More complicated still, sometimes the ruler of Country A would be the lord of some territory in Country B without that territory thereby belonging to Country A in the modern sense. Things were different (try playing Crusader Kings).
This continued well into the modern era. I’ve always thought one of the nearest-miss ‘what-if’s’ of history is what would have happened had Queen Victoria of the UK been King Victor and thus continued to rule Hannover in Germany, which did not allow female succession.
It was not a British territory, but that interest would surely have complicated German reunification immensely, involving the world’s leading power directly in that process. Maybe the UK would have taken France’s side in the Franco-Prussian war? Or more likely lots of things would have been different - surely with consequences today. All because the winning sperm was XX not XY.
The intertwining of "national" territories (in reality a concept that did not take its modern shape until the French Revolution) was the norm in medieval Europe, not the exception. Contiguous geographical territories ditto. I expect you'd see a lot more of it on a map that drilled down a bit further! :-)
The reason for the Belgo-Dutch situation is a bit different however. Belgium became a part of the Netherlands as an outcome of the Council of Vienna in 1815. The Dutch government, dominated as it was by a strict Calvinist orthodoxy, attempted in vain to bring the heavily Catholic Belgians under that aegis. In so doing, they eventually provoked an uprising in 1830, which--long story short--was finally settled in 1839.
As part of the settlement, borders had to be established between the Netherlands properly speaking and Belgium. The principle under which the lines were drawn was religion--NOT, you'll note, "nationality"--in that Catholic areas were assigned to Belgium and Protestant ones to the Netherlands. This in turn was an outcome of the Spanish campaign to repress the Dutch revolt back in the Middle Ages: the line between Catholic and Protestant was de facto the final line of advance of the Duke of Alva.
In a few areas, of which the one you describe is the most noteworthy, Catholics and Protestants were commingled. Since there was no subsidiary principle for the borders, the border commission simply followed the basic rule and so we have what you describe. This had some...interesting effects during WW1, when the Germans occupied Belgium but the Netherlands remained neutral (unlike in WW2).
Final note: Spain and Austria used to be jointly ruled by Philip II, and only when he abdicated in favor of his son Charles V was the division made between Spain and Hapsburg Austria.
I can certainly see why, though of course we had our own version in the US of that owing to the land-grant situation stemming from the somewhat shambolic way the Crown made them.
Eventually the antecedent government--there's no "official" term for it, so I'll go with "confederal (NOT Confederate!) government"--that existed in various forms from the Revolution to the Constitution of 1787 got the states to agree to yield their land claims to them in part-exchange for the confederal government assuming the states' war debts.
But in Europe this was an artifact of post-Roman warlordism, for want of a better term. In Germany, for example, there were something like 400 (!) recognized jurisdictions--some consisting of only a few acres of land and a castle--which Napoleon consolidated into 40 or so.
The old joke among historians was that for all its horrors the 30 Years War (1618-1648) converted "Germany" from a geographical expression to a nation.
The state cessions case and the case of the hundreds of seperate German states that Bismark united are extremely interesting. Again, thank you for your comment!
More complicated still, sometimes the ruler of Country A would be the lord of some territory in Country B without that territory thereby belonging to Country A in the modern sense. Things were different (try playing Crusader Kings).
This continued well into the modern era. I’ve always thought one of the nearest-miss ‘what-if’s’ of history is what would have happened had Queen Victoria of the UK been King Victor and thus continued to rule Hannover in Germany, which did not allow female succession.
It was not a British territory, but that interest would surely have complicated German reunification immensely, involving the world’s leading power directly in that process. Maybe the UK would have taken France’s side in the Franco-Prussian war? Or more likely lots of things would have been different - surely with consequences today. All because the winning sperm was XX not XY.
The intertwining of "national" territories (in reality a concept that did not take its modern shape until the French Revolution) was the norm in medieval Europe, not the exception. Contiguous geographical territories ditto. I expect you'd see a lot more of it on a map that drilled down a bit further! :-)
The reason for the Belgo-Dutch situation is a bit different however. Belgium became a part of the Netherlands as an outcome of the Council of Vienna in 1815. The Dutch government, dominated as it was by a strict Calvinist orthodoxy, attempted in vain to bring the heavily Catholic Belgians under that aegis. In so doing, they eventually provoked an uprising in 1830, which--long story short--was finally settled in 1839.
As part of the settlement, borders had to be established between the Netherlands properly speaking and Belgium. The principle under which the lines were drawn was religion--NOT, you'll note, "nationality"--in that Catholic areas were assigned to Belgium and Protestant ones to the Netherlands. This in turn was an outcome of the Spanish campaign to repress the Dutch revolt back in the Middle Ages: the line between Catholic and Protestant was de facto the final line of advance of the Duke of Alva.
In a few areas, of which the one you describe is the most noteworthy, Catholics and Protestants were commingled. Since there was no subsidiary principle for the borders, the border commission simply followed the basic rule and so we have what you describe. This had some...interesting effects during WW1, when the Germans occupied Belgium but the Netherlands remained neutral (unlike in WW2).
Final note: Spain and Austria used to be jointly ruled by Philip II, and only when he abdicated in favor of his son Charles V was the division made between Spain and Hapsburg Austria.
All true! Thank you for your thorough comment. Still seems a bit weird to the uneducated eye though (like mine :) )
I can certainly see why, though of course we had our own version in the US of that owing to the land-grant situation stemming from the somewhat shambolic way the Crown made them.
Eventually the antecedent government--there's no "official" term for it, so I'll go with "confederal (NOT Confederate!) government"--that existed in various forms from the Revolution to the Constitution of 1787 got the states to agree to yield their land claims to them in part-exchange for the confederal government assuming the states' war debts.
Here's the Wikipedia article on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_cessions
But in Europe this was an artifact of post-Roman warlordism, for want of a better term. In Germany, for example, there were something like 400 (!) recognized jurisdictions--some consisting of only a few acres of land and a castle--which Napoleon consolidated into 40 or so.
Here's a random map of "Germany" circa 1500:
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/6a0147e0fd1b4a970b01a511f3a800970c.jpg
The old joke among historians was that for all its horrors the 30 Years War (1618-1648) converted "Germany" from a geographical expression to a nation.
The state cessions case and the case of the hundreds of seperate German states that Bismark united are extremely interesting. Again, thank you for your comment!