What if Burgundy Never Fell? - The Rise of a Dutch Superpower | Alternate History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 гру 2023
- This video dives into what if the medieval Burgundian state became a true kingdom, and survived till the modern day, essentially becoming a massive Netherlands, drastically changing European history.
Outro song:
--------------------------------------------------------------
♪ Biscuit (Prod. by Lukrembo)
Link : • (no copyright music) l...
--------------------------------------------------------------
>"what if Burgundy never fell" video
>look inside
>Burgundy falls
It's inevitable lol
It meant if it didn't fall from what caused it to fall at the time,it would survive longer but other factors would arise later that would cause it to fall,it does fall but much later and differently in this scenario
Western European canon event.
You couldn't really accomplish the idea if making a Dutch polity without that happening though, it took the Normans half a millenium and the loss of their French possesions to start speaking English, the Burgundians would have been no different in their Dutch and German possesions no matter how prosperous the area is.
Ever since TNO from Hearts of Iron i can't feel like gulp when i read "Burgundy"
So I wasn't the first one to put the obligatory mention of this in a new video.
STRENG GEHEIM
I wish it went like that xd
Brotherman, did you mean "I can't help but gulp"?
The “Burgundian lullaby” still haunts me.
nice one, Burgundy is so under appreciated.
Hyderabad in India as well.
Streng geheim
Would the Dutch monarchy prevent the rise of mercantilism in Holland?
Would colonial competition really not lead to tensions between England and Holland ? It did in our timeline and the Dutch were much weaker
It would definitely give tension, as it did in our timeline. I doubt England would drive that tension to an actual conflict, with a population 3-4x as large and the Ardennes Forest at their disposal for infinite wood for ships & armadas, they'd be on par with the English. The Dutch got very rich of the Hanseatic trade, with a direct connection to the Baltic sea, that wealth would increase and be unaffected by an English blockade of the North Sea and the Channel.
Unless the English can ally themselves with France(which probably still hold grudges over the 100y war), they might just end up 'dividing the world' like Spain and Portugal did, each taking a sphere of influence and just benefiting together. The Dutch would likely be far more present in Maritime SE-Asia, South-Africa & Australia, while England would focus more on the Americas, India & Mainland Southeast Asia. With a bigger population at their disposal the Dutch would probably do more settler colonialism like the English did in our timeline, rather than having local aristocracy run the colonies. It would turn places like South-Africa majority Afrikaans and all Guyana's & Australia Dutch.
Capitalism you mean? No, the water would have still been there. The water caused merchants marginalizing the nobility and a lot of land owning farmers, if you make it dry you own it. It was the competition in European trade, the inability of the British to compete with the Dutch that caused them to resort to violence. The colonial trade was much smaller and harder, so there was enough to go around for everybody.
Last I checked there were 4 wars between the Dutch and the English and the first 3 were won by the Dutch and the last ended in a stalemate... I'm not sure what you are basing the statement on that the Dutch were much weaker?
@@alexiusangelfire I meant much weaker in our timeline than this large kingdom of Holland. Considering the damages our small dutch state did to England, imagine a somewhat equal european kingdom.
@@alexiusangelfire And the successful Dutch invasion and conquest of 1688 didn't even count as one of those, but as a revolution. Despite the lack of any revolutionary acts by revolutionairies.
I don’t think the peace deal after the napoleonic wars would look like this. Why would they give the Netherlands Hamburg, but not Alsace Lorraine, a territory they owned for centuries?
The peace deal would be a result of many competing interests. I totally see an argument for the Netherlands regaining all their territories lost to France, they would certainly push for it. But at the same time, powers like Austria would want independent states for their German confederation. Britain may be interested in a German border with France, so that they have a vested interest in keeping the French in check. It would be complicated. This is also when ideas like the concept of a nation built around a cultural identity were really starting to spread. And for Lotharingia/The Netherlands, that identity would now be the Dutch and broader Low German identity. One of their major goals would be to unite all Low Germans under them, so getting a ton of north German territory might be considered adequate compensation. Prussia was in a not too dissimilar position in the real world. They lost some majority Polish lands, but gained a ton of territory in the Rhineland.
These borders suit us better
in this scenario, the netherlands and Belgium would be combined, that would combine the arms manufacturers of Liege, the men available for service in Brabant, Hainaut and especially flanders (both army and naval in the case of flanders) (and all of those provinces combined had a larger population than the netherlands had at the time) with the dutch navy, artillery and combat engineers.... I dare say this powerhouse might well have been capable of stopping the French onslaught in 1794 in the first place!
@@roelantverhoeven371not a chance
@@Neatling "Prussia was in a not too dissimilar position in the real world. They lost some majority Polish lands, but gained a ton of territory in the Rhineland."
Prussia gained nothing in the rhineland in this timeline. They are significantly weaker than in OTL especially because they didn't get compensation, like say annexing Saxony area
I would see america/canada being way more dutch. Given the anglo dutch alliance would mean a lot more immigration between their new world countries. And also seeing Australia being united under an anglo dutch government or still being split, who knows. Very much liked this Alt history!
Wild Idea: Maybe we have a British Canada (bigger than actual history) and a Anglo/Dutch USA state, becoming more Dutch speaking as the years go by?
