804: Département of Forêts, part of the First French Republic
9. until 1815: Département of Forêts, part of the First French Empire
10. until 1867: elevated to Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, under Dutch rule, but not part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, it was rather part of the German Confederation, which lasted until 1866. In 1867, Luxembourg's independence was formally ratified. Crix 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I put a changed version of the template on User talk:Crix#Low Countries Template. Pls. comment, otherwise I will implement it in a few days. Crix 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Crix, I have seen your proposed template now and think it is an improvement. However, there are some problems I want to address:

• Why do you write Spanish Netherlands only until 1581 and then Southern Netherlands. The Spanish possessions were restricted to the south, yes, but these were still the Spanish Netherlands. Otherwise, why should they become the Austrian Netherlands after 1713.
• I don't like Belgium being split up like it currently is. You could move the Liege column to the left side, so at the bottom a combined Belgium emerges. Or the Luxemburg column. IMHO we should have three fields for Be, Ne and Lux at the bottom.
• With Luxemburg, I don't think the German Confederation should be mentioned. The members of that body were all sovereign states. Luxemburg is only different in that its Duke/Grand Duke also was King of the Netherlands. But then again, the same applied for Hanover and Holstein. It should rather mention the personal union with NL.

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Spanish Netherlands / Southern Netherlands: that's what the original version said
• Belgium / Liege: I agree with you that splitting up Belgium is not ideal. Moving Liege to the left though will result in tearing apart those periods in which Luxembourg was part of the Netherlands / Belgium but Liege was not. Maybe Liege should go entirely?
• Regarding the German Confederation: it was a very important step between the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. Although legally its members were sovereign, it was dominated by Prussia and Austria. My main reason for including this was that the Luxembourg fortress was maintained by the Confederation. What I mean is that IMHO the political integration of Lux into the German Confederation (alongside with the economic integration which again did not include the Kingdom of the Netherlands) was more important than the personal union with the Netherlands. Crix 10:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think the split fields problem can be solved by creating three main columns, ending at the bottom in (from left to right:) Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg. Further up Liege (which definitely should be included) would be placed on the left (but less broad than Belgium beneath, then the Netherlands (with the Spanish, Austrian Netherlands on the left, then the United NL on the right), and Luxemburg on the right. Granted, this would split for a while the Spanish NL from Luxemburg but it's better to split a conglomerate than an actual state like Belgium.
• Yes, the membership in the Confed was important, especially because of the fortress (which was dismantled as part of the settlement of the Luxemburg crisis) but I think the personal union has more bearing on the "Low Countries" setting.
• I am not happy with the whole distinctions between "Burgundian Netherlands", "Seventeen Provinces", "Spanish Netherlands", "Southern Netherlands" - I propose either:

"Burgundian NL" (until 1477) - "Habsburg NL" (whatever we call it) (1477-1581) - "Spanish NL" (1581-1713) || "United NL" (1581-1795), or

"Burgundian NL" (-1556) - "Spanish NL" (1556-1581) - "Spanish NL" (1581-1713) || "United NL" (1581-1795)

• Finally, singeling out Luxemburg before its incorporation into Burgundy is not good - if we were consistent, we'd have to include every estate with its respective date, some of these were included later than Luxemburg. I propose ommitting a starting date for the Burgundian NL alltogether.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:54, 23 July 2006 (UT

I have drawn up a version of the template as well, along the lines outlined above. See: User:Str1977/Editing#1

What I am still unsure about is:

• The distinction of the two Luxemburg fields at the bottom (if any)
• The coats of arms of the Seventeen Provinces (but see my concerns for the distinction to the Burgundian NL) and the Spanish NL. We need more info on the actual historical place of the following flag: [1] I can't see Charles V changing the CoA of these territories, so IMHO the Seventeen should still be represented by the Burgundian CoA
• The hyphen in the bottom part of the French Empire should go. However, I haven't found out yet how to do it without deleting the whole line. (But I am still trying)
• The Batavian/Holland colour should be improved (I just took the first I could get).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this surely turned out nice with the columns! Regarding the hyphen, I'm not sure but you could change the colour of it to be identical to the background.

