Plausabilty Check: The Netherlands ethnically absorbed by the northern German states?

. Though by then matters might already be too late: Just because the territroy would be politcially Prussian does not mean the area would become nationally/ethnically German again. I mean, Prussia at times also ruled large-ish areas of ethnic Polish majority, and those areas were not Germanified, either.

I think the Dutch War of Independence marks the turning point. I mean, after all that time struggling as a people to create a sovereign state...

Now, if the stadholer-less Netherlands do something monumentally stupid that will see the rest of Europe welcome a Prussian intervention maybe... like if they consider switching to the French side in the war... then maybe... but even in that case I think the other anti-French powers and England especially would only accept Frederick I as stadholder, not as absolutist ruler...

I wonder if you can do something with the Glorious Revolution. William almost died OTL in Ireland, so you'd have Queen Mary on her own. The Netherlands would be vulnerable, and the war of Spanish Succession is about to begin. Hrm.
 
With a POD in the middleages it is relatively easy for the Netherlands to consider themselves German; there was not much difference between what is now the Netherlands and what is now Germany. Cleves, East-Frisia and many other borderlands in Germany could easily have become Dutch, just like Groningen or gelderland could have easily become German if history was a little different. Although you have to remember the Netherlands has always been removed from the rest of the HRE, even during the Middle ages. It always has been more or less a backwater of the empire, a border area where the empire didn't have a lot of control and has been influenced by England and France. One of the most important counties and major influence of the Netherlands, Flanders, even was part of France (I realise most of Flanders isn't part of the Netherlands, but it was probably the most important part of the Netherlands).


As for other states, well, William III was a German noble (and the Dutch anthem says as much, dont try to deny it :D ). He was the eldest son of a count, but those lands by way of partition of inheritance went to his brother. If either line dies out quickly enough, the inheritance could come together again. In fact of course, the younger House of Nassau-Orange did until the French Revolution have some lands (half the Nassovian lands) in Germany. Of course, tiny Nassau isnt exactly what youre looking for I guess, that was more of an appendix of the Dutch stadholder :D
I do not understand who you mean with William III? The stadholder/king of England and the Netherlands? I wouldn't call him German. He was as Dutch as most Dutchmen and the Dutch anthem doesn't mention him. The Dutch anthem is about William "the Silent" of Orange. Who was of German blood being from Nassau, although I doubt that was meant by that line. I suspect they used Dutch/Diets/Duitsch in the meaning of "from the people" (or something like that), meaning that William the Silent was one of them; one of the Dutch people rebelling against the cruel Spanish oppressors. The Dutch anthem is a warsong after all.
And other German rulers - well there wasnt many German state at the time big enough to absorb the Netherlands. As with Nassau, it would rather go the other way round. Hm, maybe the House of Mark - actually the United Duchies of Jülich-Cleves-Berg might be a good candidate. They were after all known to be religiously very tolerant, and sufficiently rich. And in any case, theyd be right around the corner, so to say. Of course, their ruler at the time, William V had lost a war against in the 1530s against Charles V over the succession in Guelders, and since then had avoided all conflicts with the Empire as good as possible. And besides, while it was a formidable German middlepower, in an European context it was a rather minor power of course, not comparable with England or France. So it would still be a poor candidate, just the best German one I can come up with...
I really don't think they are a good candidate. The Netherlands is just too strong and influential and those lands are just too culturaly and linguistically close to the Netherlands. If the Netherlands becomes part of Julich/Cleve/Berg/etc it would mean that Julich/Cleves becomes part of the Netherlands. The influence of rich Holland (anf maybe Brabant and Flanders) would be far too strong.

Now the Prussian scenario - I dunno. I think at that point the stadholder office wasnt yet hereditary, right? So pro forma the succession dispute was only about the Principality of Orange, which had been occupied by France anyways, so IOTL the conflict ended with the compromise that both sides could call themselves "Prince of Orange", without that title having any meaning. Oh, and Prussia got Lingen and Tecklenburg, of course. However, if the Prussian King wins the exclusive right to call himself Prince of Orange, then that would of course make him an obvious candidate for the stadholder office, since all stadholders (for the Netherlands as a whole) had been Princes of Orange. Assuming Prussia manages that, it could be the Netherlands and Prussia are indeed only united in personal union, with the institutions of the Republic remaining in existance and independant.

Hm, William III died in 1702. At that time the Prussian King was Frederick I, in fact the first King in Prussia, and that only since 1701, too. He was Williams cousin. Now, at that time he already had gotten what he wanted - a royal title for Prussia, as his price for Brandenburg-Prussias participation in the War of the Spanish Succession. Now that war was a major distraction for everybody in Europe, and everybody had that one goal to restrict French power. Of course, the Netherlands were a major part of the anti-French alliance. So Frederick I could not have simply invaded the Netherlands. Well, he could have, switching sides in the war, but that was just not his nature. Besides, it would have threatened the general acceptance of his new royal title. Now, if the stadholer-less Netherlands do something monumentally stupid that will see the rest of Europe welcome a Prussian intervention maybe... like if they consider switching to the French side in the war... then maybe... but even in that case I think the other anti-French powers and England especially would only accept Frederick I as stadholder, not as absolutist ruler...

I don't think Prussia would really work. The Netherlands was too rich and too independent. It already had its own identity at that time. It would be an influence on Prussia as much as on the Netherlands. All Prussian eastern territories, Lingen, Cleves, East-Frisia would become Dutchified (even more so than OTL). Although I always thought a Prussian-Dutch personal union would be interesting. Would they be able to form a union that was more Low-German in nature than German, would they just split because the Dutch and Prussian nature were so different, would Prussia suddenly be interested in recapturing the southern Netherlands?

That said, I don't think it will happen. The Netherlands can do without a stadholder. They did it twice and the moment it became apparent that the ruler of Prussia would try to become stadholder of (some of) the Dutch provinces, they would just refuse, or at least Holland who would force the other provinces not to accept him. They would just choose someone else who isn't as much of a threat (like the stadholder of Friesland like OTL) or just go without any (also like OTL).


Actually I think that after the treaty of Westphalia it will be extremly difficult to include a Netherlands that is willing to become German. From that point on the Netherlands existed as its own identity. Maybe you could even place it earlier at the pragmatic sanction, although at that point it could still become part of Germany (certainly considering it was directly ruled by the German Emperor). The only other ways I can see are just simply conquering and assimilating the Netherlands by Germany (which they never planned to do as far as I am aware of) or maybe the Netherlands being conquered by a non-German non-Dutch enemy.

Basicly my idea about that is Napoleon winning the Napoleonic wars and annexing the Netherlands and parts of Germany, while the rest of Germany forms Germany and opposes France. France tries to forcibly assimilate the Dutch and German parts, who try to resist (think Flanders in the early twentieth century). Germany helps the Dutch and Germans living in France, who see in them German brothers and after a war in which Germany defeats France, they all hapily join Germany.

BTW talking about weather Dutch is lower Saxon or low Franconian or whatever is irrelevant. There are no clear boundries in linguistics, at least not within a dialect continuum.
 
I think the Dutch War of Independence marks the turning point. I mean, after all that time struggling as a people to create a sovereign state...
Well, those were the formative years. It could've easily turned out into something else if it things went differently. The Revolt was mostly a matter of not being subject to overtaxating religiously unfree dicks, and not so much a matter of national emergence (didn't exist at that time). The United Provinces wasn't (or weren't) a unitary state, and one could barely speak of a real nation untill some time after the 80 Years War was over.

Look at Flanders. It could've easily ended up as an important part of the Dutch state, if things went differently in the 17th (or for that matter, 16th) century.

