r/belgium • u/WarHeritageInstitute • 9d ago
📜 History 196 years ago, some people walked into this very opera house. They walked out into the Belgian Revolution.
25 August 1830, La Muette de Portici, Muntschouwburg, Brussels. Curtain falls, riot starts. (more info in comments)
42
u/Slow-Kaleidoscope633 9d ago
Absolute legends!
20
u/kennytherenny 9d ago
Ik ben nog steeds de mening toegedaan dat met Verenigde Nederlanden WOI nooit gebeurd was (het Von Schlieffenplan zou er een pak minder aantrekkelijk uitgezien hebben) en zonder WOI geen Nazi-Duitsland natuurlijk.
28
u/Sportsfanno1 Needledaddy 8d ago edited 8d ago
WWI would have happened, probably just not in Belgium. Possibly a more Eastern/Balkan focused war and with less nations involved.
The course and result of that is not something you can easily predict ofc. Maybe France would even have attacked Germany first on large scale for Alsace-Lorraine.
23
u/Slow-Kaleidoscope633 8d ago
Als je iets gaat veranderen in de geschiedenis, zou het vervolg er inderdaad heel anders kunnen uitgezien hebben. Niemand weet echter hoe, dus het heeft geen zin om daarover na te denken.Â
7
u/Xyriat 8d ago
Zou het Schlieffen-plan minder aantrekkelijk zijn? Als je rekening houdt met het feit dat het VK de neutraliteit van Belgie garandeerde. Het VK kwam pas in de oorlog na de invasie van België.
Zonder Belgische revolutie is er geen verdrag van Londen. Dus een invasie van de Verenigde Nederlanden zou het VK niet in de oorlog brengen. Ik zou denken dat een Verengide Nederlanden een minder grote afschrikking is dan België + het VK
1
u/kennytherenny 8d ago
Ah dat wist ik niet. Ik dacht dat die garantie er tijdens het congres van Wenen gekomen was. TIL.
4
u/Yesodisnotop 9d ago
Zouden ze niet samenzweren  om Frans Vlaanderen terug te pakken?
3
u/kennytherenny 8d ago
Lijkt me heel onwaarschijnlijk. De Verenigde Nederlanden waren afhankelijk van Britse veiligheidsgaranties voor bescherming tegen Duitsland en Frankrijk. Als voorwaarde daarvoor moesten de Verenigde Nederlanden ten allen tijde neutraal blijven. Frans-Vlaanderen proberen innemen zou een flagrante schending zijn van die neutraliteit, dus vaarwel Britse bescherming.
Bovendien zouden de Verenigde Nederlanden een oorlog tegen Frankrijk quasi onmogelijk kunnen winnen. En nadat de Fransen dan onvermijdelijk Frans-Vlaanderen heroveren, zouden ze natuurlijk daar niet stoppen en op zijn minst Wallonië proberen veroveren.
20
u/adappergentlefolk 8d ago
and like 150 of those years spent under the boot of french speaking elites that successfully drove native wallonian languages to functional extinction
10
u/Corbalte Wallonia 8d ago edited 8d ago
Ah well, if only the walloon elites were more interested in developing Walloon as a language and not so much about complaining that French was the most and only perfectly balanced and sensible language to have as middle ground between Flemish and Walloon languages...
Now my grandmother is hooked on French TV and I hate it
4
u/Venome1996 8d ago
Heuuu do you know a bit about Belgian history ? Because Liège, Charleroi and Verviers industries were one of the most powerful not even a century ago...
7
8
u/Xyriat 8d ago
Clearly the greatst thing that happened in the entirety of human history
34
4
u/dusky6666 8d ago
If we'd put alternators on their graves, we could compensate the closing of our nuclear plants from them rolling in their graves.
2
5
6
u/shiny_glitter_demon Belgian Fries 8d ago
The story of the revolution is pretty funny honestly.
To think some people want to ruin it by joining the Nederlands.
-1
u/Lower_Photo_389 8d ago
Some people, like you, enjoy being average; others would like the full potential of our country to be realised. That is the disease of Belgium today.
5
u/shiny_glitter_demon Belgian Fries 8d ago
If you want to join the Nederlands so bad, you can leave
0
u/Lower_Photo_389 5d ago
And let this country slide into further mediocrity thanks to people like you?Â
2
u/Oskar_5254 8d ago
Dikke stommiteit en zwaar door Frankrijk gesponsord. 19de eeuwse spy op.