• about singling out Luxembourg before its incorporation into Burgundy: the template tries to combine three national histories and a shared common history, so from the point of view of Luxembourg's national history, it appears important to have the parts for the Duchy, which after all was one of the Imperial estates, if I'm not mistaken. After its incorporation into Burgundy it did not lose its Reichsummittelbarkeit/Imperial immediacy, but it nevertheless became just one of the many votes exercised by the Hapsburg prince. So I would strongly be in favour of including it. I know that this would create problems for the Netherlands, but I think that this is of some importance for the national history of Lux.
• as for the CoAs and colours, I'm surely no expert in this. I got the Luxembourgian CoA from the German wikipedia, maybe they'll have more over there, or maybe on the Dutch one too.
• now getting back to the Confed issue: I'm sorry I don't really know much about Luxembourg history, what I know is mostly from the West Germanic wikipedias (well, okay except for Frisian ;) ), but it seems that we have a complicated situation here:
  • in 1815 after the Congress of Vienna, Luxembourg became a sovereign nation, alongside with all the former constituent parts of the HRE.
  • from 1815-1890, it was also connected to the UK of the Netherlands, which until 1830 comprised present Belgium as well.
  • Luxembourg was divided at this time, into a Wallonic part and a German part. According to some articles, some considered Luxembourg to be a part of Belgium at the time, others mention that Luxembourgers felt German (at the time, of course).
  • in 1830, with the Belgian revolt, the UK fell apart, the revolt extended over to the Walloon part of Luxembourg, which was finally split off from Lux and merged with Belgium (where, if I am not mistaken, it forms the modern Belgian province of Luxembourg)
  • in 1839, one of those countless London Protocols confirmed the diminished Lux's sovereignty.
  • politically and economically, Lux was integrated into the Confed, as I have kept reiterating, customs territory wise and also military wise.
  • in 1867 with the dissolution of the German Confed, Lux finally became a completely sovereign country, even though the personal union with the Netherlands would last until 1890

Now I don't know enough to judge which of these factors should be more prominent, and why the Luxembourgers finally did not join the German Empire (since sources say, that contrary to today, at the time they felt like Germans). Also since many sources cite 1867 as the year of Lux independence, the scale should reflect that also. It's hard since Lux has been a source of contention between B, NL and G in this period.... Maybe we should wait for others to chime in though I have a feeling the discussion will not draw more people until we finally change the template ;)... Crix 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased to hear that you like the template draft. It was a lot of trial and error.

Re the inclusion of early Luxemburg I see your point and agree with it. Maybe we somehow make this clear, e.g. by wordings like "County of Luxemburg, since ... part ..." Template-wise an inclusion should be no problem, since the Luxemburg column is the one at the right.

Unfortunately I am not heraldics expert either.

Your outline of Luxemburg's history is quite accurate:

• It was disputed between Prussia (who had received the Rhineland) and the Netherlands (who had wanted to receive the Rhineland) - the Personal union with a Prussian garrison was the compromise. Lux. was part of the Confed from the beginning.
• After the Belgian revolution the Wallon parts were given to Belgium. As compensation, the King of NL also joined the Confed for the Duchy of Limburg.
• The economic issue must be distinguished from the political-military issue. Politically and militarily Lux. was a member of the Confed and one of its fortresses. Economic it was independent and joined the Zollverein out of its own willing (and interest). It remained in the Zollverein until the First World War (when the body collapsed) - the only member not also a member of the German Reich.
• In 1867 a crisis broke out about Lux. Napoleon III, who had remained neutral in the Prussian-Austrian war, hoped for gains in the Rhineland or Belgium. Bismarck had indeed fed his appetite and implied that Prussia wouldn't hinder expansion. Now, after the war, Bismarck denounced such promises. Napoleon wanted Luxemburg at least, but Bismarck couldn't allow the cessation of a German state such as Luxemburg to the French. Remember that Prussiuan troops still held the fortress and public sentiment in Germany demanded the integration of Lux. as well. At the same time, Prussia couldn't yield the fortress to any other power. In the end, a compromise was reached, with Lux. staying out of the North German Federation (but not out of the Zollverein). Prussian troops withdrawing and the fortress being demolished. Napoleon of course was less than pleased and this event fed into the development up to the war of 1870.

