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)