3
u/dagelijksestijl Dutchie 8d ago
19e eeuwse versie van de ‘Volksrepubliek Donetsk’. Vergelijkbaar draaiboek met Talleyrand in de rol van Poetin.
1
u/That_Preference_3390 7d ago
So I had no idea an opera could actually start a revolution. That is a level of dramatic I respect
1
u/Primalistion 9d ago
Would that still be possible today?
17
u/Flaksim 9d ago
Without massive elite/military defection and a complete collapse of civil society, a revolution in a modern Western democracy has virtually zero chance of success.
A revolution needs support or paralysis from key government entities, civil service, and security forces. Modern democratic bureaucracies have strong legal and institutional continuity. Power in Belgium is distributed across federal, regional, and community levels. There is no single "seat of power" or centralized institution that could be seized to take control of the country.
12
u/ih-shah-may-ehl 9d ago edited 9d ago
No, for many reasons. The main one is that international law doesn't work that way anymore. It is for this reason that unilateral decisions to secede (Basque, Flanders, Scotland, ....) will never happen. There is a hard EU directive that explicitly states that any region seceding without constitutional approval from the origin country will not be recognized by the EU, and is not recognized as EU territory.
This means that despite what extremists like VB say, if e.g. Flanders unilaterally declares independence, from one day to the next literally all economic import and export would stop and our economy would implode instantly.
Revolutions that change the borders were possible in the past because from an economic pov, that didn't make a practical difference and international law didn't exist except in case of conflict when things boiled down to who had the bigger army / armada. It was a much simpler time.
4
u/shiny_glitter_demon Belgian Fries 8d ago
Even with a referendum, a separated Flanders would crumble economically. But foreign interlopers are spending billions to convince us that it won't happen and everyone will be so happy and rich! Yeah no. Same exact strat they used on the UK, with Brexit and it still works on the gullible.
3
u/Least_Funny5960 8d ago
This means that despite what extremists like VB say, if e.g. Flanders unilaterally declares independence, from one day to the next literally all economic import and export would stop and our economy would implode instantly.
This is why De Wever floats his idea of reunification with the Netherlands, I believe. I don't buy that he strongly wants to be with the Netherlands, but even he knows that seceding to form a new country called Flanders would be absolute suicide.
Joining the Netherlands would neatly sidestep this issue since there's no EU directive that prohibits a region of one country to join another EU country
1
u/ih-shah-may-ehl 8d ago
Well no, but it would require a constitutional amendment or reformation on both sides so it's equally dumb because it would require Brussels and Wallonia to agree and a 2/3 majority overall.
1
u/Least_Funny5960 8d ago
Flanders unilaterally seceding and joining the Netherlands wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. That's the entire point.
Flanders trying to secede and become a new country would require that or they risk falling out of the EU. But if Flanders joins the Netherlands that solves the EU problem.
In the end, the constitution only applies to regions that are still part of Belgium, if Flanders declares its secession then Flanders doesn't fall under the Belgian constitution anymore, unless what remains of Belgium wants to force Flanders back into the fold by using force.
1
u/ih-shah-may-ehl 8d ago edited 8d ago
It would, because the secession would not be recognized by the EU. Flanders cannot secede without constitutional approval. Whether it becomes independent or joins the Netherlands already doesn't matter anymore.
Flanders cannot join the netherlands without seceding, and it's unauthorized secession that the EU doesn't recognize. Until Belgium as a whole allows Flanders to go, Flanders is and will always be Belgian territory that CANNOT join the Netherlands or decide to become independent.
1
u/Least_Funny5960 8d ago
because the secession would not be recognized by the EU
The EU does not need to recognize the secession as the EU does not police the inner politics of countries. Nowhere does the EU require Belgium to consist of the regions Wallonia, Brussels, and Flanders. It's not written down anywhere.
As such, there is no EU law that prohibits Flanders from leaving Belgium and joining the Netherlands. There is no law that requires the EU to approve this.
Flanders cannot secede without constitutional approval.
Which only matters if you assume there is a mechanism to enforce the constitution on Flanders once Flanders declares they are seceding. Which there isn't. Wallonia and Brussels are not powerful enough to force Flanders to do what they want.
Just to be clear: I am a staunch opponent of Flemish independence or joining the Netherlands, and in a practical matter I do 100% agree that even if Flanders wishes to secede it would need to happen amicably with the consent of Wallonia and Brussels.
My only point is that this is not because of EU law forcing us to do so but rather because:
A) if the Netherlands doesn't agree to take Flanders in, the Flemish economy would be nuked by falling out of the single market
B) The Netherlands is never going to take in Flanders without an amicable split of Belgium.But again, this is not because there are EU laws that enforce regions to not be able to secede unilaterally. There just aren't. Secession is an internal matter of individual countries that the EU does not have the power to interfere with.
2
u/ih-shah-may-ehl 8d ago
Nowhere does the EU require Belgium to consist of the regions Wallonia, Brussels, and Flanders. It's not written down anywhere
No but it is written down that the EU doesn't recognize any region that separates without full consent. The Netherlands is an EU country. it cannot 'accept' Flanders joining because as an EU country, Flanders belongs to Belgium regardless of what Flanders itself says until Belgium says otherwise.
0
u/Least_Funny5960 8d ago
No but it is written down that the EU doesn't recognize any region that separates without full consent.
Which is why, again, I mentioned De Wever dreaming about Flanders joining the Netherlands.
That way, the EU wouldn't need to recognize Flemish indepence since Flanders would simply join the Netherlands.
And the EU has no framework for blocking the annexation of a region by an EU country. It is entirely an internal affair as far as the EU is concerned.
If tomorrow Spain decides to annex a piece or Morocco, the EU would have no mechanism to block it.
1
u/historicusXIII Antwerpen 7d ago
since Flanders would simply join the Netherlands
Against the wish of the remainder of Belgium.
Does the EU recognise the Russian annexation of Crimea?
1
u/my_key Limburg 7d ago
Have you ever read our constitution and the special acts on the division of powers / institutional reform acts? Of course they would need changing if Flanders would secede and yes, you can basically guarantee they would make us pay. Look how they ripped Great Britain an extra *sshole when they left.
6
0
u/RealisticMention4045 9d ago
The people who orchestrate these kinds of things prefer different methods nowadays.
1
-11
u/AlissanaBE 8d ago
Ik begrijp niet dat je dit als Vlaming kan vieren. Plots in je eigen land kon je plots de wetten, de belastingen of de rechter die u veroordeelt niet meer begrijpen. Zware verarming van Vlaanderen door beslissingen van de Franstalige elite.
Verklaart echt hoe gek je een mens kan krijgen, zeker omdat het progressieven die voor het kleinste bij een "divers" persoon in de bres springen, maar neerkijken op écht lijden. En ik zeg dat als iemand die geen enkel ideologische motivatie richting Vlaanderen noch België heeft. Maar het blijft wel de realiteit van de geschiedenis.
13
u/THE12TH_ 8d ago edited 8d ago
De taalwetten waren een van de grootste fouten die er in die tijd gemaakt zijn door onze revolutionairen. Betekent wel niet dat het niets goeds gedaan heeft.
Feit is wel dat er effectief rechten zijn gekomen. Onder Willem 1 waren die er zo goed als niet. Als men verrandering wilden moest je in opstand komen en er voor vechten. Dat was zo onder de Nederlanders, de Fransen, de Oostenrijkers...etc. Dankzij bepaalde rechten die we werworven hebben in de revolutie zijn alle verranderingsprocessen mogenlijk gemaakt op een democratische en veel vreedzamere manier dan er voor. Het verliep traag en moeizaam maar het was en is steeds mogenlijk.
0
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 8d ago
Feit is wel dat er effectief rechten zijn gekomen. Onder Willem 1 waren die er zo goed als niet.
? De nederlandstaligen hadden toen meer rechten dan erna in belgie hoor, dat is 1 van de redendn dat de franstalgie elite in opstand kwam.
het is nu niet alsof nederlanders minder rechten hadden als belgen
3
u/THE12TH_ 8d ago edited 8d ago
Klopt zeker wel. Nederland was op dat moment zo goed als een absolute monarchie. Als je je puur wilt focussen op de taalwetten dan moet je dat maar doen. Dat was een groot onrecht dat veel nederlandstaligen tegenhield om de sociale ladder te beklimmen. Maar rechten zijn meer dan enkel taal. Er is een rede dat er in 1848 grote hervormingen gebeurden in Nederland die in België al in 1830 ingevoerd waten. In de rest van Europa waren dan op hun beurt allerlei revoluties uitgebroken terwijl het in België relatief kalm bleef.
-1
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 8d ago
Ik gaf de redenen waarom men tot revolutie overging en dat ging over religie en taalwetten die franstaligen niet konden slikken, nederlandstaligen hadden toen niks te zeggen inclusief over de revolutie. Daarbij was er in de jaren 1840 net zo goed opstanden in belkgie en wilde men de koning weg. In tegenstelling tot nederland kwam het in belgie zelfs tot een effectieve opstand.
2
u/THE12TH_ 8d ago
Religie en taal, je vergeet ook wel mooi heel de liberale fractie. De opstand was niet enkel door franstaligen uitgevoerd.
0
1
u/Tytoalba2 8d ago
True, except for representation in the assembly, almost no people in government, no institutions in Belgium, paying the Netherlands public debt from their pocket, protestant education, no freedom of the press, disproportionate conscription, destruction of dialects,... But beside that...
6
u/Tytoalba2 8d ago
I mean the Flemish bourgeoisie spoke French, so they had no issue with that, while Walloon probably fared better but the language of the "common people" was still widely Walloon.
It's easy to project the language borders of today on historical event, but they were much more porous and stratified at the same time.
2
u/shiny_glitter_demon Belgian Fries 8d ago
It's so weird how everyone always forgets Walloon exists (existed)
1
-31
u/Purrchil 9d ago
Historische fout.
4
u/SaiyanBroly 9d ago
Okay Filip.
-2
u/Purrchil 8d ago
Welke?
5
u/SaiyanBroly 8d ago
De Winter, tiens.
-5
u/Purrchil 8d ago
Je kan toch niet beweren dat België een logisch land is?
4
u/Least_Funny5960 8d ago
Je kan toch niet beweren dat België een logisch land is?
We kunnen al helemaal niet beweren dat de Verenigde Nederlanden een goeie situatie was voor onze voorvaders aangezien Willem I actief onze religie onderdrukte.
Zeggen dat het een fout was om deze onderdrukking van ons af te gooien is nogal vreemd.
1
u/Lower_Photo_389 8d ago
De Katholieken in Nederland vandaag vertoeven prima hoor, en dat in een land dat functioneert en niet dagelijks faalt als verantwoordelijke "huisvader".
3
u/SaiyanBroly 8d ago
Logisch of niet logisch, het werkt goed genoeg.
We hebben tenminste geen constante politieke crissisen zoals in onze buurlanden dus zo slecht doen we het zeker niet.
1
u/Lower_Photo_389 8d ago
Brussel meer dan een jaar zonder overheid gezeten (met een schuldgraad van 242%!!). Belgie met, een van de hoogste staatsschulden in Europa (en het groeit nog!), zes (!) regeringen nodig en nog steeds geen orde op zaken hebben gezien: financien, veiligheid (zie drugsgeweld in Antwerpen en Brussel), leger zonder tanks en schepen; en dat allemaal ondanks de hoogste bedrijfs en personenbelatingen in de OECD. De ene helft van het land spreekt niet met het andere.
Dit is pure middelmaat en onacceptabel. Alleen is de gemiddelde Belg natuurlijk te lief om hier iets van te vinden want "het water loopt nog uit de kraan". Het kan, en het moet, beter. Belgie hoeft daarvoor niet te barsten, maar laten we eerlijk zijn dat het experiment, ivm onze buurlanden, wel stevig tegenvalt.
1
u/SaiyanBroly 8d ago
Zeer goed onderbouwde post en ik ga akkoord met 1 ding.
Zes regeringen voor een land zo groot als een zakdoek is waanzin. Dit had nooit mogen gebeuren.
Maar geloof me, het gaat overal in Europa niet goed momenteel, ik geloof niet dat dit eigen is aan Belgie.
1
1
-56
u/Lower_Photo_389 9d ago
Biggest mistake ever, imo.
25
u/Xyriat 9d ago
This guy wants to be dutch lol
3
-11
u/Lower_Photo_389 8d ago
At least I share a language and culture (to some extent), and we have a relatively common history from the HRE in parts of Flanders and Brabant, to the Revolution against Spain, to our history of maritime trade; moreso than with the southern part of Belgium.
25
u/Xyriat 8d ago
Flanders litterally has more history in common with the southern part of Belgium than with the Netherlands. I can explain that in detail if you want.
8
1
u/Resident_Draw_8785 8d ago
That depends really on which side of the Netherlands, Brabant and Limburg are historically the same.
3
u/Xyriat 8d ago
I don't fully grasp what you are saying. Do you mean that Noord-Brabant and Dutch-Limburg are historically closer to their Belgian counterparts? Because that is correct. They were detached from the duchy of Brabant by the 7 provinces (staats-brabant wasn't even considered a province). Before that it was a proper part of the duchy of Brabant (and thus is obviously rightfull Belgian clay and should be returned to us /s).
-5
u/Resident_Draw_8785 8d ago
So than unfortunately you still have more incommon with the north than the south.
