Dutch Münster and East-Frisia

I recently read on a (possibly unreliable) internet page that Charles V tried to add Münster and East-Frisia to his possessions on the low countries, like he had done with Gueldres, Utrecht/Overijssel/Drenthe, Friesland and Groningen. But while he succeeded with Gueldres, Utrecht, etc, he failed with East-Frisia and Münster. Like I said, I don't know how reliable the source was, but I can remember having read it before (where it mentioned another part he tried to incorporate, probably Cleves or Liege, but lets ignore that for now). Even if it isn't true that isn't realy relevant, he could be interested anyway. What if Charles V would have been able to add both Münster as East-Frisia to his Netherlands. Could this have some interesting consequences? I personaly thought assumed that neither province would become more influential than the rich western provinces (Flanders, Brabant, Zeeland and Holland), both would protestantized (hmm, is that actually a word?) like the other parts of the Netherlands (although they could turn into Lutherans instead of Calvinists, I am not certain why the Netherlands turned Calvinist, when a large part of Germany became Lutheran). So I figured they probably support the revolt against Spain. Using possibly flawed logic I assume that more Netherlands means that the Spanish troops would be more spread out and that there are more Dutch people the Spanish have to fight, so that the Netherlands might end up with a larger part of the southern Netherlands (lets say a border near Ostend, Ghent and Mechelen) and of course Münster and East-Frisia, leading to a stronger Netherlands. (Of course due to butterflies the Netherlands could lose the war or conquer all of the Southern Netherlands end up the largest power in Germany and unite it in the 18th century). Does have anyone have some other interesting views about this concept, things I didn't think of or could something interesting happen in Germany I didn't realise?
 
So Charles Vth plan to expand the Habsburg domain (which wasn't impossible, considering he was HRE) backfires dramatically? I like it.

You've already thought about it alot, it seems, and I haven't, so I'm not really in a position to comment. I do have to say that I'd doubt the new eastern provinces could become a permanent and loyal addition to the Netherlands. Okay, William of Orange hardly had any problems with not being a genuine Dutchmen, but the Münsterites might.

Also, is it just me, or were the Dutch very lucky that the Habsburg dominions were split in two after the death of Charles V? If it all remained in one realm, also incluing the Holy Roman Empire, the Dutch would probably have a much harder time revolting. (sorry, it's a bit off-topic)
 

Susano

Banned
Well, there was the socalled Saxon Feud over Frisia - all of Frisia of that day, that is what is nowadays the Provinces of Frisia and Groningen, East Frisia and territories east to it. A Duke of Saxony had been named hereditary stadholder over the Habsburg Frisian territories, who appealed to the Count of East Frisia for help. After he did intervene, his county and other Frisian holdings like the free Frisians of Bütjadingen, where attacked by no less than 24 German princes and counts. In the end, East Frisisa in the borders we know remained free, but all other Frisian territories were subjugated, which was the end of the period of the Frisian Freedom.

That war could also have gone differently, allowing Charles V. to conquer East Frisia... or alternatively, could have gone better for the allied Frisians - which would have been cool. The Frisian Freedom and the Frisian defense of it ("Lewer dod as sklav!") were just :cool: . About that they should make a Braveheart-like movie! Ehem. But yes, East Frisia couldve fallen to the Lower Countries. With Wettins as hereditary stadholders nontheless!
 
