Why is Flanders considered de jure part of the HRE?

[Taran14]

I think the Burgundian dukes wanted to resurrect the old Lotharingian crown, not Frisia. Still, a crown's a crown.

The Burgundians wanted a kindom of Burgundy. It is unlikely they would have been able to claim the old Frisian crown, as they controlled only the southern part of the historical kingdom. I think the kingdom of Frisia is in the game because they needed a kingdom for the duchies of Holland and Gelre and Frisia is the only historical kingdom based in that area. And a kingdom of the Netherlands would have been laughable.

Removing Frisia from de jure HRE and adding it to Francia would perhaps solve some problems, but it might also create new ones. Is someone willing to test it?

 

[Ruwaard]

The Valois dukes of Burgundy were interested in a crown, especially after John the Fearless was murdered by Orleanists (though a retaliation for what he had done to a previous duke of Orléans). It set them on a path less orientated on France. Philip the Good was more pragmatic about it, either Burgundy, Lotharingia or Frisia; Charles the Bold OTOH wanted Burgundy or Burgundy & Frisia.

Also moving Frisia to Francia would just be wrong; moving Flanders to France OTOH seems right to me. How about adding a empire of Middle Francia to the 867 start date?

 

[Prince Michael]

My suggestion: Flanders to de jure France (and Francia), Brabant to de jure Lotharingia (and HRE), and let Holland, Gelre and Frisia be de jure Frisia (and HRE). That's how the kingdom of Frisia wouldn't include unnecessary big areas. And there are other cultural mini-kingdoms on the map, too, like Navarra, Wallachia etc.

 

[Barsoom]

In the 867 start, there should be no dutch culture. I'm dutch, but I'm going to be honest with my history books here. There were no people what we would call Dutch today.

Most of the dutch living below the dutch rhein would be called franks (or lower franconian speakers). These are "German Franks" to be precise and not the "Romance Franks" who live in france proper (paris). All the dutch culture we see should technicaly be renamed "Franconian", and that culture should be larger than is on the map right now. It should contain a fair share of the north of france and the rhein areas in germany (köln) for example.

Now the north of the netherlands above the rhein, should be frisian. And technicaly the area should be filled with little wealthy trading posts and fishing towns...(who all dissapeared when the oceans flooded the lands completely between 800-1200, decimating frisian population and areas).

In the process of the next 400 years starting from aprox 800, german immigrants from Saxony and the Ruhr area in germany started moving enmasse to the netherlands to develop the mirky marshes as endentured servants (as a grant by the emperors of germany). However many germans called "duutsen" by the locals would simply escape their lords lands and set up their own independent free duutsch towns in the protected marshes. (the modern dutch gain their name from these german immigrants, and it is also why were are not the same as flemish who are native.)

So here the north gets mixed Frisian, Franconian and a bit of Saxon culture.
Flanders remained largely franconian due to little immigration but was later influenced heavily to the south from the Romance Franks, turning half of belgium into Wallonians and the north of france into Frankish Romance speakers from Franconian.

Flanders should go into France, it was historicaly most influenced by it and part of West Francia. The Netherlands should go to the HRE, because thats who influenced it the most (and Frisia had more in common with saxons than with French). And even one of our counts became emperor whuuhuu:happy:

Edit:

Frisia as a kingdom?

Ludicrious!

They shouldn't even have provincial status in our own national administration

Do you have a source? I ask because your summary is entirely different from everything I've ever read on the subject.

