It's a decision:
You have to be a catholic monarchy at peace, own judea and convert it to catholicism before the reformation starts.
Heir to the Throne - New Countries
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It's a decision:
You have to be a catholic monarchy at peace, own judea and convert it to catholicism before the reformation starts.
United Belgian States soldier's
Aren't they pretty?
(These are Namur's canaries, patriot volunteers).
Others are more martial:
http://www.folknam.be/ressources/membres/regiment.jpg
http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images..._2508600_5dcbe72ed0bcc2a5694d442722ebb861.jpg
Aren't they pretty?
(These are Namur's canaries, patriot volunteers).
Others are more martial:
http://www.folknam.be/ressources/membres/regiment.jpg
http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images..._2508600_5dcbe72ed0bcc2a5694d442722ebb861.jpg
This argument holds little value really, as no part of modern days France spoke french in 1399. Normans were not different than Occitans, Britons, Aquitains and what not.
If normans get their own culture, then all french minors ought to have one of their own too. Which would be silly in any case: though not unified, most of France was frenchified in the 15th century. The only parts that still had a really distinct culture were Britanny (still an independent kingdom) and the regionally flemish areas.
I also support a Etat Belgique Uni flag. It was one of the most succesful pre-1789 revolutionnary state.
Partially wrong.
Dante already distinguished "Oïl languages" (North of France) and "Oc languages (Occitan)" (South of France). In fact Occitan is closer to Catalan than to Oïl tongue. And modern French comes from the Oïl language spoken in the Paris area. So if Norman can now be considered as a French dialect, the Occitan languages can not. Norman was quite close to middle-French (Parisian). Besides, Old Norse disappeared quickly after the installation of Scandinavians in Normandia, as the conquerors came with no wives and married native womans, who educated their children with their Roman tongue ; Old Norse has not been transmitted.
I was in Brittany about a year ago and it isn't independent at all (although the bretons do feel very strong about their celtic roots), let alone a kingdom..
Huh? Am I missing anything? Belgium was established in the year 1830 and afaik the term Belgium never existed prior to that date. If there's more to it please let me know, I'm eager to learn more about my country
@emp_palpatine
All hail Namur's canaries!! We salute you!
Looking at their costumes I'd say they jumped out of the "newbeat era"
Meneldil is speaking of 15th century Brittany, not of the present.
Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Belgium
Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Belgium
Interesting, very interesting..
THX for the link
I just looked again and he quotes "still an independent kingdom". I suppose it's a misunderstanding of mine
I saw you checked the link.Huh? Am I missing anything? Belgium was established in the year 1830 and afaik the term Belgium never existed prior to that date. If there's more to it please let me know, I'm eager to learn more about my country
@emp_palpatine
All hail Namur's canaries!! We salute you!
Looking at their costumes I'd say they jumped out of the "newbeat era"
I will add: Belgium existed since... a long time! Let's say Union of Arras is the craddle of modern-day belgium and belgian provinces. And as you can see, it even lived independantly for a year.
Trust me, don't believe what's commonly said: belgium has an history and is not an invention!
Good reason to add it in game!
:wink in paradox general direction:
Yes, Belgium was created in 1830... but as it is possible to create Germany two century before date, why not Belgium, earlier...
I believe Adenauer said: "Germans! They're just Belgians with megalomania. The Prussians are the worst. They're just Slavs who have forgotten who their grand father is."
So maybe we should think of the Kingdom of Germany in 1399 as being a sort of Greater Belgium.
I believe Adenauer said: "Germans! They're just Belgians with megalomania. The Prussians are the worst. They're just Slavs who have forgotten who their grand father is."
So maybe we should think of the Kingdom of Germany in 1399 as being a sort of Greater Belgium.
Not all of them... There moved Germans to the region that opressed the Baltic and Slavic cultures. Baltic and Slavic cultures ain't the same. The Prussians were Baltic and not Slavic.
The reason why Belgium shouldn't be in the game, is because it makes no sense. The division of the Netherlands was something in which the Belgians weren't directly involved in the first place, they didn't choose to remain under Spanish rule (and if they did, it was because of religious reasons only). The main reason why the United Kingdom of the Netherlands split in 1830, was because the Walloons didn't want to learn Dutch and so they proclaimed the independence for the whole of the southern Netherlands, not taking into account that a lot of the population spoke Dutch dialects. As such, Belgium was not something the Flemish people wanted (the whole thing was ridiculous, they just should have fought for more cultural freedom). It makes no sense for a country with Flemish culture to form Belgium rather than the Netherlands, since there hardly is any cultural connection. Similarly, there shouldn't be a state with Walloon and Flemish as equally accepted cultures (which would be Belgium), because that simply wasn't the case (cf. the Flemish independence movements today): it took ages for the Belgian government just to recognize the fact that Dutch dialects were spoken in Belgium ("La Belgique sera francophone ou elle ne sera pas.").
