Talk:Burgundian Netherlands

Merging

I have put up the merge tags, because:

• The title "Seventeen provinces" is not very descriptive.
• The two articles cover the same territories.
• The term actually extents to a larger period of time and not just 1482-1556.
• The accession of the Habsburgs in 1477/1482 did not at first change the character of the Burgundian Netherlands.
• The "Seventeen Provinces" article is a stub, largely a mere list of the provinces.
• The German WP has one article as the equivalent of these two.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merge, and instead propose to rename the Burgundian Netherlands to the Burgundian times/era/epoch or similar, like the article on Dutch wikipedia. The Seventeen provinces is a term and the Burgundian Netherlands/times is a time period.There should be 2 articles. Rex 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose with emphasis: the "Seventeen Provinces" is a name that is widely known and used for roughly the present Benelux in the Habsburgers era, and mustnot redirect to the Burgundian period (nor vice versa since there were no 17 provinces in the Burgundian era). Though Rex subjectively sees the Burgundian era as better known than the Burgundian Netherlands, the latter must remain because it too is a rather common term which refers to the Low Countries in that era in a clear way. Else one would need to write 'the Netherlands in the Burgundian era' which would be confusing as the Netherlands could then more easily be interpreted as the much smaller geographical area of the present Netherlands. "Burgundian Netherlands" provides a practical link that avoids confusion by it name alone: the Netherlands belonging to Burgundy (in France) makes any ignorant reader follow the link. Note that 'de Boergondische Nederlanden' is also used in Dutch language; one never speaks of 'de Boergondische Lage Landen' (thus no 'Burgundian Low Countries'). — SomeHuman 22 Nov2006 23:04 (UTC)

Princebishopric of Liège

Should the territory of Liège really be included as a component?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I was asking myself the same question. But in 1465 the Duke was officially made the Protector of Liège, and after the Sack of 1468 the territory was well under control. I'm more concerned about the Bishopric of Utrecht, actually. Unfortunately the map is very unclear, showing an independent Liege in 1477 but a Burgundian Utrecht. --Praundo (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that to put it simple there was a long-term variable level of influence and control, but it was never officially the same direct type of administration as the secular lordships? (I am open to correction on that.) So would it be better to show kind of hatched or faded coloring?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that would be great. Also the question is to know whether they should be included as components or not, as bishoprics were not under direct control. -Praundo (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't think I am up to making a map like that myself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge Burgundian State and Burgundian Netherlands as these are overlapping but not distinct entities or modern historical constructions; to not merge Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries as it extends beyond the period of the Burgundian State. Klbrain (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

---

“Burgundian State” is an invention. Burgundian Netherlands speaks about the same topic. Revolution Yes (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not sure about this. Whether the term is modern or not does not really matter. We can have articles about historical topics, using modern terms. In any case, I understand the two titles to be intended to refer to different things? The "state" includes both the Netherlands and Burgundy itself right? On the other hand, I accept my doubts are not a complete counter argument. 1. Highly overlapping topics should not all get separate articles. 2. While I accept there was a sort of "state" or united constitution developing in the Netherlands part, which was more than just a united lordship but also involved for example the cities, I am wondering about whether such developments really ever strongly connected the Netherlands and the original Burgundy domains, or was the main connection the two parts shared simply the Dukes and their lordly administration? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Against. I agree that the "Burgundian State" is a recent invention, and I prefer the term "Burgundian StateS", but we cannot ignore that these states were somehow "united" under the Valois-Bourgogne. The Burgundian Netherlands is a detail of these "Burgundian States", so if you want to merge one article into another, it should be the one about the Netherlands into the one about the Burgundian State. Another point is what are we going to do the Burgundies and the rest of "pays de par delà" ? We're not going to do an article "Burgundian pays de par delà". So again, if any article must disappears it would be the one about Netherlands. I've seen that you think "Burgundian Circle" is an equivalent of Burgundian States... It's totally false. The Burgundian circle is an imperial circle created in 1512, so decades after the "Burgundian State". 1Loupdesbois (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A single article about the Burgundian states that takes all? Ok, agreement found.--Revolution Yes (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@1Loupdesbois: (1) I agree with the last part. In fact I agree with the wording of Srnec below. (2) I don't like your wording about the Netherlands being a "detail" because clearly it was an evolving regional situation that has a past and a future which is distinct from the dynasty. Probably you don't disagree with this though, because basically all I am saying is that this period of Low countries history deserves an article, and I think it probably has more than one. (3) Perhaps not so important but in terms of notability, personally I see the concept of "Burgundian States" as more or less just a part of a dynastic history. At least I don't recall reading anything about any major impetus towards any actual unification of the two big blocks of Burgundian domains. So it is in many ways a less notable topic than the Burgundian Netherlands which represented a major turning point for a major population, which had impacts for many other populations.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster I never meant that the "detail" was something minor and I agree with you, moreover it was the center of the "Burgundian state(s)". The unification of these states was an important goal for the Valois-Burgundians and it explains a lot about their reigns. Furthermore, the term "Burgundian state(s)" is used by many historians to describe this "dynastic history" and its institutions. In my opinion, we should keep both articles (Burgundian Netherlands and Burgundian State(s)). But the article Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries is clearly too much (+ the french version isn't about the same thing). 1Loupdesbois (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Simply speaking: we have Burgundian Netherlands for (obviously) the Netherlands matters, and Burgundian Circle for the common arguments of Netherlands and Burgundy. No need of Burgundian State.--Revolution Yes (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Burgundian circle includes only those states that were in the Empire and only after the formation of the Reichskreise. Burgundian Netherlands includes only the Low Countries. Neither includes the Duchy of Burgundy itself. There is more redundancy between Burgundian State and House of Valois-Burgundy. —Srnec (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Let’s add Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries to this ne bis in idem topic.--Revolution Yes (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That article should be merged to this one, I agree. Separate articles on the Burgundian Netherlands and Habsburg Netherlands also seem questionable. Srnec (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree to merge Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries into this article. 1Loupdesbois (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes that merge makes sense to me also. I can't really see any counter argument to that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait, Andrew Lancaster, 1Loupdesbois, Srnec; that article also includes the history of the Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries after the end of the Burgundian State/Burgundian Netherlands (aka the rule of the Burgundian house rule over the Netherlands in 1482), when it was still named "Burgundian inheritance" albeit being under the Habsburgs. It should be kept, as it has a different scope. Barjimoa (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The article currently contains 2 paragraphs and two lists of rulers. Do we really need so many articles for the late medieval and early modern Low Countries? The problem for editors is that it becomes very difficult to maintain quality when there are so many small and overlapping articles. The problem for readers is that they might not find what they are looking for.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC) We also have Habsburg Netherlands.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We need them if they refer to different things. Burgundian Netherlands is part of (not all of) the Burgundian State. And Burgundian inheritance is a concept used to describe the Burgundian low countries after the end of the Burgundian state.Barjimoa (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

We really do not need different articles to explain every different thing. If explaining A properly requires almost the same explanation as explaining B, then A and B should be covered in the same article. See WP:OVERLAP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that "Burgundian" has meant many different things over time. It's inevitably like this. If we end up merging it may create confusion, we'll end up needing significant adjustments to the article in which we have merged the others. Barjimoa (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

But that is not really a relevant problem in this case. All the Burgundies we are referring to in this case are the same. In fact you could say that the more we split this topic up, the more likely we are to get confusions with the other Burgundies. In the end my concern here is that editors and readers can find the right place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if the Burgundian State is a historiographical tool, I'd argue it's an important one for understanding Burgundian history. I don't believe merging the articles at the cost of nuance and potential understanding is worth it. Julius177 (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Opposee, the arguments are distinct. Eccekevin (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The Burgundian Netherlands were just a part of the so-called "Burgundian state" so the pages are best left distinct.

However, "Burgundian state" is a contemporary historiographical concept: Valois Burgundy was never a real, continuous "state". At the time, Burgundy as a whole was called "States of the Duke of Burgundy" or "Possessions of the Duke of Burgundy" so these may be better titles for the "Burgundian State" page. Psychloppos (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag?

why does the flag look like the spanish empire with a yellow thing in the middle 95.24.0.205 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Merge Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries into this article

Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Part of the 2022/23 merge discussion above covered this - although, as far as I can see only one person opposed that part of the proposal. The focus of the discussion was on the Burgundian state article. There really is no reason to have the Burgundian inheritance article and this one - they cover exactly the same topic. Above it was said "Burgundian inheritance is a concept used to describe the Burgundian low countries after the end of the Burgundian state." Yes and no. It's a retrospective reference to the inherited core of the Habsburg Netherlands (yes, yet another article along with Spanish Netherlands). It crystallised in 1482 and that ongoing history of that core is fully covered by Habsburg Netherlands. And splitting the concept in this way has caused confusion - we have over at Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries someone adding in territories gained post 1482 by the Habsburgs, as though it's also a synonym for "Habsburg Netherlands"!! DeCausa (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The page "Burgundian Netherlands" covers only the period of Valois-Burgundy (pre-1482) and "Habsburg Netherlands" covers only the subsequent period of Habsburg rule (post-1482). The broader page of "Burgundian inheritance", on the other hand, includes both and was/is widely used (it's also not anachronistic, unlike the other terms). This is because the Habsburgs continued to rule these territories as "Dukes of Burgundy" and continued to refer to them mostly as as "Burgundian inheritance" or "Burgundian territory" or "Burgundian circle" or "Burgundian state(s)" or other variants. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:2545:AAE2:66D8:FE88 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • So if X=Y+Z why do we need article X when we have Y and Z?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, it's like the Kingdom of Spain having Trastamara Spain, Habsburg Spain and Bourbon Spain. Or with the Habsburg Netherlands page being subdivided in Spanish Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands etc. The incoherence here is that the pages "Burgundian Netherlands" and "Burgundian state" are limited the period when the Dukes of Burgundy were from a branch of the house of Valois, while the pages Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries and the list of Dukes of Burgundy more correctly continue when the Dukes of Burgundy were Habsburgs (as does the page Burgundian Circle).

To recap and give a picture of how this should be best classified:

• Burgundian lands/inheritance (including all the sub-periods below)
  • Valois period (up to 1482)
  • Habsburg period
    • unified Habsburgs (up to 1556)
    • Spanish Habsburg period (up to the early 1700s)
    • Austrian Habsburg period (up until the end of the 18th century).

Some articles (Burgundian inheritance, Dukes of Burgundy, Burgundian circle) follow this model/nomenclature, while others (Burgundian Netherlands, Burgundian state) follow this other model/nomenclature:

• • Burgundian (pre-1482; only when the dukes of Burgundy were from the House of Valois)
  • Habsburg (post-1482; when the Dukes of Burgundy were Habsburgs)

Given that the sources of the time as well as scholars largely continue to speak of Burgundian inheritance/territories into the Habsburg era (the fact that the Holy Roman Imperial circle including the Low Countries was called Burgundian Circle was one of the consequences of this), what we should actually do is correct the other pages so that they all fit with the 1st model/nomenclature and drop the 2nd (in other words it should be Burgundian Netherlands that should become the first section of Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries). However, I think this would be a big change in need of a bigger discussion. For now, however, I think we should at least not redirect the pages with the better model to the incoherent one.

2A01:E11:17:40B0:DF2:24F:EA22:AB3 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Firstly, no Habsburg ruled anything in the Low Countries qua Duke of Burgundy. They did so as Count of Flanders, Duke of Brabant etc. Secondly, the Habsburg Netherlands is larger than the Burgundian Netherlands - they added to the Burgundian inheritance (at least initially) eg Friesland wasn't conquered until Charles V took it in the 1540s. Thirdly, WP:RS don't refer to the "Burgundian Netherlands" as an ongoing concept past 1482. It's only a retrospective reference to the inheritance the Habsburgs obtained. We have an article called Habsburg Netherlands because that is it's WP:COMMONNAME and not anything with "Burgundian" in it. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I leave aside your "that's non-sense" comment, because I want to have a civil and normal conversation. The area was broadly called either just Netherlands/Low Countries or Burgundian lands/inheritance/states (which included also some other territories), i think we agree on this. This use of "Burgundian" to refer to these territores continued well into the Habsburg era and despite all the local titles (Flanders, Brabant etc.), it's like the Spanish kingdom being broadly called Spanish kingdom despite actually being many different kingdoms. Again, the Burgundian Circle of the Holy Roman Empire is one example of this nomenclature. I've made my case for the 1st model above, as the 2nd will always be the cause of incoherences, but I said I am not now proposing an actual change on this and on the "Habsburg Netherlands" and "Burgundian Netherlands" pages; I am just opposing the elimination of the Burgundian inheritance page, which is also the clearest and least anachronistic concept between these, as the others are modern terms used in a variety of ways. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:E0F2:7675:4E18:D9BA (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

In the answers above I see no attempt to really answer my question. In WP we do not make articles for every possible way of splitting up a subject, but rather try to split topics up which avoid duplication in several articles. The current situation seems to lead to multiple articles which all cover the same topic. That's not good.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe one way out could be to merge Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries into Habsburg Netherlands as long as that intro says "the Habsburg Netherlands, also known as Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries, etc etc" (the word "Burgundian" could redirect to Burgundian State or Burgundian Netherlands or Dukes of Burgundy or whatever article explains how these Burgundian territories went from a branch of Valois to the Habsburgs). I don't know if the user above would agree? As far as I am concerned it's not ideal but I would look at it as good, contrary to a redirect to the page Burgundian Netherlands which would limit the word Burgundian to the period covered in that article (pre-1482) and go in open conflict with Burgundian Circle and other pages. My basic point is that it has to be clear that the Burgundian nomenclature (to broadly refer to these territories) carried on in Habsburg times. My opposition is to this specific merger proposed and to the disappearance of the broader concept of Burgundian inheritance in the Low Countries.2A01:E11:17:40B0:C4DD:94C3:FDC9:3127 (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly becoming a re-redirect is the obvious solution. To Habsburg Netherlands is sub-optimal (compared to the Burgundian Netherlands) because, as I mentioned earlier, the Habsburg Netherlands was a larger set of territories than the Burgundian inheritance but the "inheritance" eleement does imply a post-1482 perspective so I am ok with it. DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. WP:OVERLAP / WP:REDUNDANTFORK. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:DF2:24F:EA22:AB3 is mostly engaging in WP:OR periodisations of what they think the scope of both pages should be, nitpicking semantics rather than considering the huge overlap between the two pages as demonstrated by DeCausa. NLeeuw (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)