This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have put up the merge tags, because:
Str1977 (smile back) 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the merge, and instead propose to rename the Burgundian Netherlands to the Burgundian times/era/epoch or similar, like the article on Dutch wikipedia. The Seventeen provinces is a term and the Burgundian Netherlands/times is a time period.There should be 2 articles. Rex 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose with emphasis: the "Seventeen Provinces" is a name that is widely known and used for roughly the present Benelux in the Habsburgers era, and mustnot redirect to the Burgundian period (nor vice versa since there were no 17 provinces in the Burgundian era). Though Rex subjectively sees the Burgundian era as better known than the Burgundian Netherlands, the latter must remain because it too is a rather common term which refers to the Low Countries in that era in a clear way. Else one would need to write 'the Netherlands in the Burgundian era' which would be confusing as the Netherlands could then more easily be interpreted as the much smaller geographical area of the present Netherlands. "Burgundian Netherlands" provides a practical link that avoids confusion by it name alone: the Netherlands belonging to Burgundy (in France) makes any ignorant reader follow the link. Note that 'de Boergondische Nederlanden' is also used in Dutch language; one never speaks of 'de Boergondische Lage Landen' (thus no 'Burgundian Low Countries'). — SomeHuman 22 Nov 2006 23:04 (UTC)
Should the territory of Liège really be included as a component?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I was asking myself the same question. But in 1465 the Duke was officially made the Protector of Liège, and after the Sack of 1468 the territory was well under control. I'm more concerned about the Bishopric of Utrecht, actually. Unfortunately the map is very unclear, showing an independent Liege in 1477 but a Burgundian Utrecht. -- Praundo ( talk) 13:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that to put it simple there was a long-term variable level of influence and control, but it was never officially the same direct type of administration as the secular lordships? (I am open to correction on that.) So would it be better to show kind of hatched or faded coloring?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, that would be great. Also the question is to know whether they should be included as components or not, as bishoprics were not under direct control. - Praundo ( talk) 17:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't think I am up to making a map like that myself.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
“Burgundian State” is an invention. Burgundian Netherlands speaks about the same topic. Revolution Yes ( talk) 23:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Simply speaking: we have Burgundian Netherlands for (obviously) the Netherlands matters, and Burgundian Circle for the common arguments of Netherlands and Burgundy. No need of Burgundian State.-- Revolution Yes ( talk) 19:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Even if the Burgundian State is a historiographical tool, I'd argue it's an important one for understanding Burgundian history. I don't believe merging the articles at the cost of nuance and potential understanding is worth it. Julius177 ( talk) 15:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have put up the merge tags, because:
Str1977 (smile back) 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the merge, and instead propose to rename the Burgundian Netherlands to the Burgundian times/era/epoch or similar, like the article on Dutch wikipedia. The Seventeen provinces is a term and the Burgundian Netherlands/times is a time period.There should be 2 articles. Rex 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose with emphasis: the "Seventeen Provinces" is a name that is widely known and used for roughly the present Benelux in the Habsburgers era, and mustnot redirect to the Burgundian period (nor vice versa since there were no 17 provinces in the Burgundian era). Though Rex subjectively sees the Burgundian era as better known than the Burgundian Netherlands, the latter must remain because it too is a rather common term which refers to the Low Countries in that era in a clear way. Else one would need to write 'the Netherlands in the Burgundian era' which would be confusing as the Netherlands could then more easily be interpreted as the much smaller geographical area of the present Netherlands. "Burgundian Netherlands" provides a practical link that avoids confusion by it name alone: the Netherlands belonging to Burgundy (in France) makes any ignorant reader follow the link. Note that 'de Boergondische Nederlanden' is also used in Dutch language; one never speaks of 'de Boergondische Lage Landen' (thus no 'Burgundian Low Countries'). — SomeHuman 22 Nov 2006 23:04 (UTC)
Should the territory of Liège really be included as a component?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 13:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I was asking myself the same question. But in 1465 the Duke was officially made the Protector of Liège, and after the Sack of 1468 the territory was well under control. I'm more concerned about the Bishopric of Utrecht, actually. Unfortunately the map is very unclear, showing an independent Liege in 1477 but a Burgundian Utrecht. -- Praundo ( talk) 13:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that to put it simple there was a long-term variable level of influence and control, but it was never officially the same direct type of administration as the secular lordships? (I am open to correction on that.) So would it be better to show kind of hatched or faded coloring?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, that would be great. Also the question is to know whether they should be included as components or not, as bishoprics were not under direct control. - Praundo ( talk) 17:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Don't think I am up to making a map like that myself.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 18:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
“Burgundian State” is an invention. Burgundian Netherlands speaks about the same topic. Revolution Yes ( talk) 23:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Simply speaking: we have Burgundian Netherlands for (obviously) the Netherlands matters, and Burgundian Circle for the common arguments of Netherlands and Burgundy. No need of Burgundian State.-- Revolution Yes ( talk) 19:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Even if the Burgundian State is a historiographical tool, I'd argue it's an important one for understanding Burgundian history. I don't believe merging the articles at the cost of nuance and potential understanding is worth it. Julius177 ( talk) 15:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)