Template talk:History of the Low Countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Nice template! This should be included on all the historical Low Countries pages; i'll see if i can get round to doing that. One note though: surprised you didnt choose Orange as color for the Netherlands; maybe an idea? :-) --The Minister of War 14:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Really nice schematic, i'm gonna use it for the spanish wikipedia. Greetings!!


I guess this (pretty!) new template makes others like Template:Netherlands state obsolete. I have one remark: Spanish Netherlands and Austrian Netherlands are currently redirects to Southern Netherlands, which covers the history of the southern half of the Seventeen Provinces between 1579 (the treaties of Utrecht and Atrecht/Arras) and the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. This seems a sensible division to me, and the template should reflect that. BTW were the Seventeen Provinces referred to as such between 1556 and 1579?Markussep 11:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bishopric liege flag.gif[edit]

Image used in the template has no source information. Please use the image with appropriate copyrights, else it would effect the template because of deletion of the image. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


The template is nice but it says on History of Luxembourg that Luxembourg was one of the Seventeen Provinces. Crix 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, and it seems that it was part of the Austrian Netherlands as well. Furthermore, it seems that the Bishopric of Liège is now more or less co-extensive with the Belgian provinces of Limburg and Liège, and not with Luxembourg. On the other hand, Luxembourg always was a County and a Duchy of the Holy Roman Empire, so it probably should get its own column in the template, so the template could better reflect the various stages Luxembourg went through. From what it is said in History of Luxembourg, this would be:
  1. until 1354: County of Luxembourg / Imperial estate of the Holy Roman Empire
  2. until 1443: Duchy of Luxembourg / Imperial estate of the Holy Roman Empire
  3. until 1477: part of Burgundian Netherlands
  4. until 1556: part of the Seventeen Provinces
  5. until 1581: part of the Spanish Netherlands
  6. until 1713: part of the Southern Netherlands
  7. until 1794: part of the Austrian Netherlands
  8. until 1804: Département of Forêts, part of the First French Republic
  9. until 1815: Département of Forêts, part of the First French Empire
  10. until 1867: elevated to Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, under Dutch rule, but not part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, it was rather part of the German Confederation, which lasted until 1866. In 1867, Luxembourg's independence was formally ratified. Crix 18:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I put a changed version of the template on User talk:Crix#Low Countries Template. Pls. comment, otherwise I will implement it in a few days. Crix 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Crix, I have seen your proposed template now and think it is an improvement. However, there are some problems I want to address:

  • Why do you write Spanish Netherlands only until 1581 and then Southern Netherlands. The Spanish possessions were restricted to the south, yes, but these were still the Spanish Netherlands. Otherwise, why should they become the Austrian Netherlands after 1713.
  • I don't like Belgium being split up like it currently is. You could move the Liege column to the left side, so at the bottom a combined Belgium emerges. Or the Luxemburg column. IMHO we should have three fields for Be, Ne and Lux at the bottom.
  • With Luxemburg, I don't think the German Confederation should be mentioned. The members of that body were all sovereign states. Luxemburg is only different in that its Duke/Grand Duke also was King of the Netherlands. But then again, the same applied for Hanover and Holstein. It should rather mention the personal union with NL.

Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Spanish Netherlands / Southern Netherlands: that's what the original version said
  • Belgium / Liege: I agree with you that splitting up Belgium is not ideal. Moving Liege to the left though will result in tearing apart those periods in which Luxembourg was part of the Netherlands / Belgium but Liege was not. Maybe Liege should go entirely?
  • Regarding the German Confederation: it was a very important step between the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. Although legally its members were sovereign, it was dominated by Prussia and Austria. My main reason for including this was that the Luxembourg fortress was maintained by the Confederation. What I mean is that IMHO the political integration of Lux into the German Confederation (alongside with the economic integration which again did not include the Kingdom of the Netherlands) was more important than the personal union with the Netherlands. Crix 10:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the split fields problem can be solved by creating three main columns, ending at the bottom in (from left to right:) Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg. Further up Liege (which definitely should be included) would be placed on the left (but less broad than Belgium beneath, then the Netherlands (with the Spanish, Austrian Netherlands on the left, then the United NL on the right), and Luxemburg on the right. Granted, this would split for a while the Spanish NL from Luxemburg but it's better to split a conglomerate than an actual state like Belgium.
  • Yes, the membership in the Confed was important, especially because of the fortress (which was dismantled as part of the settlement of the Luxemburg crisis) but I think the personal union has more bearing on the "Low Countries" setting.
  • I am not happy with the whole distinctions between "Burgundian Netherlands", "Seventeen Provinces", "Spanish Netherlands", "Southern Netherlands" - I propose either:
"Burgundian NL" (until 1477) - "Habsburg NL" (whatever we call it) (1477-1581) - "Spanish NL" (1581-1713) || "United NL" (1581-1795), or
"Burgundian NL" (-1556) - "Spanish NL" (1556-1581) - "Spanish NL" (1581-1713) || "United NL" (1581-1795)
  • Finally, singeling out Luxemburg before its incorporation into Burgundy is not good - if we were consistent, we'd have to include every estate with its respective date, some of these were included later than Luxemburg. I propose ommitting a starting date for the Burgundian NL alltogether.
Str1977 (smile back) 10:54, 23 July 2006 (UT

