When did the Dutch develop a separate identity?

[wietze]

I doubt Frisian is closer to Dutch than like south Brabantic, I mean those are Low Franconian at least.

which it isn't, frisian is at 28, while brabants is at 17, so closer to dutch. the ones in the south, belgian limburgs, is fairly different indeed, i do believe that distance

also limburgs is southern west-franconian, while the others are north west-franconian, although limburgs often also gets put in the middle-german language group

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_dialecten
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_dialects

 

[avernite]

It seems to me the Netherlands were always a bit a special case.

After all, the greater Netherlands were Frisia plus old west-Francia, where Germany was east Francia with a lot of Bavarians mixed in. In addition, it had been originally assigned to Lotharingia rather than East-Francia, and ended up split between France and Germany. To a large extent, the Netherlands are 'that part of Germany where the Flemish mattered' (the Dutch Republic having strong influence from Flemish refugees, too, but it started before). Now, of course the same thing (cross-border influence) happened all over Europe and Germany, with Bavaria/Austria far more concerned with the Magyars, and the whole Prussia thing in the east, nevermind cases like Schleswig-Holstein where the area seemed to act more like part of Scandinavia.

In that sense, I'd say the 100YW was the essential trigger for the Dutch identity, by creating Flanders as a semi-independent entity (along with most French regions), and the Burgundian inheritances cemented the rise of the Netherlands as a separate entity by insulating Flanders from the subsequent re-centralization of France. Of course Flanders and the Dutch identity were already beginning to arise before, mostly in the Flanders-Brabant-Holland-Utrecht area (Gelre being usually far more involved with the Rhenish part of the HRE, which in the end was split between Dutch and German). But it was all a border zone, hence why Brabantine and Jülichian troops fought on the Flemish side in the battle of the golden spurs.

The borders of this area were still very fuzzy; Paris was absolutely not part of it, but anything north of the Ile de France was almost open game (Picardy never really joined, but Hainaut and Arras were at times as part of the Dutch identity as Utrecht or Amsterdam), and east the Frisian, Rhenish & Westphalian regions were on the wings (the Jülich/Berg/Cleves duchies provided half the brides for Dutch noblemen, and vice versa).
So if you want a recognizably Dutch identity for as large an area as possible, you'd probably be looking at a ring of Bremen, Brunswick, Nassau, Luxemburg, Rethel/Valois, Picardie as the first regions outside the country. You could probably include one of those border regions without compromising the fundamentally Dutch character of this state, but more and it devolves into either a more Saxon, German or French identity.

 

[Janprimus]

I doubt Frisian is closer to Dutch than like south Brabantic, I mean those are Low Franconian at least.

I tend to agree, though I'm a Dutch Brabantian (my native dialect is Brabants), which gives me an edge with southern dialects many of the those northerns lack. I guess, my personal map would be a bit different with regard to the southern part of the map.

 

[Janprimus]

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.

I agree, the Burgundian Habsburgs and Spanish Habsburgs earned more from the Netherlands than Naples, Sicily, Milan or Austria. So a magnificent palace on the Koudenberg in Brussels. The only problem for the Netherlands is a belligerent and expansionist France.

 

[Eivind]

The area on the border are the so called Münsterland, which was the Prince-Bishopric of Münster, it ended up having the same Bishops as the Prince-Archbishopric of Cologne (relatives of the Duke of Bavaria) in te periode 1585-1761, if it could be secularised into a Reformed duchy or could get a Reformed "administrator" (like the Prince-Archbishopric of Bremen got a Lutheran one), it would surely adopt Dutch as the written standard.

Maybe the republic reacts stronger to the incursions of the bishop of Münster & his troops during the 80 year war, and takes the bishopric?

Were the Dutch at war with the bishop of Münster?

I will be the first to agree that it is a long shot, but it was the best I could do with the question, could Germany speak Dutch.


Don't underestimate the power of the counter reformation. It was very effective. A lot of those area near the Netherlands had protestant sympathies in the past, but were reconverted during the counter reformation (Flanders is a great example).

