Largest Possible Low Country?

What about German unification orchestrated by the Netherlands, with a relatively early point of divergence allowing for the Dutch to see themselves as no more or less German than the Austrians, Prussians or anyone else?
 
What about German unification orchestrated by the Netherlands, with a relatively early point of divergence allowing for the Dutch to see themselves as no more or less German than the Austrians, Prussians or anyone else?

The problem you have is that the last time its independent is 1477. It's then Habsburg from 1482–1794 and goes through being apart of the Austrian and Spanish empires. If it were to remain apart of the Austrian Habsburgs that would be ok, but it would not flourish independently. What made it worse and this scenario impossible was it's transfer to the Spanish Empire and the revolt by the Dutch spilt the Low Countries in half despite them wanting it. They did not have the military force behind them to take it from Spain even if they were to occupy the southern Netherlands, it did not have the ability to attack Spain directly or any of its colonies. The entire Low Countries was briefly united through the Congress of Vienna in 1815, they called it 'the United Kingdom of the Netherlands' and it fell apart because the Dutch evolved into a culture and by 1815 Wallonians and Flemish communities evolved into there own culture, and they could not live together. In respect to all this, they are not Germanised and when I mean Germanised, I mean Czech Germanised. The Germans were willing to include it within Greater Germany because it had been ruled by Germans between 1348–1918. One could envisage a migration of the German population to the Low Countries like Ostsiedlung, all of Wallonia would be German, a good chunk was taken from Luxembourg. In 1900 the Dutch population was 5.5 million and the Flemish region was 1.7 million so it is within reason most of it these areas could be German.

Scary I know.:pensive:
 
This is absolutely ridiculous, but you know, its fun.

This scenario assumes that Charles does not die and marries his daughter to a German duchy, not Austria, or that he has a son and the dynasty eventually become German. It also assumes that Burgundy shakes loose of non-low country lands which put it into different institutions.

This is what I envisage. If Burgundy dominates the Low countries and migrates east gaining land through succession wars, inheritance and picking the correct side on wars. Presuming by 1815 that the Holy Roman Empire or replica of it is still in place, such as the German Confederation, she would have a legitimate claim to what we call today the Prussian provinces of Rhine and Westphalia. What's ironic is that in 1815 and 1945 the Dutch actually wanted a slice of this territory without having owning any territory previously. (Apart from Nassau.) Therefore if you have a state with land in these areas for 50, 100, 150 years, the longer they have these lands in this area the more likely they are to expand and want more. In 1815 the coalition in the Congress of Vienna set up the German Confederation to prevent German unification, therefore if you have a Low Country state that was not excluded from the HRE and was ruled independently by a German dynasty for 300 years one would expect to include it.

The geopolitical crisis is mind-boggling, the contest to unite this country would be split three ways: Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia and the "Germanised Dutch Kingdom".

Just look at that coastline.......

View attachment 427323
Welp Deltaworks time to put you on steroids
 
If I may, I did have a map approximating a Lotharingia-based country though still containing some Burgundian ducal lands and not having all of the Left Bank. The map can be found here.

What would it take for France to lose a claim over a former French fief's lands? I know that Karl V was able to shake French claims on Artois and Flanders and add them to the HRE. If somehow Karl took the old duchy and thoroughly whooped France, would it be possible for him to remove French claims over it as well?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The topic of what actually is "low country" co-incidentally came up during the family dinner yesterday evening. The considerations that were raised have only moved me closer to my support for a coast-hugging country rather than one driving in-land. Lotharingia would, almost by definition, consist of more "up country" than "low country". Even OTL Belgium already extends too far in-land far all of it to be fully Low Country in a true sense (although the regions in question are near-universally considered Low Country due to cultural and historical reasons).

So how big could a country, encompassing the OTL Netherlands, really get and still be "low country"? I daresay Lotharingia is right out, and "The Netherlands form Germany" isn't up for consideration, either. Both those options would result in a country that certainly includes the Low Countries... but wouldn't identify as such. Their cultural heart and the centre of geographic gravity would both lie elsewhere. Their dominant language would probably not be Dutch or even something like it.

