When did the Dutch develop a separate identity?

[Deleted member 1487]

At what point could it be said the Dutch had developed a separate identity from the rest of the 'low Germans' and from the wider German linguistic/cultural/national area? Could that be prevented so that in the modern era the Dutch consider themselves an intrinsic part of Germany in the way Bavaria does?

 

[PhilippeO]

during eighty years war ?

 

[wietze]

fairly long ago,12-13th century i would say the eastern border has been mostly unchanged since its formation in the 16th century.
also dutch is west-german (low-franconian to be precise), not low-german. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Franconian_languages
I think it is more the other way round, that part of of the lower germans moved from cultural dutch to cultural german
map of where dutch was spoken in the past

the light green being the areas that spoke dutch as lingua franca, the mid greens the areas that spoke dutch up till the 19th century

 

[Deleted member 1487]

fairly long ago,12-13th century i would say the eastern border has been mostly unchanged since its formation in the 16th century.
also dutch is west-german (low-franconian to be precise), not low-german. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Franconian_languages
I think it is more the other way round, that part of of the lower germans moved from cultural dutch to cultural german
map of where dutch was spoken in the past

the light green being the areas that spoke dutch as lingua franca, the mid greens the areas that spoke dutch up till the 19th century

Thanks for the interesting information! With that in mind how do you get the 'ex-Dutch' Germans to stay Dutch and get a maximally culturally/linguistically Dutch nation?

 

[pompejus]

At what point could it be said the Dutch had developed a separate identity from the rest of the 'low Germans' and from the wider German linguistic/cultural/national area? Could that be prevented so that in the modern era the Dutch consider themselves an intrinsic part of Germany in the way Bavaria does?

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It was not the Dutch developed a seperate German identity. It is more that the Germans created their own identity sepreate from the Dutch (and Swiss), or more correctly after the Dutch. I believe that in the Middle Ages, the people didn't see themselves as Germas, but identified themselves more on a local level than at a national level. If Germany had developed differently, you could easily see more seperate identies, like a Bavarian identity, or a Prussian identity, etc.

Thanks for the interesting information! With that in mind how do you get the 'ex-Dutch' Germans to stay Dutch and get a maximally culturally/linguistically Dutch nation?

Simple, make them part of the Netherlands. These people never were Dutch. They did not identify as Dutch. They were just culturaly and lingisitcally close to the Dutch. If they has become part of the Netherlands (and are were several ways of doing it) they would have become as Dutch as the rest of the Netherlands (just like a Dutch Fladers would be as Dutch as Zeeland or Groningen is).

 

[wietze]

a better start would be good (in other words an early victory in the 80 year war and have the union of utrecht succeed).
and only a slight more interested in territory would also help, the dutch speaking parts were indirect part (east-frisia) or inherited and later lost (like mark & kleve).
trouble is also, then they likely get more involved in the continental wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Utrecht

 

[Gloss]

fairly long ago,12-13th century i would say the eastern border has been mostly unchanged since its formation in the 16th century.
also dutch is west-german (low-franconian to be precise), not low-german. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Franconian_languages
I think it is more the other way round, that part of of the lower germans moved from cultural dutch to cultural german
map of where dutch was spoken in the past

the light green being the areas that spoke dutch as lingua franca, the mid greens the areas that spoke dutch up till the 19th century

That´s one legitimate view but I find it weird.

I would rather say that both German and Dutch came up at the same time rather than one separating from the other. In no way could you call the Hanseatic League "Dutch" they are a thing on their own with their language influencing all the neighbouring region(most of the non English West Germanic influence on Scandinavian languages is Low German not Dutch), still isn´t 1100-1200 too early?

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It was not the Dutch developed a seperate German identity. It is more that the Germans created their own identity sepreate from the Dutch (and Swiss), or more correctly after the Dutch. I believe that in the Middle Ages, the people didn't see themselves as Germas, but identified themselves more on a local level than at a national level. If Germany had developed differently, you could easily see more seperate identies, like a Bavarian identity, or a Prussian identity, etc.