I will reply to your other comments elswhere. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done some more work on the template, remaining problems are:

• Colours: Batavian looks horrible, the grey not very nice (POV pushing? ;-) ) and the early Lux. is messed up with white edges because of the CoA.
• I don't know how to let the hyphen under French Empire disappear. (I don't know about letters in colour, but I'll keep trying)
• The name between 1482 (actually this is the date when the last Burgundian died) and 1581. Note that Seventeen Provinces is a name used even after the Dutch rebellion. In a way Charles V was a Burgundian too. Note also, that Spanish and Austrian Netherlands redirect to Southern NL therefore I have now changed the upper Spanish NL link to Seventeen Provinces.
• the size of the columns: for some reason columns are of different sizes even though they all have the "colspan=2" format (I thought about making Lux. smaller or the resulting BeNeLux columns all the same size, but it doesn't work out that way. Despite being German, I don't want the Dutch column to be smaller than the Lux. column. ;-)

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:10, 24 July cris2006 (UTC)

I need to correct somethin: Luxembourg was economically NOT part of the german confederation. However it joined the Zollverein indirectly in 1842, following an economic crisis and the signature of an economic union with Prussia, which is an ecnomic union. The reason why Luxembourg never was annexed by neither the Netherlands, France or Germany was because tis territory, and mainly the strong fortifications of the city of Luxembourg were disputed between France and the Germans. This was the reason of the crisis in 1867. I ignore if politically Luxembourg was part of the germand confederation. All I know is that the Germans helped Belgians and Luxemburgish to revolt against the Dutch rule. As far as I can remember, the inclusion into the confederation was limited to the city, not the whole country. --Jangli 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jangli, for clearing up and thanks for replying below. I tried to make it clear above that the economic ties to Germany was through the Zollverein - the Confed had no economic dimension, though I think the Bundesakte made some reference to economic cooperation as a possibility. Luxembourg joined the Zollverein and remained a member until the 1st World War (except for this, the Zollverein was identical to the German Reich). Luxembourg was a member of the Confed until 1866 - the entire Grand Duchy and after 1830 the diminished territory. It was never annexed because each power hindered the other - first Prussia the Dutch (1815), then Prussia the French and France the Prussians (1867). Though Bismarck never was enthusiastic about an annexation, he had to consider public opinion. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I should have remembered the Luxembourg Crisis.... argh... anyhow, I think we should just try changing the template to the latest version by Str1977 and see what happens. 'cause I think the big picture is about right now. So if the template changes throughout the wikipedia we might get more reactions, I suppose... Crix 10:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will move it over, even though we have no solution for the remaining issues: Luxemburg after 1815 and distinction between Burgundian NL/Seventeen Provinces/Spanish NL yet. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to Str1977 about Luxembourg

This is in response to a request I got from Str1977.

The reason why Luxembourg was in the German confederation, is that the germans refused to see it annexed by the Netherlands. Therefore it remained in personal union with the king of the Netherlands, while Prussia had some military in the city of Luxembourg (strategic place).

The personal union was disrupted in 1860 because the family of Orange-Nassau had no direct male descendant. Adolphe from Nassau then became Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. Independance was acheived in several steps:

In 1830, the king of the Netherlands signed a "decrét" (don't remember how to spell the English word) which gave Luxembourg its autonomy. From that event on, the King send his son Henri to represent the king, instead of sending any governor. Henry was in favour of an independance for Luxembourg from the Netherlands. The treaty of London in 1839 confirmed the independance of the Grand-Duchy. A crisis between the country about its statute emerged in 1867 between France (Napoleon wanted to buy the country from the Netherlands) and Prussia, which eventually led to the second treaty of London confirming the neutrality of Luxembourg. Prussia withdraw its military.

French sources: [2] [3]

I think you should keep 1839 in your template, just as you did with 1830 for Belgium. The only reason why Luxembourg was in the German confederation was because it helped the Germans as a buffer. The personal union with the king of the Netherlands was between 1839 and 1890 only formal.

I hope I could answer your question. --Jangli 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)