What do you think?
Rate this book
Belgium: Long United, Long Divided
This concise history describes the traditions and transitions that over two thousand years have developed in Belgium in a sense of shared identity, common government, and a centralized nation-state - and then over a few recent decades paved the way for Flemish-Walloon schism that now threatens to break up Belgium. It responds to the question: Why does a government, unified for more than 600 years, no longer seem capable of holding together a linguistically divided country
In tracing the evolution of Belgian governance, Humes describes why and how the dominance of French-speaking propertied elite eroded after having monopolized the land's governance for centuries. The extension of suffrage, combined with the rise of literacy and schooling enabled labor and Flemish movements to gather sufficient momentum to fracture the Belgian polity, splitting its parties and frustrating its politics. The presence of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has, in a tangential way, enable the Belgian separatists to discount the merit of a national government that is no longer needed to defend the country militarily and economically.
In tracing the evolution of Belgian governance, Humes describes why and how the dominance of French-speaking propertied elite eroded after having monopolized the land's governance for centuries. The extension of suffrage, combined with the rise of literacy and schooling enabled labor and Flemish movements to gather sufficient momentum to fracture the Belgian polity, splitting its parties and frustrating its politics. The presence of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has, in a tangential way, enable the Belgian separatists to discount the merit of a national government that is no longer needed to defend the country militarily and economically.
- GenresHistoryNonfictionBelgium
256 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2011
4 people are currently reading
76 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
August 30, 2020
Reading a foreign work about your native country because... well, no real reason, except that I saw this book "by accident" at Waterstones in Brussels. A foreigner having written a book on Belgium? Fascinating! How does Mr Humes, who has lived for many years in Belgium, look at this small, European country?
First and foremost, this is of course not an elaborate history of the founding of Belgium. The book is only about 300 pages "long", of which 240 are to be read; the rest is appendices (a chronology of Belgium's birth, occupation, governments, wars, ...; tables of all the counts/dukes/kings/... that ruled Belgium; ...), notes, selected sources (a lot!) and an index.
The chronological journey is divided into five large parts, each focusing on a block of several decades or centuries: (overview taken from the publisher's website ([here])
01) Belgica
1. The Romans Conquer, Name and Colonise Belgica: 57BCE–406CE
2. The Franks Create a Linguistic Frontier: 406–861
3. Flanders and Lotharingia Develop Commerce, Cities and Civic Conflict: 861–1384
02) Burgundy
4. Burgundian Dukes Unite the Southern Low Countries: 1384–1477
5. Charles V Unites all the Low Countries: 1477–1555
6. The Beggars’ Revolt against Spain Divides the Low Countries: 1555–1599
03) The Southern Low Countries
7. The Spanish Hapsburgs Rule an Impoverished Land: 1599–1713
8. The Austrian Hapsburgs React to the Enlightenment: 1713–1794
9. Two revolts, French Occupation and Union with the Dutch: 1789–1830
04) Belgium
10. A Francophone Elite Wins Belgium its Independence: 1830–1865
11. Labour and Flemish Movements Begin to Develop: 1865–1914
12. Two German Invasions and a Depression Speed Change: 1914–1945
05) Flanders and Wallonia
13. The Francophone, Propertied and Dominant Elite Erodes: 1945–1968
14. Belgium Federalises: 1968–1993
15. Increasingly Isolated Flanders and Wallonia Collide: 1993–2003
As you can see, the Roman emperor and conqueror Julius Caesar was among the first, if not the first, to call the country Belgica and its inhabitants Belgae. And so the trip down memory-lane continues to the next occupation period with the Merovingians, the Carolingians, the Burgundians, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Austrians, the French, and so on. Each taking a turn on occupying or trying to conquer the Low Countries and especially Belgium, which was then not at all known as Belgium.
Back in the day, there were counts and dukes who rules parts of the country. Flanders was then not the Flanders we know today, because there were the duchies of Brabant, Liège, Luxembourg, and so on.
As Belgium is currently facing another political crisis in forming a federal government - not the first crisis since the turn of the century, as it's the third (if not the fourth) of its kind since the year 2000 (first in 2007, then in 2010) - it's good to know or to delve back into the country's history.
