What Broke the United Netherlands? | The Belgian Revolution Explained

How did Belgium break away from the Netherlands?
In 1815, after centuries apart, the Low Countries ('Netherlands') were merged together into a single state: the United Kingdom of the Netherlands under William I of the House of Orange. Less than two decades later, the United Netherlands came to an end. The Belgian Revolution was sparked by an economic downturn, but it grew out of control because of the actions of the Dutch, not their southern subjects. Eventually, with the backing of the concert of Europe, Belgium formally broke free.
Subscribe for more history:
kzbin.info...
More Videos:
How Did Prussia Become a Great Power?: • How Did Prussia Become...
Why Did Italy Colonize Rhodes?: • Why Did Italy Take Rho...
What Was the Megali Idea?: • What Was the Megali Id...
How Did Yugoslavia Form?: • What Was Yugoslavism? ...
Sources Consulted:
Deseure, Brecht, and Diederik Smit. “Pre-Revolutionary Provinces in a Post-Napoleonic State. Piecing Together the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, 1813-15”. BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review 133, no. 3 (2018): 98-121.
doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.10589.
Kossmann, E.H. The Low Countries, 1780-1940 (Oxford History of Modern Europe). London: Oxford University Press, 1978.
archive.org/details/lowcountr....
Miller, Stuart T. Mastering Modern European History. London: Macmillan Education LTD, 1990.
Péporté, Pit, et al. Inventing Luxembourg: Representations of the Past, Space and Language from the Nineteenth to the Twenty-First Century. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib...
Reynaerts, Jenny. “Formatting Unity: Representations of King Willem 1 of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815-30)”. The Rijksmusuem Bulletin 63, no. 3 (2015): 258-93.
www.jstor.org/stable/24642122.

[@sIeeperagent]

As a Belgian THANK YOU for mentioning why Flanders also wanted out of the Netherlands most are always like "it was a language thing with the French speaking Wallonians" no it was also because we were primarily Catholic and we didn't want to deal with a protastant dominant nation I mean if it really only was languages Flanders would've probably stayed with the Netherlands.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Does not compute. Why would you care what a bunch of senile out of touch old people in Rome think? You should be part of the Nederlands. There is no reason why you shouldnt.

[@habsburgsenederlanden6278]

The Flemish elites also spoke French as their primary language

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@habsburgsenederlanden6278 How could you call them flemish elites when they dont speak primeraly flemish in Flanders?

[@habsburgsenederlanden6278]

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 they are Flemish culturally and ethnically but we’re raised speaking French cause it was the lingua franca back then

[@habsburgsenederlanden6278]

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 they also spoke french to distinguish themselves from the lower social classes that couldn't speak French in Flanders

[@jorenbaplu5100]

Its funny that the belgian region was occupied by the romans, germans, spanish and french for centuries. But 15 years of dutch rule was too much.

[@sebe2255]

Because the Romans, “Germans” and French ruled before the age of Nationalism

[@thepinebros.1873]

What's interesting to note is that this WASN'T the first time belgium tried gaining independence. Look up the united belgian states, it existed in 1790. But the revolt was crushed

[@imwinningthisone7613]

Not to mention that this doesn't mean that there was no Belgian identity before 1787-1791... There was just no need for one, as Belgium were allowed to govern themselves by the Austrians up until the 1780's where the Austrians started removing a bunch of the privileges that Belgium had.

[@imwinningthisone7613]

1:45, the Belgians did have a nationality. Because they had already revolted in 1787-1791 under the name "the united Belgian States". AND they had been self governing since 1714 under Austrian rule.

[@masdenka6957]

A video of quite better quality than what we're used to see when a non-Belgian talks about events in Belgium so great job. There are, however, some important corrections/precisions to be made. At the time, French was only the language of the elite both in Flanders and Wallonia. In Wallonia, the main language was Walloon (mainly) and a few other regional languages. (This is really a key element and you really mustn't confuse Walloon and French speakers at the time if you want to have any chance of understanding anything about Belgium, and French didn't start to become a dominant language in Wallonia until after the First World War). The Dutch didn't try to impose Dutch on Wallonia, but on the French-speaking elite and the Flemish, who weren't very happy to see their own linguistic variations replaced by Dutch from the Netherlands. As far as the events of 1830 are concerned, the first people to rebel in the streets of Brussels were not Walloons, but inhabitants of Brussels, who at the time mainly spoke Brabantian (let's say "Flemish" to simplify).

[@thomaslacornette1282]

French was spoken in those "Wallonian lands" since early medieval times many of those territories were part of Kingdom of France or of the Burgundian duchy. Wallon is classified as "Langue d'oïl" which makes it very near from northern french, just a variation of it. Any langue d'oïl is perfectly understandble by each others group so i don't know what kind of rewriting of history you trying to achieve there...

[@masdenka6957]

@@thomaslacornette1282 French was mainly used by the most educated and wealthiest people, especially for writing. Almost none of the territory of present-day Wallonia was part of France (with the exception of a few border areas from time to time and during Napoleon's conquests obviously), and ironically it was mainly the historic county of Flanders that was part of France. Yes, Walloon is part of the same language family as French, like Dutch and (northern) German are close language. That doesn't change the fact that they're not really easily mutually intelligible (especially if you consider the Walloon spoken before French became the dominant language for the whole population). and what's more, we're talking about Walloon as opposed to "French from Paris/France", on the one hand, a language that lies at the limit of a continuum and is one of the most distinct, and on the other, a language that is more at the centre of a continuum and has undergone enormous transformation, especially in pronunciation making it also quite different. It's funny to talk about rewriting history when I'm just trying to explain something that is often misrepresented, Like presenting Walloons as initially French-speaking at a time when the vast majority were not, and pointing out that it's quite important to understand that the French-speaking Belgian elite of the 19th etc and the Walloon population are not the same group. What's even funnier is that trying to make people believe that any langue d'oïl is just a dialect of French, or that French has been the main language spoken in southern Belgium since medieval times, sounds even more like a rewriting of history.

[@thomaslacornette1282]

@@masdenka6957 Langue d'oïl are mutually intelligible and you're completely wrong so yes you're trying to rewrite history, first text in old french is from 9th century. Tournai was not in kingdom of France? for centuries??? And indeed in souht Flanders. And i have to rewrite it because people like you like to only keep what interest them: Duchy of Burgundy had those territories for ages also. Hainault was french dialect speaking etc... french was a major language of medieval time you like it or not. And even if it was the nobility who speak a clean "french" they had to speak to their retinues or subjects time to time maybe? Indeed it was not exactly the same french everywhere but that was regional variations. You're playing on words between "french" and french idiom/dialect. The germanic languages were described as Thiois as opposite as Romance/french. You're not trying to explain something you're trying to push your rethoric that french and Wallon are like from two different worlds, isuppose you're just a french culture hater. Man a french can have some understanding of Spanish or Italian person... but somehow in your brain people speaking lange d'oïl coundn't understand each others... you're lol.

[@masdenka6957]

@@thomaslacornette1282 You sound like some kind of French irredentist or maybe you think I try to attack french, wich is not the case. "Old French texts" are often a mixture of Latin with some sort of Oïl alteration, I suppose you mean texts like the Sainte Eulalie sequence. Tournai and Clovis as the first Cpaital/king of France is just childish history, even in France don't you consider the Capetian dynasty to be the real starting point of France? Hainaut was essentially Picard speaking... I didn't say French wasn't an important language... it was the language of the elite in many places, so important in a way... In France, you may not like to "attack" the unitary symbol of French as a language, but in Belgium, and particularly with the "new" generation of historians and linguists, they're trying to be much more critical of the narrative that Walloon was just "dialects", when the language was still mainly used, even after the First World War, but in a bilingual situation.... and we usually dislike anything like "roman national" type. Walloon and French are definitely not easely mutually intelligible, just ask any Walloon... I'm a Walloon native French speaker and I can only understand a few words if I hear people speaking Walloon and for a modern Belgian french speaker it's still a little easier than for a French person as the accent, some words or sentences structure may seem more familiar. I did say they were two different worlds... but they're not that close. French had to be learn in wallonia it was imposed to the whole population (I do not say it's bad thing or not just a fact) and it was quite difficult for some speakers to adapt to, which even creates a huge linguistic inferiority complex in Wallonia. edit: Moreover, my original point was not to attack French, but to avoid the usual confusion that is made between the French-speaking elite of the time and the inhabitants of Wallonia, with Flemish nationalists generally mixing the two and then blaming Wallonia for the imposition of French even in Flanders. But it's probably not so obviouis if your not belgian.

[@thomaslacornette1282]

@@masdenka6957 yes like you say it's a "narrative" from you, you're not more linguist than me and i don't believe langue d'oïl were not intelligeables between each others like you say and most of sources say it was mostly inter inteeligeables. You're just playing on words one moment you say there's not understandables and one other moment "not really" and other time "but they're not that close" all of this is very vague... You say it's not a dialect of french so what is it? its own language in itself??? 😂 There's same story in Brittany french was imposed to Britons blablabla when half Britanny was speaking a langue d'oïl "Gallo"... Even today i was listening at TV a Picard guy sepaking about floodings he had strong accent that doesn't mean he was not speaking french... even when you speak the exact same language just cause of accent you have hard time understand, doesn't change the fact that's same language or language family. If i listen to your theory i could not understand Quebecois... peoples were moving a lot in medieval times and once again french is old language. Not everyone was peasants speaking slang in their old shitty farm. And Tournai was french until late medieval, i was not speaking about Tournai capital of the franks...

[@OkayGrimmy]

This is the legitemately the best video on the Belgian revolution on youtube from a completely neutral and historical standpoint unlike other youtubers covering the topic

[@Artur_M.]

The ultraconservative tsar Nicholas I, who in time erned the nickname "gendarme of Europe" and was the Brother-in-law of the hier to the throne of the Netherlands, definitely wanted to crush the Belgian revolt. He ordered the Army to mobilize and requested passage for his troops through Prussian territory. However, this was one of the main triggers for the conspiracy of young Polish officers and cadets of the military academy to start a revolution in Warsaw in November 1830. As you might know, the Congress of Vienna established the Kingdom of Poland in personal union with the Russian Empire, with considerable autonomy and its own military. In short, the Russians didn't send troops to Belgium, instead fighting a regular, large-scale war to regain control over Poland, which absorbed their attention during the London conference. One might say that Poles saved the Belgians but doomed themselves. The November Uprising, as this conflict is called, is really underappreciated. You could consider making a video about it.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Why the Polish thought they could solo the Russijan Empire is not know to me.

