Belgium with the rest of Lowlands. It was under Napoleon rule, wasn't it? It's inaccurate because it was completely other country and Lowlands were for some time stronger than France? Poland for some time was stronger than Russia, and is 100% different than Germany but who cares?
RFC:BTS will have 5 new civs!
- Thread starter sennomulo
- Start date
Belgium with the rest of Lowlands. It was under Napoleon rule, wasn't it? It's inaccurate because it was completely other country and Lowlands were for some time stronger than France? Poland for some time was stronger than Russia, and is 100% different than Germany but who cares?
Cucumber
Chieftain
Netherlands was never stronger than France (military speaking), Belgium was under Napoleon's rules quite right but not for long, only the time for napoleon to be crushed down in Waterloo (in Belgium by the way, in the province of Abba), we were under the spanish crown during some centuries, and also under Austrian rule, burgundian, etc... Poland is slavish as Russia and surely wasn't "stronger" than Russia very long...(maybe you're speaking of the Jagellon Kingdom which were as lithuanian as it was polish) also Poland (or to be more realistic the "polish area") have a long common history with Prussia no? (teutonic order, hanseatic league, the drang nach osten movement, etc)
Oh and to be completely out of subject, damn what came to polish minds to have elected those evil twin who think that the faith of Poland is to rule the European Union and to insult Germany about the crime of the nazi reich? wake up Poland !
Oh and to be completely out of subject, damn what came to polish minds to have elected those evil twin who think that the faith of Poland is to rule the European Union and to insult Germany about the crime of the nazi reich? wake up Poland !
SadoMacho
spanker of civilizations
In 1815 the great alliance was formed with England (or is it...), Russia, Austria-Hungaria and Prussia. Later on France joined it. This alliance had to prevent something like the French Revolution. Also it had to stop nationalist revolutions in Europe and keep the kings and nobles in power. In 1830 a revolution broke out in Poland to get their independence. Prussia, A-H and Russia oppressed it. Then the Belgian Revolution broke out. The UK saw its chance to get ride of a potentialy stong enemy. The combined strenght of the Dutch trading (and militay) fleet and the Belgian industry (2nd most industrial country in the world, 1st being te UK) was dagerous to the UK. France got ride of a state that was created to keep it in its borders it there would be a new revolution. Aslo Belgian would be led by the Frenchspeking rich and powerfull and France liked this more than a Dutchspeaking, protestant powerhouse next to it. If we took a king of noble blood, no one would oppress the revolotion. The french and English would care and the Russian, Prussias and A-H were bussy. As king we took an uncle of queen Victoria and he married a French princess and Belgium was born. A by Frenchspeaking controlled nation with a Dutchspeaking Majoirty. The Flemish were happy because we were catholic and the Liberal Frenchspeaking industrials got ride of the despotic rule of Willem of Orange and we had the most liberali constitution of Europe.
On the Congo thingy:
Congo was colonized by king Leopold II of Belgium. It was his private property. later on he had to give it to Belgium because of his crimes in the Congo Freestate.
On the Congo thingy:
Congo was colonized by king Leopold II of Belgium. It was his private property. later on he had to give it to Belgium because of his crimes in the Congo Freestate.
Netherlands were stronger than France (economy speaking). Poland was under Russian rules not for long (OK-it was for quite long time a "vassal" of Russia). Poland was stronger than Russia until feudal fragmentation. Poland bordered Germany since begining but it's other cultural group, language group, etc.
Inteligents were killed by Nazi Germany during WWII and communism was putting effort to unable Poland create new- so it's a result
Cucumber
Chieftain
and to be complete after the election of june 2007 we've got a big chance to see Belgium soon beeing dismantle between Flanders (Vlaanderen), some kind of Brussels city state and a poor Wallonia with an income per inhabitant close to the polish one. Our king will therefore be unemployed, if Poland wants new rulers we can give you Albert II and his son Philippe, they may replace your evil twin but they cost a lot of money (they need a palace, a royal mariage, some caritative foundations and other expensive kingthings).
and we have the best chocolate, beer and french fries
and we have the most ridiculous footballteam we ever had since the fifties
I hope somebody have learned something today
Rhye
's and Fall creator
I have to say I'm very annoyed by those two bastards. Get out of the EU if you don't know how to behave!
Rhye
's and Fall creator
really? Will there be a referendum?
Cucumber
Chieftain
nope but Flanders clearly voted in favour of more autonomy (about 60%), and apart from our footballteam, king dynasty, army, social system and railway transportation everything were already divided between the 3 parts of the country, so if the new futur belgian leader (not currently officialy designated but everybody knows who it will be) wants to "regionalize" the healthcare system and the system of unemployement allocation (and he will for sure) then the frenchspeakers will cry about solidarity and the unity of Belgium will have a harsh time.
Only speculations currently but we never been that close, end of Belgium is no more sci-fi even for the most patriotic wallonian
Cucumber
Chieftain
Belgium in the Dutch Civ is same as Scotland and Ireland in the English Civ!!!! Ò___o~~
Oh.. well... no problem here.
I can live with that, I'm not nationalist nor polish (
to Luko)SadoMacho
spanker of civilizations
Sounds like you voted for NVA (Flemish separatist) or Vlaams Belang (former nationalis and racist party that try to convince te people they are a mainstream party now). I don't think that Belgium will fall apart soon as most Belgians don't want that, not even all Flemish want this.
About the Belgians being part of the dutch civ:
It's in fact the other way around. Holland became big after the reformation. Many Rich Flemish people fled to Holland as the became protestant and there was the spanish inq...
About the Belgians being part of the dutch civ:
It's in fact the other way around. Holland became big after the reformation. Many Rich Flemish people fled to Holland as the became protestant and there was the spanish inq...
Cucumber
Chieftain
I feel insulted Sadomacho,... I'm frenchspeaker from Brussels and believe me far from a Belang supporter (Vlaamse Belang = flemish nationalist, racist, anti-french, antisemit party founded by some nazi flemish supports after WWII, they had around 20% of flemish votes this year) ... and yeap not "all" flemish wants independance, the fact is that they want to keep the name Belgium but want to regionalize every sectors that represent a cost of solidarity for the rich Flanders in favour of the lazy and corrupt wallonia...
In fact Flemish politics just want to keep the old age allocation ('coz Flanders population is going older and Wallonia + Brussels have a better natality rate).
Politicians, education, culture, media, transportation, famous people, tourism, a large part of economy and laws are already regionalized and makes the country very different from north to south, plus we don't know each other lesser and lesser as time past. The french part says "no more regionalization" and the flemish part wants always more autonomy and they have the political power because they are in majority so htey will have more autonomy, but why would the frenchspeakers wants to keep an empty concept as Belgium if there 's no more solidarity between regions? I assure you that in the french part the debate become a real deal, and when the main flemish party (CDNV-NVA, supposingly christian democrat but became very very flemish nationalist these times) celebrates their victory after the election of june 2007 with flemish flags it hurts the french part sooo much. Remember that Yves Leterme (CDNV-NVA leader and futur prime minister of Belgium) had said that they WILL be more regionalization and that the french leaders from all parties said that they don't want any.
Oh yeah and every flemish parties that didn't claimed to be in favour of more regionalization had lost the election this year, in the french part you don't have any autonomous party...They're all very unitarists, for how long?
(main belgian problem : Brussels, officially capital of both Belgium & Flanders, historically a flemish city but currently 90% of its population is frenchspeaking but surrounded by flemish municipalities. Brussels is the core of belgian industry and trading and also got an international reputation through the EU. Nor Flanders nor Wallonia can give up on Brussels, if we didn't had Brussels, it would have been a long time that we had been divided as Czeskoslovakia)
I'm not in favour of the end of Belgium, it would be stupid to divided ourselves when we try in the same time to build the EU, but I'm sadly realistic, there's two different views of Belgium and we don't understand each other anymore.
Where are you from Sado?
SadoMacho
spanker of civilizations
I'm sorry Cucumber, but it seemed like you liked the end of Belgium in your previous post, so I assumed...
Maybe the TV-show of the RTBf (Frenchspeaking state TV) about the independence of Flanders (a fake news report) has made our Fenchspeaking countrymen a bit afraid (I think). I myself think we need a new state structure as now it is a costly, unusable way of ruling a nation. A nice federal state could be used as an example of the Europian Union and some say also for Israel(2 people claiming a city as theres).
Talking about Leterme : his father migrated form Wallonia to Flanders, I don't know what this guy is up to, but I don't like him (aslo because his a christian democrate, and I don't like those guys)
About Brussles: The strangest thing about Brussels is it's name. In Dutch it is now called Brussel, witch is the bastard form of the French name witch is the bastard form of the original Dutch name Broeksele (= stone building or hall in a swamp). That's what Belgium is all about, funny stuff that grew historicly. BTW the most give frist name in Brussels is currently Mohamed and in the Marrollen (a part of Brussels), you can find a person of all nationalities that are in the UN (except of 4 nations). Brussels is also the Europian capital, so there are many Eurocrates too. Brussels is a very funky city, if you ask me.
Also Vlaamse Belang(= Flemish interest) wasn't founded after WWII. It is a split party of the Volksunie(=Peoples Union), a Flemish nationalist party that wasn't racist but wanted a federal state with atonomy for Flanders, Wallonia Brussels and the German speaking region. The Volksunie had its roots in de Frontbeweging (= Frontmonvement) witch started in the trenches of WWI when Flemish soldiers were shot because they couldn't understand the orders from there French speaking officers. They started the socalled Flemish emancipation movement and hence the Flemish collaboration during the 2 WW.
And for your question: I am form Temse in East Flanders, not to far from Antwerp, a town were CD&V-NVA and Vlaams Belang are number 1 and 2 unfortunatly
Maybe the TV-show of the RTBf (Frenchspeaking state TV) about the independence of Flanders (a fake news report) has made our Fenchspeaking countrymen a bit afraid (I think). I myself think we need a new state structure as now it is a costly, unusable way of ruling a nation. A nice federal state could be used as an example of the Europian Union and some say also for Israel(2 people claiming a city as theres).
Talking about Leterme : his father migrated form Wallonia to Flanders, I don't know what this guy is up to, but I don't like him (aslo because his a christian democrate, and I don't like those guys)
About Brussles: The strangest thing about Brussels is it's name. In Dutch it is now called Brussel, witch is the bastard form of the French name witch is the bastard form of the original Dutch name Broeksele (= stone building or hall in a swamp). That's what Belgium is all about, funny stuff that grew historicly. BTW the most give frist name in Brussels is currently Mohamed and in the Marrollen (a part of Brussels), you can find a person of all nationalities that are in the UN (except of 4 nations). Brussels is also the Europian capital, so there are many Eurocrates too. Brussels is a very funky city, if you ask me.
Also Vlaamse Belang(= Flemish interest) wasn't founded after WWII. It is a split party of the Volksunie(=Peoples Union), a Flemish nationalist party that wasn't racist but wanted a federal state with atonomy for Flanders, Wallonia Brussels and the German speaking region. The Volksunie had its roots in de Frontbeweging (= Frontmonvement) witch started in the trenches of WWI when Flemish soldiers were shot because they couldn't understand the orders from there French speaking officers. They started the socalled Flemish emancipation movement and hence the Flemish collaboration during the 2 WW.
And for your question: I am form Temse in East Flanders, not to far from Antwerp, a town were CD&V-NVA and Vlaams Belang are number 1 and 2 unfortunatly
Cucumber
Chieftain
I'll myself recognise my mistakes : you're right about the Belang and I like your story of Brussels's name, very interesting when you know that brussels people called themselves "zinneke" which means "bastard" in brussels dialect.
meanwhile even if some (rich) neighborhoods of Brussels are effectively very internationalized, french stay the vehicle language in the city (remember that the french community, from France I means this time..., is the first minority of Brussels, bigger than any north-african minority which also speaks mostly french). About a state reform I'm not against it in any way, as brusseleir I would like to expand Brussels frontiers to its logical size (currently Brussels is so limited that its suburbian (and richest) areas are mostly in Flanders and a few in Wallonia, causing a terrible lack of income) . but you know like me it's impossible because of the point of view of flemish politicians with the "indivisible flemish ground". By the way expanding Brussels's boundaries would resolve the problem of flemish representation through Brussels's institutions 'coz it will increase the percentage of flemishs, currently too little to understand the parity in use in Brussels's municipalities and government.
But flemish politicians have convinced a large part of flemish population that Wallonia cost them too much and are unable to soluce their economical problems, in fact Spain or Great Britain knows already a bigger transfer between poor and rich region than Belgium...
Finally I don't understand why flemish politicians claims always for more autonomy when they are actually ruling Belgium and dismembering this already so little country is not the best way to be more effective and respected on the international scene. Which lessons can we give to Israel if the only goal of our federalization is to live apart and not together?
I hope somebody else had read this interesting debate which is a good one to understand our little but funny country. All these questions are curently the great issues of the belgian political debates but in a way more aggressive way
which drives me to say maybe we're reaching the point of no-return of the dislocation.
Beste sado, met vriendelijke groetjes,
Cucumber
meanwhile even if some (rich) neighborhoods of Brussels are effectively very internationalized, french stay the vehicle language in the city (remember that the french community, from France I means this time..., is the first minority of Brussels, bigger than any north-african minority which also speaks mostly french). About a state reform I'm not against it in any way, as brusseleir I would like to expand Brussels frontiers to its logical size (currently Brussels is so limited that its suburbian (and richest) areas are mostly in Flanders and a few in Wallonia, causing a terrible lack of income) . but you know like me it's impossible because of the point of view of flemish politicians with the "indivisible flemish ground". By the way expanding Brussels's boundaries would resolve the problem of flemish representation through Brussels's institutions 'coz it will increase the percentage of flemishs, currently too little to understand the parity in use in Brussels's municipalities and government.
But flemish politicians have convinced a large part of flemish population that Wallonia cost them too much and are unable to soluce their economical problems, in fact Spain or Great Britain knows already a bigger transfer between poor and rich region than Belgium...
Finally I don't understand why flemish politicians claims always for more autonomy when they are actually ruling Belgium and dismembering this already so little country is not the best way to be more effective and respected on the international scene. Which lessons can we give to Israel if the only goal of our federalization is to live apart and not together?
I hope somebody else had read this interesting debate which is a good one to understand our little but funny country. All these questions are curently the great issues of the belgian political debates but in a way more aggressive way
which drives me to say maybe we're reaching the point of no-return of the dislocation.
Beste sado, met vriendelijke groetjes,
Cucumber
Samurai 2006
Chieftain
I'm Danish and I'm unhappy with my representation (like the Polish. I understand them perfectly that they want their civ in like I want mine in).
I think there should be a Scandinavian civilization that would cover:
Danish kingdom (Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Greenland), Swedish kingdom (Sweden, Finland, Baltic), Icelandic commonwealth (Iceland, Greenland, Vinland), Kalmar Union (all Scandinavia) AND the Vikings. That is bigger than Poland and Belgium together.
The Belgians are like the Dutch and the Ukrainians are like the Russians, but we have nothing but a silly, unfair and unrealistic representation.
Surely, we have the Vikings. But having the Vikings is like having .. I don't know. The Viking age was just the golden age of Scandinavia. There never was a Viking empire of any kind. Surely Norwegian kingdom, Danish kingdom, Swedish kingdom and Icelandic commonwealth was ruled by Vikings but come on! Ragnar is a pathetic leader. Semi-mythical and never really did anything special. Sure he destroyed the French and should have captured Paris (but hey, Hitler did it too and he isn't in the game). In stead he took the bribe of getting Normandy. That's all he ever did.
Scandinavia was also a colonial power even though we came nothing close to what the others had (English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Belgians, Germans) but Greenland, Vinland and Danish Virgin Isles are all examples of Scandinavian colonies.
I've been reading a thread about that this must be changed in the epic game, but that will never happen. I just hope you listen Rhye! If you take 10 minutes and read about Scandinavian history (I'm sure you know a lot on this like all things). You'll be convinced that "the Viking civilization" is as silly as having a Ukrainian civilization. The Viking age was just our golden age! For the record Viking means sea-raider. Literally: "Sea-raider empire".
Hear my plea!
I think there should be a Scandinavian civilization that would cover:
Danish kingdom (Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Greenland), Swedish kingdom (Sweden, Finland, Baltic), Icelandic commonwealth (Iceland, Greenland, Vinland), Kalmar Union (all Scandinavia) AND the Vikings. That is bigger than Poland and Belgium together.
The Belgians are like the Dutch and the Ukrainians are like the Russians, but we have nothing but a silly, unfair and unrealistic representation.
Surely, we have the Vikings. But having the Vikings is like having .. I don't know. The Viking age was just the golden age of Scandinavia. There never was a Viking empire of any kind. Surely Norwegian kingdom, Danish kingdom, Swedish kingdom and Icelandic commonwealth was ruled by Vikings but come on! Ragnar is a pathetic leader. Semi-mythical and never really did anything special. Sure he destroyed the French and should have captured Paris (but hey, Hitler did it too and he isn't in the game). In stead he took the bribe of getting Normandy. That's all he ever did.
Scandinavia was also a colonial power even though we came nothing close to what the others had (English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Belgians, Germans) but Greenland, Vinland and Danish Virgin Isles are all examples of Scandinavian colonies.
I've been reading a thread about that this must be changed in the epic game, but that will never happen. I just hope you listen Rhye! If you take 10 minutes and read about Scandinavian history (I'm sure you know a lot on this like all things). You'll be convinced that "the Viking civilization" is as silly as having a Ukrainian civilization. The Viking age was just our golden age! For the record Viking means sea-raider. Literally: "Sea-raider empire".
Hear my plea!
Rhye
's and Fall creator
I know each country has its own reason to argue about being included and using a certain name...
Unfortunately in other languages "The Scandinavians" doesn't sound good. At least, in Italian, the word Scandinavia is used to refer the region, but historically we study the Vikings and the Normans, and later the various kingdoms, but not a Scandinavian Empire. It's like calling the Khmer "South East Asians" for a better representation of Thai and Vietnam. It's probably more correct and fair, but doesn't sound good.
Unfortunately in other languages "The Scandinavians" doesn't sound good. At least, in Italian, the word Scandinavia is used to refer the region, but historically we study the Vikings and the Normans, and later the various kingdoms, but not a Scandinavian Empire. It's like calling the Khmer "South East Asians" for a better representation of Thai and Vietnam. It's probably more correct and fair, but doesn't sound good.
Similar threads