First, the displacement of the Frisii seems to have happened between 200 and 400 AD. They were probably replaced by Saxons who, however, were calling themselves Frisians by about 600 AD. Your dates may be very wide off the mark.
Second, the people who started to drain and cultivate the marshland in Holland at first were called Flemish and it is very likely that they indeed came from Flanders as drainage started a bit earlier there than in Holland. During the later middle ages, the movement was eastward: farmers from Holland and Flanders settled in marshy areas in northern Germany, particularly in the newly conquered areas east of the Elbe. This is the reverse of the movement you describe.
Third, throughout the period there was intensive contact between Flanders and the lowland areas of the HRE. A big part of it is those marsh-drainers moving from Flanders to Holland, and from both eastward. With those grants you name (mostly from lower-level feudal lords, by the way), that meant that the patterns of settlement, including their legal arrangements, were quite similar between Flanders and the northern HRE. Another part is Flanders' involvement in Low Countries and North Sea trade. On this level, the boundary between Flanders and the HRE wasn't very clearly marked. I'll grant that Flanders' continual struggles against the king of France are an argument to have Flanders in that de jure kingdom but don't forget that Flanders was equally continually involved in the politics of the HRE counties to its east and north.
Fourth, the word duuts (and variants thereof) was used throughout the Germanic-speaking lowlands (i.e. in Frankish/Flemish as well as in Saxon) for the common people as distinct from the elites. It doesn't mean those people were German, it means they were using the local language as opposed to Latin. In language terms for most of CK2's period there was probably a sharper distinction between north and south Germany than between the German north and the low countries. What there certainly wasn't, is a language barrier between Flanders and the present-day Netherlands.
Fourth, in high culture the name Frisian was applied to much of the Dutch culture area. It derived from kingdom of Frisia which definitely existed in the 6th and 7th century - although I'll grant that in game terms it encompassed only the duchy of Holland, so it should probably be considered a petty kingdom. The name Frisian was subsequently applied to people from the northern Netherlands who studied in Paris or Rome. (I don't know what name was used for people from Flanders and Brabant.) I agree that the area wasn't sharply marked off from northern Germany but in contrast with the word duuts it does make a distinction between people from the present-day Netherlands (and, I think, parts of Belgium) and those from Germany.

In sum, I think an argument can be made that Frisia shouldn't be distinct from northern Germany, based on the language and the culture of the common people. By that standard, though, Flanders belongs with the Low Countries, not with France. Based on high culture, there is a distinction between the Low Countries and Germany with the Low Countries' kingdom properly named Frisia.

Most of this thread focuses on the fact that throughout CK2's period, there is a political border between Flanders and the HRE. That line was erased in practice during the Burgundian period (14th C), which is one reason why I'd like to keep Flanders in the kingdom of Frisia - it gives incentives for players and AI to emulate them. Most importantly, though, political borders in the Middle Ages were very different things from what they became afterwards. On your reading, the northern Netherlands were "really" German and the boundary between them in Flanders is cultural as well as political. That seems anachronistic to me. It's also something I've never read anywhere else.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

I actually laughed at your use of the phrase 'those marsh-drainers,' which I took to be a fantastic racial slur. People need to start using that to refer to Dutchmen if they don't already. :rofl:

 

[Taran14]

The cultures of the Low Countries of that time can be roughly divided between: Low Franconian (Flemish), Saxon (Low German) and Frisian (Anglo-Saxon). These three cultures had a lot of interaction with each other and spoke mutually intelligible languages. The Frisian language was and is more distinct, but most likely still mutually intelligible. The region was absolutely not unified, neither culturally, linguistically nor politically, and therefore it seems strange to put the label 'Dutch' on all of them, as a Dutch culture would not evolve until centuries later. It would be much better to divide them between Flemish, Frisian and a new north German culture. The distinction between Flemish and Saxons is notable enough for them to be different cultures and the Frisians are also a distinctive group. This way, one could also model in the differences between north and south Germans. I doubt that Paradox is going to change it, but perhaps some modder is willing?

 

[Ruwaard]

@ Taran14: I object to refer to the entire Low Franconian culture as Flemish, it was a part of it, but not the whole culture. Though your rough division is (thought to be) correct. Also cultural borders shifted in the area, originally Frankish homelands Salland and Tubantia became more Saxon, whereas Holland became more Low Frankish and less Frisian etc.

@ Sleight of Hand: a chauvinistic Dutch saying is: God created the world, the Dutch created the Netherlands.

 

[Isaios]

I actually laughed at your use of the phrase 'those marsh-drainers,' which I took to be a fantastic racial slur. People need to start using that to refer to Dutchmen if they don't already. :rofl:

Hush! Or Veld might hear you

a chauvinistic Dutch saying is: God created the world, the Dutch created the Netherlands.

Oh, wow. That's pretty boss

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Hush! Or Veld might hear you

Screw him, the stupid marsh-drainer.