No, if we want to envision a very big Low Country that is actually, well, low country... then this is where we need to look:

Lowlands.png


The orange-bordered area is what I'd call indisputable low country. The only reason the larger part of it isn't culturally identified as such in OTL is pure co-incidence. Namely the fact that it became part of the German cultural unit very early on, and that this unit as a whole wasn't considered "low country". (See there the fate of a Germany united by the Netherlands, or of a surviving Lotharingia: it would not be seen as "the Low Country" in the cultural consciousness.) In an ATL where the OTL Netherlands and the stem Duchy of Saxony break off from the rest of Germany early on, and then unite, a country covering roughly the area within those orange borders becomes not only a possibility, but almost a certainty. And we can say with equal certainty that it would be seen as being the low country of Europe-- as opposed to the up country that is the rest of Germany.

As I have argued before, a country like that would have vast economic potential, while avoiding some of the pitfalls of the OTL Holy Roman Empire. (You wouldn't have to keep together so many regions with disparate economic and political interests, because the interests of all the low country regions happen to largely co-incide.) Because of that potential power to throw around, I can easily see a country like that annexing the red-bordered areas. In fact, I consider it extremely likely that this would happen. Most of the area covering and extending from Southern Belgium is already part of the Low Countries in OTL, and the proposed annexations there simply make sense. Annexing this area would hardly be a threat to cultural unity, and in fact, imposing the dominant language on this region would probably be easier than in OTL (because that dominant language would be a lot more dominant, compared to OTL). The area covering "Greater Denmark", meanwhile, would be a prime candidate for annexation because grabbing it would give the super-powered Low Country complete domination over all Baltic trade. That would be worth fighting a damn bloody war over. Or even a couple of wars. It must be admitted that annexing this area would probably have some linguistic and cultural influence on the Low Franconian / Low Saxon cultural-linguistic norm of the super-powered Low Country. Nevertheless, I think the resulting country would still be easily recognisable as "the low country", and would presumably be identified as such by the denizens of the ATL.

Then we get to wank territory, with the blue-bordered areas. My thinking here is that a country so powerful as the one described above would face inland rivals for certain (upper Germany and the kingdom of France, for starters). Expanding inland would automatically cause major wars. And for what? You don't need to conquer the up country if you already control the mouth of every major river! Almost all the up country's trade already goes via your ports! On the other hand, expanding North and East would be more interesting from an economic perspective. More direct control over greater Balticum, for starters. Instead of a Tsar building Saint Petersburg with some Dutch advisors, have the (ATL) *Dutch build their own damn city there. And expansion into Scandinavia is interesting if only because of logging: you need a lot of wood to build all those ships in your inevitable mega-fleet, after all. While not a certainty, I consider the expansion into these areas to be quite realistic. It's still all "low country", too. But at this point, the cultural influence of the people living there is going to be a major factor. Will the country still be even remotely recognisable as having that well-known Low Country culture to anyone from OTL? Well, I think the language would "suffer" (change) a lot, but we're still looking at a trade country, with a trade culture and an economics-based mentality. As a Dutchman, I think I'd feel quite at home.

Deeper into wank-land, we find the purple-bordered areas. If you can take the blue-bordered areas, it is no longer out of the question that you can expand from there. A big question is: would you want to have it? If the Americas are discovered by this point, then dedicating your energy to establishing lucrative colonies there would presumably take priority. On the other hand, conquering England would remove a dangerous rival and give you complete control over the North Sea. From a more 'meta' perspective, however, the purple areas -- even though they are still all "low country" themselves -- almost certainly mean that their hinterland falls into your hands as well. If you get England, chances are you get Great Britain completely. And if you conquer that deeply into Scandinavia, you will become overlord of all of Scandinavia pretty much by default. And at that point, you kind of stop being "the low country", because your country has so many mountains in it now... (ETA: it must, however, be admitted that turning the entire Baltic Sea - including the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia - into your very own Mare Nostrum is... pretty damn kick-ass.)


