All things Belgian

[Colon™]

No, I am not. I just misread some stuff on Wiki. That's all.

Besides (and now I'm trying to be serious), outdated military doctrine was hardly a Belgian pregorative. Most planners at the time were still stuck in a static-defense mindset. Not even the Germans themselves had entirely freed themselves of it, as the construction of the Siegfried-line indicates.

[Barnabas]

Finns are not nordic, they are more related to reindeer hunting khanty tribes from the urals than to europeans.

[Colon™]

map of the Nordic region

Denmark Siden åbnes i et nyt vindue | Finland Siden åbnes i et nyt vindue | Iceland Siden åbnes i et nyt vindue | Norway Siden åbnes i et nyt vindue | Sweden Siden åbnes i et nyt vindue | Faroe Islands Siden åbnes i et nyt vindue | Greenland Siden åbnes i et nyt vindue | Åland Siden åbnes i et nyt vindue | Svalbard Siden åbnes i et nyt vindue

http://www.norden.org/web/1-1-fakta/uk/1-1-1-oversigtskort.asp?lang=

[Ecthy]

Greenland is a part of the Americas.

[BlackCat]

Geographically yes, politcally no.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Colon™

For starters, it was quite normal at the time for elites to speak French throughout Europe.

Well yes, as the international language. Esp in Germany, Italy, etc. But surely not as the administrative language? I presume in say, a German state, it was the diplos and higher aristos who spoke French as well as German, and everyone else spoke German. Ditto for Italy, say. The idea that the entire upper class (including capitalists) was primarily francophone, is what seems odd.

Specific to the southern netherlands was Napoleon's policy of frenchifying the elites and the administration, and the already existing substantial presence of French-speakers in the area (don't forget that medieval Flanders was nominally part of France until 1526, for instance).

So it wast just the situation under Austria, but further changes after French control was established (before Nappy, IIUC, though perhaps he intensified Gallicization of the Flemish speaking areas)

And then, why wasnt there a tendency to look to France in 1830? I recall from a PBS version of Thackeray's Vanity Fair (which ive never read, im afraid) the English characters are in Brussels around the time of Waterloo, and are shocked that the population is all for Napoleon. Is that just hatred for the Hapsburgs, or is it francophilism? And if the latter, why was it not still there in 1830?

I don't really understand your 2nd question. Are you saying the population was against French-speakers in 1830 or...?

what Im saying is that, having rebelled against the Netherlands, they COULD have attempted to join France, rather than found a new state. I presume this indicates EITHER A. They werent all that francophile in 1814 B. They had become less francophile between 1814 and 1830 or C. They WERE serious about the Catholic thing, and were repelled by the relative anticlericalism of the new Orleanist regime in France.

Jozef II of the Habsburgs was hated because of his attempts to modernize and centralize administration and do away with the medieval privileges of the territories. I already mentioned regionalism was deeply rooted, and particularly in Brabant they fough tooth and nail against any intrusions on their autonomy (leading to a revolt in 1790).

But the more conservative Leopold had succeed Joseph II by the time the French Revolution occured, IIRC.

Napoleon was certainly popular at first, as he was seen as a liberator, though much less so later on, due to the forced quartering of soldier in citizens' homes, conscription and Napoleon's increasing authoritharianism. So I doubt that report is a correct one, though I guess it's possible he was still more popular than elsewhere.

Thackery could be wrong of course. Or perhaps what he reports is simply citizens reaction to the occupation by the allies - occupations never being quite as popular as youd expect from the level of hostility to the previous regime

[Colon™]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

So it wast just the situation under Austria, but further changes after French control was established (before Nappy, IIUC, though perhaps he intensified Gallicization of the Flemish speaking areas)

The populations weren't homogenous back then, there were quite a few of Dutch-speakers in the north of France as well for instance. There was certainly a move to an increasing frenchification of the elites, which already started during the Austrian period (though I'm not sure why, but I presume it ran in accordance with Europe-wide trends), and was reinforced by Napoleon.

what Im saying is that, having rebelled against the Netherlands, they COULD have attempted to join France, rather than found a new state. I presume this indicates EITHER A. They werent all that francophile in 1814 B. They had become less francophile between 1814 and 1830 or C. They WERE serious about the Catholic thing, and were repelled by the relative anticlericalism of the new Orleanist regime in France.

I don't see why they needed to join France in order take affairs into their "own" hands. And what do you mean by a tendency to look at France? If you assume this implied a broad drive to join France you're not correct.

But the more conservative Leopold had succeed Joseph II by the time the French Revolution occured, IIRC.

Joseph II died in 1790, one year after the French revolution, and only 4 years before the invasion of France.
Napoleon didn't just represent France, he also (initially) represented the ideals of revolutionary France. Ideals that resonated across Europe.

[Donegeal]

All things Belgian?

Ok.. my dad is doing some geneolgy (sp?) research that has lead him to some natrualization paperwork that lists "Blom, Belgium" as the place of origin.

Anybody have an idea about where this might be? Remember, the guy must have come over with an accent and the guy filling out the paper work might have just wrote down the thing that just sounded the most similar.

Any ideas?

[Gangerolf]

probably not very helpful but i think blom means flower

and i've seen it as a surname in dutchland, sweden and norway

[Maniac]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
what Im saying is that, having rebelled against the Netherlands, they COULD have attempted to join France, rather than found a new state. I presume this indicates EITHER A. They werent all that francophile in 1814 B. They had become less francophile between 1814 and 1830 or C. They WERE serious about the Catholic thing, and were repelled by the relative anticlericalism of the new Orleanist regime in France.

Read one of my previous posts.
Also the other great powers wouldn't have allowed Belgium to join France.

[MOBIUS]

Instead of just having a bunch of stripes and stuff, why not actually have something meaningful on the flag?



I think, apart from nationalist feels, the reason people like or dislike flags is personal preference - so something a bit less boring and unimaginative than just three horizontal or vertical stripes please...

[alva]

Wales with a nice flag is still Wales.

[MOBIUS]

Exactly, a fantastic place to live!

[alva]

pptrrrzzwssdtfs!!

[MOBIUS]

Flanders seems quite nice too - a bit flat and boring though, but the beer makes up for it...:beer: