All things Belgian

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Pekka
Go ahead. waste your night trying to spin the known fact that you guys are known child sex doers.

Doesn't mean we don't have it. Just means, you're the best and the leading cutting edge phenomenon.

I'm going to sleep however, please google more finnish males +sex with children. I think that almost proves my point.

Yes, we have Dutroux and err.... who else actually?

PS at Alva: You don't tip in restaurants / taxis, do you?
Tipping is an outrageous system anyway. Get them a decent paycheck instead cos I don't want to be bothered to calculate how much extra I have to give the noobs

[Colon™]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Fort Eben-Emael, reputed to be the strongest military stronghold in the world, was taken in 36 hours by 85 germans - even for germans, that's pretty quick.

85 Germans? Where the hell did you get that from?!

An entire division of German paratroopers landed on that fortress. Even not considering the fact the defenders were grossly outnumbered, you don't need to be a military buff to realise that fortresses had lost its military utility at the time...

[Hot Mustard]

(Stella is crap.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do not forget the "Belgium" is the worst curse word in the entirety of the universe. For that reason alone, we should do bad things to that country.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Colon™


85 Germans? Where the hell did you get that from?!

An entire division of German paratroopers landed on that fortress. Even not considering the fact the defenders were grossly outnumbered, you don't need to be a military buff to realise that fortresses had lost its military utility at the time...

I think that you might check where you have your history knowledge from - I have a suspicion that it's belgian

Just out of curiosity, how do you stuff a division into 9 gliders ? (it was a glider attack, not a paratroop attack, though the soldiers was paratroopers).

Sources :

http://www.fort-eben-emael.be/English/Frame4_English/frame4_engels.htm

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/capture_of_fort_eben.htm

If that place actually had lost it's military utility, then how come that the germans spend several months to prepare the attack ? Tat fort actually controlled several crucial bridges, so no wonder the germanswas eager to take it.

Besides, if it was outdated, then it was pretty bad planning from belgian side since it was built some 5-8 years before.

[Winston]

In all fairness, I have to say that holding some fortress for 36 hours before surrendering is still a ways better than holding any part of Denmark for 5.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Winston
In all fairness, I have to say that holding some fortress for 36 hours before surrendering is still a ways better than holding any part of Denmark for 5.

It all depend of the tools you have, and since Radikale Venstre had destroyed any capacity it is no wonder (btw, that party is trying to do the same today )

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This thread rocks

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
This thread rocks

Yup, There has been several mentions of great beers

[Winston]

True. Apart from a few, brief perods of borderline sanity in the now distant past, that party has been a continuous disaster for a hundred years. But as long as enough loonies strive to see themselves as "Centrist" (ha!), they will remain influential.



Somebody ought to start a branch of it in Belgium.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Jacques Brel

He made a record in English, which my parents had when i was a kid. I think it was review or something.
"Jacques Brel is alive and well and living in Paris"


"It was a time when Brussels could sing, it was the time of the silent movies.
It was the time when Brussels was king, it was the time of Brussels, Brussels ....."

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Colon™

LOTM: the role of the Catholics vs Protestants dichotomy is probably overstated. Though religious freedom played a role (in the issue of schools), the northern Netherlands had (and still has) a very sizeable Catholic minority and the south had and still has its share of protestants as well. A more important factor probably was the fact that the elite in the southern netherlands was francophone (in both parts of the country) and they were secluded from the administration.

Well now how did that happen? A Burgundian legacy to the Spanish administration, or was it later than that? Or did each component, including Brabant and even Flanders, have a francophone elite prior to Burgundian era?

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?

It's not correct to speak of the Flemings and the Walloons the way you're doing in the context of pre-Belgian history. Historical (medieval) Flanders was situated in what would now be the western half of modern-day Flanders, plus territories in modern-day Netherlands and modern day France (Dunkirque and Lille were both Flemish cities for instance). East of Flanders you had Brabant (which consisted of the cities of Antwerp and Brussels and extended well into modern-day Netherlands, up to the Rhine) , Liege (a large bit of which was situated in modern day Flander), Haunait (dito), Limburg and Luxembourg as the main territories. No such thing as a medieval Wallonia existed. A Flamingant will furiously deny it but what it means to "Flemish" today has little historical grounds beyond Belgian history post-1830.
Also, it wasn't until the Austrian era (during the 18th century) when the southern Netherlands got a unified administration of any significance. Before that it was just a bunch of separate territories who's only bond was that of the monarch. Regionalism was deeply rooted and territories guarded their privileges stridently.

My limited reading of Spanish history gives the impression of a central administration - perhaps thats exageratted - just a central leadership for war and politics, but no central administration.

But I haven't answered your question yet: is there a Belgian identity? I don't know to be honest. Is there an Italian identity? Is there a Spanish one?
I think there are a lot of similarities between Italy and Belgium as a matter of fact. Both were extremely rich regions during the medieval ago, but also very scattered ones. Both had and still have deeply rooted regionalism. Both didn't came into being as nation-states until late in history. Like there didn't seem be much of a notion of "being Belgian" prior to Belgium's foundation, there also didn't seem to be much of a notion of "being Italian" prior to Italy's foundation. Italy even seems to have an equivalent of "Flanders" (in the modern sense) in "Padania", which has equally little historical precedence. The main difference between Belgium and Italy of course is that it doesn't have that lingual dichotomy that exists in Belgium...

One history, I believe Charles Tilly, spoke of a european "city belt" from Holland and Flanders down the Rhine to Switzerland and then to Italy, where the cities were to strong for the formation of conventional monarchies like France, Spain, Prussia, Sweden, Austria, etc. Instead the cities remain independent, or form confederations like Holland and Swiss. (forget if he mentioned Belgium, rule from abroad)

[Maniac]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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?

It was still there to a certain degree.
For example, the clothing industry in Gent, Flanders, had arisen under French rule. Napoleon's armies needed a lot of uniforms after all... So in 1830 part of the economic elite in Flanders was in favour of joining France as there they had their consumer market. They were called the Réunionistes.

On the other side king Willem had supported industrialization of Wallonia. He had a vision where Wallonia would focus on heavy industry and the Northern Netherlands would focus on trade of those goods with the colonies etc. With the independence Wallonia lost that market. As a consequence part of the Wallonian francophone economic elite wanted to rejoin the Netherlands and called themselves Orangistes.

It wasn't all that simple back then.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Well now how did that happen? A Burgundian legacy to the Spanish administration, or was it later than that? Or did each component, including Brabant and even Flanders, have a francophone elite prior to Burgundian era?

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

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...?

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).
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.

My limited reading of Spanish history gives the impression of a central administration - perhaps thats exageratted - just a central leadership for war and politics, but no central administration.

There were a couple of central institutions, such as the Council of Malines, founded during the Burgundian period and acting as some sort of a supreme court that somewhat unified law across the Netherlands (compare it to the present day's EU Court of Justice). Yet, the territories were ultimately bound by personal union, the head was Count of Flanders, Duke of Brabant etc separatly, not "King of the Netherlands", and he had to respect the individual privileges of the territories he ruled over. Central rule was indeed mostly limited to affairs of war and foreign affairs.

One history, I believe Charles Tilly, spoke of a european "city belt" from Holland and Flanders down the Rhine to Switzerland and then to Italy, where the cities were to strong for the formation of conventional monarchies like France, Spain, Prussia, Sweden, Austria, etc. Instead the cities remain independent, or form confederations like Holland and Swiss. (forget if he mentioned Belgium, rule from abroad)

It's funny that this belt still exist. Europe's most densely populated and most industrialised areas stretch over it.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by BlackCat

...