Form Belgium in Rule Brittania

[Delinard.]

Since lowlands are gonna be improved in 1.25 why not add option to form Belgium while at it? Lowlands have always been intreasting location in MP matches.Since none of the players would ever support you its best for 2 players to play in lowlands so they can beat burgundy alone(Holland and Brabant).After beating burgundy up with your ally holland gets to form netherlands,but brabant? Yeah they don't get to do anything unless they seek to take holland for themselfs.
Belgium should be formable the same way as netherlands,5-7 province requirement in southern lowlands.Hell there is even a mod that allows it so why not allow it in vanila game.Why am i not using that mod? Becose everyone uses vanila in MP.
You can form nations like hannover,westplhalia,egypt so whats wrong with forming belgium? Almost all nations in the game should have this so you have a goal when playing a nation. *cough* *0 formable nations in southern germany.*
If this is added maybe playing nations like flanders should be worth it instead of being compleatly unbalanced and always being one sided when it comes to playing in lowlands.
Becose right now,it's either holland or brabant,if you pick liege/flanders you are just making it harder for yourself becose the only thing you can do is expand north to form netherlands.

 

[Lor360]

From what little I know, Belgium is a artificial nation that rebeled and formed out of convienience.
Kind of how you could have the Catholic part of England and Denmark revolt into into a new country called Anglosaxana but the country wouldnt be very logical.

 

[Bearjuden]

From what little I know, Belgium is a artificial nation that rebeled and formed out of convienience.
Kind of how you could have the Catholic part of England and Denmark revolt into into a new country called Anglosaxana but the country wouldnt be very logical.

It's also a different set of cultures? I mean, yeah they're similar, but Austrian and German cultures are also incredibly similar and yet you don't hear anyone proposing Austria be incorporated into Germany (again). Not on any mass scale at least (there's always a few people proposing anything).

OP, I see no problem with it (hell, I'd trade the formable Roman Empire for it in a heartbeat, I'd much prefer to see it and Yugoslavia in game), but be warned you're going to get a ton of raging nationalists come in here and tell you how wrong you are for believing Belgium should exist in real life, much less in game.

 

[Lor360]

OP, I see no problem with it (hell, I'd trade the formable Roman Empire for it in a heartbeat, I'd much prefer to see it and Yugoslavia in game), but be warned you're going to get a ton of raging nationalists come in here and tell you how wrong you are for believing Belgium should exist in real life, much less in game.

Isnt the real problem in a lot of these cases the futuristic name? Yes, Yugoslavia or Belgium didnt exist in 1444, but I dont think it would be irational for a ruler to form a unified South Slavic or Pan Balkan state.

I know very little about Belgium so I would like to know from the original poster what "Belgium" means to him (except a name). Is it a Roman Catholic version of the Reformed Netherlands? Is it any Low country that accepts both Waloon and Flemish culture groups?

 

[Sfan]

The issue with Belgium is that nothing easily replicable lead to its formation. It's a combination of French invasion and part of the Netherlands having a different religion.
You can't make it so that if Netherlands are Protestant and have catholic provinces, they instant revolt to form Belgium. It doesn't make any sense, it could be Amsterdam that is the Catholic province. And that would be a very poor in game mechanic. So make it a formable? But by who? Flemish can already form Netherlands. So Walloon? In that case that's not Belgium, that's Wallonia. Or have Flemish be able to form both, like Navarra with France and Spain? Why not. But then again, what would be the reason for Belgium in your game? Why would a Flemish country want to form Belgium if he could form the Netherlands, unless he was occupied by France and was Catholic instead of Reformed?

Belgium mostly happened because of a string of unexpected things. That's far from the only country following this rule, but it is also out of the timeframe. There are many reasons against its formation, and the only reasons I've seen to make it formable are "it would be cool" and "that gives a formable". Which is odd to me. Walloon can form France, and Flemish can form the Netherlands.

If you want to add new formables outside the timeframe, start with nations that cannot form any single new tag. An Indochinese Empire (to go along with Shan and Malaya), a Madagascar Kingdom, a Swahili Empire, an unified West Africa. Or even Yugoslavia.

