Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Dutch Revolution
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Dutch Revolution
    Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 08:33
Only Mixcoatl briefly mentioned Luxembourg.
 
Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic of the provinces, stayed loyal to Spain throughout, and religion was a major factor. It formally declared its separation from the Netherlands in 1579 (joining what William called the 'disunited provinces', and it was the major permanent centre or bridgehead for Spanish troops operating in the Netherlands.
 
For Luxembourg, secure in her Catholicism, was free of the Inquisition. What sufferings she endured - and she endured many - were not those of murders and reprisals so that she herself was not in a condition of revolt against Spain.
(The quote is from James Newcomer's The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - the Evolution of Nationhood, 963 AD to 1983)
 
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 10:23
The situation of Luxembourg is interesting.  This province was so important to Spain because it was the terminus of the "Spanish Road" from Lombardy. 
 
It was surrounded by Catholic Ecclesiastical territories (Liege, the A.B. of Treves) and the D. of Lorraine, a staunch ally of the Habsburgs.  There was no outlet to the sea which was so important for the Dutch.          
 
There were certainly also strong Protestant enclaves close by - The Palatinate; Hesse-Kassel, and the Huguenots of France, and that is to say nothing of the Nassau territories in Germany.  However, this province seems not to have wavered.  Maybe it was in Alva's interests to let Luxembourg alone rather than impose harsh methods. (?)
 
The passing through of Spanish and Italian troops may also have meant business for the burghers and farmers of the province.  They did most of their military work elsewhere.
 
Any thoughts?
 
 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 17-Jan-2007 at 10:29
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jan-2007 at 05:53
I guess the fact that Alva let the Luxembourgers off of any kind of oppression partly because he needed the territory so much as a safe main base and partly because they weren't disposed to cause trouble anyway.
 
And, yes, they were quite happy to make money out of the troops passing through or settling there. It's a sound Luxembourg tradition.
 
(What damage Luxembourg did suffer from the wars was at the hand of invading Dutch troops.)
 
You have to build into the equation also the fact that Luxembourg is northern Europe's strongest fortress (the reason it is called the 'Gibraltar of the North') and valuable to Spain from that point of view.
 
Why Luxembourgers stayed so strongly Catholic (they still are) is an unanswerable question, but it's worth remembering that their roots are much more German than those of the rest of the Netherlands.
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003 		  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 08:10
Hmm, Luxembourg remained a part of the illfated post 1815'Unitied kingdom of the Netherlands' than did Belgium. Any reasons for this, after all, the Belgian revolution was spakred off by percieved anti-catholic bigotry, which would have affected Luxembourg as well no?
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 07:11

It's complicated.

a) It needs to be remembered throughout that Luxembourg City at least was garrisoned by Prussia as a forward military base throughout 1830-39.
 
b) as of 1815 Luxembourg was a personal fief of the King of the Netherlands, a somewhat crucial difference from being part of the Netherlands.
 
c) by this time, religion wasn't the dominant motivating factor it had been in the 16th century. Ethnic and linguistic divisions were important, and ethnically and linguistically Luxembourg is neither Belgian nor Dutch but essentially German with a French veneer among the cultured classes.
 
Luxembourgers did on the whole support the revolt of 1830, since they suffered from much the same repressions. However, they also didn't particularly want to be part of Belgium, and, although, de facto, Belgium occupied the province (outside the Prussian enclave) until 1839, the pressure for independence was still there.
 
For the whole decade the official legal position remains obscure, mainly because the Great Powers kept changing their minds. But that independence from Belgium came in 1839, perhaps oddly, through the re-emphasised allegiance to William, not as king of the Netherlands, but as Grand Duke of Luxembourg. In return William granted a charter establishing many fundamental rights for the Luxembourg people, much of which stays in force today.
 
(As part of the deal, Belgium retained over half of the then province of Luxembourg, in what is called the '3rd partition' of Luxembourg, leaving only the present 999 square miles as an independent country.)
 
The King of the Netherlands and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg continued to be the same person until 1880 when Queen Wilhelmina succeeded in the Netherlands, but was barred by the Salic Law from the Luxembourg throne.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2007 at 15:44
Do you think, that if the Peace of Westphalia never occured and that the Thirty years war simply fissled out instead, that the Dutch would ever have formally broken free of the Spanish?
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120 		  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2007 at 20:56
They did break before under Philip II
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2007 at 06:29
Yes that was only de facto independance though I believe, I'm talking about official independance as declared at Westphalia.
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2007 at 06:35
Yes, I do think we would have gotten independance anyhow. At the end of the thirty years war, we were in a position to make demands. We would have been even without the Peace of Westphalia. Before the thirty years war broke out, the United Dutch Provinces had already been in conflict on and off with the Spanish for fifty years. In our history, the Thirty years war were just the ending of a much longer period (it was calles the 80 years war, but nowadays the term 'the uprising/rebellion' is preferred).
 
After having tasted freedom for 80 years, it would have been a hard pressed job for the exhausted armies of any nation to get the Provinces back in line...
 