Simple, make them part of the Netherlands. These people never were Dutch. They did not identify as Dutch. They were just culturaly and lingisitcally close to the Dutch. If they has become part of the Netherlands (and are were several ways of doing it) they would have become as Dutch as the rest of the Netherlands (just like a Dutch Fladers would be as Dutch as Zeeland or Groningen is).

Exactly the "HRE of the German Nation" came up around the 16th century(1512) and 5 years later the reformation starts. Not far from when the post independence Dutch history starts. But I disagree that regional identities are the same thing as the one we see later, I would say both Dutch,German and Swiss existed by the start of the 17th century, of course nothing was set on stone and the change was gradual but it´s a good turning point.


Is it possible to have like a Hapsburg united Netherlands(like if Hapsburg Spain never came up) still inside the HRE? This way you would have them influence Germany in the inside, so the neighbouring region would speak Dutch.

 

[pompejus]

But I disagree that regional identities are the same thing as the one we see later, I would say both Dutch,German and Swiss existed by the start of the 17th century, of course nothing was set on stone and the change was gradual but it´s a good turning point.

What I meant by regional identity is that people felt far more connected to the city they lived in or maybe the lord that ruled them than Germany. during the late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period they started to identify more with larger areas, like the counties or duchies they lived in until finaly a national identity arose.

Is it possible to have like a Hapsburg united Netherlands(like if Hapsburg Spain never came up) still inside the HRE?

yes

This way you would have them influence Germany in the inside, so the neighbouring region would speak Dutch.

No. Actualy a Habsburg Netherlands would probably mean that the Netherlands is less influential than OTL. For example the "Statenbijbel", the Dutch translation of the bible and a major influence on the creation of the Dutch language, would not be created. This would reduce Dutch to simply the laguage of the people, not of the upper class, like OTL. Besides that, the Netherlands would still be subordinate to Austria (or Spain or whatever , only a minor area of the Habsburg. It would not have the oppertunities (like colonisation) it had OTL. It would be less rich and less important. OTL the Dutch republic was incredibly influential. It was the richest and one of the most important and strongest (if not the most important and strongest) countries in Europe. The North Western parts of Germany already were heavily influenced by the Netherlands. The Dutch Republic simply didn't do anything with that influence and after its decline and the rise of Germany it lost those areas.

 

[wietze]

Is it possible to have like a Hapsburg united Netherlands(like if Hapsburg Spain never came up) still inside the HRE? This way you would have them influence Germany in the inside, so the neighbouring region would speak Dutch.

actually under that scenario a whole different german would likely develop instead of hoch-deutsch, the dutch area would still have the same huge economic pull, so lots of influence language wise.

That´s one legitimate view but I find it weird.

I would rather say that both German and Dutch came up at the same time rather than one separating from the other. In no way could you call the Hanseatic League "Dutch" they are a thing on their own with their language influencing all the neighbouring region(most of the non English West Germanic influence on Scandinavian languages is Low German not Dutch), still isn´t 1100-1200 too early?

Exactly the "HRE of the German Nation" came up around the 16th century(1512) and 5 years later the reformation starts. Not far from when the post independence Dutch history starts. But I disagree that regional identities are the same thing as the one we see later, I would say both Dutch,German and Swiss existed by the start of the 17th century, of course nothing was set on stone and the change was gradual but it´s a good turning point.

as pompejus already wrote regional culture and language was more important earlier. that is why i stated that in the light-green areas dutch was used as lingua franca (trade language), while normally they would speak their own low-german dialect.
dutch and all the german dialects were around at the same time, although the differences with dutch in some areas were a lot less, with the introduction of hoch-deutsch a cultural harmonisation started.
it is for a reason that the netherlands first name was 'the united provinces', the provinces were more important than the country.
i say the divergence started around 1200, until 1400 they were still officially part of the HRE, but during the Burgundian era the process started to forge the netherlands into a nation, a process that was completed during the reign of Charles V with the pragmatic santion of 1549. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Sanction_of_1549

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It was not the Dutch developed a seperate German identity. It is more that the Germans created their own identity sepreate from the Dutch (and Swiss), or more correctly after the Dutch. I believe that in the Middle Ages, the people didn't see themselves as Germas, but identified themselves more on a local level than at a national level. If Germany had developed differently, you could easily see more seperate identies, like a Bavarian identity, or a Prussian identity, etc.