 

[Bearjuden]

Some of them dislike it being ahead of the timeframe, which to me seems a bit inconsistent since Paradox already lets you form several nations out of the timeframe (Germany, Rome, Rum) and even fake ones (Scandinavia). And no one generally complains about those (except for the part where forming Scandinavia takes away all your flavor events).

Almost all the rest really seem to take issue with the very concept. Not just the name. It's sort of insane to me.

Except for @Sfan apparently to your point: I agree it doesn't serve much purpose, I just also think it doesn't do any harm. It's just sort of there. And it would be so simple to write a decision for it, doesn't need any ideas (just let it inherit the forming country's ideas), just a color, flag, and a tiny bit of code. People who don't want it can just not form it, those people who want it can have it, the only arguably new feature you need is an AI setting at the start of the game to prevent or allow them from forming certain countries.

As far as actual formation conditions to make it sort of match history instead of just instant revolting or whatnot as you mentioned, how about:

• Netherlands exists
• Is Walloon or Flemist culture (unless you want to add Wallonia as well or something)
• Is in Christian religious group but NOT same religion as Netherlands
• Owns some select provinces

Most players will expand too fast, but if you want to roleplay or something, and Netherlands forms ahead of you, then it can happen. Or if you let the AI do it, since AI Netherlands is always too weak to conquer the entire low countries without player assistance.

 

[Sfan]

That would be around as rare as Iceland without player intervention, but then again, why not. Still ahistorical because that's not how Belgium formed. But better than most of what I've seen

 

[Twoflower]

Instead of introducing a decision to form Belgium, Walloon countries should be able to form the Netherlands.
Flemish countries can already do it and should remain able to do so.
The thing is that Belgium in the EU4 timeframe was considered as synonymous to the Netherlands. The official latin name of the United Provinces was Belgica Foederata; the United Kingdom of the Netherlands was officially called Royaume des Belgique in French. The whole Lowlands were sometimes displayed as a stylicized lion, the Leo Belgicus, on period maps.
For this reason, it makes no sense at all to have a "Belgium" in EU4; it would be like allowing a French minor to form "Gallia".

 

[bebrst]

@DDRJake any option to form the greatest country on earth, Belgium, now that Liege, Flanders and Brabant are receiving love?

Save the fantasy nations for the Random New World



Correct.

Would love to see the NI of mighty Liège



And I do not really agree with the fantasy label for Belgium... After all there was the Roman Province of Gallia Belgica https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallia_Belgica?wprov=sfla1
Also the 1830 independence of Belgium is not drastically much after the game end.
Guess there are many other "fantasy" constructs which would then equally not deserve to be in the game. Just my humble opinion though

You're right of course. But actually you missed the point. DDRJake was just making a joke about Belgium. Rather a poor joke of course. But that's because treating Belgium as a fantasy nation is a common joke in Britain. Which, especially as we move ever-closer to a Brexit Europe and a Sexit Britain (not to mention a Cexit Spain), some may think elegantly ironic!

Not to forget Belgicum Austriacum from 1714 onwards (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Netherlands), and the United Belgian States in 1790 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Belgian_States). And of course the independence granted tot the 17 provinces (by then de facto the southern Netherlands) under Isabella of Spain and Albrecht of Austria between 1598 and 1621, with the possibility of the area remaining independent if ihey would have had children (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_VII,_Archduke_of_Austria).

Oh, I pick Brabant and Flanders too

If we will have mission for Egypt for England/GB, I don't see the problem with formable Belgium. Just give them admin tech 20 requirement like in Egypt's case.

Finally, the love we needed for the Low Countries, at least concerning NI. Now adding Belgium and reworking the Dutch Independence War and the Low Countries will be complete .

We'll probably get a formable Belgium in the Fantasy Countries DLC, the same that will add a formable Terran Empire and the Dominion of New Atlantis.

I was wondering whether I should respond serious or not, so I'll do both: non-serious me would laugh, serious me would say Belgium isn't a fantasy nation at all .

The Internet meme is that Belgium doesn't exist, like Bielefeld.