I really don't think they are a good candidate. The Netherlands is just too strong and influential and those lands are just too culturaly and linguistically close to the Netherlands. If the Netherlands becomes part of Julich/Cleve/Berg/etc it would mean that Julich/Cleves becomes part of the Netherlands. The influence of rich Holland (anf maybe Brabant and Flanders) would be far too strong
Incidentally, this was also one of the reasons the SS didn't approve of the Greater Netherlands sentiment amongst some Dutch fascists.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, this was also one of the reasons the SS didn't approve of the Greater Netherlands sentiment amongst some Dutch fascists.
Those ideas were still alive during world war 2? I might have expected them from the Dutch fascists, because fascists often have some weird (or insane) ideas. But were they still alive enough in the German border territories that they were a danger enough for the nazi's?
 
Indeed :D

Well, as said, in a way Lower German is Lower Saxon, as in the once (Lower) Saxon-settled areas. But of course theres also the more limited Lower Saxon dialect, which yes, also is inside some parts of the NL. But thats just the point - the border between Lower Saxon and the (other) Dutch dialects is fluid, a dialect continuum, as Boto has said...

Basically, all your continental West Germanic are belong to us :p :D

Using the search function I saw this old discussion, however when I started to read this discussion I just wanted to make this remark:).

If you equate Lower German to Lower Saxon, you're excluding Dutch. Dutch is mostly derived from Lower Franconian/Lower Frankish and has little Lower Saxon influence. So the Dutch dialects can only be included in the Lower German dialect continuum, with a own Dutch language, if one uses a broad definition of Lower German. However since Dutch developed into a language, Lower German in 'Germany'* basically got a more limited definition, which equates Lower German to Lower Saxon.
(*= including older entities such as the Holy Roman Empire).
 

Susano

Banned
The problem with Dutch is that it straddles (or straddled, before becoming an own language) the border between Middle and Lower German. The Dutch dialects along the Rhine Ive usually seen being marked as falling in the Middle German category, with a clear dialect continuum to the German Rhineland...

But in any case, either way my point (that the dialects are parallel to the old stem duchies, and that in the Lower German category there is only one such, the Saxons) stands: Most of whats now the Netherlands was once the Frisian stem duchy, but over time, except some houldouts (mostly whats the province of Frisia in the Netherlands now), the Duchy became mostly settled by Franks and, again, Saxons ;) , which is also the reason why Frisisan is an own language...
 
Using the search function I saw this old discussion, however when I started to read this discussion I just wanted to make this remark:).

If you equate Lower German to Lower Saxon, you're excluding Dutch. Dutch is mostly derived from Lower Franconian/Lower Frankish and has little Lower Saxon influence. So the Dutch dialects can only be included in the Lower German dialect continuum, with a own Dutch language, if one uses a broad definition of Lower German. However since Dutch developed into a language, Lower German in 'Germany'* basically got a more limited definition, which equates Lower German to Lower Saxon.
(*= including older entities such as the Holy Roman Empire).

Yes.
Basically the Continental West Germanic continuum (;)) is more of a triangle than a line: Low Franconian in the Northwest and Low Saxon in the Northeast forming "Low German"; and High German in the South (well more east of south but you get my point ;))
 
The problem with Dutch is that it straddles (or straddled, before becoming an own language) the border between Middle and Lower German. The Dutch dialects along the Rhine Ive usually seen being marked as falling in the Middle German category, with a clear dialect continuum to the German Rhineland...

But in any case, either way my point (that the dialects are parallel to the old stem duchies, and that in the Lower German category there is only one such, the Saxons) stands: Most of whats now the Netherlands was once the Frisian stem duchy, but over time, except some houldouts (mostly whats the province of Frisia in the Netherlands now), the Duchy became mostly settled by Franks and, again, Saxons ;) , which is also the reason why Frisisan is an own language...