My understanding of the situation was that there was a concept of Germany, at least among the educated classes, as the HRE was known as the HRE of the German Nation. The lower class individuals clearly were not even aware of the concept of nationalism until hundreds of years later as education and efforts by the state to 'nationalize' their people. But the idea of the Netherlands, Belgium, Bavaria, etc. developed later than the concept of being part of the HRE and the concept of an independent Netherlands wasn't really conceived of until the HRE had already began to unravel in the 15th century. The 30 years war confirmed that the Netherlands wasn't part of the HRE by that point. The Swiss too didn't really become independent until IIRC the 1300s, so too then did their identity develop separate from the rest of the HRE well after it had formed and suffered significant political disunity due to the frequent issues with the Pope undermining the Emperor (to make a vastly more complex issue simple).

 

[Monter]

No. Actualy a Habsburg Netherlands would probably mean that the Netherlands is less influential than OTL. For example the "Statenbijbel", the Dutch translation of the bible and a major influence on the creation of the Dutch language, would not be created. This would reduce Dutch to simply the laguage of the people, not of the upper class, like OTL. Besides that, the Netherlands would still be subordinate to Austria (or Spain or whatever , only a minor area of the Habsburg. It would not have the oppertunities (like colonisation) it had OTL. It would be less rich and less important. OTL the Dutch republic was incredibly influential. It was the richest and one of the most important and strongest (if not the most important and strongest) countries in Europe. The North Western parts of Germany already were heavily influenced by the Netherlands. The Dutch Republic simply didn't do anything with that influence and after its decline and the rise of Germany it lost those areas.

I would contest, without Spain the Habsburgs would most likely abandon Austria as their main seat and move there, so it would be a side territory.

 

[Gloss]

What I meant by regional identity is that people felt far more connected to the city they lived in or maybe the lord that ruled them than Germany. during the late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period they started to identify more with larger areas, like the counties or duchies they lived in until finaly a national identity arose.


No. Actualy a Habsburg Netherlands would probably mean that the Netherlands is less influential than OTL. For example the "Statenbijbel", the Dutch translation of the bible and a major influence on the creation of the Dutch language, would not be created. This would reduce Dutch to simply the laguage of the people, not of the upper class, like OTL. Besides that, the Netherlands would still be subordinate to Austria (or Spain or whatever , only a minor area of the Habsburg. It would not have the oppertunities (like colonisation) it had OTL. It would be less rich and less important. OTL the Dutch republic was incredibly influential. It was the richest and one of the most important and strongest (if not the most important and strongest) countries in Europe. The North Western parts of Germany already were heavily influenced by the Netherlands. The Dutch Republic simply didn't do anything with that influence and after its decline and the rise of Germany it lost those areas.

Oh, I see and agree.


I don´t think a united Netherlands as big as this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habsburg_Netherlands) would stay a mere subordinate of Austria, I mean yes they could or would stay under either the Austrian monarch or a branch of the Hapsburg family but the country is:

1 bigger
2 less divided (religiously and politically)

Also even if the Netherlands are still Catholic I don´t think that would change that much given the other 2 factors.
I mean the Protestant/Catholic divide in Germany didn´t end up with 2 different languages so I would give to that circumstance to much weight.

actually under that scenario a whole different german would likely develop instead of hoch-deutsch, the dutch area would still have the same huge economic pull, so lots of influence language wise.