The Belgian Revolution started a mere 15 years after the game ends, in a game that spans 400 years that's nothing, while we have Germany and Italy in the game too, which came into existence 40 and 30 years respectively after the Belgian Revolution. Most argue that it's the medieval kingdom of Germany and Italy they are referring to in-game, but that makes 1) no sense, as they never were any real nations and 2) the national ideas they have are predominantly talking about events that happened in the timespan of the game, not the middle ages (although Italy has some ideas referring to the Roman Empire, but it would be even more nonsensical to say that it means the nation of Italy in-game is some sort of reborn Roman Empire). Saying that, you at least can't say that Belgium is more a fantasy nation in EU4 than a reformed Roman Empire is.

To be fair, I really don't get why people are so against a Belgian tag in EU4, Belgium is a nation just like any other nation and will exist a long time to come. Also, I won't mind if Belgium never will be added to the game, I was merely joking by saying that the game would be complete with Belgium and a Dutch Independence war that actually works.

I think most hate against a Belgian tag in EU4 is because of this (and is therefore unjustified), but I could argue with all of you endlessly and I'm not going to derail this DD. If you seriously want to discuss it, do it in a PM .

I know the whole "Belgium doesn't exist" / "Belgium is a fantasy country" is a meme.

But let's be serious about this for a second. It's actually silly to NOT include Belgium as a formable nation in the game. After all there are already many other formable nations in the game that historically formed much later than the Belgian independence. Germany, Italy, Romania, Iceland, Scandinavia (this one never even existed as a country), etc. are all fine examples.

Also the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Belgian_States is another valid argument to add Belgium.

Why so? They all came into existence in the same century, not too long behind each other and in a century where nationhood and nationalism was on the rise. And even so, can we really speak of a one and united German or Italian culture? Up till this day there are differences between Northern and Southern Germany, the same counts for the richer northern half of Italy compared to the southern part.



There's a contradiction here: there is no Belgian culture, yet there were cultural differences big enough to break up a country. Although the Southern Netherlands, which later became Belgium, never 'had a nation' of their own until 1830, it was unified under another nation ever since the Burgundian Succession Crisis and the Dutch Revolt. So there must have been some cohesion between the different parts in all this time.

There was already an heated discussion about that topic in one of the dev diaries thought I collect some of the arguments from it
Ps: myself being in favor of having a Belgium tag (but with a high admin tech level requirement)

Pps: sorry for linking everybody here

 

[Tom D.]

There was already an heated discussion about that topic in one of the dev diaries

And a discussion on the general forum following the DD but it got closed in less than a day because of the heated discussion. Great this is popping up again though.

 

[Sfan]

To be honest, there are probably like 10 similar topics. But it never gets old. Not as bad as the Ottoman thread popping every week, with the same arguments.

 

[talilu]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Belgian_States

Doesn't this qualify as "in the time frame"?

 

[Twoflower]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Belgian_States

Doesn't this qualify as "in the time frame"?

The naming header in that wikipedia article is rather interesting, isn't it?

The United Belgian States or United Netherlandish States (Dutch: Verenigde Nederlandse Staten or Verenigde Belgische Staten, French: États-Belgiques-Unis, Latin: Foederati belgii)

Article 1 of the 1790 constitution says in Dutch

Alle de Provincien vereenigen ende verbinden zigh te zaemen onder de benoeminge van STAETEN DER VEREENIGDE NEDERLANDEN.

and in French

Art. I. Toutes ces provinces s’unissent et se confédèrent sous la dénomination d’Etats-Belgiques-Unis.

The point being: yes, "Belgium" existed in the EU4 timeframe. The northern part of it obtained independence from Spain by the Eighty Years War which started in 1568, while the southern part remained under Spanish rule, passed to Austria in the Peace of Utrecht in 1714 and tried to join the north by a rebellion started in 1790, that was however quickly supressed.

What didn't exist in the EU4 timeframe was a distinction between "Netherlands" and "Belgium". Even the Dutch language was actually called "lingua belgica" by humanists (e.g Abraham van der Mijl published a linguistic study called "Lingua belgica" in 1612, https://books.google.de/books/about...uæ_illius_co.html?id=6Bb2rQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y).

 

[Delinard.]