0:00 this part of history is completely unknown to most Dutch people including myself until recently. I was alerted to Burgundy's influence by the starting situation of Europa Universalis IV and never heard of it before then.
It does get covered, but only if you choose to study history in college or university
@@TheColombianSpartan In my days, Dutch history generally just highlighted the hunter-gatherers in the BC era, the Romans, chrtianization by Willibrord then just skips 500 years to the Habsburg Netherlands, the 80 Years War and so on. Quite unsure what's taught nowadays, I'm afraid even more is just glossed over...terrified it's just ranting on colonialism and how bad we were.
There is a great (belgium) podcast called 'De Bourgondiërs' presented by (and based on the book of) Bart van Loo. I really liked it, because it gave now perspective on how suddenly countries like Austria, Spain & Dutch Republic became major European players out of seemingly nowhere. It wasn't, but all their strengths where growing under political entities that are not that well known nowadays.
@@rey_nemaattoriThe Burgundians were quickly named in passing during the 2010s in high school for me, but a lot more focus was put on the developments post-WW2 in terms of globalization, independence movements and the Cold War. There were some footnotes about the terrible actions and consequences of colonialism but it was generally "Yeah so this happened which was really bad because it caused X Y and Z"
@@rey_nemaattori yeah pretty much same. Just romans in the Netherlands, briefly, even briefer middle ages, then straight to the Golden Ages and industrial revolution. Then another skip to ww1 VERY brief since the Netherlands wasn't really involved, then ww2 and the war in Indonesia.
This was, what, 10-15 years ago?
"oMg Is ThIs A tNo ReFeReNcE?"
Interesting thoughts but i strongly disagree with one thing:
austria hungary swallowing the complete HRE and later on half of prussia.
This would leave austria as the single largest superpower in europe.
Historically (looking at the unification of the HRE under prussia) the other powers in europe were EXTREMELY afraid of such a new superpower developing right at their door.
I really can't imagine the netherlands, france and britain would just accept that austria triples in size and power, eventually threatening them too, so i guess this would be the spark of the WW1 in your scenario.
Also, Austria didn't even WANT to unify Germany. Any such attempt would have meant simultaneous rebellions by the German states and the Hungarian nobility, and would have more than likely led to the collapse of the Habsburg empire.
Personally I dont think that they would ever lose burngundy itself, rather it gets thinned out and even disconnected, like how prussia would never Lose Prussia proper even to poland.
Rather I'd see them Slowly and progressively losing lots of land during the french revival, like flanders and Alsace but not Lorraine nor Burgundy proper (a Dijon enclave?), not until Napoleon at least. I'd see them fall behind like all the other medieval powers post Napoleon until the Dutch mercantile identity fully takes over the Kingdom, which I'd see hang on its original culture just like prussia but being de facto native by the time it dies. Also the lowlands being a centralised independent power instead of an asset, would probably change a lot more to the european balance of power which you didnt quite mention all that much. Otherwise really great work I love your stuff
I definitely wouldn't see Flanders happening, it would be just as dutch in those times as the netherlands propper. It would make no sense really...
@@ysbrandd4908 I don't really see why not, all cultural aspects aside its a really strategic region, right between dover the north sea and the channel. but ur right maybe it would be too important to lose
Prussia did lose parts of Prussia “proper” though. And Frederick the Great even offered all of East Prussia to the Russians. Had the Tsar not been the world’s first Prussiaboo, they would have absolutely lost it. So it isn’t exactly impossible
@@sebe2255 yeah but you get what I mean had they lost it they wouldnt have been completely destroyed, they really only lost it after WWII which is my point. If they had to lose land they wouldnt have lost burgundy
This was fun. Though I think you made a mistake skipping over the Spanish succession war. Basically everything after that would’ve been different because of this powerful Dutch state.
ah yes the war that happened because of habsburg inbreeding
Historically, Great Britain and The Netherlands have had a rather good relationship ever since we helped them get a protestant king (1688).
During the Napoleonic Wars, the British did take over the Dutch East Indies but following Napoleon's defeat, they just gave them back!
Yes but they kept the other stuff like South Africa, Australia and the coastal parts of Ceylon
@@bakthihapuarachchi3447Can’t win em all
Damn your videos have improved at least like 10 fold not to mention the great visuals, I'd even say you could add more like the time period (1350' 1400' for ex) or other stuff like that otherwise love your videos, I wouldnt mind them being longer too it it allows you to expand your vision
Really impressive work !
I like the consistent uploads, video was very interesting too :)
Wow, managed to get here the first minute it was posted
I can finally do the thing very few get to do
FIRST!
(Good vid btw)
Good stuff as always.
Neat piece of work!
Crazy how different this would have gone if the Dutch version of lowland German was spread across all of the lowlands as far as prussia, rather then the Austrians getting even the prussians to adopt high German transcripts and gradually that language path.
I imagine it wouldn’t have been absurd for this massive Netherlands to spread its lowland German books to its fellow Protestant, lowland, somewhat anti Austrian German kingdom of prussia.
As a result I imagine if would spark a greater tie between the two kingdoms against Austria as the Germans are severed linguistic by north and south, with a lowland language not being nearly as different from German as the Dutch we know irl, and even claiming to be the more true form of German over the high land alternative.
This probably just leads to Prussia growing even faster in this timeline but without quite the ambitions for uniting Germany, or even the western lowlands under its rule for even longer than we saw.
The outcome of such a change is most likely that prussia just lasts a fair bit longer and softens the growth this videos Austria saw, or more likely (if the poles don’t interfere on Austria’s side for some reason) prussia wins against Austria and begins to re-emerge the eastern lowlands and much of the highlands linguistically, attempting to seperate its sphere of Germans from the still stronger Dutch and Austrian counterparts that are both inevitable rivals following any successful war against austria.
A big change that would cause is a big German empire that doesn’t crumble away due to ethnic diversity or mismanagement in their timelines world war, unlike an Austrian counterpart.
The question is, would these Prussian based Germans side more with the Dutch and British to gain greater access to begin colonial expansion, increased trade, and have strong allies against Austria and their new neighbour Russia which would both side with the French.
Or do they suck up to the Austrians to try and end that rivalry, trust the Russians to not backstab, and work with the catholic French who had been europes last threat and hurt their development a century beforehand under napoleon, rejecting the colonial, Protestant alliance, no threat of future embargo, ethnic lowland/north Germanic team up path?
My guess is they side with the Dutch who this Germany’s language is most mutually intelligible with, securing their western border and sharing so many common traits with at least one of the Anglo or the Dutch, that none of their enemies possess (religious, ethnically lowland to southern Scandinavian origins, Northwestern European).
I’d say having prussia take on the Dutch form of German in those early days, and later as the languages diverge, choose the Dutch as a more acceptable ally to work against austria, before eventually siding with the Dutch before the Great War, and then their side winning such a war, may have the potential to be an even better alternative history, of this alternative history. Which is saying something given how good this one was to begin with.
You mean that the North German lands would have spoken Dutch/(low) Frankish? In this scenario the “Dutch” Burgundians seize a large part of the West German industrial heartland, as well as key ports. Prussia wouldn’t really have been a powerful player in this scenario
although he did say this in the vid, in my understanding it is false that "high german" comes from austria, because the "high german" or standard german spoken today is often associated with the "dialect" of Hannover, which is in northern germany. Luther himself wasnt from southern germany and i find it very unlikely/impossible that he would have spoken an southern dialect. He contributed the most to the unification of the german language. More than the "office language" of Austria or Saxony.
And "lower german" (Nieder/plattdeutsch) is still spoken in many areas in northern germany. What I think would happen is that other less spoken germanic languages as frisian would have been spoken more and for a longer time period, similar as frisian is still often spoken in Frisia in the netherlands in comparison to few small places in germany
Now we need a what if Magna Frisia never fell (the Frisian version of this)
At best that would result in Frisian independence. As there is no way the Frisians would have been able to push out the Franks
An interesting and plausible scenario - thanks.
Cool scenario! Really nice 🙂👍
Thank you very much for this refreshing video.
About the Commonwealth:
My advice would be to look into the Polish-Lituanian political system. It was too decentralised and resulted in a minuscule army in the 18th century.
Therefore it is likely that the Commonwealth would not have survived even under the new circumstances.
I feel like this is a pretty nice scenario, if for no other reason than myself being all for a united Burgundy.
I do feel like some parts work better than others. One part I feel a little iffy about is the sudden rush into a WW I-esque scenario.
Also, I feel like a strong Anglo-Dutch alliance might lead to a more united colonial remnant. Two empires both attempting to keep their foothold in the world theater might lead to a stronger Commonwealth-esque system for both of them.
Scenario idea: What if the Francian Empire split into more than 3 parts.
Irl it was East Francia (Todays France), Middle Francia (it was a failiure, but complicated) and East Francia (Todays Germany). But what if there were more Francias? Maybe Charlemaigne had 7 heirs instead of just 3.
not much would change Francia did eventually shatter further with the generations then got unified by Otto the great as the HRE with the exception of the french region. it would just happen diffrently.
Not very important but Charlemagne had only 1 heir, not 3, and its this 1 heir, Louis the Pious, who had three sons who devided the empire after his death.
Truely the best Dutch timeline for Dutch language and identity
Flemish*
@@toiletnoob6464 Semantics
No, that would be “what if the Frankish Empire never collapsed and remained centered around the Meuse valley”
I'm a bit skeptical about the lack of Dutch-English friction. Conflicts over trade with the Americas and the Far East seem inevitable.
Given the early point of divergence I could see the Dutch completely replacing the role of the French in the Americas or stay largely focused on continental Europe, replacing the role of Prussia in Germany.
I really would love for the ending section to be like two times as long as here, as it is simply my favorite part for a numbers geek that i am.
I might extent that section for future videos. It will probably never quite be like the whole second parts I did in the past, but I still could do a final map with internal subdivisions, listing cities, etc. I'm playing around with ways to improve my content, among them also the little info screens. I'm also considering adding a rough year somewhere in the corner in the future, so it's clear what time period I'm talking about.
@@Neatling Just so i'm clear i don't expect there to be a whole second part but i loved that you did the general overview of the demographics and political subdivisions of the country as it differed you from practically all other Alternate History tubers.
Generally i loved what you did in the beggining of the channel as it enabled me to feel like the country was real and not just a made up theoretical thing, and generally i love looking at the maps in games that showcase distribution of population and it's culture, religion and wealth. I just wish you nice time doing what you do and not burning out of ideas
I think some additional effects would take place. If we assume France doesn't win the 100 year war, but let's say they lose little territory, and the Netherlands and Spain never have the 80 years war, that changes the geopolitics of western Europe.
(Note: I'll use Burgundy and 'Dutch' somewhat interchangeably for its dual nature. We'll maintain most major events, even though that would never happen)
3) Despite Burgundian roots, the trading power of Holland and Flanders still become so economically dominant that they become the effective heart of the country, and you still get the duality between monarch and estates-general. The Burgundian monarchy's main challenge is to keep peace with the northern states, else they'll rebel and Burgundy's rump state would be quickly cannibailzed by its enemies.
4) The reformation would probably be less strong in the Netherlands, since there's no independence war to fuel it. I still think the Netherlands would embrace reforms, but likely more moderate, becoming a more neutral path, along with England.
5) By 1600, France would be in great trouble. Its monarchy much weaker, continuous disputes with England and Burgundy, and a much stronger Spain in the south would be too much for a non-colonial power. We might speculate that in the 30 years war, this weaker France joins the catholics, causing England and Burgundy to "join the protestants" during the Huegenot crisis. In it they focus down France (and defeat Spain on the seas). The French monarchy falls, England takes the area between the Seine and Loire, roughly, while Burgundy takes the area north-east of the Seine. Spain makes the southern French rump states protectorates (Savoy is never absorbed)
6) "Meanwhile in Germany": Austria has had early success. But with Swedish entry, they along with Prussia fight a bitter war over central Germany, though neither party can prevail.
But as France falls and Spain overextends (losing at sea and trying to occupy hostile French regions), Burgundy now sends a battlehardened army from the west. Alike the French intervention in the 30 year war, this tips the scales in favor of the protestants, and alike France in our timeline, Burgundy insists on religious peace (as per #4).
In the end, the main effect on Germany-politics is that Prussia and Sweden spread their spheres of influence in north-east Germany; Burgundy over north-west Germany, and Austria somewhat over South-Germany, with South-Germany less enthousiastic
7) Through the next hundred years, Britain, Burgundy and Spain mainly compete in colonial ventures. Dutch-English tensions come to a rise as they did, resulting in the Glorious Revolution. Without French problems, Burgundy is more dominant in this timeline and Charles VI, being monarch already, never moves to England. The two kingdoms split again on his death; in the process, some holdings have been exchanged. Britain now holds North-America and focuses on India, while the Dutch focus on the Spice Islands. Additionally, British mainland holdings are reduced to Brittany and Normandy, as the remainder preferred Burgundian rule.
Spain continues to struggle. It rose higher than in our timeline, but now also falls harder.
8) Meanwhile in the east, Prussia becomes dominant in North-East Germany, having some fights with Austria as it did. Afterwards, the Commonwealth is divided as it was. The western powers stay out of this, I believe, except that Britain increases its ties with Scandinavia while Burgundy solidifies Northwest Germany as its protectorates. The HRE continues to lose its meaning as it's really just three powers that dominate it.
9) Revolutionary era: while Britain is busy with the American revolution: as Spain continues attempts to absorb Italy and France, the Francophile Charles IX attempts to 'liberate the French'. However, between decadence and high taxes, the Dutch revolution fires while the Burgundian army is far away. Charles and his circle are executed, and the Revolutionary Netherlands appoint Holland's stadtholder William VI. The Dutch army, now swelling fast and backed by a powerful economy, overwhelms Spain, spreading the revolution to roughly the same region as in our timeline. This revolution however is not catholic in nature, and has more [english] liberal values as we would see it, being based in Holland rather than Paris.
The Eastern powers attempt a coalition but are defeated as in our timeline. Britain only partially contributes, as per the differences, the revolutionaries have far more sympathy in the Isles, ultimately forcing the British king to compromise with them.
Prussia will be more favorable to the revolution, while Austria remains more opposed. The revolution still fails in an invasion of Russia. William however has fewer enemies and can regroup. However, the revolutionary flames are dwindling, allowing for peace negotiations. In the end, most borders return to what they were, except Italy has been sorta-united, and Southern-French client states remain under Dutch control, with Western Europe dominated by dual monarchies and parliamentary democratic monarchy systems. Meanwhile, south-Germany is now solidly controlled by Austria.
10) 1848 still comes, but mainly in Austria and Russia, the remaining absolute monarchies. These movements are crushed with only minimal concessions. Spain struggles between a more liberal faction and a return to monarchy, France gains more autonomy, and Prussia liberalizes compared to our timeline.
11) Late 19th century:
- The Ottoman Empire crumbles under is decadence
- Austria-Hungary struggles in internal division
- the French-Dutch divide mends only slowly. Effectively they are ruled as a personal union
- Germany unites under Bismarck, this time in a war against Austria. South-Germany is initially neutral, but eventually joins Germany; North-west Germany remains Dutch. After a hardfought siege of Vienna, Austria-Hungary concedes the remainder of Bohemia and will have limited ability to act in the Balkans
- Russian-Ottoman wars rage, and Russia ends up slightly stronger, with major influence over the Balkans in particular (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, Albania, Bosnia among others).
- Scramble for Africa: less pronounced in this timeline as Germany has limited access to the sea and France and Belgium don't exist. Britain still extends influence in its war on slavery, and the Dutch set up protectorates mainly to limit British expansionism.
- With the Netherlands much stronger, Britain is not a world hegemon this time. Relations between the two are mostly friendly rivalry, but there are tensions.
12) WW era:
- After tsarevitch Alexei is murdered in Sarajevo, similar alliances play out. However the central powers are much weaker. Bismarck's push ends at the Rhine, Austria struggles in the Balkans. The war ends in 2 years, but the Allies have insisted Russia free the Balkans. South-Germany becomes independent; otherwise, much the same results as WW1 in our timeline.
- There is no powerful Germany to initiate WW2, Italy received more concessions from the Ottoman Empire, and the Allies are far less harmed, so more willing to deter future wars. Europe's conflict is limited to local affairs, while Britain and the Netherlands mostly get along in an era of increased cooperation.
- Russia - almost defeated in the Great War, and having had to give major concessions to survive, with an unpopular tsar and lagging severely behind, still collapses to revolution. Allied intervention is limited after Lenin moderates his platform. Trotsky eventually succeeds him.
- Japan still gets ambitious, but has no opportunity to strike south, but instead makes deals with the USSR. This triggers a League intervention. Japan is soon on the back foot, but stubborn resistance still triggers the nuclear bombing by the USA. The USSR doesn't expand as it had.
13) Modern era:
- There is less of a cold war, with the USSR much more limited and moderated, but more revolutions ensue overall. Colonialism is phased out more slowly, with more care for succession states, but conflict still widely breaks out in its wake. Racism remains endemic, as there has been no holocaust to denounce it by. In the late 20th century, a rapidly growing Nationalist China starts taking over Indochina, threatening the east indies, and rivaling the world's main economies, prompting the second world war.
After millions die in Asia, eventually China is cornered and launches tactical nukes at Allied bridgeheads. Nuclear escalation ensues, and most of the world is destroyed in the tragedy.
And that is why Burgundy had to collapse.
In Dutch we still talk about “the burgundy lifestyle” of people living in Belgium and the south of the Netherlands. Basically that they enjoy life and take the time for dining and drinking, and how luxurious/vacation vibe that feels to the rest of the Dutch population.
It’s cool to learn a bit about the Burgundy kingdom in this video, and why non-Dutch people often don’t know what I mean when I refer to Burgundy.
Thanks for the video :)
He back!
Ah yea this really satisfies my Dutch ass
I'm not sure any part of Frisia would be part of this. Fryslân revolted against Saxony and Holland with help of Gelre. There is a good chance with this new power balance Westfriesland would rebel (again) against Holland and they, Fryslân, Ommelanden and East Frisia might unite instead. These lands are really hard to take as well, as acces routes are limited
Endnu en god video!
The miniseries "Maximilian and Marie de Bourgogne" (2017) is an interesting story with significant Burgundy ties. Naturally dramatised, but still a good way to pick up some history. The multilingual production made it easier to keep track of who is who in the intrigues.
With the notes at the bottom, when I go to stop the video to read them, the UA-cam controls appear and make it hard to read. Maybe have notes at the top? Aside from that, as always, very enjoyable.
Man, that Netherlands at the end is just _thiccc_
The Dutch probably wouldn't be poldering in as much as they did in our timeline, given ample land available.
The Dutch would Polder. It has a population of 67 million in the modern day. More than france. I could see this netherlands going for the polder able area's of the north sea too.
The US in this case would be quite interesting, I Imagine that US unification of the west coast would take a lot longer because of the GB-Dutch alliance. I see the potential of the US more following the Canadian route from our timeline, resulting in a far weaker US. I am conflicted in how the continent today would look, because if the US didn't gain independance when it did, the terretorial map of the continent might look different with one of more other colonies on the west coast.
Great video! But no way Napolean exists in this timeline. Would France even have Corsica?
Australia would be very interesting in this timeline. I suspect the Dutch settlements would receive an influx of British settlers and would still end up as part of Australia, but they'd be different and earlier established settlements with a strong thread of Dutch culture. Maybe Australia has a slightly bigger population and a better soccer team?
The Burgundian States where Belgian, I will not stand for this misrepresentation of my people!
True
My first play in EU3 was Burgundy, what a place!
brussels or mechelen would probably have remained the capital throughout... brussels was also the capital in 1816-1830. and it would have remained dutch speaking!
there should've been more of an emphasis on Flanders if we're talking alt dutch history. Flanders was for the longest time richer and more influential than the northern lowlands. mainly because they actually had an alliance with the English.
Burgundy itself was such an important factor in shaping the Flemmish identity.
Great video nonetheless, i truly hope Belgium and Netherlands someday reunite.
Funny how your hypothetical Dutch state at 4:45 lines up pretty much with where the Dutch/Niederrheinisch language barrier with French and German would have been at the time, was that the inspiration for that map?
Napoleon
If courtouis and de bruyne still exist in this universe we might win a world cup in 2014/18
really cool video! i do think that the flemish would want independence and some more internal strugles!
I think you underestimated how many catholics there still were in the south, and with south I mean... below the rhine river (moerdijk) so the lotharingian kingdom might well have split up over that issue... unless they found a way to get along, with spanish influence out of the picture, they might have managed just that!
An interesting thought experiment. However, I feel more historical decision making would be altered. Suddenly the 'Dutch Empire' has got itself in a situation from "we must avoid armed conflict" to "why wouldn't we fight?". In the end it is a how further back in history you change something, the outcome can't be predicted easily situation. :) (smily face)
Ok, but where is himmler in all of this?
gaming
being a chicken farmer
Silence, the goat is talking
At first you said they wanted to form a unified identity, and in this situation they would've probably succeeded as Burgundy would've survived, but now suddenyl at 4:39 there is no unified identity anymore?
Also, at 6:50 you say austria and the Nl would ally, but before you said they would've been great rivals, wouldn't it make more sense for the NL to ally against austria with Prussia isntead?
as a pole i see this as an absolute win
Interesting video, one major gripe though is that Dutch linguistically speaking is a Franconian language, with its not too distant relatives of Ripuarian, Hessian and Franconian stretching all along Central Germany
Franconian vs Saxonian is overrated. The lower/higher-divide is the relevant one. Neither Dutch nor Low German went through the second German consonant shift, High German did. Which makes Dutch and Low German at least somewhat mutually intelligible (not really though due to differences in pronunciation), while Dutch and High German are almost as far apart as German and Danish.
While the modern day Franconians in Germany are called Franconian, their connection to the actual Franks is highly dubious. Linguistically they can’t be connected to the Franks, and there is no evidence to suggest the region was Frankish during the 5-7th century expansion period of the Frankish kingdom.
Much like France, they are named the Franks, but not Frankish
@@sebe2255 I'm talking about the language which is spoken there today and 500 years ago. Dutch and Franconian are related languages. They're both part of the Franconian dialect continuum. It would take 2 seconds to look that up
@@closetobegood1060 And if you actually look into East “Franconian” you’ll see that there is no actual linguistic connection between it and the other Franconian languages. Which Dutch of course is too, they aren’t related as much as Dutch is just one of the Franconian languages. Dutch is the main one that still exists of course, as it is an independent standard language and wasn’t absorbed into High German.
But yeah, look past the wikipedia maps lmao. East Franconian isn’t Frankish, they get grouped together basically just because of the name that the Franken (in the german region) have adopted. It wouldn’t even make sense for them tocbe Frankish as the Franks didn’t live there anymore (if they ever did) since at least the 4-5th century. Otherwise this modern Franken region would have definitely been mentioned as one of the Frankish heartlands in sources that described the Franks, or even by the Franks as they pushed east. Which it wasn’t. Most likely they are a mix of Thuringians and Bavarians
THERE WILL BE NO HOPE UNDER THE BLACK SUN
STRENG GEHEIM
That would be something. with the best parts of Belgium, the German Ruhrgebiet. The Ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Bremen and Hamburg and the Oil- and Gas reserves in the North Sea. That makes it more the Maingate to Europe. We can still change the name to Burgundy LOL.
4:36 You're using arbitrary notions about culture, demographics and geography here. The dutch identity didn't really emerge as we know it until the 80 Years War where the Seven Provinces of the Netherlands united in rebellion against the Spanish. A lasting Burgundy completely changes the dynamics of Europe and even the Protestant Reformation, perhaps even killing it in its crib.
As for multi-ethnic empires, they've lasted quite a long time, as ethnicity wasn't really a basis of identity until the age of nationalism which was derived from the French Revolution.
France being neutered by Burgundy would have less conflicts with the Habsburgs and would probably focus more on colonialization. Burgundy would probably be the focus of an alliance with the Habsburgs, the rulers of the HRE considering the hoops Charles the Bold had to go through when he tried to get a crown.
>as ethnicity wasn't really a basis of identity until the age of nationalism
This is a pointless myth to parrot. Kingdoms all over Europe were formed around ethnic polities. England, Denmark, Bohemia. Then, in *addition* to that, came other kingdoms or territories held by the king, like Wales or Norway.
Pretending that peoples saw themselves as... what, an economic class, in territories that happened to be owned by some nobility? Or just as Christians? It falls apart if you think it through just slightly. You'd have to pretend that nobody ever referred to themselves as being Frankish (French), or Latin (Italian), or German. Otto I was *king of the Germans*...
@@patsy02
What we consider “German” is totally alien to the notion of the Kingdom of Germany in the same way the Crown of Hungary was not just a Hungarian nation, but a multi-ethnic polity.
The Low Countries were highly fragmented during this period and were competing with each other at times. Calling them Dutch is an anachronism as such a notion didn’t exist.
I
@@justinpachi3707 >What we consider “German” is totally alien to the notion of the Kingdom of Germany
Nope. Prove it.
The Germans spoke German dialects, had German culture, German appearances, and German heritage. Who exactly were the Germans supposed to have been, if not *the Germans*? Did the Germans somehow not think that they were Germans even though they were in the land of the Germans, ruled by a king of the Germans?
Hungary was the kingdom of the Hungarians, who were an ethnicity, who saw themselves are Hungarians. Obviously. Who else would they have been or thought themselves to be? If their ethnicity wasn't part of their identity, and they didn't discern between a Magyar or a Croat, how did they name their kingdom to begin with?
It's just very poor reasoning, I suspect cobbled together by some anti-nationalist world view.
@@patsy02 It is carried by the same people who think that "Nation States" only came to be after the Peace of Westphalia.
They saw a UA-cam video from some charismatic creator, and now think they know the world.
You could also argue that Dutch identity caused the 80-years war, which forced them to come up with the new concept of a nation state, which was promoted by nationalism but not ethnic nationalism but civic nationalism. The Dutch didn't want to have their monarch tell them how to believe and god and didn't want their neighbours and business associates killed.
It's not a coincidence the modern age started there because all the water came with a differenten relationship to authority. Merchants making good use of the water were already marginalizing the nobility by becoming much richer, feudal claims on land were also a bit of an issue when someone's father or grandpa made that land dry himself, and on top of that there has always been the practical problem of exerting authority by armoured horsemen in marsh lands where they are extremely vulnerable.
Beautiful. Giga Netherlands.
I would assume that the Berlin conference would be way different, with a weaker France, larger Germany, and a still thriving Poland.
2:24 the shape of this hypothetical country looks like a cartoon monster character.
This Netherlands would be a trade behemoth. It would be an even larger river delta, dominating all trade with Central Europe. Making them even more money and looking even more to colonies. This would mean their main rival would be England/Great Britain.
I honestly think a lot of northern germany, poland and Denmark could have fallen into this kingdom as well, since the Dutch had a lot of influence in these Regions by trade that is now mostly forgotten.
Later edit: a joint republic or kingdom between Prussia, Denmark and the Netherlands like some countries in Asia and Africa at the time would also be possible.
Another edit: Russia being the winner of the conflict described at 10:10 makes a lot of sense since they don't have to worry about an enemy from the other side in this story.
I could have sworn there is a place called Ireland in real life underneath that Shellos.
There are two types of burgundians. those who play TNO, and those who play EUIV
Lang leve Koninkrijk der Nederlanden! 🟧⬜️🟦
Hoera! Hoera! Hoera!
Hoezee!
Bro, Russia still has 190 ethnicities. Therefore it always struggled to find a common identity, at least an identity that was not eventually Imperialistically forced. That's also one of the reasons how the international socialist movement came into play, swapping national identities for a metropolitan socialist one. National fascism would be difficult, because forcing a Russian identity on non-Russian ethnicities so soon instead of trying to forge a common one (like communism did and with that making assimilation easier), would be a tad bit too much and might result in internal struggles. My 3 cents.
I love how we just don't talk about how utterly cursed the serbian and croatian (potentially illyrian?) borders are in the modern world. Like, that's Yugoslav Wars 2.0 on the doorstep
I don't think Britain and Netherlands would be this close for centuries. They would inevitably have clashed for Naval and Colonial domination at some point.
They did this even when the Dutch were significantly weaker so yeah
If, if, if...if the heaven falls down we all would wear a blue hat.
Pretty sure you aren't French
Can you do it on what if horses were in the Americas?
I like this timeline where the Habsburgs unite Germany, but it sucks they were overthrown. Rip. Good scenario. Peace ✌🏻
9:03 that would be a horrifying German-Hungarian empire to witness
austria would likely not pursue german unification as it did not pursue it in the real world because of ethnic tensions in the habsburg realm which would likely also be in this scenario
Funny this scenario literally played out almost exactly on my eu4 mongol empire campaign.
Also france is much more op in that timeline literally conquering nothern italy and establishing the french empire 300 hundred years earlier, and also also, britain gained emperorship over the HRE because everyone agreed to give it to them which is they then promptly lossed during the religous wars which was then given to bohemia after declaring protestant as the dominant faith, with bohemia usurping austria after losing styria somehow with bohemia gaining a personal union on it leaving the former archduchy with on wien and northern tyrol as its only territories, and sweden is pretty powerful too gaining all nordic territories except for copenhagen which was taken by lubeck which is a serious baltic powerhouse.
You forgot an important event: Charles, king of Spain, became emperor of the Holy Roman emperor as Charles V and also gained power of the complete Netherlands. In your scenario, that would still happen.
You mean Charles of Luxemburg, born in Gent, abdicated in Brussels, so indeed, what about Spain
Thought would be Valwa rather than Valoye
G E K O L O N I S E E R D
But the VOC would become a Behemoth even bigger then in our timeline 🤯
Surviving Burgundy? Don't promise me a good time!
8:14 blessed timeline
Does this guy take the 'Holy Roman Empire' serious as an entity?
I feel there would be interwined marriages between English & Burgundian/dutch royalty. For example Richard II.
Would they have a burundian system?
It’s fire. Nederland is now the greatest nation in earth.
I love it. You’ve made a whole nation proud.
Nederland Voor Altijd.