The revolutionary state Junuxx is talking about, can be represented by Brabant, Flanders or Hainaut.
The revolutionary state Junuxx is talking about, can be represented by Brabant, Flanders or Hainaut.
The Prussian language was far closer to the other Slavic languages than to the Germanic languages was it not?
Wasn't the Catholicism of Belgium, Walloon and Flemish important in the split?
I don't fully agree with you...
People of Belgium existed since celtic times... many groups like parisii, menapians, etc. were "Belgians"... and went to England for exemple... Of course, nowadays, many things changes... and Belgian was created to make a stamp between France (Napoleon) and other countries... As Belgian, I can say that we have all many things in common, even if Flemish, Brussels, Walloon people... even if difference of languages... and even if some politics would like the country to be devided.
Yes, but the Celtic Belgae have nothing to do with modern day Belgium which is just the part of a Spanish province that happened to remain catholic, except there is a partial overlap in their territories. The Walloon dialect is no more Celtic than the Parisian and the Flemish is considerably less.
It's indeed true that England and Austria wanted to have a buffer state. Even so, this does not justify the incredibly stupid decision by the Walloons to separate the whole of Belgium from the UK of the Netherlands - the only advantage this had, was culturally for the French speaking part of the country (and perhaps religious reasons, yes). For Flanders, it meant about a century of being the backwater of the Netherlands (which stands in great contrast to its welfare in the middle ages - it has been stated that Flanders was neglected more by the Belgian state than Ireland was by Great Britain). Not only did Flanders die out economically during almost a century, the Dutch language was given very little chance to develop in Flanders, as it was almost completely oppressed (people were sentenced to death without understanding a single word of their trial, as it was fully in French). Knowing all that, I only find it naturally that some Flemish politicians call Belgium an insult to the Flemish identity. Belgium was not created for the Flemish people. Of course, now they're trying to make us believe we do have something in common, but apart from Belgian fries, chocolate and beer, I fear we are very different peoples.
I could go on about this, but that's not really relevant. In short: there is no need for a Belgian state. Brabant, Vlaanderen and Hainaut provide enough states for a scenario like the 'Belgian' revolt, there is no reason why Brabant or Vlaanderen would rather form Belgium than the Netherlands because of cultural reasons, a Wallonian state shouldn't be able to form a state that has Flemish as an accepted culture, because that simply wasn't reality.
Now now, don't be silly. Language had very little to do with it. It was broader than that. The main reason was Willem's politic to try and blend the best of The Netherlands and the best of Belgium together. For instance he tried to make an economic system based on Belgium's industry and Holland's trade and colonies. Problem was that most of the profits went to projects in The Netherlands. Also liberals soon found a common dismay with the catholics and they united against the Protestant hegemony for fear of getting marginalized. Funny thing is that at first the Dutch catholics supported the cause, because they too saw the opportunity. And ofcourse, they didn't divide everything as equally as the Belgians would like, politcally speaking and Willem was too powerful, while the Belgians had asked for a more ceremonial King. About the language, yes, he did create laws to have the language unified in 1817, but they only started to implement them in 1827-1828, by then the first groups of rebellion were already forming and the liberal press was already proposing a division between The Netherlands and Belgium. I think Les Etats Unis de Belgiques are the best proof that there was a national feeling before 1830. Anyway, the Flemish 'nation' is even a younger creation
I Concurr.
ZappyVlaams arguments are somewhat teinted with current nationalism rather than historical insight.
First of all: languages. They are almost not taken into account in EU3 culture system.
And it's also wrong to say "evil french speakers created belgium":
- There were much flemish in both revolutions (1789-90 and 1830);
- Both time, the issues were not language (States rights and then economical, political and religious issues).
- Nobody, save a few elite in both part of Belgium spoke French (mainly Picard languages).
Facts are stubborns, and past errors and tragedies (the centralization of early Belgium and the elites' disdain for flemish and picards languages as well) IMHO do not mean there is no such thing as Belgian idendity.
Even more: you can stick with these, I don't mind, but it happened far outside EU3 timeframe and do not mean there was no belgian idendity in these times.
No serious historian can negate the existence of a proto-belgian idendity with its roots in catholicisme, the attachment to local rights, charters and such and the fidelity to the ruling dynasty as long as the said rights are respected. Think what you want about post-1830 belgium, I'm advocating for the implementation of a pre-1830, Belgian-States United federation like one. Like it did happen. And I'm sure you won't negate the flemishness of Antwerp or Turnhout patriots of 1790 (or 1830
) nor the Wallonianness of Namur's ones.So, only Flanders or Brabant won't suffice to represent a Belgian State. We need a union tag or at least a country tag.
Come on! Germany and Romania have it...