My husband and I just got back from 4 days in Mons, Belgium. We currently live in Heidelberg, Germany, and went up for the weekend to "check things out" because he has been offered a job with SHAPE.

We were .... um ... distinctly unimpressed with the area, despite being quite open-minded (the job offered is very good). We were quite surprised how dirty Mons and the surrounding towns were.

Is this common for Belgium? Have we been spoiled by living in Heidelberg? We used to live in northern Italy, and it was also quite clean, even in the areas that were economically depressed.

According to official statistics, the three cheapest municipalities in all Belgium for real estate are all in the suburbs of Mons. So I am not surprised by your impression. However central Mons can be quite nice, given that it is one of the poorest cities in Belgium, ruled by Socialists for decades...

You have to know that Belgium is in fact "two countries in one". You have Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia and Brussels. Flanders is very prosperous and has beautiful (and clean) cities... while Wallonia is rather poor and has very dirty cities. Within Wallonia, the area around Mons/Charleroi/La Louvière is the worst... so go figure...

I hope the job is very good! :wink:

You obviously do not know Belgium. Wallonia (Hainaut excepted) is far more beautiful (both nature and historical heritage) than Flanders. As for wealth, Brussels beats both regions in terms of GDP per capita (it has in fact the 2nd highest GDP per capita of any region in Europe, after Luxembourg). The Hainaut is by far the poorest, but the Walloon Brabant is the richest Belgian province (after Brussels). There are statistics for that too : http://statbel.fgov.be/press/pr076_fr.asp

I don't know which yardstik you measure by, but Limburg brought its unemployment figures down to below 7%. 20 years ago the region was even worse off than Le Hainaut and Liège. I'm not even going to discuss Brussels unemployment figures... they roar well into 20% and beyond when it comes to benefit claimers below 30 in the most populated gemeentes.

Second remark. If tomorrow we decide 1) Brussels is no longer capital and/or 2) corporate taxes are no longer paid according to the location of headquarters, but the location of production facilities or point of entry/exit the Brussels' regional GDP drops back to near zero... you are entertaining a statistical phallacy. (people doing the jobs related to the Brussels capital phenomenon btw are not from Brussels but commute into Brussels)

Third, yes the walloon part has nicer landscapes and nature and yes le Brabant Wallon and Luxembourg are doing well. On the other hand, the most populated provinces, Le Hainaut and Liège, have been steeped into economic decline ever since the early 70ies now... a feat unmatched as regions like Limburg, the Ruhr, Département de Nord all bounced back in the last decade.... one wonders what happened with all the Flemish and EU subsidies... some more sense of responsibility from local politcians would be nice for a change.

As for the Brussels unemployment figures: comparez ce qui est comparable. The Brussels unemployment figures cannot and should not be compared to the Flemish unemployment figures 'cause both are completely uncomparable. The Brussels Capital Region is a metropolitan area, the Flemish Region is... well, a "real" region with vast urban areas (like Antwerp or Ghent), sleepy well off provincial towns (Louvain), countryside (West Flanders). The Brussels Region is one big city and its unemployment figures should therefore be compared with a Flemish counterpart, like the City of Antwerp. Well, Antwerp happens to have 17% unemployment. Okay, 17 is less than 20. But Brussels is twice the size of Antwerp. So when Brussels has to cope with 20% unemployment Brussels politicians are to blame, but when Antwerp has 17% that's an example of Flemish "goed bestuur"? Gimme a break. :roll:



If so and if like that. Like I hear Steve Stevaert once say: "And if my aunt had wheels, she would be a bike." Fact is that all these headquaters are based in Brussels because of the city's international and European importance. Trying to counter this with "but if it weren't the capital of the EU and if..." is pointless, because Brussels IS the capital of the EU, it DOES host NATO headquaters and it IS the world's second diplomatic centre. I'll give you an iffy story: if Brussels were no longer the European capital and lost its international status, there would be no reason for for all these companies who currently have there production facilities in Flanders to stay there. The reason they chose Flanders to begin with, the reason why these companies overcome the high salary costs and tax rates, was the presence of an window to the world called Brussels. With Brussels no longer being a window to the world there's no reason anymore to stay in Flanders. And that's a fact.

Unemployment in Antwerp is rather around 13%
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:0Ee85...;cd=3&gl=be

Apart from that I can relate to your argument, but my central point is that some-one who is claiming a region is extremely rich where local residents are very poor is missing something... what (s)he's missing is the "capital-effect", even worse given the national bank's habit of attributing added value to headquarters' location.s I'm sorry, but this may fly for banks and other services industries, but I do believe the factory in West-Flanders is generating less added value than the related postal box in 1040 Brussels. It's the same kind of stupidity that makes people claim Flanders is so great at exporting stuff per capita... as if a small region with one mega-sized port (Antwerp) and a medium-sized niche-port (Zeebrugge) would be expected not to stand out by that measure.

I wasn't even talking about Brussels being the capital of the EU. If added value is attributed to regions differently (start attributing wages according to taxpayers' residencies, etc. ), a mere statistical convention, you already bring down the regional GDP with a hefty sum.... much ado about nothing I'd say.... when the last commuter puts out the lights and drives off to Lasnes, Leuven, Waterloo and Overijse the creatures at the Brussels zoo come to life and they start imagining they are a grand vehicle of economic prosperity
Nasty commuters are robbing them from their natural endowments. Levies must be imposed to compensate them... it's almost like a tribe of Indians claiming gambling monopolies....