as pompejus already wrote regional culture and language was more important earlier. that is why i stated that in the light-green areas dutch was used as lingua franca (trade language), while normally they would speak their own low-german dialect.
dutch and all the german dialects were around at the same time, although the differences with dutch in some areas were a lot less, with the introduction of hoch-deutsch a cultural harmonisation started.
it is for a reason that the netherlands first name was 'the united provinces', the provinces were more important than the country.


i say the divergence started around 1200, until 1400 they were still officially part of the HRE, but during the Burgundian era the process started to forge the netherlands into a nation, a process that was completed during the reign of Charles V with the pragmatic santion of 1549. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Sanction_of_1549

I don´t know about this, I still think the rest of Germany outside then North is going to speak a common language, mostly because you don´t really have any other big countries outside the Hapsburg realm. While it´s possible for Dutch to influence neighbouring region I don´t think you are going to see it being the ATL German in the sense of being spoken over all Germany.


Ah I thought you were talking about all the Low German area not the neighbouring regions only. I found weird to have Hamburg being called Dutch.


The reason I find 1200 weird is because as far as I know not much of relevant happened, I would say the process started after the Black Death with the start of the Burgundian expansion, the turning point would be when it passed to Austria. I just read the article about the sanction but it seems that the Dutch revolt was triggered also by the centralization, it could seem weird but it seems "decentralization" and regionalism were fundamental part of the Netherlands.

 

[Gloss]

My understanding of the situation was that there was a concept of Germany, at least among the educated classes, as the HRE was known as the HRE of the German Nation. The lower class individuals clearly were not even aware of the concept of nationalism until hundreds of years later as education and efforts by the state to 'nationalize' their people. But the idea of the Netherlands, Belgium, Bavaria, etc. developed later than the concept of being part of the HRE and the concept of an independent Netherlands wasn't really conceived of until the HRE had already began to unravel in the 15th century. The 30 years war confirmed that the Netherlands wasn't part of the HRE by that point. The Swiss too didn't really become independent until IIRC the 1300s, so too then did their identity develop separate from the rest of the HRE well after it had formed and suffered significant political disunity due to the frequent issues with the Pope undermining the Emperor (to make a vastly more complex issue simple).

I think that before like the 15 th century there was the HRE(basically Catholic identity) and the very local identities, later on when the HRE started to lose ground more bigger identities showed up in some of the regions(Netherlands, Switzerland, Bohemia) while also a "reformed" HRE identity was beginning to show up (HRE of the German Nation in 1512 basically).

Interestingly enough both the early Netherlands and Switzerland had strong provincial regionalism.

 

[wietze]

I don´t know about this, I still think the rest of Germany outside then North is going to speak a common language, mostly because you don´t really have any other big countries outside the Hapsburg realm. While it´s possible for Dutch to influence neighbouring region I don´t think you are going to see it being the ATL German in the sense of being spoken over all Germany.

The reason I find 1200 weird is because as far as I know not much of relevant happened, I would say the process started after the Black Death with the start of the Burgundian expansion, the turning point would be when it passed to Austria. I just read the article about the sanction but it seems that the Dutch revolt was triggered also by the centralization, it could seem weird but it seems "decentralization" and regionalism were fundamental part of the Netherlands.

what i meant is that dutch will continue to influence, and probably maintain the linguistic influence it had before. And I agree, a common language will develop, but it won't be hoch-deutsch, probably more like a lower-german/lower-saxon with influences from the other german dialects and dutch. dutch itself under those circumstances will evolve different also.

well the whole process was finished around 1500, but 1200 is my guestimate about when the whole thing started, and 1384 the actual start (foundation of Burgundian Netherlands), the early process isn't so much centralisation, but more a moving away of the provinces from the HRE towards more independent behaviour

 

[pompejus]

