Talk:Low Countries

Untitled

Last sentence: "However, the plural term "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" (Kingdom of the Netherlands) still is the official Dutch name of the country." That is not entirely correct. The official name of the country (the part in continental Europe) is actually "Nederland". The Kingdom also includes Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, two "dependent" countries in the Carribian. Aruba and the NA have extreme authonomy (they are for instance not even part of the EU), and do definatly not belong to "Nederland".

You are basically right. Aruba and the Antilles too are countries within the Kingdom — although they are subordinated to the Government of the Kingdom, which just happens to be substantially identical to the government of Nederland :o)--MWAK 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"disambiguation page needed"

A disambiguation page is needed to remove ambiguities between this page and the South Carolina Lowcounry page. The Low County redirect page should be modified to redirect to the disambiguation page, not this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.67.18 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"vice"?

The second paragraph says "...more appropriate to romantic descriptions by authors vice useful diplomatic or geographically accurate and well defined meanings"

This doesn't seem to make sense. Did the author instead mean "versus"? In any case, it's hard to figure what this sentence is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.246.199.195 (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern usage

Nonetheless, in modern English usages, the term will occasionally be found, by which is meant the French Netherlands, Kingdom of Belgium and (European main land part) of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
I think it is more commonly used as a description for Belgium and the Netherlands. An alternative for the word Benelux, when Luxemburg doesn't really have anything to do with it. For example in this article (Within Temptation) I read: In addition they went to work on their second album, releasing Mother Earth in the Low Countries on December 1st. Clearly here only Belgium and The Netherlands is ment, not French Flanders. Another example is the football derby between Belgium and The Netherlands, which is always called the Derby of the Low Countries That's why I changed the sentence to:
Nonetheless, in modern English usages, the term will occasionally be found, by which is meant the Kingdom of Belgium and (European main land part) of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Sometimes the French Netherlands are also included in this definition. --Lamadude (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that Luxemburg does not really come into the notion of the Low Countries. On the other hand there is an argument to be made for the inclusion of at least part of the French Flanders.Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

... What?!

As interesting as the space photo is, it doesn't tell me where, specifically, the Low Countries are. In fact, I just can't figure out (from ANY article) just how there is a difference between the Low Countries and the Netherlands. Can somebody PLEASE do a better job of explaining it, or adding a map that SHOWS the difference? IT'S JUST SO FRUSTRATING! >:@ 74.32.226.113 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated in the Article, "The low countries" are a lot bigger than the Netherlands and include Belgium and Luxemburg as well (depending on the definition, the borders are not 100% clear. But for example Flanders is always definitely included in any definition of the Low Countries. --Lamadude (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, seriously? Lame. Well, sorry for getting so frustrated. I think I've calmed down a bit since 3 months ago. ;) I still say it needs a map of the area with political borders included; the space picture just doesn't do a very good job of showing that stuff. Sorry again for the frustration, though, and thanks for the quick response (even though I just noticed -_-). 74.32.226.113 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The political borders between Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and Germany are already on the map (maybe they are not clear enough) and as said before you cannot draw a border around the Low Countries as such because are not clearly defined. Some people use it to refer to the Dutch speaking part of Europe (The Netherlands + Flanders), some people mean The Netherlands + Belgium, while others mean the Benelux plus parts of France (French Flanders) and parts of Germany along the Dutch border. Which is more or less what you can see on the satellite image. --Lamadude (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Historic Situation

This sentence is transfered verbatim from the sourced material...page 25...the author was the information officer of the Marshall Plan mission to the Netherlands in 1949 and 1950--Buster7 (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The information is misleading in that Caesar's description of Gaul did not extend to the territory beyond the Rhine, which was considered its natural frontier. See [1], [2]. (Quoting: When Julius Caesar gave a description of the country north of the Alps, he made a simple distinction: the river Rhine was the frontier between the Gauls in the west and the Germans in the north.) Gallia Belgica does not even roughly coincide with the modern Benelux, as it includes only those parts of the Low Countries that are situated to the west and to the south of the Rhine. Iblardi (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a conflict of source material. Do your two sources outweigh my one source? Is that how it works? Seems to me that the adverb "roughly" carries the day.--Buster7 (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but the source (it is only one) is specialized on the subject of Roman antiquity, and I have the impression that the book you use as a reference is not. If we want to know what Caesar thought of the region, then we should consult the specialized source rather than Rachlis' book, which apparently covers the whole subject of the Low Countries in only 160 pages. What reference does Rachlis give for his statement?

"Roughly" does not carry the day, since it would add at least half of the modern day Netherlands to the province. In terms of accuracy this would be unacceptable. Iblardi (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked out your references above. After the sentence that you quote..."When Julius Caesar gave a description...etc" comes the sentence,"In fact, this is nonsense." Im not sure but it seems an undo is in order!--Buster7 (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The source says Caesar is mistaken in making that simple division. It does not go on to say that Gallia Belgica in fact stretched beyond the Rhine, on the contrary. But even then the "nonsense" phrase has no relevancy for the discussion, since this is about what Caesar thought, not whether or not he was correct.

Finally, the name Gallia Belgica is not part of Caesar's vocabulary, which is what your source is saying. The province name was coined later. Iblardi (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not redundant. It supports it. Maybe clarity isn't your purpose. No need to reply. I won't revert. I'm on Holiday..ta! ta! --Buster7 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why BENELUX is not an appropriate category for this article.

Yesterday I removed the category BENELUX from this article. It was undone by [1 and described as "Bullshit", which is frankly charming.

Actually, it isn't "Bullshit". Benelux, in the context of the category, does not refer to the geographical entity (and its history) but the economic-customs union established after WWII and possibly any previous economic agreements between the states involved. For the history of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - please put it in the appropriate History of... category. Thank you. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

'Poetic description'

"A poetic description also calls the region the Low Countries by the Sea." was marked with a 'citation needed' tag. In Dutch, the phrase 'lage landen bij de zee' (low countries near the sea) is well-known. For example it is the title of a very famous history book. In the royal library's catalogue the are eight book titles with the phrase. Now I wonder if it is okay to take the Dutch version into account? Bever (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the name

"Historically, the term Low Countries arose at the Court of the Dukes of Burgundy, who used the term les pays de par deça ..." – although the House of Burgundy indisputably played a role in shaping the Low Countries, that this was the origin of the term Nederlanden has been thoroughly disputed on nl:Overleg:Lage Landen. Probably terms for 'low-lying' were already used for the area (though not exclusively) in the Middle Ages. Bever (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why it don't merge with another article?

Hello! I'm had been mention 3 articles Pan-Netherlands, Benelux and Low Countries articles. But they had been related to each other. Why they still seperated while they overlap their contents? MYSKaoi a.k.a. 2012An(4thwm1) (ユキのトーク!) 06:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC) — MYSKaoi (talk · contribs) is currently under sockpuppet investigation. Happily888 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There will be some overlap, but they're not about the same thing. One is about a concept or ideal, one is about a relatively recent alliance, and one is about a geographical and historical region. Including all of these in one article would make that article unwieldy and unclear. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. MYSKaoi (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC) — MYSKaoi (talk · contribs) is currently under sockpuppet investigation. Happily888 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)