I think it's the commuters who are more sane in their heads, at least they realize jobs are mobile and not linked to some notion of sacred ground.

a couple from Germany causes a "fight" between two ''countries'' in Belgium, hehe.

No offense, guys, that's just a joke. Actually it's very interesting to read your guys comments. I don't care too much about those micro ecomonic statistics. To myself, as a freigner here, the things I know are, I feel much easier to work and live in Flanders because most of people here speaks good English and the city are clean, people are rich and I feel more enjoyable to spend the weekends in Wallon because the view of nature is awsome. But the tax rate in this country.....is horrible, for both two.

"But the tax rate in this country.....is horrible, for both two."

Yes, how would that have happened ;-)

The Flems want to retire at 58 and the walloons at 18 ;-)

btw: mAcro-economic stats

Fortunately, we can eat and drink well in all three regions!

Of course. Over one third of the population of Brussels is foreign, and about half of these foreigners are economic immigrants (mainly from Morocco, Turkey and Black Africa) or refugees (from a bit everywhere). The fact is, if you remove those non-expat, non-EU worker foreigners, unemployment in Brussels wouldn't be higher than the Flemish average.

[quote="maciamo"][quote=phlegmy]
I'm not even going to discuss Brussels unemployment figures... they roar well into 20% and beyond when it comes to benefit claimers below 30 in the most populated gemeentes.[/quote]

Of course. Over one third of the population of Brussels is foreign, and about half of these foreigners are economic immigrants (mainly from Morocco, Turkey and Black Africa) or refugees (from a bit everywhere). The fact is, if you remove those non-expat, non-EU worker foreigners, unemployment in Brussels wouldn't be higher than the Flemish average.[/quote

1) So you agree GDP is not the proper way to assess Brussels' relative economi performance.

2) The idea that "economic migrants" would naturally end up more unemployed is pretty outlandish.

3) I do not agree with your statement on "intrinsic" unemployment figures.
Looking at what's happening in Liège and Le Hainaut... in particular west-Flanders where tens of thousands French residents are working and at the same time unemployment is sky-high in nearby cities like Moeskroen, I can only conclude it's to do with a lack of working ethos... nothing ethnic about it as most "economi migrants" in le Hainaut from generations ago were Flems... everything to do with the reluctance of local officials to take away benefits from those who refuse to look for jobs in Flanders and/or learn Dutch (especially in the Brussels area). Go take a look at the factories in west-Flanders... you have Flemish people working next to French people (often from North-african descent)... no walloons working there... couldn't think of a better example of why Belgium is doomed...

Besides, isn't the Brussels' government taking care of all this by means of Keynesian emloyment... Now you have people working at the MIVB/STIB who don't breathe a word of Dutch... I watched in amusement with the Brussels 20K how one of your "economic migrants" was completely baffled when some Flems wanted to buy a ticket. It's a recruitment wave that started two years ago... why learn Ducth then, why try... socialists can create jobs out of thin air... ;-)

Counting down .... don't think it'll be another 10 years now.

I agree the nature in Wallonia is more beautiful. But are you really serious that Wallonia has more historical/cultural heritage than Flanders!? On which planet do you live?

The city of Ghent alone has more cultural and historical heritage than the whole of Wallonia. And we're not even talking about Brugge or Antwerp! Flemish art (Rubens, Van Dyck...), architecture,...

Just compare the numer of international tourists in Flemish cities with those in Charleroi, Liège, etc.

****
Please let not this thread degenerate into a silly fight between Flemings and Walloons about their respective artistic and cultural merits. They both are GREAT and famous all over the world!
Just as an example: what could possibly rival the Norman (Romanesque)Cathedral of Tournai in Flanders or the even older Sainte Gertrude in Nivelles? Of course, such treasures do not diminish in nothing the fabulous beauty of things like the Saint Ursula Shrine in the SXaint John Hospital in Brubges (painted by Hans Memlinc) or the House "de Spyker" on the Graslei in Ghent.
I really think Wallonia and Flanders are a perfect match in Art and Culture and if it is very true that much of the hilly scenery of the Ardennes is more appealing to many of us than that of Flanders (although there are very nice surprises!) , that part of the country has its golden beaches which also are very appealing to many of us. So I would think that both parts of the country are complimentary as they have been for centuries and centuries and if all Belgians show some good will to compromise there is no reason why they should not live in peace together.

On which planet do you live ? Have you ever been to Wallonia ? Just take Liege, it has a longer history and older churches than any Flemish city. In fact, most of Belgium's Romanesque architecture is in Wallonia. The palace of the prince-bishops in Liege is the largest (the facade is 150m long !) and one of the most beautiful palaces in Belgium. Liege also used to have the largest cathedral in Belgium, and one of the largest and tallest in Europe.

Namur has one of the largest and best preserved citadel in Europe. The Roman already had a fort there 2000 years ago when the only city in Flanders was Tongeren. The 17th-century old town of Namur is also better preserved than any Flemish city but Bruges. The same could be said of the old town of Mons - much more homogenous than Ghent.

Wallonia has more castles than Flanders, and almost all the famous castles in Belgium happen to be in Wallonia. This alone defeats all the historical buildings in the few Flemish cities of touristic interest (Bruges, Ghent, Mechelen and Antwerp).