My understanding of the situation was that there was a concept of Germany, at least among the educated classes, as the HRE was known as the HRE of the German Nation. The lower class individuals clearly were not even aware of the concept of nationalism until hundreds of years later as education and efforts by the state to 'nationalize' their people. But the idea of the Netherlands, Belgium, Bavaria, etc. developed later than the concept of being part of the HRE and the concept of an independent Netherlands wasn't really conceived of until the HRE had already began to unravel in the 15th century. The 30 years war confirmed that the Netherlands wasn't part of the HRE by that point. The Swiss too didn't really become independent until IIRC the 1300s, so too then did their identity develop separate from the rest of the HRE well after it had formed and suffered significant political disunity due to the frequent issues with the Pope undermining the Emperor (to make a vastly more complex issue simple).

I don't think you should compare the idea of a German nation during the Middle Ages with the idea of a German nation during the 19th century. During the Middle Ages such a country was far more a feudal concept, not realy a nationalistic concept. There were several very ungerman areas of the HRE after all, like Bohemia for example. The concept of a German identity did not exist, just the concept of a loyalty to your emperor/feudal overlord. To be fair, this did develope into a more nationalistic identity during the late middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, but that idea itself was not yet present. That is why it was so easy for the Netherlands and Switserland to split of from the German Nation. The moment they did not recognise their feudal overlord anymore, they lost all connection to the HRE.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I think that before like the 15 th century there was the HRE(basically Catholic identity) and the very local identities, later on when the HRE started to lose ground more bigger identities showed up in some of the regions(Netherlands, Switzerland, Bohemia) while also a "reformed" HRE identity was beginning to show up (HRE of the German Nation in 1512 basically).

Interestingly enough both the early Netherlands and Switzerland had strong provincial regionalism.

The Kingdom of Germany existed pre-1000 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany
The legal term, King of the Germans, did only come during the 12th century, but there is some indication it existed already within what is now Germany as of 919. It can be definitely states the idea of Germany existed by the end of the 11th century for sure. Of course the sub-identities that already existed were based on tribal identification, like the Saxons as a people who eventually founded Saxony, existed much earlier than the concept of Germany as a kingdom. We can say for sure too that the kingdom of Germany existed before the HRE, which incorporated the kingdoms of Germany, Bohemia, Burgundy, and Italy.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I don't think you should compare the idea of a German nation during the Middle Ages with the idea of a German nation during the 19th century. During the Middle Ages such a country was far more a feudal concept, not realy a nationalistic concept. There were several very ungerman areas of the HRE after all, like Bohemia for example. The concept of a German identity did not exist, just the concept of a loyalty to your emperor/feudal overlord. To be fair, this did develope into a more nationalistic identity during the late middle Ages and the Early Modern Period, but that idea itself was not yet present. That is why it was so easy for the Netherlands and Switserland to split of from the German Nation. The moment they did not recognise their feudal overlord anymore, they lost all connection to the HRE.

Clearly they were different, but you are also confusing the late Middle Ages concept of a kingdom or nation with the early or middle Middle Ages. It was an evolving concept right up to today. The Kingdom of Germany and concept of Germans existed independent of Bohemia, Italy, or Burgundy before the HRE even existed as an entity. So clearly there was some sort of national concept around the idea of like peoples within Central Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany
Stem Duchies existed at the time too, which differentiated between groups like the Bavarians, Frisians, and Saxons, but were grouped together under a common kingdom that was separate from the Bohemias, Poles, Italians, etc.

 

[Gloss]

what i meant is that dutch will continue to influence, and probably maintain the linguistic influence it had before. And I agree, a common language will develop, but it won't be hoch-deutsch, probably more like a lower-german/lower-saxon with influences from the other german dialects and dutch. dutch itself under those circumstances will evolve different also.

well the whole process was finished around 1500, but 1200 is my guestimate about when the whole thing started, and 1384 the actual start (foundation of Burgundian Netherlands), the early process isn't so much centralisation, but more a moving away of the provinces from the HRE towards more independent behaviour

I don´t think a Low Saxon or Low Franconian would become what German was in OTL, at least from seeing the political situation at the time. Anyway is not like Low German didn´t influence OTL German in some way (for example I think the pronunciation of Standard German comes mostly from Hannover).

