Is there any benefit to not forming the Netherlands? Should Belgium be an option?

[Monumentiumerongraphataquesqly]

Probably not. Dutch ideas seem pretty superior to any of the minors (presuming you're going to go naval), and they get extra missions. I just started a game as Flanders but for some reason I don't really want to form the Netherlands, but I feel like I'd be missing out if I don't. I just think the idea of an alternative Flemish formable (some form of Belgium maybe?) would be pretty cool. Maybe I just like the world Flemish. But Flemish England has a nicer ring to it than Dutch England.

Is there any argument for having Belgium in the game?

 

[Piotrzeci]

Revolutionary Burgundy has Belgian flag, but that's just it.

 

[Jujus Potacke]

A case can be made for Belgium, although not a very strong one.

Belgium did exist in the game's timeframe, for a short period, as the consequence of a revolt (similar to the Netherlands).
Some would disagree, but I believe there are reasons to think the various principalities of the southern Low Countries could have united (in the face of a threat, just like the Dutch). So a Belgium tag is plausible. But in game, the Low Countries will rarely find themselves in a situation where Belgium is justified.

However, I think Lotharingia (with duchy rank) should be formable by Walloon and Flemish tags (as the old duchy of Lower Lotharingia covered the imperial part of "Belgium").

 

[Battlex]

Probably not. Dutch ideas seem pretty superior to any of the minors (presuming you're going to go naval), and they get extra missions. I just started a game as Flanders but for some reason I don't really want to form the Netherlands, but I feel like I'd be missing out if I don't. I just think the idea of an alternative Flemish formable (some form of Belgium maybe?) would be pretty cool. Maybe I just like the world Flemish. But Flemish England has a nicer ring to it than Dutch England.

Is there any argument for having Belgium in the game?

You leave the HRE if you form the Netherlands no?
Forming Netherlands gives Dutch monarchy which you might not want

A case can be made for Belgium, although not a very strong one.

Belgium did exist in the game's timeframe, for a short period, as the consequence of a revolt (similar to the Netherlands).
Some would disagree, but I believe there are reasons to think the various principalities of the southern Low Countries could have united (in the face of a threat, just like the Dutch). So a Belgium tag is plausible. But in game, the Low Countries will rarely find themselves in a situation where Belgium is justified.

However, I think Lotharingia (with duchy rank) should be formable by Walloon and Flemish tags (as the old duchy of Lower Lotharingia covered the imperial part of "Belgium").

Lotharegnia to duchy of lower lothier to duchy of brabant is eh, lotharingia has those OP ideas, and the mission tree is for a land power, whilst Netherlands is trade power focused. But Lorraine can reform into lotharegnia via decision as well, so maybe. Like how Iran can either form persia or timurids, and Portugal can form Spain.

 

[TheCrimsonMajor]

But would Belgium even exist without the differences in religion between Flanders and the rest of the Netherlands? I am not that well versed in Belgian history prior to Leopold II, but wouldn't Flanders have joined with The Netherlands had it not been for religious differences? And it seems very likely that Wallonia could have ended up being part of France.

 

[Battlex]

But would Belgium even exist without the differences in religion between Flanders and the rest of the Netherlands? I am not that well versed in Belgian history prior to Leopold II, but wouldn't Flanders have joined with The Netherlands had it not been for religious differences? And it seems very likely that Wallonia could have ended up being part of France.

It was part of the Netherlands, and flanders had been the source of numerous revolts, just the only bit that could be held onto once the rebellion was done

 

[Me_]

Is there any argument for having Belgium in the game?

No. Does't stop people from asking, but I feel like Stellaris having Belgium is fair enough. It's creation is a result of a long string of events that are 99.99% not going to happen in a EU4 playthrough.

 

[Pbhuh]

No. Does't stop people from asking, but I feel like Stellaris having Belgium is fair enough. It's creation is a result of a long string of events that are 99.99% not going to happen in a EU4 playthrough.

Like so many other things.

Belgium should just be added especially since its just a historical formable. Allow Walloon and Flemish nations to form it done. Hardly makes sense that French Speakers in the Low Countries should just form France even though they are in the Holy Roman Empire.

The scrutiny of what to add and what not to has blurred over the ages anyway, we got Two Sicilies now which only appeared in 1815 and Germany has a focus tree which larps about Bismarck, so seems like the level of what to add and not to really doesnt matter.

Belgium existed in history, so just add it.

 

[IndigoRage]

No. Does't stop people from asking, but I feel like Stellaris having Belgium is fair enough. It's creation is a result of a long string of events that are 99.99% not going to happen in a EU4 playthrough.

They're making Lanfang more accessible next patch so.

 

[Me_]

They're making Lanfang more accessible next patch so.