[@Artur_M.]

@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Ha, paradoxically, among all of the failed Polish uprisings, the November Uprising had by far the biggest chances to succeed (albeit still slim chances). The problem is that the Polish leadership didn't want this uprising in the first place. They did not think they could solo the Empire. They found themselves in this situation because of a bunch of hot-headed, idealistic "brats" on the one side and the uncompromising tsar, who was clearly only waiting for a pretext to strip the Congress Kingdom of its constitution and autonomy (which he was already violating previously). But because of their understandably not enthusiastic attitude, they were overly cautious and passive and failed to exploit plenty of opportunities. Initially, Polish troops won a series of victories, the muscovites were struggling with an epidemic of cholera and bad logistics, the international public opinion was generally on the Polish side, and so one. In short, yeah, Poles probably shouldn't start the Uprising, but once they did, they should have committed harder and be bolder. But different people started it and diferent were in charge. BTW Lithuanians (in all meanings of this word, including the actual ethnic Lithuanian-speakers) also fought in this Uprising, so aren't you dissing your own ancestors here a bit?

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@Artur_M. "They found themselves in this situation because of a bunch of hot-headed, idealistic "brats" on the one side" And at that point my ancestors would say - Youre on your own fools. - and go back to being farmers who dont care about politics while waiting for a better time to rebel. In after 600 years of foreign rule wed learned how its done. "BTW Lithuanians (in all meanings of this word, including the actual ethnic Lithuanian-speakers) also fought in this Uprising, so aren't you dissing your own ancestors here a bit?" For so long as my families ancestry is known so 200+ years, there are no lietuvieši in it. The only ancestor of mine whos participated in a failed rebellion in 19. century is hungarian, after their defeat by the russijans he was taken as a prisoner back to Russija, how he ended up married to a german noblewoman in Kurzemē is not know to me but clearly it all worked out for him (and technically even for Hungary as the Austrian Empire was replaced by the Austro-Hungarian one).

[@Artur_M.]

@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 OK, fair enough. BTW, sorry for assuming you were Lithuanian. If I understand correctly, you're Latvian, right?

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@Artur_M. 100%

[@z_1599]

In general a very good explanation as to why we Belgians wanted independence and why the great powers let us. But 2 things that are missing. 1) Belgium wasn't a country before yes. But there was a previous revolution in 1789-1790. The Brabant Revolution against the Habsburgs. 2) The north and south were 50/50 in the states-general. But the south was 2/3 of the total population. I would also say that the revolution officially started with the opera (La muette de Protici) in Brussels. But idk if the people that started it were all Walloons. But overal a very good video that explains our existance. 👍

[@labalag]

It started in Brussels by the frenchspeaking bourgeoisie. Back then there was no flemish/Walloon division yet.

[@reyson01]

The people that started it were practically all French speakers, either Walloons or Bruxellois and were later heavily supported by French troops. The revolution had very little Flemish support, though most were unwilling to fight for the Dutch either. The Flemish deserted the Dutch army en masse, but instead of taking up arms against the Netherlands, they just went home.

[@MatthewTheWanderer]

But now the North (Flanders) has 2/3 of the total population.

[@babakush9772]

And 3. Belgium invented pom frites

[@francoisdebellefroid2268]

​@@MatthewTheWanderer I think you don't get it right: the southern part we refer to is what is today called Belgium. Inside Belgium the Flemish always have been around 60-65% of the population while the Walloons are 35-40%. And Belgian House of Representatives has always reflected that proportion.

[@francoisdebellefroid2268]

It is important to acknowledge that a proto-state preexisted under the Habsburg rule. Indeed, the feudal division you describe were existing, but the "Southern Netherlands" had an more or less autonomous status as a whole, politically, judicially and administratively. We could date it back to several corner stones in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries when the Duke of Burgundy founded the Malines' court of appeal, when Maximilian I created the 'circle of Burgundy' or when Charles V made that circle of Burgundy independant from the Holy Roman Empire... and of course when the Northern Netherlands separated from the South during the 80y war. Belgium was indeed new to sovereignety in 1830, but it didn't come that way only because of common religion.

[@micahistory]

Nice video man

[@LookBackHistory]

Glad you enjoyed

[@cykablyat6531]

And without the French army Belgium would be Dutch: on August 2, 1831, the Dutch army marched on Brussels, encountering only a weak resistance from a young Belgian army. A French army, under the command of French Marshal Étienne Maurice Gérard, crossed the border on August 10 and marched on the Dutch. The Dutch then withdrew troops which were already in front of Louvain. The Dutch persisted in holding the fortress of Antwerp and King Leopold I requested a second French intervention. Then the Dutch army surrendered on December 23.

[@jije6372]

Epic!!

[@Gorboduc]

The 1839 treaty that was mentioned at the very end also had a clause saying the Great Powers, England among them, would guarantee Belgian independence - a minor issue that fortunately never spiraled out of control...

[@pedanticradiator1491]

UK not England

[@CatarigMaTt]

Merry Christmas 🎅 🎄✨️✨️✨️

[@ordinaryorca9334]

You were better than most in covering the topic but you still missed some details. The Catholics didn't appreciate the lack of seperation of church and state, weird I know. But with the northerners being Protestants having the majority of the power you can see why it was preferred. The king was also quite authoritarian. To get the Constitution approved he had to claim all of the vetoes with religious reasonings would be counted as abstains instead. He then claimed that all the abstains, including Catholic vetoes could be counted as votes in favour. Creating discontent especially with liberals and the ruling class. The state defecit was also equally shared between north and south. The south however used to have just a laughably low deficit due to being ruled by foreign powers that absorbed all debt into their larger economies. In this way the Belgians, and especially the ruling class felt slighted. Finally there were legitimate reasons the great powers didn't stop the revolution, most were busy. The Austrians had some revolting Italians to worry about, same went for Polish rebels in Russia and Irish ones in the UK. Besides Austria had sent enough armies to the rebbeling southern Netherlands when they ruled them, they didn't fancy sending any more after getting rid of them. Leaving only the Prussians and French. The French didn't mind a weaker Netherlands and the British also realised they would have more sway over Belgium than the Netherlands, allowing them better trade conditions with the port of Antwerp. The Prussians then didn't want to take the risk of disciplining the south on their own.

[@RealConstructor]

What did Belgium gained besides independence? That’s a more important question. Many call it a failed state or a troubled state. The only thing holding the country together, or rather keep it in a smothering grip, is Brussels.

[@steyn1775]

2:19 that's supposed to be "We spreken Nederlands" instead of "We Nederlands spreken"

[@Games_and_Music]

Hah, yeah, our Dutch seemingly backwards grammar always confuses people.

[@flawyerlawyertv7454]

Thanks. 👍

[@thebananaman1895]

Merry Christmas everybody!🎄🎄

[@LookBackHistory]

And a happy New Year!

[@ConstantineTheFirst]

damn that gives another meaning to "the south shall rise again"

[@LookBackHistory]

Haha.

[@legohistorytube.3148]

Can you please do a video on why Northern Ireland exists or a video on Australian History?

[@Stick4567]

Nice video.

[@LookBackHistory]

Thanks!

[@madafakahakunamatata8269]

1. To annoy the Dutch 2. To infuriate the French 3. To cause minor inconveniences for the Germans

[@smal750]

the belgian revolution was anything but infuriating for the french lmao

[@svenvanwier7196]

@@smal750 No they loved Spanish Habsburg loyalists........

[@smal750]

@@svenvanwier7196 what kind of drugs did you take before writing that

[@svenvanwier7196]

​@@smal750 Woosh

[@sans_hw187]

Infuriate the French??? That’s exactly what France wanted! A weaker Netherlands and a new Francophile neighbor. France is one of the main reasons Belgium exists and had a revolution.

[@roelantverhoeven371]

my city of Antwerp, along with Ghent were initially very much pro-Oranje, but that sentiment turned around once the Dutch besieged and bombarded the city of Antwerp... Antwerp, and ghent, however remained the bastions of the dutch language in Belgium, in 1863 (Antwerp was then the 3rd largest city in the country after Brussels and Ghent) the antwerp city council decided they would from then on only use dutch officially in their city. nowadays Antwerp is the second largest city of Belgium and the largest fully dutch speaking one. ghent is no 3 and charleroi is No4 and the largest french speaking city. Bruges, Ghent and Antwerp are known as the flemish sisters (despite Antwerp, just like Brussels, being a brabantine city, before that it was the capital of it's own margraviate), and they fit in the row of Ypres-Bruges-Ghent-Antwerp-Amsterdam-Rotterdam, which all succeeded eachother in that order in becoming (northern) europe's largest trade center from 1200 to now.

[@nicolasolivera4576]

Now make about Uruguay A really similar story to Belgium

[@Hunter-cx6]

6:48 *Because France can’t have nice things*

[@roelantverhoeven371]

belgium not a thing before 1830, yes and no, culturally the area has always been distinct, just like for example Italy or greece were before they ever became modern nation states. also you should have mentioned the 1789 rebellion against austria, where a Belgian revolt, inspired by the young USA, defeated Austria, it was then the three colours Black-gold-red were first used. and it was also the reason austria did not want it back and prefered other regions they could more easely control in 1815 (as Belgium would have been even more isolated from the rest of the austrian empire in 1815 than it was in 1789...). the peasant's revolt against the french in 1798 also used the tricolor flag. the three colours were chosen because they were very present on the heraldry of the duchies and counties that make up the southern netherlands.... Namur, Flanders, Hainaut, Brabant... all used these three colours... and liege had red and yellow. only luxembourg stood out, having the dutch colours, coincidentally.

[@sebe2255]

There was no unified Belgian culture though, that is a result of the post independence nation building undertaken mainly by the French speaking (both Flemish and Walloon) elite. Like before 1830 a person from Brugge wouldn’t consider himself a part of the same nation as a person frok Namur. Hell they barely even do now

[@user-nh5ny5nw8o]

I just saw this video. Thanks for broaden international conflict issue. It should be a tragedy within United Netherlands Kingdom. Is European Union integrity strong enough as cosmopolitan values projected in peaceful mood with neighbors?

[@Brandon_TG_Smith]

Austrian occupation: Ok Spanish occupation: Ok French occupation: Ok Dutch occupation: BAISE LE NÉERLANDAIS 🇧🇪🇧🇪🇧🇪

[@LorenzoBruni-ol6pt]

They rebelled against Austrian occupation in 1787 but Austrian was too strong and destroyed them

[@chheinrich8486]

The first 3 were all catholic

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@chheinrich8486 The french revolutionaries where not chatolics.

[@yeetman4953]

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 are you sure about that?

[@smal750]

​@@yeetman4953 they were anti religious.

[@leonbas3958]

Belgium doesn't make sense, but I'm still a proud Belgian, great video

[@demeter1793]

2:20 I don't know how you got "We Nederlands Spreken". It's "We spreken Nederlands"

[@mrror8933]

Interesting, but it doesn't explain why the French speaking parts of today's Belgium were never assimilated into the French kingdom, and later the French republic. I believe it's because they were Burgundy's territorial possessions.

[@Corbalte]

Also because they were not French? They spoke an Oil language related to French but were indeed never a part of France before the French Revolution (where a lot more people where a part of France).

[@mrror8933]

@Corbalte French is an Oil language

[@Corbalte]

@@mrror8933 Yes indeed

[@AlfonsoSegundo791]

Good question. The more I think about, the less I can explain this to me.

[@-s3m-]

Wouldn’t it be great if we all reunited as Benelux? The dutch get landscape, the belgians get good roads, luxemburg gets more land. Win win win 😎

[@Queijinhowo]

The Dutch get a tax black hole (wallonia), the Walloons get severely outnumbered and underrepresented, and Luxembourg would never want to loose its rich microstate status, this would never work

[@LCTesla]

thumbnail: why does Belgium exist? we are still asking ourselves this every 4 years or so

[@lemenyves34]

I am not sure that the ruling of Belgium by the house of Orange was faultless, despite it being protestant and supporter of England. It would take a little more time, but an analogous movement would arise in the British Isles, giving birth to the republic of Ireland.

[@craigkdillon]

Belgium exists for one simple reason --- It is not France, Germany, or Netherlands. No one knows quite what it is, but it is not those other places.

[@kaloarepo288]

Belgium's independence was the end result of an operatic production at the Brussels opera house -the" theatre de la monnaie." Of course the dry tinder was already there but the production of Daniel Auber's opera "Masaniello or the dumb girl of Portici" which is about Neapolitan fishermen grinding under the Spanish yoke made the Belgian audience so incensed at Dutch oppression that many rushed out erected barricades, were joined by the mob and the rest is history. Can be compared to the choral revolution in Soviet Estonia where choral singing was often the screen for anti- Soviet sentiment leading to freedom in late 1980's.

[@belgian-choklate675]

It is completly anachronical to speak of Wallonia and Flanders in the early niththeen century... Appart from that the video is great !

[@alexmarissens4016]

There was already a division between the 2 regions

[@belgian-choklate675]

Absolutely not... There was a linguistical difference : germanic langagues were spoken in the north and romance languages in the south. The political difference didn't exist befor the mid twentiest century. Before the french occupation (revolutionnary France then Napoleon), the territory was divided into provinces (Hainaut, Namur, Flanders, Brabant, Limburg, Luxemburg) and the principality of Liege was it's own thing but also of bilingual composition.@@alexmarissens4016

[@babusastry]

Using too many metaphorical pictures too many times (such as the various crowns) confuses and does not reinforce understanding. It is better to maintain the maps of regions forming Belgium or disputed by various monarchs and relegious variations reinforces understanding. Thanks. Making a presenration cute and entertaining is NOT really the correct way when overdone. Maintaining maps on presenration for LONG DURATIONS is the right way.

[@-s3m-]

At 2:18, in modern dutch, you would say: We spreken Nederlands.*

[@simonf8902]

So the drivers can wear hats.

[@Planeet-Long]

00:30 "Belgium had never been a state before." The United States of the Netherlands: "Am I a joke to you?!"

[@YujiKuribara]

1) you have to tilt the flag to match the French one but theirs has a different width-height ratio 2) in Catholicism, you have a number of saints while many protestants forbid depicting biblical personalities, there are some differences in names like friar, abbot or vicar and habits like eating fish on Friday but in Germany, that never has been an issue and even in the US, there are Baptist people and Catholic Italians so how relevant is that in modernity 3) legally, citing the law book should be in that language, that formulation and even that spelling so it is legally impossible to have two languages; documents are written in one language only and any other is a translation; their Law Book should be an adapted version of Code Napoleon ( unlike the US Law based on British Common Law ) but there should be a clause stating that untruthful translations of documents and testimonies are punishable and you should provide the original 4) finally, just a matter of preference but: an American may use Merriam-Webster while in Britain people might prefer Oxford but Belgians simply use Prisma and Van Dale from the Netherlands; even East-Germans prefer their own Langenscheidt over Duden from the West while Russians stick to Ozhegov from 1954.

[@maud3444]

Great... another "why does Belgium exist" video. Just let us be guys 🙂 Edit: after watching the video... wow. This one's actually better than all the other ones. Great job. I'm a Belgian AND a historian. I respect the work you put into this video, especially since it holds a lot of truth. One mistake though.. you claim Belgium never existed before the seperation from the Netherlands and that a plan for Belgian independence never happened before 1830. You missed the United Belgian States. A nation that existed in 1790 during a revolt against the Austrian emperor. NOt recognised by most foreign powers, but a nation AND a sense of independence nonetheless. Otherwise: really great video! Loved it!

[@theconqueringram5295]

This is why Belgium exists.

[@DenUitvreter]

The Dutch Republic wasn't protestant like the Austrian Netherlands were catholic. In the Dutch Republic the protestants were in charge because contrary to the catholics, they could do religious tolerance for something like 40% catholics. And suddenly the Southern catholics were in favour of seperation of church and state? Yeah right, they had issues with protetant rule. You can't say the Dutch Republic was ruled by the house of Nassau. Even William III who invaded England to take the throne and pull Britain out of the Dark Ages did so as by Dutch parliament appointed stadtholder and commanded the Staatse leger, the parliament's army as it would translate, with a fleet build on parliament's order with money from parliament. King Willem I of the Netherlands was not a restoration of rule, it was mostly a British initiative while the Netherlands was bankrupt and wanted it's overseas posessions back. He was an absolute monarch, a completely new concept to the Netherlands that declared independence in 1581 because the king was acting far too absolutist. So where the Dutch Republic gave the British it's current parliamentary constitutional monarchy with it's Bill of Rights, the British returned the favour by handing the Dutch a Dark Ages type of king.

[@mjpspit]

Wallonia and Flanders did not exist in 1830. These two entities are consequences of the belgian independence. And not the other way around!

[@danielgertler5976]

To make really good beer?

[@carstengrooten3686]

As a Dutchie I would say we should give this another try with the Flemish once Flanders and Wallonia break up. I want unrestricted access to waffles in my country.

[@paulrodgers7228]

One of the funniest comments I’ve ever seen here on KZbin!!! Yummy waffles!!!

[@tott598]

Not going to happen, Wallonia will always veto this, politics is broken way worse then in the EU with just Orban using his veto to get evrything he wants, Flanders has been dealing with that forever, or atleast since Flanders became the dominant economic power after ww2 and got some right for the dutch speakers. And you guys have stroopwafels, its not great, but its something :p

[@pietervanderzwaan4295]

​​@@tott598wallonia can veto as much as they want but if the flemish nationalist movement starts to rise in popularity (which i think will happen soon) then wallonia will be powerless and politically isolated.

[@svenvanwier7196]

I am with the flemish on this one, especially with Wilders, saying leaving EU might be enough to threaten to get it, with Flemish approval, which we will get i guess. I dont say leave, i say use it as bargain.

[@synkkamaan1331]

We control the waffle supply. Get wreckt, Stroopwaffel!

[@conncork]

Around 50% of the Northern Dutch were also catholic.

[@1EpicFailz]

Loads of angry Dutch in the comments. Let it go kids, it has been 200 years LOL

[@liksar]

"We Nederlands spreken" ?!

[@belgian-choklate675]

French was not a widely used among the walloon population before the mid-twentiest century...

[@alexanderpetersen1664]

Now some belgians want back 💀

[@lucadeclerck3101]

The Netherlands fumbled the bag so hard.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Not the Nederlands, the king in particular.

[@pietervanderzwaan4295]

​@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714which is why iam against monarchies as these kind of thing happen and the Netherlands was build upon republican ideals.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@pietervanderzwaan4295 I support monarchy, but one where kings are elected from among the princes bred and raised for good leadership, not where you become king just because your the oldest son of the previous one.

[@unilajamuha91]

​@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714Everything good is done by the country, everything bad by the leader

[@Queijinhowo]

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 no he didn’t, if France didn’t get involved he would’ve won

[@alejandrocantu4652]

Belgium exists maybe because the Belgian got tired of the pickled herring the Dutch were eating all the time.

[@Spitnchicklets]

Belgian exists to make waffles 😅

[@LiquidDIO]

Nee, dit is voor frituur en broodzaken.

[@mkb6418]

Rulers seem to never learn. Their rule is always based on a social contract, if they lead their subjects to extortion, they create new states. I am dumb rulers show arrogance from time to time, it gives hope that at some point humans will be free.

[@sebe2255]

Except, the only reason Belgium won the independence war was because of French intervention. Which has little to do with the social contact and more with the French wanting a French aligned buffer state

[@fanofcodd]

Well all of that stuff is into french natural borders so.

[@Sturmisch]

It would have been better if we had stayed together as the Benelux

[@Sturmisch]

As long as we're not French...the United Netherlands would have been viable

[@lindaoffenbach]

The Belgium flag is taken from the coat of arms from the Duchy of Brabant, vertically arranged following French tradition. The national hymn is the Brabançonne. Essentially the Belgium revolution was the successor of the 40 days Brabant Revolution. A big part of current Belgium was the former Duchy of Brabant. As a province in the Netherlands today, only the Northern Dutch part remains in name only as North-Brabant. The French speaking elite in Brabant wanted independence. Their area as Southern part was the first to industrialise on the mainland following Britain; their French speaking elites were extremely wealthy and wanted self-governance. They tried in 1789 into 1790 but failed. They later instigated a revolution through the opera 'La muette de Protici' by inciting the people en masse, this time succeeding. It wasn't so much a revolution by the people but by Walloon elites. Around the time of this revolution, the industrial revolution was in full swing as well in which the northern Netherlands had no part but the Walloon elites had. The Dutch authoritarian King Willem 1 didn't want to invest in industrialisation but also didn't want to give up the most wealthy and financially successful area in his realm, leading to severe friction.

[@masdenka6957]

A lot of things in this commentary are made up ... Most of the first revolutionaries were from Brussels and the neighbouring Brabantian towns, and Brussels was predominantly Brabantian speaking at the time. Most of the belgian elites has always been Flemish, French-speaking, but Flemish nonetheless.

[@pyeitme508]

RAD

[@jakegarvin7634]

I'm all the way in Canada and even I know that "National Identity" is a strong choice in regards to belgium

[@neodragon8338]

In this videos alone you can find multiple reasons why the Dutch should stop saying 'gekolloniseerd' (get colonized) to my people.

[@jesusperez-bz6pq]

Belgium was loyal to spain, netherlands not, and after spain loses them, austria maintain belgium independent from netherlands

[@dirkvandierdonck5831]

A very correct resume of the reasons why we exist today.

[@joeshar.]

Interesting that two big powers have never tried to unite with their cultural neighbors. Wallonia+France and Flanders+Netherlands. They both have invaded many regions far away from their homeland but not the closest lands.

[@comptpublic8149]

Yous should reed Asterix among the Belgians/Belgae

[@Queijinhowo]

Because England protected them, Englands foreign policy at the time was to remove any competition in Europe, despite our countries small size, we defeated the English numerous times, getting access to Antwerp and more land would’ve made us even more powerful France also protected them (most of the time) because Belgium makes for a good buffer state

[@Josephine_Gamerian]

What a better way was to celebrate christmas than looking back into Belgiums Independence.

[@PendelSteven]

One fact that is glossed over is that in the provinces of North-Brabant, of course Liimburg, but parts of Gelderland, Overijssel and Zeeland (the edges) were also predominently catholic. It would take even longer for thoe catholics to be 100 % recognised as equal citizens in the Netherlands, even after 1839. Even in 2024 you can still see the difference between North and South of the Great Rivers, which is what is the classic devide between catholic and orotestant. Not just Netherlands - Belgium. That is a gross simplication.

[@R4rd]

In many ways, Belgium is to the Netherlands what Ireland is to the UK. A catholic minority seeking independence after their interests and identity were ignored for too long by an arrogant, protestant, colonial power.

[@ryanjuguilon213]

Catholic majority you mean? At this time period Belgium has more people than Netherlands

[@R4rd]

@ryanjuguilon213 Good point👍 But do not make the mistake that because they were many, they must have been powerful.

[@Queijinhowo]

@@R4rd the problem wasn’t that they ignored or subjugated like the Irish, the problem was that the south and the north had 50/50 equal representation, and the south was like five times more populated, besides holland most of the north was pretty rural

[@rolandxor179]

What broke it ? Foreign powers 'vreemde machten'.

[@pietervanderzwaan4295]

yes and no, the revolution was sparked due to the incompetence of the king but the french supplied the revolution.

[@ironfromicey8700]

As a flemish person. I think we should rejoin our dutch speaking neighbors.

[@meh2972]

1:11 The fact that it was called the Dutch _Republic_ indicates that it wasn't ruled by monarchs before Napoleon.

[@wheeloftime-hl7pb]

religion broke it

[@Games_and_Music]

And the French and Brits signing treaties and cutting deals. Honestly, as a 40 year old Dutchie, living in the middle of the Netherlands, i have never felt that Belgians are "supposed to be" Dutch. I know that many of us speak the same language, but i am fine with us just being neighbors. In fact, i wouldn't be too sad about it if some of the border areas would cross over to Germany and Belgium, as many of them already act as if they're German or Belgian. As opposed to waging civil wars about it, but of course, it would be a bit different if more prominent areas would want to split off, luckily the seaside areas will not be joining the UK anytime soon. But it is a pity that it was mostly about the lame religions.

[@jaixzz]

BeNeLu

[@AdLockhorst-bf8pz]

So the southern Dutch were unhappy with the Dutch king 🤔 which is very sensible. They broke out of the Netherlands and decided to found Belgium. Fair enough! But then they got silly; rather than becoming a republic, they got themselves a royal family. 🫣 And then they created a hell on Earth in the Congo which their king considered his personal property.

[@ivandinsmore6217]

This reminds me of Ireland.

[@jeebusk]

Lol the poop 💩

[@megulewu]

Why is this channel so ounderrated?

[@bcvetkov8534]

RIP United Netherlands bro. Man France ruins everything lol.

[@dayros2023]

Well the dutch really screwed this one.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Their king did.

[@unilajamuha91]

​@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714Your king

[@mitonaarea5856]

it would be nice if Belgium had an orleanist monarch these days...

[@jfrancobelge]

Well, that's the case, kind of... The first queen of Belgium, Louise, who is the ancestor of today's king Philippe, was the daughter of the last French king, Louis-Philippe, who was the first and only French king of the Orléans dinasty. And the first Belgian king, and Louise's husband, Leopold Ist, was German. Therefore, the present Belgian dinasty was originally half French, half German.

[@mitonaarea5856]

@@jfrancobelge That´s interesting, but technically the current monarchs of Belgium aren´t part of the house of Orleans.

[@SadaEKE]

LSS: English

[@Whizzer]

You seem to make the common mistake of conflating the words 'nation' and 'state'. They do not mean the same thing. Belgium is not a nation, it is a state. Not a nation state, however, since the shared history of Walloons and Flemish people doesn't go far enough back, and there's no shared language either. The Netherlands, however, is a nation state, for the most part (Frisians still have a mind of their own).

[@me67galaxylife]

Yeah the walloons and flemish just popped out of existence 200 years ago

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Yea, its a very common mistake among those who spend too much time watching American stuff.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

@@me67galaxylife No. Walloons and flemish are 2 seperate nations which share a sovereign state. Bough nations have existed for 100s of years and where formed by ethnogenisis among people groups which existed before them.

[@kimashitawa8113]

@@me67galaxylife He means that the Walloons and Flemish didn't really share the same culture before the formation of Belgium. Ofc the Flemish themselves existed beforehand just like Hollanders and Brabantians before the Netherlands were a thing.

[@me67galaxylife]

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 how to tell me you didn't get it without being explicit about it

[@MalikF15]

I got the logic of wanting a stronger Low Countrie to keep France in check but damn after this faliure you think great would’ve learned the lesson of uniting, different, ethnic groups and languages and religions. Arbitrary would result to conflict and failure cough, Middle East, World War I

[@me67galaxylife]

Belgium is far from a failure. They’re actually one of the only successful multicultural state, or at least they were successful at one point.

[@MalikF15]

@@me67galaxylife I’m by no means calling Belgium failure I’m just a pointing out a theme, that more often than not usually backfires

[@me67galaxylife]

@@MalikF15 you literally said '"after this failure" talking about belgium...

[@MalikF15]

@@me67galaxylife ya the united Netherlands. In my post I never once Called Belgium specifically a failure. I don’t think you get what I’m saying

[@me67galaxylife]

@@MalikF15 oh my bad i thought you meant low countries as a region; well it's not really better, if this revolution failed we would still see a united netherlands today and a united netherlands in general is not that far fetched; also belgium itself isn't that homogenous either so counter example... while multi cultural countries have plenty of problems and a lot of examples to back them, the netherlands or belgium are not good examples at all

[@kayhoorn]

Belgium exists to be a bad example so the Frysians don't try anything funny

[@GianniDN]

Belgians exist because their Median wealth per household (report Credit Swiss 2023) is 5 times higher than their neighbours, only Luxembourg scores better.

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

It shouldnt. Give me godlike powers and it would be devided in 3 a few years later.

[@thegentlemanfish7504]

Belgium, The Burgundian Discount

[@Brandon_TG_Smith]

And now they have shitty infrastructure

[@god6384]

shitty economy , shitty government all because of religion

[@1EpicFailz]

You lost deal with it

[@Brandon_TG_Smith]

@@1EpicFailz Yes, we will deal with it… ahahahahaha

[@kimashitawa8113]

So if our king wasn't an asshole towards the Catholic south then we could still have been united? What a doofus

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

Indeed he was.

[@Sondariut]

One of the slogans of the revolution was "We want Willem gone, would he wisen up, we would want Willem back". As far as fanaticism goes, the Belgian revolution wasn't an example. Truly a doofus indeed.

[@alexkempes1919]

Or as the Brusselairs put it: WWWW WWWW WWWW (Wij willen Willem weg, Wil Willem wijzer worden, Willen wij Willem weer)

[@Queijinhowo]

He wasn’t an asshole to them because they were Catholics, he actually wanted religious peace and tolerance, the problem was mostly political, the south of the Netherlands was and still is catholic

[@HabboCoolcattim]

Because France helped the rebels.

[@LookBackHistory]

A bit of an oversimplification, but not wrong!

[@AethelwulfBretwalda]

You talk way too slowly

[@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714]

He does not.

[@vger5857]

A more important question is 'why does Belgium still exist'. Flanders and Wallonië have nothing in common and they don't like each other. So split it up, Flanders to The Netherlands and Wallonië to France, and make Brussels the independent capital of the EU.

[@laustudie]

Belgium is a country?

[@willhovell9019]

British complicity, Belgium became the disasterous controller of the Congo. A good chunk of the south Netherlands was and is Catholic. A good example of a failed state that once again is falling apart

[@craigkdillon]

Belgium is famous for not being famous on anything. France has wine, brandy, and cheese. Germany has good beer, bad wine, and bad cheese. Holland has windmills and canals. Belgium?? Nothing, nada, zilch.

[@troygaspard6732]

Soon Belgium would desimate the Congo.

[@god6384]

it sucks that religion divided belgians with the dutch. As a belgian reflecting back on all of this makes me realise that this civil war was the dumbest thing ever economically. Back then the wallonians were more richer then the flemish but now the roles have been reversed and we flemish are stuck with the useless wallonians who sabotage the belgian government like hungary sabotages the EU. Belgians and especially flemishs economy would be way better when united with the Netherlands. This is why I don't like religions at all. They always divide people and even cause civil wars and deaths just because of religion? It's fine to be a Deist but do you really need to follow a religion, kill other people, brainwash, ... to believe in God. Cmon we people are better then that