I have drawn up a version of the template as well, along the lines outlined above. See: User:Str1977/Editing#1

What I am still unsure about is:

  • The distinction of the two Luxemburg fields at the bottom (if any)
  • The coats of arms of the Seventeen Provinces (but see my concerns for the distinction to the Burgundian NL) and the Spanish NL. We need more info on the actual historical place of the following flag: [1] I can't see Charles V changing the CoA of these territories, so IMHO the Seventeen should still be represented by the Burgundian CoA
  • The hyphen in the bottom part of the French Empire should go. However, I haven't found out yet how to do it without deleting the whole line. (But I am still trying)
  • The Batavian/Holland colour should be improved (I just took the first I could get).

Str1977 (smile back) 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this surely turned out nice with the columns! Regarding the hyphen, I'm not sure but you could change the colour of it to be identical to the background.
  • about singling out Luxembourg before its incorporation into Burgundy: the template tries to combine three national histories and a shared common history, so from the point of view of Luxembourg's national history, it appears important to have the parts for the Duchy, which after all was one of the Imperial estates, if I'm not mistaken. After its incorporation into Burgundy it did not lose its Reichsummittelbarkeit/Imperial immediacy, but it nevertheless became just one of the many votes exercised by the Hapsburg prince. So I would strongly be in favour of including it. I know that this would create problems for the Netherlands, but I think that this is of some importance for the national history of Lux.
  • as for the CoAs and colours, I'm surely no expert in this. I got the Luxembourgian CoA from the German wikipedia, maybe they'll have more over there, or maybe on the Dutch one too.
  • now getting back to the Confed issue: I'm sorry I don't really know much about Luxembourg history, what I know is mostly from the West Germanic wikipedias (well, okay except for Frisian ;) ), but it seems that we have a complicated situation here:
    • in 1815 after the Congress of Vienna, Luxembourg became a sovereign nation, alongside with all the former constituent parts of the HRE.
    • from 1815-1890, it was also connected to the UK of the Netherlands, which until 1830 comprised present Belgium as well.
    • Luxembourg was divided at this time, into a Wallonic part and a German part. According to some articles, some considered Luxembourg to be a part of Belgium at the time, others mention that Luxembourgers felt German (at the time, of course).
    • in 1830, with the Belgian revolt, the UK fell apart, the revolt extended over to the Walloon part of Luxembourg, which was finally split off from Lux and merged with Belgium (where, if I am not mistaken, it forms the modern Belgian province of Luxembourg)
    • in 1839, one of those countless London Protocols confirmed the diminished Lux's sovereignty.
    • politically and economically, Lux was integrated into the Confed, as I have kept reiterating, customs territory wise and also military wise.
    • in 1867 with the dissolution of the German Confed, Lux finally became a completely sovereign country, even though the personal union with the Netherlands would last until 1890
Now I don't know enough to judge which of these factors should be more prominent, and why the Luxembourgers finally did not join the German Empire (since sources say, that contrary to today, at the time they felt like Germans). Also since many sources cite 1867 as the year of Lux independence, the scale should reflect that also. It's hard since Lux has been a source of contention between B, NL and G in this period.... Maybe we should wait for others to chime in though I have a feeling the discussion will not draw more people until we finally change the template ;)... Crix 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased to hear that you like the template draft. It was a lot of trial and error.
Re the inclusion of early Luxemburg I see your point and agree with it. Maybe we somehow make this clear, e.g. by wordings like "County of Luxemburg, since ... part ..." Template-wise an inclusion should be no problem, since the Luxemburg column is the one at the right.
Unfortunately I am not heraldics expert either.
Your outline of Luxemburg's history is quite accurate:
  • It was disputed between Prussia (who had received the Rhineland) and the Netherlands (who had wanted to receive the Rhineland) - the Personal union with a Prussian garrison was the compromise. Lux. was part of the Confed from the beginning.
  • After the Belgian revolution the Wallon parts were given to Belgium. As compensation, the King of NL also joined the Confed for the Duchy of Limburg.
  • The economic issue must be distinguished from the political-military issue. Politically and militarily Lux. was a member of the Confed and one of its fortresses. Economic it was independent and joined the Zollverein out of its own willing (and interest). It remained in the Zollverein until the First World War (when the body collapsed) - the only member not also a member of the German Reich.
  • In 1867 a crisis broke out about Lux. Napoleon III, who had remained neutral in the Prussian-Austrian war, hoped for gains in the Rhineland or Belgium. Bismarck had indeed fed his appetite and implied that Prussia wouldn't hinder expansion. Now, after the war, Bismarck denounced such promises. Napoleon wanted Luxemburg at least, but Bismarck couldn't allow the cessation of a German state such as Luxemburg to the French. Remember that Prussiuan troops still held the fortress and public sentiment in Germany demanded the integration of Lux. as well. At the same time, Prussia couldn't yield the fortress to any other power. In the end, a compromise was reached, with Lux. staying out of the North German Federation (but not out of the Zollverein). Prussian troops withdrawing and the fortress being demolished. Napoleon of course was less than pleased and this event fed into the development up to the war of 1870.
I will reply to your other comments elswhere. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 09:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have done some more work on the template, remaining problems are:
  • Colours: Batavian looks horrible, the grey not very nice (POV pushing? ;-) ) and the early Lux. is messed up with white edges because of the CoA.*
  • I don't know how to let the hyphen under French Empire disappear. (I don't know about letters in colour, but I'll keep trying)
  • The name between 1482 (actually this is the date when the last Burgundian died) and 1581. Note that Seventeen Provinces is a name used even after the Dutch rebellion. In a way Charles V was a Burgundian too. Note also, that Spanish and Austrian Netherlands redirect to Southern NL therefore I have now changed the upper Spanish NL link to Seventeen Provinces.
  • the size of the columns: for some reason columns are of different sizes even though they all have the "colspan=2" format (I thought about making Lux. smaller or the resulting BeNeLux columns all the same size, but it doesn't work out that way. Despite being German, I don't want the Dutch column to be smaller than the Lux. column. ;-)
Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 15:10, 24 July cris2006 (UTC)