The linguistic divide was already created several centuries ago, but really was put into practice late in the 20th century, as the xth constitutional reformation took place. The book focuses largely on the language question that has almost always existed. There was a feeling of Belgium, of begin Belgian, more for the most part, Belgium has always been French, especially in official domains.
Dutch was introduced very late, thanks to William the Silent, when he too tried to unite the Flemish people and provide them with a common language. Flemish, after all, differs from province to province; and even within a same province, that Flemish dialect has several variations.
I understand better why, as more doors were opened to the general public - better education, suffrage for everyone, changes in public administrations, the rise of new political parties, and so on -, Flemish people have been "fighting" for their rights, their language (Flemish, despite its variations), their troubles, ... As noted above, French had been (and sort of still is in large parts, especially in Brussels) the dominant language. Too bad if you didn't speak it or didn't understand it. However, times improved for all, also thanks to the various occupying nations, who each tried to maintain a centralised government.
What began with the declaration of independence in 1830, which was a way for the Belgians to finally rule for themselves, have a constitution of their own, have an self-chosen government and whatever more, set the stage for more and more dividing of governance: less on a national level, more on a local level.
Oh yes, the structure of provinces (9 at first, later 10, because of the linguistic fault line) was apparently an idea of the French. Furthermore, I learned that the Catholic party (which has long been the biggest and longest-ruling) and Liberal party each tried to impose their views on education, for example.
Mr Humes also addresses the problem of the regions (and the various governments; 5 layers to rule a country of 11 million inhabitants): each is limited to his/her own region for news, culture, media, ... Because all of these domains have long been transferred to the respective regions. This also explains why one votes for the same people and parties over and over again, because Flemish voters can't vote for Walloon parties and vice versa. And let's not forget the small, German region, which has been a toy of Germany and Belgium a few times in the past 100 years. The (Flemish) press barely brings news of our fellow-compatriots, if none at all. Since the 1990s, this has changed a lot, if not drastically. To give an example, but that's also due to Belgium's political complexity: About 25-30 years ago, it was easy to tell which parties were in charge and who was minister of which department (federal or regional). Since the turning of the century, there have been so many changes, and as the mainstream press doesn't really bring news from the other side of the linguistic fence any more, Flemish and Walloon people are - in a way - cut off from each other, which thus leaves room for extremist parties to spread their venom and create that "us-them" story to further try to dismantle the state.
In fact, when living in Belgium, you have to buy at least three newspapers: A Flemish one, A Walloon one, and a German one (the only one here is Grenz-Echo).
In short: Yes, you could say, when looking back, that Flanders or even Belgium are virtual constructions. Flanders and Wallonia each have a different view on Belgium, on personal development (how Flanders changed from mainly agriculture to industry, thus attracting investors, whereas Wallonia never really recovered when, for instance, the steel and coal industries collapsed), on culture, ... And it's only because various periods of occupation held the duchies/counties together. So why not split and go for a confederate model?
You mustn't have read this book - but it helps - to realise how politicians actually created and contributed to the situation Belgium is in. When Belgium was occupied by the Burgundians, the Spanish, the Austrians, ... those empires decided largely about the fate of Belgium. Anno 1830 (actually later, but nevertheless) the Belgians got their independence and "sh*t hit the fan", as the saying goes. From then on, little by little, more and more cracks were formed between the Flemish and the Walloons. Even to this day, the struggle is real. On a political level, mind you.
Despite the "thickness" of this introductory work - again, giving on overview of the various occupations and stages Belgium went through in the past 2000 years, but with a large spot on the linguistic matter (Flemish vs French) - it shows clearly how Belgium has been the playground of various occupations and wars (the last ones being the two World Wars, in which Belgium was a neutral state, and abused as such by the German Nazis). To this day, there are parties that fight for Flemish independence, while most Belgians want to keep the country together.