So Charles Vth plan to expand the Habsburg domain (which wasn't impossible, considering he was HRE) backfires dramatically? I like it.
Hardly dramaticly, my idea is that just like OTL the Netherlands revolts against its Spanish masters (I see no reason why that would butterfly away). The thing is now there is just more of the Netherlands to revolt.
You've already thought about it alot, it seems, and I haven't, so I'm not really in a position to comment.
Nope, I didn't think hard about it. I just got an idea and posted. The things I posted was everything I thought about.
I do have to say that I'd doubt the new eastern provinces could become a permanent and loyal addition to the Netherlands. Okay, William of Orange hardly had any problems with not being a genuine Dutchmen, but the Münsterites might.
I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be loyal. If they were part of the Netherlands from the start, they would have become as Dutch as the rest of the Netherlands. There was very little difference between the Dutch parts of the HRE in the 16th century and the parts of Germany bordering them. If for some reason those territories were attached to the Netherlands (like I am proposing) they would have turned as Dutch as the rest. The opposite is also true, if for some reason Drenthe or Groningen hadn't become part of the Netherlands, it would have been as German as the rest of Germany (assuming Germany is created and the Netherlands remains independent)
Also, is it just me, or were the Dutch very lucky that the Habsburg dominions were split in two after the death of Charles V? If it all remained in one realm, also incluing the Holy Roman Empire, the Dutch would probably have a much harder time revolting. (sorry, it's a bit off-topic)
That would mean that Spain and Austria would also remain unified. I think that it is likely that the balance of power still shifts to Spain, because that is the richest part of the realm. That could mean that Austria also isn't happy with the way it is ruled and turns to protestantism, like the Netherlands did, and start to revolt against Spain. This could lead to a very interesting reformation in Germany, but is completly off topic.

Well, there was the socalled Saxon Feud over Frisia - all of Frisia of that day, that is what is nowadays the Provinces of Frisia and Groningen, East Frisia and territories east to it. A Duke of Saxony had been named hereditary stadholder over the Habsburg Frisian territories, who appealed to the Count of East Frisia for help. After he did intervene, his county and other Frisian holdings like the free Frisians of Bütjadingen, where attacked by no less than 24 German princes and counts. In the end, East Frisisa in the borders we know remained free, but all other Frisian territories were subjugated, which was the end of the period of the Frisian Freedom.

That war could also have gone differently, allowing Charles V. to conquer East Frisia... or alternatively, could have gone better for the allied Frisians - which would have been cool. The Frisian Freedom and the Frisian defense of it ("Lewer dod as sklav!") were just :cool: . About that they should make a Braveheart-like movie! Ehem. But yes, East Frisia couldve fallen to the Lower Countries. With Wettins as hereditary stadholders nontheless!


Longer lasting Frisian freedom would be interesting, but with all the power hungry nobles around it, would it be able to last? Afraid not, even though it would be cool (Lange Pier FTW).
Wettins as stadholders I can see (certainly of some of the northern provinces), but hereditary stadholders? I believe that it wasn't a hereditary title until the 18th century. Unless you mean that the Netherlands revolt with a Wettin as leader instead as Willem of Orange-Nassau and with a striking parallel with original timeline they are also apointed to hereditary stadholders around the 18th century.
 

Susano

Banned
Wettins as stadholders I can see (certainly of some of the northern provinces), but hereditary stadholders? I believe that it wasn't a hereditary title until the 18th century. Unless you mean that the Netherlands revolt with a Wettin as leader instead as Willem of Orange-Nassau and with a striking parallel with original timeline they are also apointed to hereditary stadholders around the 18th century.
Well, that would be stadholder in the old sense of the word - that, is, as stadholder for the real ruler who sits somewhereelse. And Apparently Albert of Saxony (who had been named regular stadholder of all Netherlands in 1488) was named hereditary stadholder of the Frisian territories (Prov. Frisia and Groningen), under the condition he could pacify the territories. He couldnt, and in 1515 his brother George was named hereditary stadholder of those territories. IOTL, he, too, withdrew after the Saxon Feud. But if he wins hed be the hereditary stadholder of West Frisia, Groningen and East Frisia, with the Habsburg Emperor as the ruler.

Oh, and btw, East Frisia is calvinist, too, one of the few majority calvinist territories in Germany. For some reason Calvinism was popular among Germans nobility, both the Nassovian lines and Brandenburgs Hohenzollern were Calvinist, but there was a calvinist majority in only ver few territories. East Frisia is one of it, and even nowadays it has the only purely reformed territorial member church of the Evangelical (meaning Protestant in German) Church in Germany.
 