Regarding the cultural heritage, as you mentioned the great Renaissance and Baroque Flemish painters, what do you make of artists after that ? The great names of the 19th- and 20th-century Belgian painting are French speakers : Madou, Meunier, Rops, Ensor, Magritte, Delvaux, etc. Add to this that 99% of Belgian comics are Francophone, and this is the most important graphic art of the late 20th and early 21st century in this country. Tintin is more famous around the world than Brueghel or Van Eyck.

To crown the whole, some of the most important rulers in European history were Walloon : Clovis (born and raised in Tournai), Charles Martel (Liege), Pepin the Short (Liege), Charlemagne (Liege), Godfrey of Bouillon (well, Bouillon)... Clovis founded the Kingom of the Franks. Charles Martel prevented the Islamisation of Europe beyond the Pyrenees. Charlemagne is considered the founder of the concept of "Europe". Godfrey of Bouillon led the First Crusade and became King of Jerusalem. Flemings have never influenced world history as much as these Walloons.

One of the most famous Belgian inventions, the saxophone, was the brainchild of a pure Walloon, Adolphe Sax from Dinant.

Shall I carry on ?

"all Belgians show some good will to compromise there is no reason why they should not live in peace together."

we live in peace with France, the Netherlands, China, etc. too without having to give money to them ;-)

I think your one-sided/sighted perception may find its origin in this week's le Vif-l'expres

You could start with those painters... Ensor was an englishman who washed up at the shores of Oostende... Delvaux was born in Brussels and spent most of his life in veurne... "Sax" sounds awfully German btw ;-)

It's very endearing.... but the problem with most of wallonia is the typical feeling I get when I am in Liège... it's much like the feeling I have when I am in Egypt.... the people that live there nowadays aren't the same kind of people that lived there once...

In other words... clean up your act... a city like Liège would profit hugely from its location near the Netherlands and Germany, but they're to stuborn to learn languages... and yes, it must have been a really nice city... once... nowadays once you leave the borders of the Meuse garbage is trailing across the pavement... the area near the citadel has some fantastic potential, but the houses there are completelty decrepit.... sad really.


I

[quote=phlegmy]
I think your one-sided/sighted perception may find its origin in this week's le Vif-l'expres[/quote]

Why is that ? I don't know I don't read it.

[quote]
You could start with those painters... Ensor was an englishman who washed up at the shores of Oostende... Delvaux was born in Brussels and spent most of his life in veurne... "Sax" sounds awfully German btw ;-)[/quote]

Ok, sorry Ensor had an English father. Delvaux was born in the province of Liège and studied in Brussels. Sax had no German origin as far as I know (his father was also born and raised in Dinant). "x" is a rather rare letter in German. "Saxony" is "Sachsen" in German if that is what you are implying.

[quote]
It's very endearing.... but the problem with most of wallonia is the typical feeling I get when I am in Liège... it's much like the feeling I have when I am in Egypt.... the people that live there nowadays aren't the same kind of people that lived there once...[/quote]

This problem is called immigration. Same issue in Brussels and Antwerp... But it's true, nowadays when you walk around Place St Lambert in Liege you feel more like in the Middle East than in Belgium. :cry:
[/quote]

I see... your criterion is place of birth... I don't know about those others then, some may have bene born in Brussels/Flanders/China... some I didn't even know... "Madou", always wondered where the metro station got its name from.

Second, I didn't mean the "not the same people" that literally, rather with regard to attitude and working ethos, but OK... immigration policies around here are a joke as well.

Wow! Tourists from all over the world must be waiting in lines to visit Wallonia!

...but where are they? I don't see them... Strange, isn't it?

International travel guides don't even mention Wallonia. But don't get me wrong, Wallonia has certainly cultural/historical heritage... but it simply cannot compete with the Flemish cities. Point final.

ps: about Liège... it's a filthy and extremely ugly city. Apart from the Place St Lambert, the cities is full of dirty appartement buildings and houses one would expect somewhere in Moldova... And we're not even talking about Charleroi...

Sometimes I ask myself: do the Walloons have no pride? Why are they not doing anything about their filthy cities? Why don't they just clean it up!?

It's true that Wallonia hosts less tourists than Flanders. But on the other hand, just because a certain region is less well known with the big crowd (or shall I say, "the plebs" ? ), doesn't mean that this region has no or less value. Let's bring this to another level. Amsterdam is much more hyped as a tourist destination than Brussels. Yet I prefer Brussels. Amsterdam is in my opinion an "easy love", aimed to please Japanse and American tourists who rush through Europe in 12 days. Brussels is much harder to "get". But once you do, it's so much more interesting than Amsterdam. Bruges is much more commercialised as a tourist destination than Antwerp. Yet Antwerp is ten times more exciting.

By the way: Bruges is fake. I mean it, it's not a "real" Medieval city. Most of its so called "Medieval" buildings have been built in the 19th century in Medieval style. Which means it's fake Medieval. Some kind of a 19th century Disneyland. A big fraud, if you ask me.

:roll: Interesting, what is it that you like so much about Brussels?

Jean-Baptiste MADOU was a wellknown (today almost forgotten) romantic 19th century French speaking Belgian painter who worked a lot for King Leoplod I. Google him!

Happy Belgian National Day on July 21st......haha

Funny you should say that with all the Flemish and Dutch tourists in the Ardennes. In fact Dutch is more spoken than French in some parts of the Ardennes in Spring and Summer ! Many Germans too...