I need to correct somethin: Luxembourg was economically NOT part of the german confederation. However it joined the Zollverein indirectly in 1842, following an economic crisis and the signature of an economic union with Prussia, which is an ecnomic union. The reason why Luxembourg never was annexed by neither the Netherlands, France or Germany was because tis territory, and mainly the strong fortifications of the city of Luxembourg were disputed between France and the Germans. This was the reason of the crisis in 1867. I ignore if politically Luxembourg was part of the germand confederation. All I know is that the Germans helped Belgians and Luxemburgish to revolt against the Dutch rule. As far as I can remember, the inclusion into the confederation was limited to the city, not the whole country. --Jangli 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jangli, for clearing up and thanks for replying below. I tried to make it clear above that the economic ties to Germany was through the Zollverein - the Confed had no economic dimension, though I think the Bundesakte made some reference to economic cooperation as a possibility. Luxembourg joined the Zollverein and remained a member until the 1st World War (except for this, the Zollverein was identical to the German Reich). Luxembourg was a member of the Confed until 1866 - the entire Grand Duchy and after 1830 the diminished territory. It was never annexed because each power hindered the other - first Prussia the Dutch (1815), then Prussia the French and France the Prussians (1867). Though Bismarck never was enthusiastic about an annexation, he had to consider public opinion. Str1977 (smile back) 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I should have remembered the Luxembourg Crisis.... argh... anyhow, I think we should just try changing the template to the latest version by Str1977 and see what happens. 'cause I think the big picture is about right now. So if the template changes throughout the wikipedia we might get more reactions, I suppose... Crix 10:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will move it over, even though we have no solution for the remaining issues: Luxemburg after 1815 and distinction between Burgundian NL/Seventeen Provinces/Spanish NL yet. Str1977 (smile back) 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Str1977 about Luxembourg[edit]

This is in response to a request I got from Str1977.

The reason why Luxembourg was in the German confederation, is that the germans refused to see it annexed by the Netherlands. Therefore it remained in personal union with the king of the Netherlands, while Prussia had some military in the city of Luxembourg (strategic place).