Edited by Aelfgifu - 15-May-2007 at 06:36

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2007 at 06:49
Ah, well since I see your Dutch maybe you can answer this question for me; How could those bastards sign the union of Arras! Amazing, especially given the times and all. This is why I believe the Revolt was a religiously inspired movement, with the Catholic and Protestant forces working against each other despite both being of the same ethnicity.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2007 at 08:03
The Union of Arras was only signed by the Roman Catholic provinces. The Protestant provinces signed the Union of Utrecht in the same year (1579).
(Some provinces, including Luxembourg, didn't sign either.)
 
I say 'Protestant' and 'Roman catholic' but that isn't totally accurate; it would be almost as accurate to say 'Flemish' and 'Walloon'. As a test, just try and classify the position of the province of Limburg.
 
Originally posted by Parnell

Yes that was only de facto independance though I believe, I'm talking about official independance as declared at Westphalia.
 
The Abjuration of Philip of 1581 was just as much a formal declaration of independence as the American equivalent in 1776. It reads the same in very many ways.
 
Of course in both cases independence had to be established de facto on the ground, but formal independence dates from the respective declarations. (Sometimes formal independence of the United Provinces is dated from 1579 and the Union of Utrecht, but from the letter of the document independence is only formally asserted in the Abjuration.)
 
 
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387 		  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2007 at 08:39

Glad gcle answered that, I would not have known... My knowledge on that period is really a bit hazy...

But religion was a big factor without any doubt. At first not so much Catholic against protestant, but relative tolreance of religion vs. enforced Catholisism by the state. Later, Calvinism became more and more dominant, and, as a result, other religions less and less accepted (including other forms of protestantism such as Lutherian).

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409 		  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2007 at 11:09
I wasn't actually referring to the union of Uterecht but the Catholic powers who signed the Union of Arras. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2007 at 11:16
Actually, it is not religion but a relative freedom FROM religion what contributed the most.
However, I am certain that the main factor had nothing to do with religious ideas or mentalities at all. It was the free market economy and the liberalization of production the main factor that push the Dutch ahead.
They started to export salad fish and ended being a industrial powerhouse and a rich banking center. That's the way to do it.
 
Pinguin
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-May-2007 at 09:48
Originally posted by Parnell

I wasn't actually referring to the union of Uterecht but the Catholic powers who signed the Union of Arras. 
 
They were hardly 'powers' Smile.
 
It is true that all the signatories to the Union of Arras were Roman Catholic: however some of the signatories to the Union of Utrecht were also Roman Catholic, and are now parts of Belgium, not the Netherlands. (Much of the territory represented by Arras is now in France).
And some Roman Catholic provinces (Namur, Luxembourg) signed neither.
 
NB Arras is Atrecht in Dutch/Flemish, which can, I imagine, cause some confusion.
 
You do get a much cleaner cut if you assume Utrecht gathered together the Dutch7Flemish-speaking areas, while Arras gathered together the French-speaking ones except for Namur (Luxembourg is, effectively, German-speaking).
 
Pinguin's view has some support in that it was the richer areas that signed at Utrecht (especially the cities like Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent and Bruges that signed for themselves).
 
The map looks like


Edited by gcle2003 - 16-May-2007 at 09:54
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221 		  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2007 at 16:25
Originally posted by pinguin

Actually, it is not religion but a relative freedom FROM religion what contributed the most.
However, I am certain that the main factor had nothing to do with religious ideas or mentalities at all. It was the free market economy and the liberalization of production the main factor that push the Dutch ahead.
They started to export salad fish and ended being a industrial powerhouse and a rich banking center. That's the way to do it.
 
Pinguin
 
I don't think I can agree with this.  The Protestant Reformation had many material consequences, but its fundamental ethos was religious, a sort of mass hysteria of the 16th century.
 
The burghers of Haarlem and Leiden were not thinking of getting rich in the 1570s when they were besieged by the Army of Flanders, and the United Netherlands was in danger of collapsing until 1589.  Only from the mid 1590s to the early 17th century (up to the truce in 1609) did the Dutch begin to experience the first financial benefits of trade.  The country did not become especially wealthy until the 1630s and 40s. 
 
They didn't plan on fighting for 80 years, and before the mid 17th century, Dutch financial and industrial activities were for supporting the war.  These things happened because of the way things developed.  Trade was what made the Dutch wealthy.   
 
Religious considerations were paramount in the "Revolt," and remained very critical in the years of the Truce when the country almost had a civil war over the religious differences in the Reformed Church.
 
  


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 18-May-2007 at 16:59
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-May-2007 at 00:26
Originally posted by gcle2003

Pinguin's view has some support in that it was the richer areas that signed at Utrecht (especially the cities like Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent and Bruges that signed for themselves).
 


Nonetheless Artesia/Artois joined the Union of Arras, although it was one of the wealthist provinces, while poorer provinces like Frisia and Overijssel joined Utrecht.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-May-2007 at 06:56

No quarrel with that. I was thinking of the cities rather than the provinces.

With regard to Pikeshott's post, we have to be a little careful using 'Dutch' here, since the division had little to do with the modern division between Belgium and the Netherlands.

Dutch/Flemish is better, or possibly Dutch-speaking if Fflemings don't object.

 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.082 seconds.