Why do Italy, France and UK Have Exactly the Same Population Size?

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
??? I thougt that part of history should be known in Belgium.

Before the 80 Year's War (1579-1648) today's Netherlands and Belgium were part of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE), most of it ruled by Spanish Habsburgians (largest territory besides that was the bishopric Liège/Luik/Lüttich). The Dutch effectively fought the Spanish, and in the end, Netherlands became independent of Spain and the HRE. Belgium remained Spanish/Habsburgian and after the end of Habsburgian rule in Spain, it fell to the Austrians. Belgium finally left the circle of German territories with the napoleonic wars and after the Congress of Vienna, when it was attached to the Netherlands.

So, assuming the (later) separation of Germany and Austria, and the end of Habsburgian rule in Spain, and assuming that the 80 year's war did not happen, Netherlands and Belgium now would have been part of either Germany or Austria.

Firstly, read your own joke again. The implication of it would be that Spain "liberated" the low countries from the HRE, no? Secondly, the assumption the Low Countries were "German" because they were part of the HRE is patently absurd, as if Milan was "German" when it was part of the HRE. The territories of the Low Lands were a distinct group, as illustred by the establishment of the Seventeen Provinces. If anything the 80 years war and its outcome interrupted an evolution towards unification of the (entire) Low Countries. Thirdly, Flanders was not part of the HRE but a vassal to France until Charles V. And fourthly, no, HRE is indeed not given substantial attention in Belgian history classes, due to the simple fact, it's relevance has not been very substantial around here.

[Dauphin]

The low countries would have been German for over 60 years if it weren't for good 'ole Uncle Sam.

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


Firstly, read your own joke again. The implication of it would be that Spain "liberated" the low countries from the HRE, no?

Probably France, not Spain. I'd guess (but don't have sources) that remaining in the very heterogeneous HRE wouldn't have been a problem for the Seven Provinces. The main implication for a territory in the HRE was not to attack other territories in the HRE, and if the Empire was under attack by someone else, to send troops. Which was not taken very seriously. So it was not so bad.

The problem was Spain. At the end of the 30 year's war (from German view), I think it was mainly France that succeeded in separating the HRE in several pieces.

Secondly, the assumption the Low Countries were "German" because they were part of the HRE is patently absurd, as if Milan was "German" when it was part of the HRE. The territories of the Low Lands were a distinct group, as illustred by the establishment of the Seventeen Provinces. If anything the 80 years war and its outcome interrupted an evolution towards unification of the (entire) Low Countries.

The comparison with Northern Italy isn't that good. From the middle ages, Frankish people lived in what is now Germany west of the Rhine, and along the Main river, in Belgium, the Netherlands and Northern France (mixed with other populations). Some of them tried to learn Latin, and failing so created French. In this (more or - even more - less) homogeneous population some cultural centres evolved, one of them centered around Amsterdam. This created a sort of "local" identity, which in the course of centuries evolved into Dutch (and Belgian) nationality. Around 1500, I'm quite sure that someone from Amsterdam answered both the questions if he was Dutch or if he was German with "yes" (as a Bavarian does today). Around 1700, probably not. Similarly to an Austrian, where the change happened between 1866 and 1920.

A person from Milan probably never called himself a German.

Thirdly, Flanders was not part of the HRE but a vassal to France until Charles V. And fourthly, no, HRE is indeed not given substantial attention in Belgian history classes, due to the simple fact, it's relevance has not been very substantial around here.

These parts of Flanders were French, or part of the HRE. Around 1000 or 1100, the situation in the HRE and France (and England, IIRC) were quite alike in the sense that there was a king and several dukes who had to provide the king with troops and got military protection from the king (in theory). The king usually also was duke of one (or some) of the duchies (crown domains in France).

In France, the king started to conquer the duchies he was supposed to protect (the hundred year's war was a part of it - just think about how England got the territories in France!), in the HRE he (usually) did not. The situation you probably are referring to, is the Burgundian duchy, which was for partly in France and partly in the HRE. The Burgundian dukes intended to have a separate kingdom between the HRE and France - which meant really independent, but failed. Until 1648, there was no independent country between the HRE and France.

[Colonâ„¢]

You really are being taught at German schools that the Low Countries are some sort of wayward German provinces, aren't you? This isn't the first time I've been gathering this.