My point is they should add some more flavor to non-dutch nations such as Flanders/Liege/Brabant,they should have a choice to either stick to their starting culture and form nation thats not netherlands or just convert to dutch(wich makes no sense but it works) (And yes im aware you can form netherlands as german or flanderian/wallonian).
We all know that the most important thing in eu4 is to form a nation in adm tech 10(or 20) to make your empire look cooler.It also serves as a goal,but right now when you pick a nation such as Flanders/Liege/Brabant(It's been nerfed in 1.25 so holland is topdog now),you are litearly handicapping youself becose you didn't pick a nation that starts in better position to get all northern provinces,thats why you should have option to form a nation like Belgium if you dominated southern lowlands as non-dutch nation.

 

[Ragnarak]

From what little I know, Belgium is a artificial nation that rebeled and formed out of convienience.
Kind of how you could have the Catholic part of England and Denmark revolt into into a new country called Anglosaxana but the country wouldnt be very logical.

All nations are made up by politicians and kings based on folkloric issues.

 

[Lor360]

So... why is in EU 4 Netherlands called Netherlands instead of Belgium?

 

[Bearjuden]

That would be around as rare as Iceland without player intervention, but then again, why not. Still ahistorical because that's not how Belgium formed. But better than most of what I've seen

That's more or less what I was going for, so that's good. Most historically based formable nations in game already have the option of forming them ahistorically. Germany can be formed by conquering most of Germany instead of gathering them under your diplomatic umbrella. Spain has the same option, although the PU event makes it rather easy to follow history. Great Britain practically never ever forms historically, at least as of this patch (though I hope that will change at least a bit with 1.25, due to where it's focused).

But perhaps the most poignant one for this discussion is that you can form the Netherlands at all. The fact that the Netherlands is a formable nation defies history. So...eh. Yeah, it's not exactly historical, but I'm not too bothered. At least it's both fair and logical.

All nations are made up by politicians and kings based on folkloric issues.

Careful not to cut yourself on that edge there...

 

[AirikrStrife]

I've been told Burgundy uses the Belgian tricolour once they go revolutionary, seems like a nice easter egg/nod to Belgium; a nation I don't should be a formable, Liege and Hainait etc can form France, dunno if they can form the Netherlands but that could be appropriate, as somebody points out, the distinction between Belgium and Netherlands is quite late, the term Belgium is old from antiquity and refered to a people of probable Celtic affinity living in the low countries.

An achievment to go revolutionary as Burgundy would be a fun thing,

 

[Lor360]

All nations are made up by politicians and kings based on folkloric issues.

Im not a ancient demographics expert but I would say that most nations are culturaly-ethnicaly based with exceptions that prove the rule (conquered teritories that go independent the first oportunity they get). Even USA, a extremnley diverse example has a basic underlying culture.

The historical Scotland - England is certanly less "made up" than the historical Castille - Netherlands nation.

 

[Lollius Palican]

The point being: yes, "Belgium" existed in the EU4 timeframe. The northern part of it obtained independence from Spain by the Eighty Years War which started in 1568, while the southern part remained under Spanish rule, passed to Austria in the Peace of Utrecht in 1714 and tried to join the north by a rebellion started in 1790, that was however quickly supressed.

What didn't exist in the EU4 timeframe was a distinction between "Netherlands" and "Belgium". Even the Dutch language was actually called "lingua belgica" by humanists (e.g Abraham van der Mijl published a linguistic study called "Lingua belgica" in 1612, https://books.google.de/books/about/Lingua_Belgica_sive_De_linguæ_illius_co.html?id=6Bb2rQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y).

I'll have to contradict you on that 'trying to join the north' bit. If you read the constitution, they explicitly state: 1) the independence of the formed confederacy of provinces (Brabant, Flanders, Western Flanders, Gelderland (the part around Roermond), Hainaut, Namur, Tournaisis, and Mechelen) from any other power, 2) safeguarding its nature as practising the 'catholic, apostolic and Roman' religion. Nowhere do they talk about joining the northern provinces, it's even explicitly stated that they should not adhere to any other power than the Sovereign Congress (so not to the States-General).
You are right however that culturally and geographically scholars did not make a difference. On the other hand, we should not forget that culture was not national as we understand it today. The differences between provinces or sometimes even cities were much more important to the people themselves. The codification of language only began during the EU4-timeframe, it's use as state policy (the cultural imposition of 'French culture and language' in France, for example) arguably only afterwards, at least in Western Europe.