But the true reason why there are more "international" tourists (let's say non-European) in Flanders than in Wallonia is that 95% of the sights in Wallonia require a car, while 80% of the sights in Flanders are concentrated in a few cities (Ypres, Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp, Mechelen), and are therefore easier to reach for tourists. What makes Wallonia so much more beautiful than Flanders are its stone villages (especially in the province of Namur, south of Namur itself), its castles and its hilly landscapes (my favourite is the Condroz region).

In many regards, the Hainaut is more like Flanders than Wallonia. It is flat, overpopulated, and has ugly brick houses.

And Flemish cities you brag so much about are really not so nice, apart from Bruges (which is more like Namur, without the citadel). Most of them have only three main sights : a town hall, a belfry and a cathrdral. Ghent has a few nice traditional houses, but many crappy new ones in between too. My opinion is that no other Belgian city than Bruges, Namur and Mons can match the overall beauty and harmony of cities like Amsterdam, Maastricht or Luxembourg.

The truth is, it takes about a week to see what Flanders has to offer, but it takes half a year to explore Wallonia. Which is why you don't know much about Wallonia.

Contrarily to Flanders, industrial cities in Wallonia were created far from the historical towns (except Liege), in places like Sambreville, La Louviere or Charleroi. That is why the touristic places are not located in the big, polluted cities.



Charleroi and Liege are full of immigrants, like Brussels and Antwerp. I don't think than Antwerp is much cleaner by the way.

Test-Achats/Test-Aankoop did a survey of cleanliness in various Belgian municipalities (No 439, January 2001), and it appeared that Antwerp was the dirtiest municipality in the survey, if we exclude the immigrant districts of Schaerbeek and Anderlecht in Brussels. Then came Brussels City (also mostly an immigrant distrcit), Mechelen, Ghent and Liege. The cleanest municipalities in the country were Hasselt, Marche-en-Famenne, Andenne, Bruges, St Truiden, Beringen, Namur, Leuven, Woluwe-St-Lambert, Beveren, Arlon, Dilbeek, Uccle, Dinant and Turnhout. So you see, about half Flemish, half Walloon.

A March 2006 survey by Test-Achats/Test-Aankoop also revealed that the quality of tap water was better in Wallonia than in Flanders.

If there is something that Flanders does much better than Wallonia, it is public transports and bicycle lanes.

Charleroi is one of Europe's ugliest city. It is one of Belgium's newest too (less than 350 years old, so no history apart from the industrial revolution). I wonder why you even bother mentioning it as a "touristic place". Who would ever want to visit Charleroi ? Better stay at home.

As I said above, for me Wallonia does not really includes the Hainaut. Historically the County of Hainaut and Flanders were together. I feel more in Wallonia when I am in Limburg than in Hainaut (despite the language difference). Wallonia means "land of the valleys" (from "Vallon" in French, which means "valley"), and the truly hilly parts are the provinces of Namur, Liege and Luxembourg.

Now this is funny, a Wally and a Flem both argueing who had the most famous person.

There is no such thing as a famous Belgian !!!!

Its obvious that the French speaking parts of Belgium are dirtier than the flemish areas. Thats because the French speakers are lazier and more interested in being "artists" and drinking beer than working and creating wealth. With this wealth the Flems maintain their towns and cities. The flems of course are more boring and predictable (germanic genes) but they work. The French speakers are too busy being lazy to work.

Tut tut, why do I always have to interject and explain things to you Belgies.......

And where are you from to say that ? Clovis, Charlemagne, Godfrey of Bouillon, Charles V of Habsburg, Rubens, Peter Minuit (the founder of New York City), Georges Simenon, Hergé, Eddy Merckx, Justine Henin-Hardenne... Those are not famous maybe ?

Here are more famous Belgians for you.




This is why most of the world's luxury products are created by French speakers, be it in fashion, cometics, perfumes, wines, liquors, furnitures, etc. That does not count to you as "creating wealth" maybe. What about cars, airplanes (Airbus, Dassault), the world's fastest trains (TGV), softwares, etc.



Your are so deep into stereotypes. Maybe you are writing this from your home country without actually having been to Belgium !

Half of those people you mention aren't even remotely famous beyond this part of continental Europe and various overlords such as Charles V are just Spanish/Austrian/... the Dutch would argue with you over who founded New York and , etc.... let's face it, it's pathetic.

"A March 2006 survey by Test-Achats/Test-Aankoop also revealed that the quality of tap water was better in Wallonia than in Flanders."


see comment on compensating/pathetic

;-)

Yawn............

My point is: there is nothing special about Wallonia. It has dirty and ugly cities (how dare you to compare Bruges with Namur!?), a countryside you can aslo find in France or Romania and little villages you could also find in other parts of Europe.

The Flemish cities are unique. You must be extremely ignorant to call these cities 'not so nice'. Ever been to Antwerp recently? It just blows you away when you come from dirty and old fashioned Brussels. The central train station is magnificent, the squares and shoppings streets also. Trendy shops, bars and restaurants on every corner. Flemish cities are so much more than "a townhall, belfry and cathedral".

ps: I'm NOT Belgian btw!