Flemish independence, when so much has already been split between Flanders and Wallonia. And the more you split, the more frustration will arise, as more and more "minorities" will suddenly stand up and demand to be heard. In the end, why not just go back to counties or duchies? Which won't improve the situation either. On the contrary even, especially in times like these with higher levels of politics as the European Union and other international constructions. In addition, Belgium is one of the founders of the EU (or at least the predecessor) and has NATO and the EU located in Brussels. Brussels, a pain in the ass (so to speak), but both Flanders and Wallonia wish to keep it, should Belgium fall apart. Or extremely put: they (the political parties) can't live with it, and they can't live without it. Brussels, the link between Flanders and Wallonia.
----------
Long story short: A very interesting and clarifying account of (a part of) Belgium's history and as such much recommended! An ideal step-up to more detailed works.
As someone else wrote in his review: Too bad, though, that no one properly checked (proofread) the text for errors. Especially in the last tens of pages, there are a bit too many typos and a serious lack of commas, which oblige you to re-read the phrases to understand them. Yes, the text could have been written in a more accessible style, but Mr Humes was director of Boston University’s Brussels campus, so the style had to be accordingly. The content itself does make up for these aesthetic issues.
----------
Related works:
* Het Belgisch labyrint: een wegwijzer (my review)
* Tegen verkiezingen (my review)
* Comment parler le belge ? Et le comprendre (my review)
* Het hoe en waarom van... de West-Vlaming (my review)
* Europa in woelig water (my review)
* De grote verkilling (my review)
* Dictionnaire des belgicismes (my review)
On my current TBR-pile:
* Atlas van de Nederlandse taal: Editie Vlaanderen
* Atlas van de Nederlandse taal - Editie Nederland
* De erfenis van Karel de Grote 814-2014
* Mahomet et Charlemagne
First and foremost, this is of course not an elaborate history of the founding of Belgium. The book is only about 300 pages "long", of which 240 are to be read; the rest is appendices (a chronology of Belgium's birth, occupation, governments, wars, ...; tables of all the counts/dukes/kings/... that ruled Belgium; ...), notes, selected sources (a lot!) and an index.
The chronological journey is divided into five large parts, each focusing on a block of several decades or centuries: (overview taken from the publisher's website ([here])
01) Belgica
1. The Romans Conquer, Name and Colonise Belgica: 57BCE–406CE
2. The Franks Create a Linguistic Frontier: 406–861
3. Flanders and Lotharingia Develop Commerce, Cities and Civic Conflict: 861–1384
02) Burgundy
4. Burgundian Dukes Unite the Southern Low Countries: 1384–1477
5. Charles V Unites all the Low Countries: 1477–1555
6. The Beggars’ Revolt against Spain Divides the Low Countries: 1555–1599
03) The Southern Low Countries
7. The Spanish Hapsburgs Rule an Impoverished Land: 1599–1713
8. The Austrian Hapsburgs React to the Enlightenment: 1713–1794
9. Two revolts, French Occupation and Union with the Dutch: 1789–1830
04) Belgium
10. A Francophone Elite Wins Belgium its Independence: 1830–1865
11. Labour and Flemish Movements Begin to Develop: 1865–1914
12. Two German Invasions and a Depression Speed Change: 1914–1945
05) Flanders and Wallonia
13. The Francophone, Propertied and Dominant Elite Erodes: 1945–1968
14. Belgium Federalises: 1968–1993
15. Increasingly Isolated Flanders and Wallonia Collide: 1993–2003
As you can see, the Roman emperor and conqueror Julius Caesar was among the first, if not the first, to call the country Belgica and its inhabitants Belgae. And so the trip down memory-lane continues to the next occupation period with the Merovingians, the Carolingians, the Burgundians, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Austrians, the French, and so on. Each taking a turn on occupying or trying to conquer the Low Countries and especially Belgium, which was then not at all known as Belgium.
Back in the day, there were counts and dukes who rules parts of the country. Flanders was then not the Flanders we know today, because there were the duchies of Brabant, Liège, Luxembourg, and so on.
As Belgium is currently facing another political crisis in forming a federal government - not the first crisis since the turn of the century, as it's the third (if not the fourth) of its kind since the year 2000 (first in 2007, then in 2010) - it's good to know or to delve back into the country's history.