Nah, I jest of course.

 

[Taran14]

I actually laughed at your use of the phrase 'those marsh-drainers,' which I took to be a fantastic racial slur. People need to start using that to refer to Dutchmen if they don't already. :rofl:

I always found cheese-heads to be really funny, but marsh-drainers is even better XD

 

[Barsoom]

The cultures of the Low Countries of that time can be roughly divided between: Low Franconian (Flemish), Saxon (Low German) and Frisian (Anglo-Saxon). These three cultures had a lot of interaction with each other and spoke mutually intelligible languages. The Frisian language was and is more distinct, but most likely still mutually intelligible. The region was absolutely not unified, neither culturally, linguistically nor politically, and therefore it seems strange to put the label 'Dutch' on all of them, as a Dutch culture would not evolve until centuries later. It would be much better to divide them between Flemish, Frisian and a new north German culture. The distinction between Flemish and Saxons is notable enough for them to be different cultures and the Frisians are also a distinctive group. This way, one could also model in the differences between north and south Germans. I doubt that Paradox is going to change it, but perhaps some modder is willing?

I think this is what is referred to as the narcissism of small differences. No European culture was unified during the Middle Ages, no language standardized. In most Dutch medieval sources, you can determine the city of origin from the language used. If you want to be consistent, then, every county should have its own culture. I'm much happier with the current model.

As to the marsh-drainers, I didn't think it was a slur. Dutch myself, you see. Also, in that sentence I was actually referring to Flemish farmers.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

As to the marsh-drainers, I didn't think it was a slur. Dutch myself, you see. Also, in that sentence I was actually referring to Flemish farmers.

To be fair, it probably wasn't intended as such, but I read it as that and started laughing. Regardless, I won't forget it now, and I have a new-found and totally irrational hatred of the Dutch. :rofl:

 

[JodelDiplom]

I personally find the "Dutch" culture in CK2 to be an anachronism. It's a 14th century concept imposed on a game that starts in the 9th (11th pre TOG) century. I'd much rather like to see a sensible implementation of the German tribal cultures and let the "modern" cultures (German & Dutch) evolve from them. Sort of like an inverse Norse trend - it starts out fractured but grows into one (two if you count Dutch) over time.

 

[Thiomay]

I personally find the "Dutch" culture in CK2 to be an anachronism. It's a 14th century concept imposed on a game that starts in the 9th (11th pre TOG) century. I'd much rather like to see a sensible implementation of the German tribal cultures and let the "modern" cultures (German & Dutch) evolve from them. Sort of like an inverse Norse trend - it starts out fractured but grows into one (two if you count Dutch) over time.

This. Dutch could be a Frisian, Frankish/Franconian melting pot and Frankish/Franconian a Proto-Culture like Norse that splits in French/Frankish and German. Other Tribes for the rest of Germany would be needed as well of course. (Alemanic, Saxon, Baverian, Thuringian)

Far less serious:
How about a Kingdom of Austrasia? Mabe make Lothringia Titular?

 

[Flamestalker]

I personally find the "Dutch" culture in CK2 to be an anachronism. It's a 14th century concept imposed on a game that starts in the 9th (11th pre TOG) century. I'd much rather like to see a sensible implementation of the German tribal cultures and let the "modern" cultures (German & Dutch) evolve from them. Sort of like an inverse Norse trend - it starts out fractured but grows into one (two if you count Dutch) over time.

I agree, but if you do that then you also have to take in account the other possible outcomes. what if the germanic cultures never unite in the HRE and remain fractured (petty) Kingdoms? I doubt that would encourage the unification into a single German culture. People are already annoyed that Norse always splits despite all of Scandinavia being united under a single banner. I doubt that many would appreciate it if the big grey blob is always forced to appear.

 

[Barsoom]

I personally find the "Dutch" culture in CK2 to be an anachronism. It's a 14th century concept imposed on a game that starts in the 9th (11th pre TOG) century. I'd much rather like to see a sensible implementation of the German tribal cultures and let the "modern" cultures (German & Dutch) evolve from them. Sort of like an inverse Norse trend - it starts out fractured but grows into one (two if you count Dutch) over time.