Lanfang was an actual real thing in the era.

 

[IndigoRage]

The scrutiny of what to add and what not to has blurred over the ages anyway, we got Two Sicilies now which only appeared in 1815

I don't see what's wrong with Two Sicilies seeing as it's just a restoration of the medieval Norman Kingdom of Sicily to begin with prior to entanglement with Aragon.

 

[IndigoRage]

Lanfang was an actual real thing in the era.

So was Belgium for one year as a result of a revolt in the 1790s.

 

[treb]

No. Does't stop people from asking, but I feel like Stellaris having Belgium is fair enough. It's creation is a result of a long string of events that are 99.99% not going to happen in a EU4 playthrough.

Isn't its inclusion in stellaris a reference to HHGTTG?

 

[IndigoRage]

And it seems very likely that Wallonia could have ended up being part of France.

The major European powers would not have allowed this to happen. France had been forced to its pre-revolution borders after the 100 days, and they weren't about to let France annex part of Belgium into its core territory again. Talleyrand's proposal for a partition was also turned down, and that one gave quite a bit to Britain and Prussia. The revolution of 1830 had only just happened, and so Europe was wary of feeding French territorial expansion.

It's *possible* Belgium wouldn't have gotten independence at all if the king of the Netherlands hadn't pressed his luck with sending an army into Belgium to quell unrest and just given them autonomy when he knew he had a bad hand (The people revolting for religious reasons didn't want independence at first but more often just general autonomy or reannexation into France afaik), or not upturned everyone's lives so hard with investing heavily in the extractive coal industry which primarily benefited the northern Dutch core in the first place.

 

[Ivashanko]

I hope that EU5 has a more reactive nation and core creation system. The exact circumstances that caused the creation of Belgium may not happen in the Lowlands, but they'll often happen somewhere else. It would be cool if a persistent religious divide could become a cultural divide, and then that cultural divide becomes a political one as the new culture revolts against their heretical overlords.

 

[Ziul]

Hello, If you have RES REPUBLICA and you have the special government if you don't form netherland you don't got the best of it.

If you play Holland you have the government but the slider is not the same (the netherland slider is better in any way -100 or +100)

 

[Me_]

Isn't its inclusion in stellaris a reference to HHGTTG?

The old consensus was that it's because it's a fantasy nation (HHGTTG being a secondary reference).

So was Belgium for one year as a result of a revolt in the 1790s.

If we were to add every single few-months revolt, we would need 100 more tags to be just. For comparison, Lanfang existed for about 40 of the in-game years (from over a hundred total).

 

[IndigoRage]

If we were to add every single few-months revolt, we would need 100 more tags to be just. For comparison, Lanfang existed for about 40 of the in-game years (from over a hundred total).

You're acting as if this is some kind of absurdity that I should be disagreeing with, but honestly you're being ridiculous. There aren't 100 tags that could appear in revolts that represent modern countries someone might want to play.

As others have said, we have Bismarck's Germany and a united Italy. Belgium existed both before and after the game's end date, if only briefly, so I don't see why not. We already have some revolter tags that represent very small mongol states that had little impact on the world stage globally.

 

[Red Death]

In terms of actual arguments for why Belgium should not be a formable:
The North-south divide wasn't too significant before a series of religious and political divides. Flanders shouldn't be able form Belgium near the game start in that case, it should in fact be trying to form the Netherlands. (Belgium as in a region covering the modern country wasn't a known concept at all)
If it is to be added at all, it should be the result of a later revolt.

 

[Me_]

You're acting as if this is some kind of absurdity that I should be disagreeing with, but honestly you're being ridiculous. There aren't 100 tags that could appear in revolts that represent modern countries someone might want to play.

As others have said, we have Bismarck's Germany and a united Italy. Belgium existed both before and after the game's end date, if only briefly, so I don't see why not. We already have some revolter tags that represent very small mongol states that had little impact on the world stage globally.

Belgium belongs in the game no more that Austria-Hungary does. The comparison to Germany and Italy has no place here. Germany and Italy are political concepts that have existed for centuries surfacing as various national and subnational entities.

Belgium, Austria-Hungary and Poland-Lithuania are examples of historical oddities where strange circumstances resulted in two completely different nations cooperating under a single state, but those are exceptions and they should be treated with care.

To try to force the game by adding nations whose creation was the result of extremely specific set of circumstances can only make sense if those circumstances can be replicated. In Poland-Lithuania's case they can, as the wheels that put that polity on the map have already been turning in 1444. In case of Belgium and Austria-Hungary that is simply not the case. It would be unfair to the sensibilities of anyone who sees history as a whole set of circumstances where one thing leads to another and not simply as a collection of their favourite moments.