You're forgetting the Lower Lorraine (or Lower Lotharingia) Stem duchy (including regions that would later become the duchy of Brabant and Imperial Flanders (Flanders east of the Scheldt)), which was mostly settled by Franks.
However my point was that any definition of Lower German, which only includes Lower Saxon is too narrow, if one wants to include the Dutch dialects into the Lower German dialect continuum one will have to use a definition, which includes Lower Frankish/Lower Franconian and Lower Saxon.
Besides Upper German also includes Alemannic and Austro-Bavarian.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
You're forgetting the Lower Lorraine (or Lower Lotharingia) Stem duchy (including regions that would later become the duchy of Brabant and Imperial Flanders (Flanders east of the Scheldt)), which was mostly settled by Franks.
Which is why I didnt include it. It wasnt a true stem duchy, but settled by Franks, and hence already covered under that.

However my point was that any definition of Lower German, which only includes Lower Saxon is too narrow, if one wants to include the Dutch dialects into the Lower German dialect continuum one will have to use a definition, which includes Lower Frankish/Lower Franconian and Lower Saxon.
Besides Upper German also includes Alemannic and Austro-Bavarian.

Frankish is Frankish. "Lower Saxon" is only called that to differencate it form modern Saxony, which is Thuringian by dialect and descant, though, and hence not really Saxon in that sense. OTOH, there is only one Frankish, and it definitly falls into the Middle German Categories.

And yes, uh, Swabian, Alemannic and Bavarian, what of them? Those three make up the Upper German category. Frankish (which includes Rhinelandish, Palatinatian, Hessian etc etc) and Thuringian (including "Upper Saxon") make up the middle German category. And, there we come back to where we started, (Lower) Saxon makes up Lower German. Those dialect areas refer more or less exactly to the settlement areas of the old tribes/stem duchies, and the only one in North Germany (aside from Frisia, but that was a special case) was Saxony.
 
Which is why I didnt include it. It wasnt a true stem duchy, but settled by Franks, and hence already covered under that.



Frankish is Frankish. "Lower Saxon" is only called that to differencate it form modern Saxony, which is Thuringian by dialect and descant, though, and hence not really Saxon in that sense. OTOH, there is only one Frankish, and it definitly falls into the Middle German Categories.

And yes, uh, Swabian, Alemannic and Bavarian, what of them? Those three make up the Upper German category. Frankish (which includes Rhinelandish, Palatinatian, Hessian etc etc) and Thuringian (including "Upper Saxon") make up the middle German category. And, there we come back to where we started, (Lower) Saxon makes up Lower German. Those dialect areas refer more or less exactly to the settlement areas of the old tribes/stem duchies, and the only one in North Germany (aside from Frisia, but that was a special case) was Saxony.

I will have to disagree with you, the Low Countries were mostly settled by the Franks, another region settled by the Franks was Franconia. However the Frankish dialects in Franconia underwent (a part of) the High German consonant shift, which wasn't the case for the Lower Frankish dialects. This abscence of the High German Consonant shift is a reason to group Lower Frankish and Lower Saxon as Low German.

When the kingdom of the Eastern Franks succeeded into acquiring the (young) kingdom of Lotharingia (Nothern part of the middle Frankish kingdom), the distribution of dialect areas within the settlement areas of the old tribes became more complicated, because the two groups of Frankish dialect had developed into different directions.

Any more narrow definition of Lower German, which only includes Lower Saxon, automatically places the Lower Frankish (Dutch) dialects in an own group of dialects not a part of Lower German.
 
Last edited:
Ah, a Deutschlander and a Dutchlander arguing semantics :D

Just to reiterate my remark:

Basically the Continental West Germanic continuum (;)) is more of a triangle than a line: Low Franconian in the Northwest and Low Saxon in the Northeast forming "Low German"; and High German in the South (well more east of south but you get my point ;))

Note that I use the term "Continental West Germanic" and differentiate "Low Franconian" from "Low Saxon" within "Low German".