Originally posted by Adalbertus


Probably France, not Spain. I'd guess (but don't have sources) that remaining in the very heterogeneous HRE wouldn't have been a problem for the Seven Provinces. The main implication for a territory in the HRE was not to attack other territories in the HRE, and if the Empire was under attack by someone else, to send troops. Which was not taken very seriously. So it was not so bad.

The problem was Spain. At the end of the 30 year's war (from German view), I think it was mainly France that succeeded in separating the HRE in several pieces.

I was talking about Seventeen Provinces. The HRE indeed was very heterogenous, and it's exactly those non-German parts who never became part of Germany, which sort of makes sense if you think about it.

Now, here's your joke again: "Not quite true. If it were not for the Spanish, the Low Countries still would be part of Germany (of then 107 million)."

The Spanish a) did not cause the nothern Netherlands to leave the HRE, it's something they themselves did b) did not cause the southern Netherlands to leave the HRE, as it remained part of the HRE until it's dissolution, when it wasn't ressorting under a Spanish king anyway.

For that reason your joke completely lacked grounds, not even considering the Low Countries were not German. (I realise this is difficult for Germans to grasp, hence the bolding)

The comparison with Northern Italy isn't that good. From the middle ages, Frankish people lived in what is now Germany west of the Rhine, and along the Main river, in Belgium, the Netherlands and Northern France (mixed with other populations). Some of them tried to learn Latin, and failing so created French. In this (more or - even more - less) homogeneous population some cultural centres evolved, one of them centered around Amsterdam. This created a sort of "local" identity, which in the course of centuries evolved into Dutch (and Belgian) nationality. Around 1500, I'm quite sure that someone from Amsterdam answered both the questions if he was Dutch or if he was German with "yes" (as a Bavarian does today). Around 1700, probably not. Similarly to an Austrian, where the change happened between 1866 and 1920.

A person from Milan probably never called himself a German.

Oh no not again... There is a difference between Germanic and German. Most people living in the Low Countries were Germanic, and they spoke a Germanic language (Middle Dutch), but they were not Germans. The low countries shared features and institutions they did not share with the remainder of the HRE, which is exactly what made them distinct.

[:) Smiley]

the 60-80 million must be an upper bound beyond which a country becomes ungovernable...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dauphin
The low countries would have been German for over 60 years if it weren't for good 'ole Uncle Sam.

...and 90 if it wasn't for us.

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Smiley
the 60-80 million must be an upper bound beyond which a country becomes ungovernable...

As demonstrated by the USA, China, India, Russia, Japan ...

OK, Russia doesn't fit into the list.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


...and 90 if it wasn't for us.

Yep, the Commonwealth together is owed by them guys.

[realpolitic]

It's not a conspiracy.... Instead, it's just an attempt to standardize countries under the EU.

[axi]

Just as it standardises cucumbers?

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
The low countries shared features and institutions they did not share with the remainder of the HRE, which is exactly what made them distinct.

Please explain in terms of what people of around 1550 knew, what makes the German parts of the HRE German, and why the Low Countries were different.

The arguments I could see were the political situation (which makes the Low Countries under former Burgundian rule no more special than Wurttemberg, Saxonia, or Bavaria ), linguistics (if you count that, Northern Germany isn't German as well), or origin of the population (which is mostly Frankish and thus doesn't work, too).

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by axi
Just as it standardises cucumbers?

Yes, I see. It is imperative then that the parts of Germany which once belonged to the DDR should be seperated from Germany and united with Poland, making the new Germany and the new Poland nearly 60 million each. Portugal should be linked to Spain in a new Iberian republic. Likewise Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark should be merged into a confederation of the North. Furthermore the Czech republic, Slovakia, Hunagry, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and Rumania should be consolidated. For fun we could call them "the Dual Monarchy".

[VetLegion]

I bet someone in Brussels is having wet dreams along those lines. Standardized countries! Just think of the possibilities!

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Yes, I see. It is imperative then that the parts of Germany which once belonged to the DDR should be seperated from Germany and united with Poland, making the new Germany and the new Poland nearly 60 million each. Portugal should be linked to Spain in a new Iberian republic. Likewise Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark should be merged into a confederation of the North. Furthermore the Czech republic, Slovakia, Hunagry, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and Rumania should be consolidated. For fun we could call them "the Dual Monarchy".

The Iberian Peninsula has only been united twice, during the second half of visigothic rule, and from 1580 1640, both times it ended very bad.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by VetLegion


I bet someone in Brussels is having wet dreams along those lines. Standardized countries! Just think of the possibilities!

IIRC, they are what the EU refers to as regions.