The linguistic divide was already created several centuries ago, but really was put into practice late in the 20th century, as the xth constitutional reformation took place. The book focuses largely on the language question that has almost always existed. There was a feeling of Belgium, of begin Belgian, more for the most part, Belgium has always been French, especially in official domains.
Dutch was introduced very late, thanks to William the Silent, when he too tried to unite the Flemish people and provide them with a common language. Flemish, after all, differs from province to province; and even within a same province, that Flemish dialect has several variations.
I understand better why, as more doors were opened to the general public - better education, suffrage for everyone, changes in public administrations, the rise of new political parties, and so on -, Flemish people have been "fighting" for their rights, their language (Flemish, despite its variations), their troubles, ... As noted above, French had been (and sort of still is in large parts, especially in Brussels) the dominant language. Too bad if you didn't speak it or didn't understand it. However, times improved for all, also thanks to the various occupying nations, who each tried to maintain a centralised government.
What began with the declaration of independence in 1830, which was a way for the Belgians to finally rule for themselves, have a constitution of their own, have an self-chosen government and whatever more, set the stage for more and more dividing of governance: less on a national level, more on a local level.
Oh yes, the structure of provinces (9 at first, later 10, because of the linguistic fault line) was apparently an idea of the French. Furthermore, I learned that the Catholic party (which has long been the biggest and longest-ruling) and Liberal party each tried to impose their views on education, for example.
Mr Humes also addresses the problem of the regions (and the various governments; 5 layers to rule a country of 11 million inhabitants): each is limited to his/her own region for news, culture, media, ... Because all of these domains have long been transferred to the respective regions. This also explains why one votes for the same people and parties over and over again, because Flemish voters can't vote for Walloon parties and vice versa. And let's not forget the small, German region, which has been a toy of Germany and Belgium a few times in the past 100 years. The (Flemish) press barely brings news of our fellow-compatriots, if none at all. Since the 1990s, this has changed a lot, if not drastically. To give an example, but that's also due to Belgium's political complexity: About 25-30 years ago, it was easy to tell which parties were in charge and who was minister of which department (federal or regional). Since the turning of the century, there have been so many changes, and as the mainstream press doesn't really bring news from the other side of the linguistic fence any more, Flemish and Walloon people are - in a way - cut off from each other, which thus leaves room for extremist parties to spread their venom and create that "us-them" story to further try to dismantle the state.
In fact, when living in Belgium, you have to buy at least three newspapers: A Flemish one, A Walloon one, and a German one (the only one here is Grenz-Echo).
In short: Yes, you could say, when looking back, that Flanders or even Belgium are virtual constructions. Flanders and Wallonia each have a different view on Belgium, on personal development (how Flanders changed from mainly agriculture to industry, thus attracting investors, whereas Wallonia never really recovered when, for instance, the steel and coal industries collapsed), on culture, ... And it's only because various periods of occupation held the duchies/counties together. So why not split and go for a confederate model?
You mustn't have read this book - but it helps - to realise how politicians actually created and contributed to the situation Belgium is in. When Belgium was occupied by the Burgundians, the Spanish, the Austrians, ... those empires decided largely about the fate of Belgium. Anno 1830 (actually later, but nevertheless) the Belgians got their independence and "sh*t hit the fan", as the saying goes. From then on, little by little, more and more cracks were formed between the Flemish and the Walloons. Even to this day, the struggle is real. On a political level, mind you.
Despite the "thickness" of this introductory work - again, giving on overview of the various occupations and stages Belgium went through in the past 2000 years, but with a large spot on the linguistic matter (Flemish vs French) - it shows clearly how Belgium has been the playground of various occupations and wars (the last ones being the two World Wars, in which Belgium was a neutral state, and abused as such by the German Nazis). To this day, there are parties that fight for Flemish independence, while most Belgians want to keep the country together.