Bourgondie is Belg.
@@toiletnoob6464 shhhhhh!
Nobody needs to know.
@@toiletnoob6464 How?
Bourgondië is Belgisch
@@kimashitawa8113Burgundian successor is the Habsburg burgundy and later the Dutch revolted against the Habsburg creating the Netherlands so the Netherlands tried to get away from burgundy and also most important cities were in today belgium
It would be bicycle lanes everywhere
The premise that Burgundy acted as a sovereign state is false. Except for Charles, the dukes were all pairs of the kingdom of France and spent most of their time embroiled in french politics and fights for the french throne.
Greater Burgundy wouldn't have survived anyways, because there never was a Burgundian identity outside of the southern part. Yes, Burgundy kinda was the successor state of Gallia Belgica and Lothringia, but that doesn't mean it had a common identity, neither by language, nor by ethnicity, nor by religion, nor by culture 🦁
There was no French identity before the Kingdom of West Frankia (based around Paris) developed the French culture as a mix of Gallo-Roman and Catholic with a little bit of Frank thrown in. And then spread the culture throughout all of what we now know as France. This was still happening during the French Revolution.
Identities can develop, and they could certainly have developed around a new state in the late middle ages
You think 19th century nationalism spread until the middle ages.
Lol I was making an imaginary map of an alternate surviving burgundy just now!
This video ignores just how popular socialist, communist, and other Marxist parties were in the emerging democracies of Europe, and still would have been in this scenario.
Yeah seriously, the idea that Lenin’s absence alone would stop the revolution in Russia from happening is laughable
Excellent, very well thought out. One point of critique. Your vision of French catholics versus Dutch/German protestantism is little bit stereotypical. In the real world Low Countries encountered three waves of protestant zealots in the 16th century, First Anabaptism and Lutheranism and one generation later Calvinism, which was not of German/Dutch origin but a Frenchspeakers phenomenon, from Northern France and the French speaking parts of the Low Countries (French Flanders, Hainaut etc.)
WOOOOOO
Smh i swear you read what i wrote about powerful burgundy in the comments of the channel "possible history" and went "fuck this guy in particular"
Seriously we took roughly the same concept but went in entirely opposite directions in nearly every detail 😂
Great video!!! I miss good alternate history, please don’t turn into Rudyard..
Would they speak a mix of Oïl and Dutch or just Dutch?
Would the US even be a thing with GB and NL probably dividing the US between them in spite of France? Seems to me that with the combined interests of protestantism of England and the Netherlands the French investment into the separatist American forces would kinda dry up the efforts
I much prefer an Anglo-Dutch Confederacy under Oliver Cromwell, which he proposed during his rule.
Now that is an alternate history I would be interested in seeing.
There would never have been any royal restoration, and the republican tradition of the Dutch would be spread to Britian.
There would never have been a Second or Third Anglo-Dutch War. (which was devastating to them both).
And the overwhelming naval power of these two combined, would have led to a complete victory in the colonial game.
While also, the settlement of North America would have been done with the backbone of a Republican Confederacy.
Meaning representation for the Settlement colonies, such as Thirteen Colonies, Canada, South Africa, Australia, et cetera, would be given in the national Parliament.
Meaning, no American war of independence.
The areas of South America and the Caribbean would have gone under the influence of the English and the Dutch during the period of the late 1600s to early 1700s.
Meaning that South America would be a very different place today.
Where English and Dutch would be the primary language spoken, and with a far more significant Protestant (Calvinist) population.
By the War of the Spanish Succession, the war would go much worse for France.
France may even be split up into a bunch of smaller states.
With the Anglo-Dutch retaking Calais.
And seeing an independent Britanny, and independent Occitania splitting France in two.
By the time of Napoleon. With France being in a much weaker position, he would never have the ability to rise as he did.
The Anglo-Dutch would take the Louisiana Territory, growing their position in North America.
And may even annex Normandy.
With an independent Britanny, cutting off the Parisian French from the English Channel.
The Holy Roman Empire would never be dismantled.
And there would never be a great call to unite any sort of Prussian led German Empire.
So, by the time we get to the 1900s.
We would see both France and Germany be made up by smaller countries.
Preventing any sort of Franco-Prussian War.
No North German Confederation.
No Franco-Prussian War.
No annexation of Alsace-Lorraine to force a future conflict between the French and the Germans.
No German Empire to challenge British Naval Supremacy.
No World War One.
And so, there would be no World War Two.
And across the New World, we would see both English and Dutch being spoken.
A glorious Calvinist alternate history.
So, what is the capital of the Netherlands in this timeline? Cause I heard Brussels, but that would be weird, and Amsterdam was the capital because of Napoleon. So would it be The Hague? Because the political power is there? Or Rotterdam because of its econamical importance?
Both Mechelen and Brussels were very important power centers in the Burgundian state. And as Brussels eventually outgrew Mechelen, it became the capital of the Spanish and Austrian Netherlands. So, there is a historical precedent.
But like you said there are plenty of alternatives. Even if Brussels becomes the capital, it probably won't be the most important city.
Thank you for explaining it to me.@@Neatling
The dukes of burgundy took control of the Low Countries, you make a soup of history.