No, that's true Namur is more beautiful, more architecturally homogenous. What I dislike about Bruges is that the bricks are of different colours for every house. Another thing I don't like about Bruges is its excessive religiousness. All those statues of the Virgin Mary in house niches make me uncomfortable. Then it's overcrowded and full of gaudy tourist shops, which spoil the original atmosphere. I prefer the more pleasant 17th-century old town of Namur.

Maybe you are more into religious stuff, while I prefer military architecture (castles, palaces, citadels) ?

Have you been to the Citadel of Namur ? I mean been to, not just seen from afar ? It's the greatest work of military architecture in Belgium, and one of the best in Europe (I think it is the largest of Vauban's ciatdels). It is long of several kilometers and very well preserved. It's also one of the oldest settled site in Belgium, as it started its existence as a Roman fort, 2000 years ago. The oldest part, at the core, is the 13th-century Castle of the Counts of Namur, which dwarves in size the Castle of the Counts of Flanders in Ghent. They didn't know what to do with all the buildings, so they opened a perfumery and a series of expensive arts and decoration shops. But that's only a tiny part of the whole structure. The whole citadel is bigger than the historical town of Namur in the plain.

Just have a look at the photos in the Belgium Gallery here. There aren't good pictures of the Castle of the Counts, nor of the Castle of the Citadel though.

My point is that only the citadel in Namur defeats any single sight in Flanders, and so does the Palace of the Prince-Bishops in Liege. It's normal it isn't overcrowded with tourists, as the former is difficult to reach without a car (or requires long hours of walk), and the latter cannot be visited (lawcourts and provincial government building).




I have been to Antwerp twice this year. I also went to Bruges twice, and Ghent once. I do not go back on my opinion. Antwerp is nothing special apart from a great cathedral (but so are those of Brussels, Tournai or Namur), and the Grote Markt (though less good than Brussels or Lille).

Ever been to Liege recently ? I was surprised how much has changed in 5 years. Apart from the new train station that will be the most modern and beautiful in the country once it's finished (in one year or so), they have been renovating a lot of historical buildings that were in bad shape before, like the 1000-year old St Batholomew's Church (one of the oldest in Belgium), and completely refurbishing the 5 largest museums (not yet all completed, but the facade of the Curtius building is splendid now). Of course if you stay around Rue St Gilles, Pont d'Avroy and Rue de la Cathedrale, then Liege is ugly, dirty, feels unsafe, etc. But that ain't better in the worst neighbourhoods of Brussels (Molenbeek, Bockstael, Cureghem...) or Antwerp.

You must be kidding ! What kind of ignorant wouldn't know most of them in they grew up in a Western country ?

Do you know many countries of 10 million inhabitants that have more famous people ? Tell me ! Even 30 million ! Just compare with Canada, Australia or any European country apart from the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Frankly, try, I dare you to find any country of under 30 million people with more famous people than I have listed above.




Emperor Charles V was born and raised in what is now Belgium, with French as his mother-tongue, not German or Spanish. When he arrived in Spain for the first time at the age of 15, he couldn't speak a word of Spanish. That makes him more Belgian than Austrian or Spanish. He was naturally of mixed blood, but who isn't ? Can you claim that an American is not American because he is not a native Amerindian descent ? What matters is the country of birth AND education. And even if you look at his ancestry, he can certainly claim a lot of Belgian blood, as he descended from the Counts of Flanders, the Counts of Hainaut, the Dukes of Brabant and the Dukes of Luxembourg, among others.

Same for Peter Minuit whose family was from Tournai, and who migrated to the newly independent United Provinces of the Netherlands because he was Protestant. Ok he worked for the Dutch, but he was nevertheless a Walloon. It's not because you go work in another country that you loose your roots.

[quote="maciamo"][quote=phlegmie]Half of those people you mention aren't even remotely famous beyond this part of continental Europe[/quote]

You must be kidding ! What kind of ignorant wouldn't know most of them in they grew up in a Western country ?

Do you know many countries of 10 million inhabitants that have more famous people ? Tell me ! Even 30 million ! Just compare with Canada, Australia or any European country apart from the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Frankly, try, I dare you to find any country of under 30 million people with more famous people than I have listed above.


[quote]and various overlords such as Charles V are just Spanish/Austrian/... the Dutch would argue with you over who founded New York and , etc.... let's face it, it's pathetic.[/quote]

Emperor Charles V was born and raised in what is now Belgium, with French as his mother-tongue, not German or Spanish. When he arrived in Spain for the first time at the age of 15, he couldn't speak a word of Spanish. That makes him more Belgian than Austrian or Spanish. He was naturally of mixed blood, but who isn't ? Can you claim that an American is not American because he is not a native Amerindian descent ? What matters is the country of birth AND education. And even if you look at his ancestry, he can certainly claim a lot of Belgian blood, as he descended from the Counts of Flanders, the Counts of Hainaut, the Dukes of Brabant and the Dukes of Luxembourg, among others.


So he was Flemish then, our Keizer Karel... born and raised in Ghent ;-)

Really, Maciamo... this is just tedious... al of those Clovis' and other Merovingers were descendants from some Frank tribe... perhaps I should claim they are Flemish then as they are more related to the West-Lower-Franks... ;-) and I can honestly swear I never heard of Peter Minuit and I consider myself reasonably read in history.

Foreign overlords, like the rest of them...

If you wish. A French-speaking Flemish...



Maybe you should read this short History of the Franks. You will understand why the Franks are first and foremost assimilated to modern Belgium before any other country. You will also learn that the French language developed in Wallonia and Northern France (Nord-Pas-de-Calais) as the Germanisised version of Latin spoken by the Frankish nobility.