But there were also a lot of areas that were not reconverted. There were Protestant areas both west and east of the Prince-Bishopric of Münster and the area west of it, the Netherlands, was a powerful country. There were also some ecclestical regions that secularised and turned protestant.

 

[pompejus]

But there were also a lot of areas that were not reconverted. There were Protestant areas both west and east of the Prince-Bishopric of Münster and the area west of it, the Netherlands, was a powerful country. There were also some ecclestical regions that secularised and turned protestant.

True. It realy depended on the ruler of the area and how much they cares about religion (which is most of them in those days). So the areas with a protestant rulers turned protestant, while the areas with a catholic ruler turned (back to) catholic. The north west often had Catholic rulers (no doubt partly through Spanish/Habsburg influence), so they were reconverted.

 

[wietze]

Were the Dutch at war with the bishop of Münster?

oops got my dates wrong
the incursions were in 1672, but large parts of the bishopric were taken during the 80 year war (Twenthe for example, and half of gelre(graafschap Zutphen)), so yes there was conflict.

I tend to agree, though I'm a Dutch Brabantian (my native dialect is Brabants), which gives me an edge with southern dialects many of the those northerns lack. I guess, my personal map would be a bit different with regard to the southern part of the map.

i think the ones with the high numbers in the south are the limburgian dialect, and the hardcore version of it are very different.
And the hardcore versions of Gronings are very very different, not the bastardized version influenced by dutch that many speak (believe me, I was born & live in that area).

 

[Eivind]

oops got my dates wrong
the incursions were in 1672, but large parts of the bishopric were taken during the 80 year war (Twenthe for example, and half of gelre(graafschap Zutphen)), so yes there was conflict.

Any good places I can read about it? Actually, most the stuff I have read about the time have been quite general in nature and have not touched so much upon this part of Germany.

 

[pompejus]

oops got my dates wrong
the incursions were in 1672, but large parts of the bishopric were taken during the 80 year war (Twenthe for example, and half of gelre(graafschap Zutphen)), so yes there was conflict.

Are you sure about that? I have never heard about it and I can't find any information over it.

 

[wietze]

Any good places I can read about it? Actually, most the stuff I have read about the time have been quite general in nature and have not touched so much upon this part of Germany.

will to try some for you, during the 2 & 3rd anglo-dutch wars munster was allied to the british (coming from the desire to take back the lands that were taken).
during the 80 years war the UP had 2 opponents, Spain and the HRE (and as such also munster)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Dutch_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Dutch_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War

Are you sure about that? I have never heard about it and I can't find any information over it.

for 2nd anglo-dutch war see the link, lot of description about münster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince-Bishopric_of_Münster.
most of the dutch territories weren't so much lost through war, but through the reformation.
and in short they wanted it back

the attack on Groningen was in 1672
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gronings_Ontzet

 

[pompejus]

for 2nd anglo-dutch war see the link, lot of description about münster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince-Bishopric_of_Münster.
most of the dutch territories weren't so much lost through war, but through the reformation.
and in short they wanted it back

the attack on Groningen was in 1672
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gronings_Ontzet

I know the Dutch republic and Münster had been at war a couple of times, but I believe that Twente and Zutphen were Dutch before the 80 year war (Twente being part of Utrecht and Zutphen being part of Gelre). The only area I could find that had been part of Münster (well was contested with Münster) was Borculo.

 

[Eivind]

will to try some for you, during the 2 & 3rd anglo-dutch wars munster was allied to the british (coming from the desire to take back the lands that were taken).
during the 80 years war the UP had 2 opponents, Spain and the HRE (and as such also munster)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Dutch_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Dutch_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War

I was searching a bit more on the topic in order to try to find some good literature. Does anyone know whether this book is any good? https://www.amazon.com/Anglo-Dutch-.../ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= A book covering inter-European wars in general during the period might also be relevant. I am primarily here thinking about the 50-70 years after 1648.