The personal union was disrupted in 1860 because the family of Orange-Nassau had no direct male descendant. Adolphe from Nassau then became Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. Independance was acheived in several steps:

In 1830, the king of the Netherlands signed a "decrét" (don't remember how to spell the English word) which gave Luxembourg its autonomy. From that event on, the King send his son Henri to represent the king, instead of sending any governor. Henry was in favour of an independance for Luxembourg from the Netherlands. The treaty of London in 1839 confirmed the independance of the Grand-Duchy. A crisis between the country about its statute emerged in 1867 between France (Napoleon wanted to buy the country from the Netherlands) and Prussia, which eventually led to the second treaty of London confirming the neutrality of Luxembourg. Prussia withdraw its military.

French sources: [2] [3]

I think you should keep 1839 in your template, just as you did with 1830 for Belgium. The only reason why Luxembourg was in the German confederation was because it helped the Germans as a buffer. The personal union with the king of the Netherlands was between 1839 and 1890 only formal.

I hope I could answer your question. --Jangli 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Template in French[edit]

is better I thnik. You Should copy it. MaCRoEco 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Something I don't understand[edit]

The template mentions re. the Duchy of Luxemburg "integrated 1441". What exactly does this mean? I didn't see any mention of a particular event on that year in any of the articles about the duchy or the history of the Grand Duchy. Aviad2001 21:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Gap 1813-1815[edit]

The template now indicates that the whole Benelux area was part of the French Empire between 1810 and 1815. I wonder why this has not caused heated protests up to now :-) For the current Netherlands the incorporation lasted from the Rambouillet Decree of July 9, 1810 till the Proclamation by the Hogendorp triumvirate on November 17, 1813 of the provisional "General Administration of the United Netherlands" (though the newly-styled "Sovereign Prince" only arrived on November 30). By that time a large part of the country had already been evacuated by the French, though some fortresses like Gorinchem, Naarden and Den Helder had to be besieged to dislodge them. Admittedly, the interlude of the "Sovereign Prince" is a bit murky, as in Dutch mythology this period is retroactively merged with the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, but it is cerainly incorrect to extend the era of the Empire till 1815, because France formally surendered its claims by the Treaty of Paris of May 30, 1814. As far as present-day Belgium is concerned: the French empire ended there with Buelows proclamation of Feb. 1, 1814 in Brussels, which started the Governorate-general of Belgium. On the basis of the London Protocol of June 20 (or 21), 1814 the Sovereign Prince of the United Netherlands was appointed governor-general on August 1, 1814, putting the two countries under a single government in practice, though this was not formalized until the proclamation of the United Kingdom on March 16, 1815. Of course, this was all homologated by the Final Act of the Congess of Vienna of June 8, 1815, but it would be exceedingly formal to use this as the date of record (we don't give Sept. 3, 1783 as the date for American Independence either :-) In sum: I think in the columns for Belgium and the Netherlands there should be space in 1814 for the governorate-general and the "Sovereign Prince" (which should not make the Netherlands a "principality" by the way, though it is difficult to explain what the proper designation would be).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree, and was trying to change it, but I'm not adept enough with table syntax to do it myself. My understanding is that the "Sovereign Prince" was sovereign prince over what was technically still the old Republic of the United Netherlands, although I'm not sure of that. I assume Belgium should be considered to be under some sort of provisional rule during that period. What was Luxembourg's status during this time, by the way? john k (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


why does it look like Luxemburg was spawnd out of belgium? I always thought they stayed in personal union with the netherlands untill the first female queen?--SelfQ (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Names different through piping[edit]

Hi, great template. Could someone explain why there are pipes, e.g. I read "United Netherlands" but the link is to "Dutch Republic". Thanx. -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

United States of Belgium and the révolution brabançonne[edit]

Whilst all the Habsburg territories of the Southern Netherlands took part in the brief revolt against Habsburg rule to form the United States of Belgium in 1790, this template suggests that the Bishopric of Liège did too.

I'm pretty sure that Liège (and the County of Bouillon and the Imperial Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy) didn't join the USB (having never been Habsburg territories in the first place). The French article fr:États-Belgiques-Unis — and the French version of this template (fr:Modèle:États du Benelux) don't list any of these three territories in the USB — indeed, they list Bouillon and Stavelot-Malmedy in the same box as Liège, suggesting that these territories were indeed independent of the révolution brabançonne. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed this issue by importing and translating the French template. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany[edit]

I wonder why Nazi Germany is shown in the Belgium and Luxembourg columns but not in the The Netherlands. I should either be in all three or my preference would be to not show it at all. The Netherlands and Luxembourg never formally surrendered to Germany and in Belgium the King did but this was not recognised by the Government. All three governments went into exile. For Belgium there is also a discrepancy as the first period goes to 1944, then Nazi Germany goes to 1945 and the second period for Belgium starts at 1944.Bigar (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I utterly agree with Bigar. Vb 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

That the governments went in exile is beside the point. These countries’ home territories were occupied and some of them even annexed by the Germans. I initially only detailed the actual annexations (which the Netherlands was not), but would suggest also showing their periods of military occupations. Now the creation of two German "reichsgaue" of Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium is an arguable case since these were only really established in exile by the Nazis, but Luxembourg was irrefutably absorbed into the Third Reich during the war.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

standardised images of coats of arms[edit]

I did not revert Adelbrecht's edit here as I do not wish to lower myself to his level. Therefore I will ask for consensus concerning which images should be used in this template. The standardised images created over the past few years, a mix of images of various styles, forms etc., or a new set of standardises images (for instance created by Adelbrecht). If the only objection to the current standardised images based on the french language heraldry project is its use of gradients I'd like to note that it's quite easy to a) download these vector images, b) edit them to remove or deactivate the gradient layers and c) upload the modified image to a new file at commons with appropriate licensing and d) link the new derivative image into this template (and other articles).--Caranorn (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The gradients and clarity are an objective argument. The subjective argument is that they're in my opinion (and quite a few others) ugly. The French wikiproject also has a lack of uniformity, especially with the lions.
The images I create are also kinda standardised, not as rigorously as the French style, but almost all of them use the same elements and colors as the users Sodacan, Heralder and Katapanomegas.
Also, it seems that someone has uploeded a new version of the Arms of Henri VII of Luxembourg over your file. Adelbrecht (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I know concerning that file. I contacted the uploader about the issue. But I don't see how that file is an issue to this discussion.
Back to the topic. I agree that there are more beautiful images, I'd even consider your lion or that of Sodacan more beautiful. But that's not the issue really as that's a subjective interpretation, tastes vary and certainly none of us shoudl take unilateral issue based only on our taste. I also think it is far better to have small svg files rather than the large ones you've created (I downloaded one hoping it was an issue of unclean save, unfortunately that was not the case as making a clean save only reduced size marginally), in a small template/article like this it won't be a major issue, but in a larger page it will mean extremely slow loading. I think it's also more important to establish a standard within articles, series of articles etc to make the pages look harmonious and not mismatched with extremely varied styles. That's what the projet blason was founded for, just like similar groups here on en., on de., on commons and many other projects. The problem is that while your images I'm sure are indeed standardised, but you have not created a database yet ammounting to even 1/1.000.000 of that created by the hundred or so users from standardised projects. Anyhow, this particular template was probably the worst possible place to start this discussion and try and seek consensus. But I did not wish to alter the template and leave your recent edit here uncommented which might have looked like my endorsing your actions and I'm not willing to get overly involved in policy again as that's very tiring in the long run. So I'd rather find agreement among a small number of users and not seek either involvment of the local heraldry project or go to the administrators.--Caranorn (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The German WikiProject (which may be more relevant to territories that were formerly within the Empire), also have a standardised template for arms. The 3D sheen (the gradient mentioned above) is also standard there, however a different shield shape is also, based from File:Wappen Schild Blank.svg, right. I have created many coats of arms using this template… — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You uploaded that 3D sheen in january. I have to admit that I've never seen this used before. I have the shape before in many arms, but without the 3D sheen. Do you have a link to the German heraldry project? Because it kinda seems like you're the only to use it, but I do admit that I have not searched all of commons. Adelbrecht (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg II[edit]

It seems that there has been a minor mistake considering Luxembourg in this template. Luxembourg was under a personal union until 1839, but not part of the (United) Kingdom of the Netherlands. William I was both King of the Netherlands and Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. See also discussion above (2006) for more detail. effeietsanders 07:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Small size[edit]

I have recently reverted an edit by Watisfictie which made the template too small to read at all. Watisfictie, can you even read it at that size? I'm curious to hear why you thought it works well at that size when it works so poorly for me. Oreo Priest talk 15:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem reading it, but I resized the font from 25% to 65%, Oreo Priest.
Watisfictie (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That seems to have solved it. Oreo Priest talk 17:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Excessive detail?[edit]