Anyway, I think that this illustrates the potential and the limitations of a truly maximised "Low Country". I hope this rant has been of some use to someone, and I wish you all a merry Christmas from the oh-so-small Netherlands of OTL.
 
Last edited:
The problem you have is that the last time its independent is 1477. It's then Habsburg from 1482–1794 and goes through being apart of the Austrian and Spanish empires. If it were to remain apart of the Austrian Habsburgs that would be ok, but it would not flourish independently. What made it worse and this scenario impossible was it's transfer to the Spanish Empire and the revolt by the Dutch spilt the Low Countries in half despite them wanting it. They did not have the military force behind them to take it from Spain even if they were to occupy the southern Netherlands, it did not have the ability to attack Spain directly or any of its colonies. The entire Low Countries was briefly united through the Congress of Vienna in 1815, they called it 'the United Kingdom of the Netherlands' and it fell apart because the Dutch evolved into a culture and by 1815 Wallonians and Flemish communities evolved into there own culture, and they could not live together. In respect to all this, they are not Germanised and when I mean Germanised, I mean Czech Germanised. The Germans were willing to include it within Greater Germany because it had been ruled by Germans between 1348–1918. One could envisage a migration of the German population to the Low Countries like Ostsiedlung, all of Wallonia would be German, a good chunk was taken from Luxembourg. In 1900 the Dutch population was 5.5 million and the Flemish region was 1.7 million so it is within reason most of it these areas could be German.

Scary I know.:pensive:
Well everything will depend from what branch of the Habsburg will inhereit Burgundy. If, unlike OTL, Burgundy will end soon in the hands of the Austrian/Imperial branch (either Maria inhereit it from her father or Ferdinand of Aragon is able to persuade the Cortes to recognize the younger Ferdinand as next King of Aragon and Castile or Juan/Isabella of Aragon/Miguel survive preventing the birth of a Spanish branch of the Habsburg) is very likely who the Burgundy will became the major seat of the HR Emperor instead of Vienna (OTL both Philip and Charles were born and raised in Burgundy and were first Burgundians)
 
Well everything will depend from what branch of the Habsburg will inhereit Burgundy. If, unlike OTL, Burgundy will end soon in the hands of the Austrian/Imperial branch (either Maria inhereit it from her father or Ferdinand of Aragon is able to persuade the Cortes to recognize the younger Ferdinand as next King of Aragon and Castile or Juan/Isabella of Aragon/Miguel survive preventing the birth of a Spanish branch of the Habsburg) is very likely who the Burgundy will became the major seat of the HR Emperor instead of Vienna (OTL both Philip and Charles were born and raised in Burgundy and were first Burgundians)

In respect to 'Maria', you mean 'Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal'. I could not find the 'younger Ferdinand', must be on the Habsburg dynastic line.
 
No, if we want to envision a very big Low Country that is actually, well, low country... then this is where we need to look:

lowlands-png.428213
This seems familiar...

Kaart_Hanzesteden_en_handelsroutes.jpg


As I have argued before, a country like that would have vast economic potential, while avoiding some of the pitfalls of the OTL Holy Roman Empire. (You wouldn't have to keep together so many regions with disparate economic and political interests, because the interests of all the low country regions happen to largely co-incide.)

I wonder if a greater Low Country could actually make the Holy Roman Empire more viable since it would not attempt to control the North sea and Baltic coast.

Deeper into wank-land, we find the purple-bordered areas. If you can take the blue-bordered areas, it is no longer out of the question that you can expand from there. A big question is: would you want to have it? If the Americas are discovered by this point, then dedicating your energy to establishing lucrative colonies there would presumably take priority. On the other hand, conquering England would remove a dangerous rival and give you complete control over the North Sea. From a more 'meta' perspective, however, the purple areas -- even though they are still all "low country" themselves -- almost certainly mean that their hinterland falls into your hands as well. If you get England, chances are you get Great Britain completely. And if you conquer that deeply into Scandinavia, you will become overlord of all of Scandinavia pretty much by default. And at that point, you kind of stop being "the low country", because your country has so many mountains in it now... (ETA: it must, however, be admitted that turning the entire Baltic Sea - including the Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia - into your very own Mare Nostrum is... pretty damn kick-ass.)
If Britannia and Scandinavia remain tribal enough, or each split between two main blocs, it's possible that the greater Low Country really could be limited to the purple territories you define. After all England had a hard enough time conquering Celtic countries and the Scandinavians settled north in Sami lands over centuries with tenuous grip on the north, so if this is just delayed by a few centuries, coinciding with the greater low country, then the Netherlands may for example, stop at conquering Wales or the Scottish Highlands.
 