Part of the issue is that the continuum crosses the borders of what is now the nation states of Germany and the Netherlands so that German is exclusively associated with Germany rather than West Germanic speakers. Notice how hard it is to be exclusive when trying to talk languages :D.

Take the Scanian dialects of the East Scandinavian continuum as an example. Do you call them dialects of Swedish or of Danish?
 
Last edited:
I live in Amsterdam and I think a dialect such as Dutch Low Saxon (and Frisian and every other dialect that isn't Bargoens) should most certainly not be respected :p

I do agree with the fact that Bargoens is amazing. (My parents are both from Amsterdam) But that does not mean that i disrespect any other dialects. Flemish irritates me quite a bit after hearing it for a while, but its speakers are probably and rightfully proud of it. And the Frisian language is not a dialect at all. Not sure if you're referring to the West-Frisian dialect perhaps?

Take the Scanian dialects of the East Scandinavian continuum as an example. Do you call them dialects of Swedish or of Danish?

Hm, yes. Hard question! It is basically a East Danish dialect, but because of the influences that it took from Swedish in the modern era it is also seen by some as a South Swedish dialect. When looking at a dictionary, you'll notice that it has alot in common with both languages indeed. Some even call it an independent language. :rolleyes:
 

Susano

Banned
But I dispute that as well, Prof. As said, for me the tri-partition of continental West Germanic is Lower, Middle and Upper German ;)
Also, terminology: Its not Continental West German, but Continental West Germanic ;) Nitpick, but German and Germanic get confused far too often in English anyways...

Janprimus: Hm. The consonant shift. Right, that kinda does define the three categories. So I guess its possible. Its a bit complicated of course by that normally lingual groupings are done by genealogy, which is for example why English is still considered to be a West Germanic language, despite being so far removed from all other Germanic languages de facto. Genealogically, Lower Frankish and (Lower) Saxon of course are not grouped, as the former of course belongs, genealogically, to Frankish...
 
But I dispute that as well, Prof. As said, for me the tri-partition of continental West Germanic is Lower, Middle and Upper German ;)
Also, terminology: Its not Continental West German, but Continental West Germanic ;) Nitpick, but German and Germanic get confused far too often in English anyways...

Janprimus: Hm. The consonant shift. Right, that kinda does define the three categories. So I guess its possible. Its a bit complicated of course by that normally lingual groupings are done by genealogy, which is for example why English is still considered to be a West Germanic language, despite being so far removed from all other Germanic languages de facto. Genealogically, Lower Frankish and (Lower) Saxon of course are not grouped, as the former of course belongs, genealogically, to Frankish...

Dammit, dropped the "-ic" :rolleyes: :eek:
I agree with the Upper, Middle, and Lower divisions, I just split the Lower into East and West :D
 
But I dispute that as well, Prof. As said, for me the tri-partition of continental West Germanic is Lower, Middle and Upper German ;)
Also, terminology: Its not Continental West German, but Continental West Germanic ;) Nitpick, but German and Germanic get confused far too often in English anyways...

Janprimus: Hm. The consonant shift. Right, that kinda does define the three categories. So I guess its possible. Its a bit complicated of course by that normally lingual groupings are done by genealogy, which is for example why English is still considered to be a West Germanic language, despite being so far removed from all other Germanic languages de facto. Genealogically, Lower Frankish and (Lower) Saxon of course are not grouped, as the former of course belongs, genealogically, to Frankish...

Well grouping these genealogically distinct dialect groups Lower Frankish and Lower Saxon into Lower German, usually is only done because they lack this consonant shift and is somewhat disputed. However this feature makes Lower Frankish different from the other Frankish dialects. Lower Frankish does not belong to the Middle German Group, to which most of the other Franconian dialects belong.
However since Dutch developed into a language, it became less important to know to which West Germanic dialect group it belongs (or once belonged).
 
Top