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

[IndigoRage]

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.

I can agree. It shouldn't be trying to form Belgium if there's no divide to speak of. We do already have other rare formables that are locked behind very late game events etc, so the decision appearing could be triggered by a specific event firing if it were ever implemented. Sokoto is a tag that's literally impossible to form until the 1790s.

 

[IndigoRage]

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.

And I respect that. I see myself as being part of the realism camp, but as long as the requirements are hard enough to meet, I don't know why there being a chance to see Belgium AT ALL should be so bad. The situation that resulted in the Dzunghar Khanate were also very specific, and the situation that resulted in the Kalmyks moving to the Caucasus were also very specific, yet it still happens. We have plenty of countries already in game that are of a lot less significance to the bulk of the playerbase whose existence was also unlikely. Sokoto literally can't be formed unless a specific event chain fires past 1790. The environment in which Sokoto was created were also very specific. The Fula Jihad. i don't see what's so wrong with having the remote possibility for it to be there, even if the requirements are strict.

 

[Pbhuh]

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.

The Germany argument has been shattered by the standard set by paradox themselves by adding in the Bismarck meme missions.

People keep trying to argue it, but really. Every single thing from Germany is meant to represent the German Empire under Prussia

 

[Pbhuh]

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.

There were more divides than just religious.

Elites such as Aristocracy and Clergy in Flanders were generally speaking French, they were collectively working together for quite a long time seperated from the rest of the netherlands as states such as Spanish Netherlands and Austrian Netherlands.

The Belgian Nation was a unitary state for most of its history until the devolution into Federalism we see today. The Flemish vs Walloon divide wasn't a problem in early Belgium.

I think thats one of the reasons people dislike belgium as a formable, they are very vocal about it, while many other places if you were to suggest something you would never have so many people just insta-disagree. I think its part because people don't know Belgium history too well and just meme about it not being a real country, it should just seperate etc. all the common arguments against distaste against belgium.

Noone seems to have a hissy-fit when they add Bismarck Missions to Germany. Thats fine, but dare to suggest Belgium should probably just be a formable just as a way to allow people to have the flavor of playing the game they want to recreate their states history, uhuh.

 

[Battlex]

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.

Sokoto caliphate is in game

 

[Battlex]

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.

Then make it tech 20 formable like Germany and the deccan

 

[Red Death]

There were more divides than just religious.

Elites such as Aristocracy and Clergy in Flanders were generally speaking French, they were collectively working together for quite a long time seperated from the rest of the netherlands as states such as Spanish Netherlands and Austrian Netherlands.

I agree with you actually, which is why I alluded to "political divides". The fact remains, at game start that division doesn't exist yet, most local powers are under the influence of Burgundy, who centrally controlled the whole region of the Netherlands. If Burgundy simply falls a part at the start, it makes no sense for Flanders to form Belgium, since the whole region of the Netherlands was seen as somewhat connected (as shown by the designation of the whole Low Countries region as a single entity called the Seveteen provinces by the HRE), and there was no hard divide with the north.

 

[Pbhuh]

I agree with you actually, which is why I alluded to "political divides". The fact remains, at game start that division doesn't exist yet, most local powers are under the influence of Burgundy, who centrally controlled the whole region of the Netherlands. If Burgundy simply falls a part at the start, it makes no sense for Flanders to form Belgium, since the whole region of the Netherlands was seen as somewhat connected (as shown by the designation of the whole Low Countries region as a single entity called the Seveteen provinces by the HRE), and there was no hard divide with the north.

True, but thats what we have admin tech 20 for

Germany as a unified nation instead of a patchwork of smaller nations is also very unlikely at 1444.

Also:

Zealandia - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[Jujus Potacke]

Well the formable should probably require the Netherlands to exist (and possibly to follow a different religion).

But I'd see Belgium more like a revolt tag, requiring:
- Provinces are Walloon/Flemish AND in the Low Countries region
- Provinces are owned by a tag that does not have its capital in the Low Countries OR is not in the French/Dutch culture group (i.e. we need a dutch culture group) OR does not follow the same religion as the provinces.
- Netherlands tag exists
- Netherlands tag does not follow the same religion as provinces...
- Provinces have less than 25 autonomy OR owner: absolutism is at least 50 (something like that)

Then it's the Dutch revolt all over again.

 

[Nassau]

There were more divides than just religious.

Elites such as Aristocracy and Clergy in Flanders were generally speaking French, they were collectively working together for quite a long time seperated from the rest of the netherlands as states such as Spanish Netherlands and Austrian Netherlands.

Elites in those days spoke French on both sides of the border. The elite in the Netherlands during the time of the revolution spoke French as well.

The Belgian Nation was a unitary state for most of its history until the devolution into Federalism we see today. The Flemish vs Walloon divide wasn't a problem in early Belgium.

It was a problem and the devolution into Federalism was the result of that. The Flemish part was surpressed for a long time.

I think thats one of the reasons people dislike belgium as a formable, they are very vocal about it, while many other places if you were to suggest something you would never have so many people just insta-disagree. I think its part because people don't know Belgium history too well and just meme about it not being a real country, it should just seperate etc. all the common arguments against distaste against belgium.