Flemish independence, when so much has already been split between Flanders and Wallonia. And the more you split, the more frustration will arise, as more and more "minorities" will suddenly stand up and demand to be heard. In the end, why not just go back to counties or duchies? Which won't improve the situation either. On the contrary even, especially in times like these with higher levels of politics as the European Union and other international constructions. In addition, Belgium is one of the founders of the EU (or at least the predecessor) and has NATO and the EU located in Brussels. Brussels, a pain in the ass (so to speak), but both Flanders and Wallonia wish to keep it, should Belgium fall apart. Or extremely put: they (the political parties) can't live with it, and they can't live without it. Brussels, the link between Flanders and Wallonia.
----------
Long story short: A very interesting and clarifying account of (a part of) Belgium's history and as such much recommended! An ideal step-up to more detailed works.
As someone else wrote in his review: Too bad, though, that no one properly checked (proofread) the text for errors. Especially in the last tens of pages, there are a bit too many typos and a serious lack of commas, which oblige you to re-read the phrases to understand them. Yes, the text could have been written in a more accessible style, but Mr Humes was director of Boston University’s Brussels campus, so the style had to be accordingly. The content itself does make up for these aesthetic issues.
----------
Related works:
* Het Belgisch labyrint: een wegwijzer (my review)
* Tegen verkiezingen (my review)
* Comment parler le belge ? Et le comprendre (my review)
* Het hoe en waarom van... de West-Vlaming (my review)
* Europa in woelig water (my review)
* De grote verkilling (my review)
* Dictionnaire des belgicismes (my review)
On my current TBR-pile:
* Atlas van de Nederlandse taal: Editie Vlaanderen
* Atlas van de Nederlandse taal - Editie Nederland
* De erfenis van Karel de Grote 814-2014
* Mahomet et Charlemagne
June 29, 2016
A nice, short survey of Belgian history. The book is framed in the context of the Flemish-Walloon linguistic and cultural divide in Belgium and attempts to trace those roots back to the country's origins. I would recommend this book to someone visiting Belgium who wants to get a general understanding of the country's history. Such surveys are difficult to find in English, particularly those that reach as far back as the Roman times. Within chapters, the author has a tendency to recite political events, particularly more modern ones, in quick succession without enough analysis to bring a full understanding of the context and implications of each individual event, but does a solid job of beginning and ending each chapter with a summary of each era. Humes interest appears to lie much more in political science than history, so the book's analysis tends in that direction. Overall, I'd recommend the book as a concise survey of Belgian history - enough for a traveler or a as starting point for more in-depth study - with its more robust discussion of Belgium's modern political structure catering to those interested in political science.
June 2, 2017
As comprehensive a summary of Belgian history as you will find written in the English language. Belgium's complicated history as a crossroads of Europe, and the forces pushing it together and apart - sometimes simultaneously - are well addressed.
This is not exactly an easy read. Hume errs on the side of his academia in utilizing more complex but precise language, sometimes at the sacrifice of fluidity and readability.
If English is your native tongue and you want a deeper perspective of Belgium's complex history, this is probably your best bet.
This is not exactly an easy read. Hume errs on the side of his academia in utilizing more complex but precise language, sometimes at the sacrifice of fluidity and readability.
If English is your native tongue and you want a deeper perspective of Belgium's complex history, this is probably your best bet.
February 12, 2015
Interesting to read a book about my country's history written by a foreigner. But too much page filling when writing about 20th/21st century. Endless repeats of the same information, ideas and arguments. Sloppy text review: many misspellings in mainly Dutch names, but also lots of grammatical errors and missing words in the English text.
February 22, 2024
Good overview of the history of Belgium that could signpost to reading other more in detail accounts of certain aspects. Definitely does raise the question as to whether or not the country will remain united in the future.
October 17, 2015
A really interesting and informative book that filled me in on the story of Belgium from ancient times to the present day. It explained why I could use my French when I was recently in Brussels, but not the next day in Bruges. I learned that Belgium has an internal language divide, with half the country speaking French and the other half Flemish, a dialect of Dutch (there are actually 4 Flemish dialects in Belgium). But it also talked about the history and culture that keeps Belgium together, and its place in Europe and the world today. I really learned a lot from this book that filled in this lesser-known corner of European history for me.
July 16, 2016
see my review at Reading World.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews