“If Belgium as a country didn’t exist, would Brussels be part of the Netherlands or France?”
Alternative history, tricky!
Obviously, it depends on why Belgium didn't exist.
And to answer that question, we first have to answer another one: in our actual history, why does Belgium exist?
The above has puzzled and continues to puzzle historians and laymen alike ever since the country was born.
All of us familiar with the country Belgium can't help but wonder every now and then: “Why is this even a country?”
That's not meant to insult the Belgians. I'm sure they themselves ask the same question regularly.
So, let's give it our best shot!
The region that is now Belgium has not always been an independent country. Rather, it has gone through quite a few “owners” over the century.
I'll start the story at the Duchy of Burgundy.
In the map below it looks like a country, but it was more a random pile of states and cities that happened to belong to the same dude:
In 1477 this dude died, and the smattering of states and cities realised they weren't a country at all.
So, part of them decided to be French, part of them decided to be Spanish, and some others tried to go for it themselves (didn't last long).
The region that is “Belgium” became Spanish.
And, this is important: they stayed Spanish until 1714. That is, for 250 years.
Even when the cities and states to the North of them said: “Fuck this, we're independent”, they stayed with the Spanish.
Those independent states became The Netherlands, and they offered the Belgians to join quite a few times. But the Belgians didn't want to join. The Netherlands were Protestant and/or Secular and disliked Royalty and had shitty food and they didn't have mountains and all their land was boggy swamp and - in short - The Netherlands sucked
Over the course of those 250 years of Spanish rule, the Belgian region was quite the battlefield.
France tried to invade several times - didn't work out. The Netherlands tried to invade as well - didn't work out. All kinds of Germans tried to invade - didn't work either.
In the end, in 1714, Austria gained a hold of the region. Why did this work out? Because they were Habsburgs as well, just like the old Spanish King.
So, even though “The Spanish Netherlands” now became “The Austrian Netherlands", nothing really changed.
The lesson here, though, is that the Belgians don't like being part of the neighbouring countries:
France, no. Netherlands, no. Germany, no.
Spain or Austria, sure.
Somewhere around 1800, the French had themselves a revolution. They chopped off the head of the king, and Napoleon became emperor.
He annexed the Austrian Netherlands and the Independent Netherlands and made them part of France.
Again, the Belgians didn't like this. See also above: France, no.
They staged some uprisings and rebellions, and by the time Napoleon was beaten (on Belgian soil, no less!) the Belgians were pretty clear that they did not want to stay part of France.
But then the weirdest thing happened: instead of allowing the Belgians to re-join Austria, the great nations of the world decided together that they had to become part of the Netherlands.
But, see above: Netherlands, no.
It didn't last long. Belgium was made part of the Netherlands in 1815, and left (after a bit of a fight) in 1830.
If people ever say “Belgium should become part of the Netherlands “again””, remind them that “again” was only 15 years.
So, the Belgians kicked the Dutch out.
That was all fine and dandy, but it left them with a very real problem: who owns the region now?
Obviously, the French, Germans and Dutch sucked - but Austria had already made clear they didn't want Belgium.
So what do you do if you don't want those who want you, yet those you want don't want you?
The only other option was independence.
So, even though “Belgium” didn't really exist; even though there was nothing like a “Belgian identity”; even though they spoke three different languages and had several different ethnicities; even though the people of Belgium didn't really like each other - they became an independent country.
And that answers the first, main question:
Why does Belgium exist?
Because, even though an independent Belgium is a shitty country, The Netherlands, France and Germany are even shittier.
Belgium only exists for lack of better options.
So, let's get back to the Alternative History and the actual question:
“If Belgium as a country didn’t exist, would Brussels be part of the Netherlands or France?”
As said, this depends on why Belgium doesn't exist. There are a few points in history in which Belgium's independence was on the line.
Here are our four options:
1. Napoleon wasn't a brilliant conqueror.In this Alternative History, Napoleon is a bit of a doofus. He doesn't conquer the Austrian Netherlands; doesn't beat Austria; doesn't dismantle the Holy Roman Empire.
Belgium stays a part of Austria - which, still important and relevant because it didn't get smacked on the head by Napoleon, keeps a steady hold on the southern German states.
When Prussia finally unites Germany, some parts of it (Belgium included) decide they'd rather stay a part of the great Habsburg Motherland.
2. Napoleon was an even more brilliant conqueror.
In this Alternative History, Napoleon is even less of a doofus than in actual history. He beats several coalitions against him, ravages Moscow, and then returns from the Russian wastelands without letting half his army starve. The British Empire falters under the Continental System and Napoleon is unchallenged master of Europe.
Eventually he dies, of course, and eventually some kind of doofus becomes emperor, at which point the Belgians will once again repeat what they have said for centuries now: “France sucks”.
And, just as in our timeline, The Netherlands and Germany suck as well and Austria doesn't want to get involved, so Belgium becomes independent for lack of better options.
3. The Netherlands stay relevant.
In this Alternative History, The Netherlands actually manage to stay a relevant, modern world nation, instead of becoming a sloppy backwater.
When the Belgians say “You suck, we're independent”, the Dutch beat them down.
But, come on.
Come on.
I know this is an Alternative History scenario, but… yeah. The Netherlands suck. We all know it. There is a reason why, after eighty years of war, Belgium didn't join the Independent Netherlands.
There is a reason why The Netherlands couldn't hold on to Belgium even when they were given the land by all the European powers.
There just is no valid scenario in which Belgium would be Dutch.
4. The Germans win a world war.
Twice during the 20th century, Germany invaded Belgium.
The first time, they took all of it except for a tiny sliver. The second time, they took it all.
In this Alternative History, Germany wins either of the world wars and become the new political engine of Europe.
However, Belgium will still be an independent nation. Germany has no interest in Belgium (they probably inherited this disinterest from Austria).
Both world wars were based (partly) on German nationalism. In a German nation state, there is no place for Belgians.
In neither of the world wars, annexing Belgium was part of the German post-war plan. A German-aligned Belgium, sure. A puppet state, probably. But Belgium as an integral part of the German state? No way.
So, the way I see it, there are four possible alternative scenarios in which Belgium as a country doesn't exist:
- Belgium stays Austrian.
In which case, Brussels would be Austrian as well. - Belgium stays French.
In which case the Belgians would kick the shitty French out and Brussels would be Belgian. - Belgium stays Dutch.
In which case the Belgians would kick the shitty Dutch out and Brussels would be Belgian. - Belgium becomes German.
In which case the Germans would kick the shitty Belgians out and Brussels would be Belgian.
So, yeah.
Those aren't actually four possible scenarios in which Belgium doesn't exist. It's actually only one scenario.
There is no way Belgians would ever accept Dutch, French, or German rule.
Only Austrian rulership would be accepted by Brussels.
And this makes sense. Nobody likes their close neighbours, and France, The Netherlands and Germany are objectively shitty countries.
Austria is the only country the Belgians were ever voluntarily part of, Belgium itself included.
The only reason Belgium is independent at all is because the Austrians didn't want them anymore.
Belgium is the world's equivalent of a spurned lover who says “well, I'll just stay on my own, then”, not entirely happy, but hey, what can you do? It still beats marrying the crazy cat lady that lives on the corner.
So, to answer the question:
“If Belgium as a country didn’t exist, would Brussels be part of the Netherlands or France?”
Neither.
It would be part of Austria.
No comments:
Post a Comment