It is an anachronism. So is every other national culture in the game. I like the Norse proto-culture mechanic but remember that in historical terms the differentiation between Danish, Swedish and Norwegian is about convergence at the county level as much as it is about divergence at the "national" level (in quotes because it's another anachronism). Flamestalker is right: if the Norse had been united, I see no reason for that divergence. I suppose that if Jylland had not been united with Sjaelland, they'd have developed different national cultures, too. The way that divergence is implemented now is IMO a nice incentive for the AI and the players to do stuff that has some historical plausibility but it's also writing history from the perspective of the winners. The devs aren't quite consistent, though, they have given us the chance to rewrite history, e.g. let Pommerian culture survive. If you apply the same logic to the continental Germanic areas, you'd get one Germanic proto-culture that later diverges into Dutch and German. I suppose a separate North German identity might have been grown if Saxony had become independent. Or it might have merged with Dutch. We could have seen 3 cultures emerge or 2 with different borders. In any case, it shouldn't be the inverse of the Norse mechanic, it should be more or less the same.

Back to the topic at hand, though. I protested against The_Blind_One because he was overdrawing the boundary between the Netherlands and Flanders on what seems to me a pretty shaky historical basis. Seems to me you can favor Flanders in de jure France because that's where it was politically. Or you can go with a fairly plausible kingdom-that-might-have-been on the basis of Flemish culture having a lot in common with the rest of the Low Countries. That's what the devs chose for Frisia. It's not historical in the sense that it never happened, but it's something that several characters and at least one major dynasty in the area strove for. IMO it gives a neat incentive for Flanders to get involved in the Low Countries and vice versa. And it's our version of Pommerian survival, or Zoroastrian revival - never happened in real life but it might have, if the stars aligned, and most of all it's great fun to try in a game.

 

[stern]

This is annoying if you want to play as the count of flanders.

Just swear fealty to the HRE and destroy it from the inside, i.e. steal Gelre, Ostfriesland and Sticht, then secede during a sucession crisis and form Frisia.
Flanders is probably the most richest region of this part of the world.

I find this very realistical, an independent Flanders would never be able to deal with HRE and France at the same time and it should play heavy diplomacy with one or the other.

EDIT: As I said in another thread about Frisia, I find the existence of this kingdom... Strange to say the least. It sounds like something straight out of an ancient roman map, like reading Gallia over the territory of France. Wasn't any flemish people at the time? I think it's very necessary to have a political entity that goes from Belgium, Netherlands to lower Rhineland, because as someone said it, they were very rich, a very important trade-hub and were the birth place of the dutch and belgian people, very distinct from the french and german surrounding them. I wish there was some secessionist or autonomous movement there so the devs could use it to model an independent Benelux... In my opinion Kingdom of Low Countries would sound much, much better than Frisia, and specially a Frisia ruled by dutch people (?).

 

[kemerover]

My suggestion is to rename De Jure map to Map of Random Bullshit.

 

[Barsoom]

EDIT: As I said in another thread about Frisia, I find the existence of this kingdom... Strange to say the least. It sounds like something straight out of an ancient roman map, like reading Gallia over the territory of France. Wasn't any flemish people at the time? I think it's very necessary to have a political entity that goes from Belgium, Netherlands to lower Rhineland, because as someone said it, they were very rich, a very important trade-hub and were the birth place of the dutch and belgian people, very distinct from the french and german surrounding them. I wish there was some secessionist or autonomous movement there so the devs could use it to model an independent Benelux... In my opinion Kingdom of Low Countries would sound much, much better than Frisia, and specially a Frisia ruled by dutch people (?).

Well, the inhabitants were called Frisian in all the Latin sources of the time and the area they lived in was called Frisia. A bit highbrow, but much clearer than basing it on the word Dutch (duuts) which was also in use throughout northern Germany. You're right that there's something to be said for including the duchy of Cologne as it was at the time very much involved in the politics and economy of the downstream counties. Then again, clear boundaries, especially culturally, are something of a later age.

 

[M@ni@c]

Just swear fealty to the HRE and destroy it from the inside

IIRC only independents can swear fealty. Apparently it used to be different in the past.