Last edited:
In respect to 'Maria', you mean 'Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal'. I could not find the 'younger Ferdinand', must be on the Habsburg dynastic line.
Well as I was talking about the inheritance of Burgundy and how put it soon and permanently in Austrian hands I was talking about Habsburgs: Maria (of Spain) here is the Holy Roman Empress, daughter of Charles V and wife of her cousin the HRE Maximilian II while the younger Ferdinand is her uncle and father-in-law (who was born and raised in Spain by his namesake grandfather).
I was giving the three situations in which we can have an Holy Roman Emperor ruling from Burgundy:
In OTL after the death of Duchess Mary the Low Countries passed to her son Philip and at his death to his son Charles (and that will not change) so how we can preventing them from ending in the hands of the Spanish line of Philip II and give them to the Holy Roman Emperor (who wil, likely either use them as main seat or at least keep often court there)?
We have three options (from the later POD to the earlier):
1) Maria, daughter of Charles V and wife of future Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian II inhereit them from her father (and likely Maria and Maximilian will keep their courts there at least until the death of his father as here they are only heirs in Austria, Bohemia and Hungary but rulers here)
2) Ferdinand of Aragon for any reason you wished is able to get the Cortes to agree to a plan who he likely had in OTL aka disinheriting the eldest son of his daughter Juana, the Burgundian Charles, in favour of the younger, his namesake and ward Ferdinand, born and raised in Spain... That would imply a Charles V who is Holy Roman Emperor, Duke of Burgundy and ruler of Austria (plus Bohemia and Hungary, if he married Anne Jagellon and her brother die as OTL, and Milan if the Sforza’s line end as OTL) and a Ferdinand as King of Spain, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia
3) The Habsburg never inherit Spain as either of Juana’s elder sibling (Juan prince of Asturias and Isabella, Queen of Portugal) either survive or left living descendants
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I wonder if a greater Low Country could actually make the Holy Roman Empire more viable since it would not attempt to control the North sea and Baltic coast.

I think it would. The HRE would be smaller (and thus easier to govern for any central authority), would have fewer disparate regional interests, would be more culturally united (the 'we are the up land region, they are the low land region' dichotomy could help in defining a sense of unity), and would be facing a serious rival/threat in the Low Country (which demands unity and forces local aristocrats to just accept that fact).


If Britannia and Scandinavia remain tribal enough, or each split between two main blocs, it's possible that the greater Low Country really could be limited to the purple territories you define. After all England had a hard enough time conquering Celtic countries and the Scandinavians settled north in Sami lands over centuries with tenuous grip on the north, so if this is just delayed by a few centuries, coinciding with the greater low country, then the Netherlands may for example, stop at conquering Wales or the Scottish Highlands.

Maybe an alliance of Ireland and Norway could be a regional rival? Especially if Ireland manages to become the protector/overlord of Scotland (and maybe Northern England) in this scenario. At the same time, one might see the Low Country encouraging the formation of a Finnic client state to its north. (At the time, the Finnic region still extended to the Urals; the main goal might be to create a regional vasal that exists to block *Russia -- a potential rival -- off from the Arctic Sea completely.)
 
A greater Hansa would be a very interesting direction from which to base the greater Low Country from. Though due to its more central location, a Low Saxon city like Hamburg or Lubeck would be the optimal location for a capital city as opposed to a Dutch one unless the population was centered on the Rhine Delta. The dominant languages would be Low German spoken through most of the country, Dutch and Walloon
in the west, Danish in the north, and Polish/Old Prussian in the east
 
Top