Well, that is because it is a created country, without a unifying history or culture. In that, it isn't unique. But it is a very funny example.

Noone seems to have a hissy-fit when they add Bismarck Missions to Germany. Thats fine, but dare to suggest Belgium should probably just be a formable just as a way to allow people to have the flavor of playing the game they want to recreate their states history, uhuh.

You could argue that unifying the German culture of unifying the German Kingdom (regnum Teutonicorum) could have a historical bases. The fact that Germany went the opposite way as France for a long time doesn't make it impossible to imagine Germany unifying earlier in time. But on what bases would Belgium become a thing?

 

[IndigoRage]

You could argue that unifying the German culture of unifying the German Kingdom (regnum Teutonicorum) could have a historical bases.

They aren't arguing against it being reasonable for Germany to exist as a formable. They're talking about Germany's missions revolving around Bismarck and WW1 goals and claims. IE: Paradox's own standards erode reasons for Belgium not existing as at the very least a very rare formable or revolter tag.

 

[Pbhuh]

It was a problem and the devolution into Federalism was the result of that. The Flemish part was surpressed for a long time.

Well, that is because it is a created country, without a unifying history or culture. In that, it isn't unique. But it is a very funny example.

You seem dutch, im dutch myself. I am tainted by the fact that many of my countrymen have this warped sense of belgium.

But reality is different.

The belgians do have a shared culture and history.

Sure one that is intertwined with other people, like the french and the dutch, but also distinct.

Some things in Belgium can be traced back to the celtic Belgae, which they take their name from. Or their history of Roman Occupation, which half of the Netherlands didn't have. Or the later Franks who set up their capital in a few belgian cities while the Netherlands was mostly settled by Frisians.

There is plenty of history and shared culture in Belgium. But yes, their shared culture primarily is about catholicism and their history is shared with other European people. But that's the case with everyone.

 

[IndigoRage]

Or the later Franks who set up their capital in a few belgian cities while the Netherlands was mostly settled by Frisians.

I'm not Dutch, but isn't the modern Dutch language still derived from Old Frankish, even if most of the Netherlands' landmass today would have been populated by Old Frisian and Saxon speakers?

 

[Pbhuh]

I'm not Dutch, but isn't the modern Dutch language still derived from Old Frankish, even if most of the Netherlands' landmass today would have been populated by Old Frisian and Saxon speakers?

Modern dutch is yes, with flemish being the closed while hollandic is influenced by frisian features.

 

[IndigoRage]

Modern dutch is yes, with flemish being the closed while hollandic is influenced by frisian features.

Is there any mutual intelligibility between what you speak and Franconian dialects?

 

[Pbhuh]

Is there any mutual intelligibility between what you speak and Franconian dialects?

You mean german Franconian?

German Franconian is just German. Rhenish and East Franconian can not be understood easily.

 

[IndigoRage]

You mean german Franconian?

German Franconian is just German. Rhenish and East Franconian can not be understood easily.

Interesting. I just like learning about how well people classified into similar language families can understand each other, seeing as Dutch is considered a "Low Franconian" language. There's a lot more to being able to understand each other than a family tree though of course.

 

[Pbhuh]

Interesting. I just like learning about how well people classified into similar language families can understand each other, seeing as Dutch is considered a "Low Franconian" language. There's a lot more to being able to understand each other than a family tree though of course.

So the Franconian family is often argued as a group, but many of the languages are very distinct and closer to other languages, Rhenish is closer to Upper Saxon while East Franconian is pretty close to Bavarian.

This also comes from the fact that the Franks already had two major groupings from the beginning, the Salian Franks and Ripuarian Franks. With the Salian Franks being the direct ancestor of the Dutch speakers. While the Ripuarian Franks are the ancestors of the Rhenish Franconian people.

Then there is also the High German Consonant Shift and other things.

We know a lot thanks through loanwords in French that came from Old Frankish and are very similar to Dutch.

But yeah, the Belgae, the Franks, etc. all put their mark on the regions they lived in and the Low Countries in general are closer related to groups next to them than groups in their own countries. Brabant for example or Limburg, both split between the borders of Belgium and the Netherlands but sharing much in common with the ones across the border. But Hollanders and Flemish were ofcourse different and Holland kinda would come to dominate the North.

 

[IndigoRage]

So the Franconian family is often argued as a group, but many of the languages are very distinct and closer to other languages, Rhenish is closer to Upper Saxon while East Franconian is pretty close to Bavarian.

That's true, it being thought that the languages are related genetically doesn't mean that they have to sound the same or really close together. Different areas still had different influences and Sprachbunds and what not. Anglo-Frisian is a common grouping, but there's 0 mutual intelligibility between English and Frisian at all due to the languages' diverging history.

 

[Nassau]

Modern dutch is yes, with flemish being the closed while hollandic is influenced by frisian features.

Flemish/Dutch is the same language. Dutch has features from other languages from both sides of the border.