The thing is that this decentralization doesn´t necessarily mean that it would become a separated identity, for example Brandenburg even if it got more and more independent from the HRE you had them become Germany, now it´s different from the Netherlands but I would say that before Burgundy showed up you could have had this century and a half time of decentralization from the HRE end up being rendered null a bunch of political changes.

The Kingdom of Germany existed pre-1000 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany
The legal term, King of the Germans, did only come during the 12th century, but there is some indication it existed already within what is now Germany as of 919. It can be definitely states the idea of Germany existed by the end of the 11th century for sure. Of course the sub-identities that already existed were based on tribal identification, like the Saxons as a people who eventually founded Saxony, existed much earlier than the concept of Germany as a kingdom. We can say for sure too that the kingdom of Germany existed before the HRE, which incorporated the kingdoms of Germany, Bohemia, Burgundy, and Italy.

I would argue that this doesn´t matter much, it doesn´t have a language attacched to it, a specific territory and it´s quite feudal of a concept. I mean it is German(ic) but is enough distant from what we see in the future to be considered a not relevant concept. I get what you mean but I don´t think this concept was that much widespread.

Clearly they were different, but you are also confusing the late Middle Ages concept of a kingdom or nation with the early or middle Middle Ages. It was an evolving concept right up to today. The Kingdom of Germany and concept of Germans existed independent of Bohemia, Italy, or Burgundy before the HRE even existed as an entity. So clearly there was some sort of national concept around the idea of like peoples within Central Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany
Stem Duchies existed at the time too, which differentiated between groups like the Bavarians, Frisians, and Saxons, but were grouped together under a common kingdom that was separate from the Bohemias, Poles, Italians, etc.

You had the Old English language being called "theodisce"(what evolved in today´s Italian word for German "tedesco"), and also the Dutch and Germans(both having the "same" name in the Early Modern Era I think). But that doesn´t necessarily mean there was a united identity. Even if there was such a concept I would think it would fall behind others like Religion and region.

 

[pompejus]

Clearly they were different, but you are also confusing the late Middle Ages concept of a kingdom or nation with the early or middle Middle Ages. It was an evolving concept right up to today. The Kingdom of Germany and concept of Germans existed independent of Bohemia, Italy, or Burgundy before the HRE even existed as an entity. So clearly there was some sort of national concept around the idea of like peoples within Central Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany
Stem Duchies existed at the time too, which differentiated between groups like the Bavarians, Frisians, and Saxons, but were grouped together under a common kingdom that was separate from the Bohemias, Poles, Italians, etc.

I still say that it is very different from the German identity of the 19th century. I even say that it wasn't some kind of proto-German identity. It was something that slowly turned into what later became the German identity and could easily have turned into something else. Germany could easily have turned into several smaller countries, without there ever being a Germany or a modern German identity. I don't think you can in any way compare the early medieval Kingdom of Germany with the German Empire.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I still say that it is very different from the German identity of the 19th century. I even say that it wasn't some kind of proto-German identity. It was something that slowly turned into what later became the German identity and could easily have turned into something else. Germany could easily have turned into several smaller countries, without there ever being a Germany or a modern German identity. I don't think you can in any way compare the early medieval Kingdom of Germany with the German Empire.

I didn't say it was the same thing as the 19th century idea. What I am saying is that the concept existing in some form and with it was the idea that the Frisians were part of that kingdom of peoples. At some point a separate Dutch identity evolved apart from the rest of the Kingdom, which continued to develop within the HRE and that evolved into the 19th century concept of Germany and Germans. So what I am interested in is, as in the OP, how the separate Dutch identity could be avoided AND as I later asked how the Frisian united identity/stem duchy would have kept it's year 1000 spread and absorbed even more areas to developed into the Dutch United Provinces.