The Franks, like other Germanic tribe may have originated in Eastern Europe (around Ukraine ?) a few millenia ago. They then settled in Scandinavia. The Franks and Burgunds subsequently migrated from Denmark, and the Goths from Götland (Sweden) southward. The Goths settled in Poland then continued their migration south to the Balkans, where they were allowed to settled in the Roman Empire, before eventually overrunning it. The Burgunds moved to the Black Forest in Germany, then were pushed by the Alamanni to what became Burgundy, Franche-Comté and western Switzerland. The Franks settled in what the area around modern Belgium (+ Rhineland, southern Netherlands and northern France) in the 3rd and 4th century.

Clovis was born and raised in Tournai, as were his father and grandfather. Tournai was the Merovingian capital until Clovis conquered the remnants of Roman Gaul. Maybe you should read more books about this period of history which you seem to know little about.

All the Carolingians until Charlemagne were from the region of Liege. The first Carolingian, Pepin of Landen (580-640) came from Landen, 40km north-west of Liege. After him, they were almost all born and raised around Liege, more precisely in Herstal (Pepin II and Charles Martel) or Jupille (Pepin III and Charlemagne). Having lived for 250 years in Belgium, how can they not be considered "Belgian" (or Walloon) ? What else do you want ?

DNA test have been made comparing the bodies in Frankish tombs to the modern Belgians, and they are the same people (well not all Belgians, but the majority). Very few Belgians have Gallo-Roman ancestry, contrarily to some idées reçues.

Again... foreign overlords, the lot of them.

If you really want to talk about a "great" nation think of the Dutch... for most of their history (up to WW II) their population was lower than that in the southern part of the lowlands... sailors, scientists, philosophers, entrepreneurs....

CENSURED: Bel gia nsa rem ise rab les cum.... obe se, laz yan dch ron ical lyh app ywi thu nde rac hie vem ent.

Did you actually read the links I posted. I doubt so, or your over-read without understanding the content. I know I shouldn't ask lay people to understand things to complicated for them. That's like "throwing pearls to the pigs" as the Japanese would say.

Let me put it this way, hoping that this is not too long and difficult for you to grasp; modern Belgians are of Frankish descent. The Franks had lived in Belgium for centuries before the Carolingian dynasty. If you do not consider them Belgian, then you shouldn't consider the Kings of England as English, but Franco-Danish. You shouldn't think of the Dutch Royal family as Dutch but Franco-German (Orange-Nassau), and maybe you shouldn't even consider any blond-haired French person as French, but German, as they probably descent from some Germanic invadors long ago.




I see. When you run out of arguments, you resort to insults... So primitive...

I will nevertheless demonstrate that you are wrong.

The Ducth were independent since the late 1500's (officially in 1648), so they managed to explore the world and have colonies of their own quite early. During that time, Belgium was part of Spain, so Belgians lived in an Empire much greater than the Dutch one, and heavily contributed to it. Why do you think the Spaniards fought so hard to keep control over the (northern or soutrhern) Netherlands, from the very first Spanish sovereign (Philip II) ruling over them ? Because the Low Countries were very populous, and were the economic powerhouse of the Spanish kingdom.

When Belgium became part of the Austrian Empire, it startled the most prosperous period in Austrian history. That was the time of Maria-Theresa and Joseph II, the time of Haydn, Mozart, etc. The Austrian Netherlands were so important that many important German and Austrian rulers were raised and lived there (notably in Brussels). That is the case of Emperor Charles VII, or Prince-Elector Clemens August of Bavaria.

Why do you think some of the most powerful German princely or ducal families came to live in what is now Belgium ? For example, the Dukes of Arenberg, who built the Egmont Palace in Brussels (now the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). You just need to have a walk around the Royal Palace and Parliament in Brussels to see how rich Belgium was in the 18th century compared to the Netherlands.

The Belgians were also active in world trade, although they had to wait for the Austrian rule for more freedom in this matter, with the Ostend Company for instance.

Belgians had a much bigger influence on the world than commonly assumed because of the absence of an independent country until 1830. Take someone like Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688), who founded the Observatory of Beijing, and was the secretary of the emperor of China Kang-Hi. He is also credited to have built what may have been the first steam powered car as early as in 1672.

Once Belgium became independent in 1830, the hard-working Belgians made up for the lost time. The USA and most of Latin America were already independent from Britain, Spain or France, and Britain already ruled over a huge empire. The Ducth had Surinam and Indonesia.

Belgium quickly became one of Europe's leading industrial and colonial power. In 1900, Belgians enjoyed the highest GDP per capita in Europe, just before the Netherlands. 4 World Fairs were held in Belgium between 1897 and 1913, and another one in 1958 - more than any other country have held so far apart from the USA and France. Belgium was also the 6th country worldwide to host the Olympic Games in 1920.

It is the Belgian Jean Jadot (1862-1932) who built the 1200km railway line between Beijing and Hankou in 1900. He also directed the construction of the Cairo tramway and railway lines in Lower Egypt.

Baron Édouard Empain (1852-1929), a Belgian financier and industrialist, founded a group which constructed electric urban tramlines in Europe, Russia, China, the Belgian Congo, and in Cairo, Egypt. In 1906, Empain established the Heliopolis Oasis Company, designed as a "city of luxury and leisure", which became the town of Heliopolis in the suburbs of Cairo. It is best known for its Hindu temple, as well as the Heliopolis Palace Hotel (now the presidential palace of Hosni Mubarak) and Heliopolis House.

With the Belgian Congo (76x bigger than Belgium), the Belgian colonial empire was now the 3rd biggest after Britain and France (slightly bigger than the Dutch and Portuguese ones).

Without the Belgians, China, Egypt and Congo would not have had railways or tramways so early. Beijing wouldn't have its observatory and Mubarak would not have his presidential palace.

Also note that the last Emperess of Mexico was Charlotte of Belgium (1840-1927), daughter of King Leopold I of Belgium. She is quite famous in Mexico and the USA.


Add to this that Belgium has more UNESCO World Heritage sites per square km than any other country in the world. Not too shabby for a country "chronically happy with underachievement".

As you seem to think that the Dutch have achieved more than the Belgians, please cite names of who you think are the 10 greatest Dutch people in history. I see mostly painters (Bosch, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Mondrian), but not as many as Belgian painters (4 Brueghel's, van Eyck, van der Weyden, Matsys, Rubens, van Dyck, Jordaens, Meunier, Ensor, Magritte, Delvaux, just to name a few).

Rubens was German, Ensor was English.. etc.

The Dutch simply have more multinationals, more nobel price winners... the Dutch actually perform in stuff that counts... econometrics, physics, etc. CENSURED: Bel gian sar efa t,la zy, sel f-c omp lac ent civ ils erv ant s.

Most of what you put there is the account of a CENSURED: pat het icb unc hof pan sie swh owe reo ccu pie dby jus tab out all oft hei rne igh bou rs, the run tof the lit ter .

Pee vis h,p usi lla nim ous ,pe tty -mi nde dpa nsi es. ..t hes ham eof Eur ope .

Since when was Rubens German ? He was Flemish. He was born in Germany because his parents fled Antwerp for a few years, but after that he returned to Antwerp, where he lived most of his life and died. He spoke Flemish, not German. Think a bit before writing nonsense like that.

Ensor may have had an English father, but also a Belgian mother. He was born, raised in Ostend, studied in Brussels and lived all his life in Belgium. He was officially Belgian on paper for the government. He even appeared on the old 100 BEF banknotes.

What is the "etc." for ? I wonder....



The Netherlands have a population of 16.5 million, against 10 million for Belgium. If you look at the list of Nobel prize winners, you will see that Belgium has had 10 (1 per million inhabitant), and the Netherlands 18, which is almost the same ratio. The USA, on the other hand, only had 178 for a population of 300 million, so proportionally that's about half of Belgium. Italy has only had 19 Nobel laurates for 60 million inhabitants - 3 times less than Belgium proportionally ! Spain does even worse has they have had only 7 - less than Belgium despite being 4x more populous ! Australia has had 11, one more than Belgium, although its population its double. Japan has had 12 Laureates for 127 million people, a ratio 10x less than Belgium.

I wonder how you call the people of all these countries if Belgians are "miserable scum.... obese, lazy and chronically happy with underachievement" to you.

As for multinationals, I doubt that the Netherlands does so much better proportionally to the population. Let's check the companies listed by Forbes Global 2000. I will limit the analysis to the top 1000 companies listed for each country.

Fortis is half-Belgian half-Dutch. Royal Dutch Shell is half-English half-Dutch, and so is Unilever. ABN-AMRO will soon be purchased by Barclays or Fortis. So those aren't completely Dutch.

Arcelor-Mittal is Franco-Luxembourgo-Indian, and EADS is mostly Franco-German.

Apart from that, the only Dutch companies listed are (I have listed Fortis for both countries) :

10 ) ING (banking)
37) Fortis (banking)
98 ) Aegon (insurance)
123) Philips (electronics)
217) Schlumberger (oil & gas)
271) Royal KPN (telecommunications)
383) Akzo Nobel (chemicals)
522) Heineken (beer)
595) TNT (transportation)
627) Ahold (supermarket)
691) Royal DSM (chemicals)
831) SNS Reaal (bank)
950) ASML (semiconductors)
981) Randstad (recruitment).

Apart from Heineken, Ing and Philips, not really what you can call "famous internationally". That's only 14 truly Dutch companies in the top 1000.


Let's have a look at Belgium.

37) Fortis (banking)
75) Dexia (banking)
84) KBC Group (banking)
235) InBev (beer)
535) Solvay Group (chemicals)
701) Delhaize Group (supermarket)
746) Belgacom (telecommunications)
945) UCB (Biotechnology)

That's 8 companies. So it's still fairly similar proportionally to the population. What is more, InBev is the world's biggest beer manufacturer and owes dozens of world-famous brands.




Whatever argument you put forth, I think you will always be wrong. You are just so bigoted and biased.

So much hatred towards anything Belgian. What are you even doing in this country. I suppose you are radically anti-European too.

Charlemagne was the first medieval Roman Emperor, the founder of the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806), Europe's longest lasting empire. He is widely seen as the founder of the European identity, as opposed to the Romans, who were centered on the Mediterranean. Charlemagne was in fact regarded by the Pope, as well as by Harun al-Rashid, the most powerful ruler of the Islamic world at the time, as the heir of the sole Roman Empire, bypassing the Byzantine Emperor.

To perfect your visibly poor level of instruction, let me recommend you the reading of the superbly written Charlemagne, by Derek Wilson.

"you will see that Belgium has had 10 (1 per million inhabitant), and the Netherlands 18, "

10 out of which 6 in applied bullocks: 5 times peace + literature

The Dutch made 18 prices in physics, econometrics... all real prices reflecting scientific excellence... I don't count the literature prices as it's biased toward "larger" languages, politics (warfare, gender-shite, etc.) and Swedish ... one of the first things to do if you want to have a shot at the Literature price is to find a good Swedish tranlator ;-)

Belgium: 4
The Netherlands: 18

The demographic argument went the other way around before WWII... I told you that before, you're a very slow pupil ;-)



Fortis is Dutch (it's not called "De generale-Fortis" now is it... that's because it was taken over)
Dexia is French
Ambev is Brazilian

Independent companies:



* ABN AMRO
* AEGON
* Ahold
* Akzo Nobel
* Amstel
* ASML Holding
* Australian Homemade
* Bavaria
* CNH Global
* Corus Group (Anglo-Dutch)
* DAF
* DSM
* Edah
* Exact Software
* Endemol
* Fortis
* Friesland Foods
* Getronics
* Grolsch
* Hagemeyer
* Heineken
* IKEA
* ING Group
* KLM (merged with Air France)
* KPN
* LogicaCMG (Anglo-Dutch)
* Numico
* Philips
* Rabobank
* Randstad
* Reed Elsevier (Anglo-Dutch)
o Elsevier
* Royal Dutch Shell (Anglo-Dutch)
* SBM Offshore
* Spyker Cars
* TNT
* Telfort
* TomTom
* Triodos Bank
* Trust Computer Products (Based in Holland)
* Unilever (Anglo-Dutch)
* Vedior
* VNU
* Wavin
* Wolters Kluwer
]

+ think of all the medals the Dutch get at the Olympics + their outstanding track record in group sports.

CENSOT INSERTIONS WERE MADE IN FOLLOWING TEXT:

ON AVERAGE, Belgians are inferior compared to their northern counterparts on the AFOREMENTIONED accounts AS THEY WERE QUANTIFIED IN THE QUOTED MEASURES, just accept it.

and how literate they are:
Sweden

1. Arvid Carlsson, Physiology or Medicine, 2000
2. Alva Myrdal, Peace, 1982
3. Sune Bergström, Physiology or Medicine, 1982
4. Bengt I. Samuelsson, Physiology or Medicine, 1982
5. Kai Siegbahn, Physics, 1981
6. Torsten Wiesel*, Physiology or Medicine, 1981
7. Eyvind Johnson, Literature, 1974
8. Harry Martinson, Literature, 1974
9. Bertil Ohlin, Economics, 1977
10. Gunnar Myrdal, Economics, 1974
11. Ulf von Euler, Physiology or Medicine, 1970 (son of 1929 Nobel Chemistry laureate Hans von Euler-Chelpin who was born German).
12. Hannes Alfvén, Physics, 1970
13. Ragnar Granit, Finland, Physiology or Medicine, 1967
14. Nelly Sachs, Germany, Literature, 1966
15. Dag Hammarskjöld, Peace, 1961 (posthumously)
16. Pär Lagerkvist, Literature, 1951
17. Arne Tiselius, Chemistry, 1948
18. Erik Axel Karlfeldt, Literature, 1931
19. Nathan Söderblom, Peace, 1930
20. Hans von Euler-Chelpin, Chemistry, 1929, Father of Ulf von Euler, Medicine Nobel winner of 1970
21. Theodore Svedberg, Chemistry, 1926
22. Karl Manne Siegbahn, Physics, 1924
23. Hjalmar Branting, Peace, 1921
24. Carl Gustaf Verner von Heidenstam, Literature, 1916
25. Gustaf Dalén, Physics, 1912
26. Selma Lagerlöf, Literature, 1909
27. Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Peace, 1908
28. Svante Arrhenius, Chemistry, 1903

Belgium

1. Médecins Sans Frontières**, Peace, 1999
2. Ilya Prigogine, Russia, Chemistry, 1977
3. Christian de Duve, United Kingdom, Physiology and Medicine, 1974
4. Albert Claude, Physiology and Medicine, 1974
5. Georges Pire, Peace, 1958
6. Corneille Heymans, Physiology and Medicine, 1938
7. Henri La Fontaine, Peace, 1913
8. Maurice Maeterlinck, Literature, 1911
9. Auguste Beernaert, Peace, 1909
10. Institute of International Law**, Peace, 1904

The jury has decided that Ilya Prigogine is actually a Russian... this puts the total for Belgium at a miserable 3 nobel prizes.

During the two last olympics (Torino, Athens) the Dutch bagged a total of 31 medals, CENSURED: laz y-a rse d Belgians 3... a factor of more than 10!!!!

How CENSURED: pat het ic can one nation be?

FIFA code BEL
FIFA ranking 70

FIFA code NED
FIFA ranking 6

Average IQ of Countries


Netherlands 102 Belgium 100

The people of the Netherlands are amongst the tallest in the world, with an average height of over 1.83 metres (6 ft) for adult males and 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) for adult females.

may observe that the Belgian observations of M. Quetelet give an average height, for men at 18 years of age, of 1'658 metres, or 5 feet 5.27 inches, ...


!!!!!!!