I'm concerned that with all the detail that's recently been added, the template has lost much of its simplicity and readability, and has now become a complex behemoth. That being said, I do recognize that this version is more accurate and exhaustive (while still not being 100% of either). I suppose I wanted to voice my concern and see what others think. Oreo Priest talk 14:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the width of the template is starting to cause layout problems on certain articles (such as Duke of Bouillon). Perhaps we could not mention all of the Seventeen Provinces individually, in stead simply having them fall under Burgundian Netherlands and Habsburg Netherlands. Moreover, I'm not sure whether the Frankish and Roman Empires are of such importance in this context, so I suggest having the table start with the Burgundian Netherlands. Additionally, the texts should be centred and the cell borders consistent. (Luxorr (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
I have overlooked this discussion while editing the template the last couple of days. However a few of the concerns have been addressed. The size vertically and horizontally have been reduced by making the information more compact. In fact, the table is vertically even smaller than it has been before, although the problem lays manly in the horizontal dimension.
To meet your concerns I would like to suggest the following:
To reduce the width:
1. combining Holland and Frisia/Friesland into one column; that would make sense, since the (Frankish) county of Holland was created out of the Kingdom of Frisia, and in the early middle ages the county was in fact known for a long time as 'West-Frisia'. The downside of combining the two however, is that Friesland (the rest of it outside the county of Holland) takes an exceptional development in the Middel ages, since it didn't have a feudal overlord and it successfully kept Holland and Utrecht out.
2. removing one of the two columns of the old Duchy of Luxembourg. The downside is that reduction of Luxembourg to one column would leave out that half of Luxembourg became a province of Belgium.
To address the remarks of excessive detail:
3. removing the subdivision of the Roman province Gallica Belgica into Belgica Secunda etc, but leave Gallica Belgica as a whole, since the influence of the Romans to the Low Countries (and Europe) is important. Also the name Belgica as a reference to the region stems from here.
4. combining the Belgic tribes into one row 'Belgic tribes' instead of their individual names.
5. as Luxor suggested, leaving out the provinces with no geopolitical significance in the early and high middle ages: Friesland, Groningen, Zeeland, Overijssel, Zutphen, Limburg, Artois, Mechelen, Tournaisis, Namur
6. removing rows from the French Period section by combining Batavian Republic and Kingdom of Holland in one row.
Although the term 'Low Countries' stems from Burgundian times, I m not a favour starting the template with the Burgundian Netherlands as it is suggested. In the development of the Low Countries the Franks and the Romans play a key role, and to a lesser extend the Frisian, Belgic and Saxons tribes aswel. --Watisfictie (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If you're even considering simplifying it in any way, then I think that's a step in the right direction and you should do it. Try also to remember the role of this template - it's a simple reference at the edge of the top of a page, and it should not attempt to be completely exhaustive or correct in every aspect. Oreo Priest talk 19:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You clearly know more about this than I do. If you think these are acceptable measures to simplify the template, I support them. (Luxorr (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC))

Bishopric of Utrecht[edit]

I am currious about from where are the years, 695 and 1456, for the Bishopric of Utrecht sourced from? From what I have seen, it was established in 1024 and disestablished in 1528. Prior to its beginning part of its territory was divided from Lower Lorraine. At its end, in 1528, it was divided into the Lordship of Utrecht, Lordship of Overijssel, and the County of Drenthe. Please discuss on Talk:Bishopric of Utrecht if anyone has any additional information.

Source: History of Holland. Philip the Good of Burgundy increased Burgundian influence in Utrecht by securing in 1456 the election of his illegitimate son David, as Bishop of Utrecht. --Watisfictie (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The Bishopric of Utrecht, a principality of the Holy Roman Empire, was not established in 695 but in 1024 and it was not disestablished in 1456 but in 1528. David's election did not change the Bishopric of Utrecht's status as a principality of the Holy Roman Empire. Why not use those years? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


I'm curious about the notion of the area of the Kingdom of Frisia - c. Zeeland, Holland, Friesland and Ostfriesland - being unpopulated (which, if you ask me, is better described as uninhabited, but that's just semantics). Does this mean literal lack of population due to the Migration Period, or does it mean lack of any true tribes with armies in the area? (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That information comes from the article History of the Netherlands#Disappearance of the Frisii, where the word "unpopulated" is used. But you might be right when it comes to semantics, I'm not a native speaker.--Watisfictie (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)