William II, Count of Hainult has a son

HJ Tulp

Donor
When he died in battle Willem was only 28 years old. If he survives the Battle of Warns it is probable that he will produce more offspring. That is, if his OTL son doesn't survive due to butterflies. Now there are two ways for Willem to survive Warns. Either he wins the battle or he manages to escape. If he escapes then there is a possibility that he will learn from his mistakes and be more careful in the future. If he wins the battle (though his forces made a large nummer of mistakes) he creates a valuable bridgehead in Friesland. His heir (using the combined powers of Holland and Brabant) could then try and expand into more of Friesland.
 
This principality would be very rich and powerful his son could have a chance in the imperial election and in the atl golden bull Holland maybe gets an electorship. Dutch nationalism maybe never arises and the Netherlands stays part of Germany especially if Holland is emperor.
 
This principality would be very rich and powerful his son could have a chance in the imperial election and in the atl golden bull Holland maybe gets an electorship. Dutch nationalism maybe never arises and the Netherlands stays part of Germany especially if Holland is emperor.
We still have the Walloons in Hainault to worry about maybe later on France tries to gain Hainault.
 
This principality would be very rich and powerful his son could have a chance in the imperial election and in the atl golden bull Holland maybe gets an electorship. Dutch nationalism maybe never arises and the Netherlands stays part of Germany especially if Holland is emperor.
Don't overestemate the wealth of Holland during the middle ages. Although there certainly existed poorer counties, Holland wasn't particulairly wealthy. I think you could easily compare the wealth of Holland with overijssel or Friesland. Holland became wealthy because of the fall of Brabant and Flanders. That is where the Dutch wealth was during the middle ages, especialy Flanders, since the rise of Brabant (mainly Antwerp) happened later. In a union between Hainaut, Zeeland, Holland, Brabant and Limburg it will be Brabant that would be the strongest, wealthiest and most important duchy, not Holland. And would still be relatively poor compared to neighbouring Flanders.
 
Don't overestemate the wealth of Holland during the middle ages. Although there certainly existed poorer counties, Holland wasn't particulairly wealthy. I think you could easily compare the wealth of Holland with overijssel or Friesland. Holland became wealthy because of the fall of Brabant and Flanders. That is where the Dutch wealth was during the middle ages, especialy Flanders, since the rise of Brabant (mainly Antwerp) happened later. In a union between Hainaut, Zeeland, Holland, Brabant and Limburg it will be Brabant that would be the strongest, wealthiest and most important duchy, not Holland. And would still be relatively poor compared to neighbouring Flanders.

But the Netherlands are still richer than northern Germany right?
 
But the Netherlands are still richer than northern Germany right?
Northern Germany as in Hanseic League northern Germany? I think both might be comparable.

Actualy, now that I think about it, the Hansaic League might have had an advantage up until the end of the middle ages.
 
Northern Germany as in Hanseic League northern Germany? I think both might be comparable.

Actualy, now that I think about it, the Hansaic League might have had an advantage up until the end of the middle ages.

How strong would *Brabant be compared to other imperial princes?
 
Northern Germany as in Hanseic League northern Germany? I think both might be comparable.

Actualy, now that I think about it, the Hansaic League might have had an advantage up until the end of the middle ages.

The Hanseatic League as a League of merchants and Merchant Towns would be richer.
A duchy of Lothier, Brabant and Limburg; and county of Hainaut, Holland* and Zeeland (*= also (claim) lord of Friesland) would indeed be a kind of proto Burgundian Netherlands.
As such it will make its' ruler one of the more wealthy feudal rulers with a decent dynastic powerbase within the Holy Roman Empire, also in contrast to OTL Burgundy they would have far fewer and significant ties to France.
This will enable their ruler to play a significant role in Imperial politics, but their regional ambitions will be to fulfil the Hollandic claim on Frisia (the whole area from Dutch Friesland to German East Friesland).
Their more ambitious rulers might dream from restoring Lotharingia (Brabantian heritage) or Frisia (derived from their Hollandic heritage), whether or not it's feasible to realize the ultimate goal of a Royal crown, is something different. Still just like IOTL in the Valois Burgundian court, I can see similar ambitions develop in the Brabantian-Hollandic court and ITTL Frisia might be a more acceptable alternative for Lotharingia.

As for a an electorate, that will be more tricky, since I fear that Avesnes Brabant-Holland, just like Habsburg Austria might be passed over.
Both lack a traditional archoffice, though the duke of Austria, like the margrave of Meissen, claimed the role of archmaster of the Hunt (Erzjägermeister).

OTOH during the reign of William II, the Holy Roman Emperor was Wittelsbach Louis IV of Bavaria.
If he would finally formalize the electorates, then he probably feels less threatened by the more distant Avesnes Brabant-Holland and more by a regional rival Habsburg Austria (and Luxembourg Bohemia).
In fact in exchange for supporting the Emperor he might be able to negotiate something he wants.
 
A big portion of the early 100 Years War was Brabant backing England against France and Flanders, for control of the wool trade. England and Brabant conspired to move the trade to Brabant and away from Flanders.

Wouldn't economic warfare be a better term, than conspiring?
 
I beg to differ, since economic warfare is exactly what they are doing.

It even doesn't really matter, whether you're pro-Flanders or pro-Brabant.

England and Brabant want to move to trade in order to punish Flanders, which happens to support the other side in the conflict. Even when England and Brabant would collude (to use a more economic term), then they are doing so, because of the goal they want to achieve with their economic warfare.

It can be compared with the economic sanctions the West and Russia have enacted upon each other in last months.

Besides how unlawful is moving trade anyway? By itself it is lawful, since traders are free to do so, it can only be considered unlawful, if governments coerce their subject traders to do so (or else face some consequences).
 
They are "conspiring" to move the trade. They are "conspiring" to conduct economic warfare. I used the word correctly.

You suggested I change the word "conspiring". That was the verb. You suggested I replace it with a noun "economic warfare". Conspiring was not the word in the sentence that should have been changed.

They were colluding to conduct economic warfare. ;)

Well conspire in the sense of conspiracy wasn't really appropriate IMHO, it was part of and connected to the conflict, so as such it was economic warfare.

However I did not mean just replace one with the other; any change would have entailed rephrasing anyway.
 
I merely made a suggestion. Anyway IMHO we both had a chance to elaborate on this matter; let's not overshadow the POD, which IMHO is very interesting.
 
Yes, I understood your point. It was completely wrong, but I understood it. "Moving trade" is another way of saying "economic warfare". I am not disputing that. I think everyone agrees with that.

Words have more than one definition.

I used the word "conspire"

I didn't mean they were

to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement

I meant they were

to act in harmony toward a common end


I was using the second definition. I would have thought it was obvious from the context.
The problem is that conspire, in whatever definition you use it, always sounds negative (even if you don't mean it in a negative way, some words just have that conontation), which is something JanPrimus doesn't like, since he comes from Brabant.
 
The problem is that conspire, in whatever definition you use it, always sounds negative (even if you don't mean it in a negative way, some words just have that conontation), which is something JanPrimus doesn't like, since he comes from Brabant.

That's just Guelderish nonsense....;)

After all I did use the term collude, which isn't more postive, but IMHO is more appropriate in this context.

Furthermore all involved were already in a conflict situation, so they are handling accordingly; that IMHO isn't negative nor positive.
 
Top