Well, that would be stadholder in the old sense of the word - that, is, as stadholder for the real ruler who sits somewhereelse. And Apparently Albert of Saxony (who had been named regular stadholder of all Netherlands in 1488) was named hereditary stadholder of the Frisian territories (Prov. Frisia and Groningen), under the condition he could pacify the territories. He couldnt, and in 1515 his brother George was named hereditary stadholder of those territories. IOTL, he, too, withdrew after the Saxon Feud. But if he wins hed be the hereditary stadholder of West Frisia, Groningen and East Frisia, with the Habsburg Emperor as the ruler.
hmm, that would complicate the Dutch revolt. I wonder if the Wettins would choose the side of the Spanish Catholics or of the Dutch protestants. If they chose the side of the Dutch protestants it would become a very interesting situation. Actualy if they don't too, would they bring in Saxony on the side of the Spanish?

Oh, and btw, East Frisia is calvinist, too, one of the few majority calvinist territories in Germany. For some reason Calvinism was popular among Germans nobility, both the Nassovian lines and Brandenburgs Hohenzollern were Calvinist, but there was a calvinist majority in only ver few territories. East Frisia is one of it, and even nowadays it has the only purely reformed territorial member church of the Evangelical (meaning Protestant in German) Church in Germany.
Do you have any idea why most of (protestant) Germany was Lutheran and most of the Netherlands Calvinistic? Maybe it has something to do with Habsburg ruke? Actualy it wouldn't even surprise me that East-Frisia became Calvinistic because of the Dutch influence. About the Calvinistic Nassau, I always learned that William of Orange was at first raised as a Lutheran, but when he became (heir of the) prince of Orange he was from that point raised as a catholic (while his family remained Lutheran). Eventhough he was officialy catholic he had a lot of sympathies for the protestant cause and when the Dutch revolt started (and he became the leader of that revolt) he became protestant again. He only chose Calvinism because most of the Netherlands was Calvinistic. I presume that that is the only reason the house Nassau became Calvinistic.


BTW Do you know when people stopped speaking Frisian in East-Frisia and started speaking lower Saxon? It would be cool to have an independant Netherlands with 2 provinces speaking Frisian, but I am afraid the POD is already too late.
 
BTW Do you know when people stopped speaking Frisian in East-Frisia and started speaking lower Saxon? It would be cool to have an independant Netherlands with 2 provinces speaking Frisian, but I am afraid the POD is already too late.

According to Wikipedia, the decline of Frisian started in the 1500's, which is at the same time of the POD. A more Frisian-dominated Eastern Frisia could have stopped or prevented that decline.
 
Interesting topic,

Had my thoughts about it as well.
Not so much about Frisia. But more of Charles V incorporating the Munster lands, Cologne, and Kleve.
The first two territories he could he conquer, or take big parts of it due to a few quarles with the Bishop of Munster. According to the history books they were not excactly friends.
He could do the same with Liege but I thought the Bishop of Liege had a protector in the King of France.
Any how, a rebelion against the king of Spain is inevatable, 'cause the origin of the rebelion was more economical and social than religious. The burning of heretics was the spark who lit the fire.
Whith a Netherlands in which Frisia, Munster, Kleef and Gullik are a part, the rebelion could be more succsesful and whith a less dominating province and city in the form of Holland and Amsterdam.

The first , in an almost comunist form, protestant experiment took place in Munster.
Holland and Zeeland became Calvinist because Calvin allowed to raise interest on loans and Luther disliked this??
 

Susano

Banned
hmm, that would complicate the Dutch revolt. I wonder if the Wettins would choose the side of the Spanish Catholics or of the Dutch protestants. If they chose the side of the Dutch protestants it would become a very interesting situation. Actualy if they don't too, would they bring in Saxony on the side of the Spanish?
Hm, Ive in the meanwhile also read Charles V gave all of Frisia (West Frisisa, Groningen, East Frisisa and even Dithmarschen in what is nowadays Schleswig-Holstein) as a seperate feudal fief, in exchange for a loan, and not as a stadholership. Bit confusing, that... but of course, with the stadholdership being hereditary that would be nearly as good as holding it as feudal fief, so that doesnt matter greatly.

Oh, and George was Albrechts son, not brother. Oops, misread that (they were talking about another Wettin there, Heinrich who also was Albrechts son and hence Georges [younger] brother. Heinrich inherited Albert's hereditary position first, until he gave up). Anyways, Albrecht was the founder of the Albertine Saxon line, the line which ruled from Dresden and originally was the minor line, until the Schmalkaldic War. George was one of the most vehemmently anti-Reformation princes of the period, but IOTL, his two sons predeceased him without children of their own, and hence the Duchy passed to his brother, said Heinrich - who introduced the reformation in the Albertine lands.

Which, come to think of it, would be the perfect pretext for Charles V. to not let him inherit the hereditary stadholdership or fief or whatever the hell it was... so if we want a Wettin Frisia, George's son Johann needs to at least live long enough to produce a son of his own. And that would probably mean a Catholic Saxony and Frisisa allied to Charles V., yes. But keep in mind that the Electorate of Saxony at that time, the co-leader of the Schmalkaldic League was Ernestine Saxony, not Albertien Saxony - the Albertine Duke Maurice IOTL betrayed the Protestants to Charles V. anyways, so not that much changes - except the very :cool: prospect of a Saxony-Frisia personal union :D


Do you have any idea why most of (protestant) Germany was Lutheran and most of the Netherlands Calvinistic? Maybe it has something to do with Habsburg ruke? Actualy it wouldn't even surprise me that East-Frisia became Calvinistic because of the Dutch influence.
Well, Calvinism also was the main protestant movement in France and Hungary, too, and "only" in Germany and the Scandinavian countries Lutherism was predominant. The roough explanation for that is quite simple: Luther's texts were hardly ever translated from German, whereas Calvin wrote in French. Hence, you got a division roughly along lingual lines - after all, in the Scandinavia of that time, German was widely used, too. Of course, that means Lutherism could also have gotten hold in the Netherlands, but, eh... its a rough explanation as said :p (Switzerland is explained by Calvin's and Zwingli's geographcial position there)

About the Calvinistic Nassau, I always learned that William of Orange was at first raised as a Lutheran, but when he became (heir of the) prince of Orange he was from that point raised as a catholic (while his family remained Lutheran). Eventhough he was officialy catholic he had a lot of sympathies for the protestant cause and when the Dutch revolt started (and he became the leader of that revolt) he became protestant again. He only chose Calvinism because most of the Netherlands was Calvinistic. I presume that that is the only reason the house Nassau became Calvinistic.
That explains Nassau-Orange, but not the other Nassau lines ;) Some Nassau lines reoncverted to Catholicism, but the protestant ones all were Calvinist, while their land was Protestant. Hohenzollern, btw, had a similar reason: They took over calvinist Cleves in West Germany. At least, thats the explanation Iev heard. Still, it meant they ruled as Calvinists over an overhwlmingly Lutheran population. Whereas Maurice of Hesse-Kassel converted for purley religious reason, sparking the en dof Marburg as an all-hessian university :)mad:) and an inheriitance conflict with Hesse-Darmstadt over the Marburg lands that lasted over centuries. But, that, too, is an example of Calvinist rulers over an overwhelkmingly Lutheran population, so, yes, that happened often, apparently...


BTW Do you know when people stopped speaking Frisian in East-Frisia and started speaking lower Saxon? It would be cool to have an independant Netherlands with 2 provinces speaking Frisian, but I am afraid the POD is already too late.
I have the same vague feeling, but I have no exact idea, either. The Freesian Freedom ended in this period - to be exact eactly then when Albrecht was granted those lands. Wiki says the 15th century is also where the declien of teh Frisian language began, but I have no idea wether this coincedes with the political decline. Maybe, if the Frisian lands were united udner a halfways strong ruler... sure, the Frisisan Freedom wouldvbe ended, but maybe the Frisian language couldve survived even outside of the Prov. of Frisisa...
 
Hm, Ive in the meanwhile also read Charles V gave all of Frisia (West Frisisa, Groningen, East Frisisa and even Dithmarschen in what is nowadays Schleswig-Holstein) as a seperate feudal fief, in exchange for a loan, and not as a stadholership. Bit confusing, that... but of course, with the stadholdership being hereditary that would be nearly as good as holding it as feudal fief, so that doesnt matter greatly.

Oh, and George was Albrechts son, not brother. Oops, misread that (they were talking about another Wettin there, Heinrich who also was Albrechts son and hence Georges [younger] brother. Heinrich inherited Albert's hereditary position first, until he gave up). Anyways, Albrecht was the founder of the Albertine Saxon line, the line which ruled from Dresden and originally was the minor line, until the Schmalkaldic War. George was one of the most vehemmently anti-Reformation princes of the period, but IOTL, his two sons predeceased him without children of their own, and hence the Duchy passed to his brother, said Heinrich - who introduced the reformation in the Albertine lands.

Which, come to think of it, would be the perfect pretext for Charles V. to not let him inherit the hereditary stadholdership or fief or whatever the hell it was... so if we want a Wettin Frisia, George's son Johann needs to at least live long enough to produce a son of his own. And that would probably mean a Catholic Saxony and Frisisa allied to Charles V., yes. But keep in mind that the Electorate of Saxony at that time, the co-leader of the Schmalkaldic League was Ernestine Saxony, not Albertien Saxony - the Albertine Duke Maurice IOTL betrayed the Protestants to Charles V. anyways, so not that much changes - except the very :cool: prospect of a Saxony-Frisia personal union :D
Interesting. Still, eventhough a Saxony-Frisian personal union would be interesting. I think that some local more easily controlable noble would be more likely. If not, I think that supporting Charles V against the protestants and supporting Philip II against the protestants is a lot different. As Parma said, the revolt against Spain wasn't solely a religious struggle. many Catholics supported the revolt (at least in the beginning), like Egmond and Hoorne, two catholic stadholders who were executed by the Spanish. I can see a Catholic Wettin support the revolt against Spain (and by that supporting the protestants). Actually, I believe that was one of the major strengths of William of Orange, he was able to keep the Calvinists, Lutherans and Catholics in the Netherlands together in the struggle against the Spanish opressors. Something his son sadly wasn't as good in.

Btw I still think it is strange to see you use the term west Frisia, for the Dutch province of Friesland. For me West Frisia lies in (the province of) Holland and Friesland would be more or less centre-Frisia. But I believe we already had that discussion.

I have the same vague feeling, but I have no exact idea, either. The Freesian Freedom ended in this period - to be exact eactly then when Albrecht was granted those lands. Wiki says the 15th century is also where the declien of teh Frisian language began, but I have no idea wether this coincedes with the political decline. Maybe, if the Frisian lands were united udner a halfways strong ruler... sure, the Frisisan Freedom wouldvbe ended, but maybe the Frisian language couldve survived even outside of the Prov. of Frisisa...
If it was the 15th century, it could be possible. At least if East-Frisia becomes Dutch and the Netherlands remains as loose a confederation like it was in OTL, with each province being relatively independent. This certainly doesn't have to be case, with various butterflies this could change, certainly if more of Flanders and Brabant becomes part of the Netherlands (while either remaining protestant or with more rights for catholic provinces).
 
Had my thoughts about it as well.
Not so much about Frisia. But more of Charles V incorporating the Munster lands, Cologne, and Kleve.
The first two territories he could he conquer, or take big parts of it due to a few quarles with the Bishop of Munster. According to the history books they were not excactly friends.
He could do the same with Liege but I thought the Bishop of Liege had a protector in the King of France.
Yeah, there were enough small principalities for Charles to gobble up near the Netherlands. If he had more time, he probably would have.
Whith a Netherlands in which Frisia, Munster, Kleef and Gullik are a part, the rebelion could be more succsesful and whith a less dominating province and city in the form of Holland and Amsterdam.

I don't think East-Frisia, Münster, Cleve, Julich, Liege would reduce the domination of Holland. The wealth and the strength of the Netherlands was in trade and Holland had the best position of all the provinces. Only if we get Flanders and Brabant (specifically Antwerp) in the Netherlands that dominating position of Holland can change. But only of course if these provinces would be equal to Holland, So no Catholic state-Flanders or brabant.
 
Top