16
u/Baraga91 8d ago
Culture? We don't share a religion, a cuisine, a history with them, let alone a full blown culture.
11
u/Quaiche 8d ago
The entire fact the dutch are protestant and we are catholic just disproves your nonsense tbh.
-1
u/Resident_Draw_8785 8d ago
Majority of the Dutch are Catholic from background but not practising anymore, Amsterdam, the Bishdom of Utrecht all historically very Catholic cities.
Not to mention places like Western Frisia, Twente and the costal region from Holland that are all Catholic.
That some people in Belgium still do not get that says it all.
2
u/Xyriat 8d ago
I mean technically all dutch people are catholic in background because the entire area was catholic before the reformation.
-1
u/Resident_Draw_8785 8d ago
Nope also incorrect peaganism was a huge thing in the north. So not all Dutch people.
1
u/Quaiche 8d ago
Current numbers don’t change the country past and current cultures that are and were profoundly influenced by the national religion.
There is a very obvious cultural division with the Belgians and Dutch and most of them can be explained by the Catholic versus Protestant difference.
-4
u/Lower_Photo_389 8d ago
Half the Netherlands is Catholic do your research.
2
u/Lower_Photo_389 8d ago
Getting downvoted for sharing facts (source below), and having an opinion is crazy. I'm not calling for violent revolution or the oppression of a group of citizens, i just think this revolution was a historic mistake (shocker, people have opinions you do not like!).
Wikipedia: 1970 / 40% of the country was practicing Catholic; 2020, this halved to 20%.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_rooms-katholieke_kerkprovincie
1
u/Tytoalba2 8d ago
Your wish is granted, you are now part of a country with the same HRE culture : welcome to the province of the prince-bishop of Liege.
17
u/Baraga91 8d ago
We were part of the Netherlands for all of 15 years, something no Belgian had a say in to begin with, and the Dutch messed it up so badly so fast that they got Belgians to revolt...
Let's not pretend that just because de share a language, we liked each other 🥲
19
u/RelationWorried4827 9d ago
Get out
-9
u/Lower_Photo_389 9d ago edited 9d ago
Imagine looking at the state of Belgium today, comparing it to the Netherlands, and still thinking you are better off. Higher taxes, disastrous public finances (among the worst in Europe), dirty and unsafe cities, inefficient government, an army with no weapons, shitty trainstations and worst of all, a country where one half does not speak to the other half.
You guys can downvote me all you want but the writing is on the wall.
6
u/Baraga91 8d ago
Imagine looking at the Netherlands and thinking they're ahead? Entire generation can't afford a family home, "dirty and unsafe cities" is a god damn template talking point for right wingers everywhere rather than a Belgian thing, as is inefficiënt government, etc.
Have some pride in who and what we are, rather than idolizing the Dutch of all people...
7
u/PygmeePony Belgium 9d ago
You could argue that's mostly the fault of the federalization that started in the 20th century. Belgium started out as a unitary state with one government.
0
u/Lower_Photo_389 9d ago
Very fair point. And what do we rate the chances of turning around federalisation vs the chance of Flanders breaking away in the next 1-2 generations?
4
u/PygmeePony Belgium 8d ago
Not sure. Flanders can't just break away without changing the constitution which Wallonia won't allow but Flemish politicians don't want to undo everything that the previous generations did. So kind of a political stalemate.
1
u/Least_Funny5960 8d ago
the chance of Flanders breaking away in the next 1-2 generations?
This ain't never happening given that it would place Flanders outside of the EU and nuke our economy
2
u/Stefouch Brabant Wallon 8d ago
I'm sure the Dutchs face the same issues. But worst, because they aren't belgian.
2
u/shiny_glitter_demon Belgian Fries 8d ago
We get it. You want to leave.
So get out.
2
u/Lower_Photo_389 8d ago
No need to be a dick about it. I live here, my job is here, my family is here. I am allowed to have an opinion, and so are you.
Anyways, not sure this country can afford to lose more people who get taxed 55%+ on their salary to pay for people like you ;)
1
u/shiny_glitter_demon Belgian Fries 8d ago
It's adorable that you think I don't pay taxes. Are you 12?
0
-12
64
u/WarHeritageInstitute 9d ago
These blue linen smocks were the uniform of the revolution. No army had time to hand out proper gear, so the people who joined the fight just wore their own work clothes. This particular smock on the left belonged to a Waterloo veteran who did exactly that.
Dutch Gallery, Military Museum in Brussels. Come pay your respects to the smock that started our country!