Which countries' independence nowadays would you say are the biggest historical flukes?

Feb 2018
172
EU-Germany
Singapore.
i disagree
singapore did not gain independence from the british(<straits/crown colony) but from the new formed state malaysia
infact singapore was expelled from the newly formed malaysia due to lee kwan yew's ambitions of making singapore the center of said state which the ethnic strife (demographic balance malays/chinese) along with bloodshed (64 kalang) led the malays to expell singapore because it was predominantly chinese not malay

singapore became its own republic and what a massive success story that was/is!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,807
I really don't understand how a country with it own laws, its own currency, its own army, and its own governing institutions can be called a "direct province". The relationship with Denmark was a personal union. That later historians found the Viking and Medieval independence glorious is irrelevant. Many, many countries look back on their history and say (basically) things were better in olden times. We, as individuals, seem to favor the same rosy glasses.
Because in 1536 the Danish king in parliament in Copenhagen had to accede to the demand of the Danish nobility that Norway was to cease being and independent kingdom. And he did. This change of status for Norway was pushed through with military means the following year, in 1537. Most importantly it meant the forcible imposition of Lutheran Protestantism as the religion in Norway. The last Catholic Bishop fled the country that year. Norway as a specified church province within the Catholic church was abolished, and Norway subsumed into the Danish church. Technically the Norwegian national council, tasked with advising the king as the ruler of Norway, was not formally abolished. It was however never again assembled after 1537. Instead Norwegian matters was decided in the Danish national council, staffed by Danish noblemen.

Technically Norway never had a formal aristocracy, but what happened – given those demands by the Danish nobility – was that Norway was divided into twenty provinces, administrated by a governor appointed by HMK in Copenhagen, cushy jobs reserved for upstanding member of the Danish aristocracy who that way had ensured they had access also to the wealth produced in Norway.

The imposition of royal absolutism in 1660 sealed the deal on whatever vestigial Norwegian actual independence could still be scrounged up, since from then on to 1814 the king ruled from Copenhagen as an absolute monarch. The background to the change was the disastrous war with Sweden, which completely gutted the hitherto powerful Danish nobility of any political capital (they started the war which lost Denmark 1/3 of its territory). The main beneficiary was the Danish king, who could make himself the absolute ruler. In Norway it meant things continued much as before, with all prominent functionaries in all Norwegian institutions appointed by Copenhagen, and staffed with Danes. This time people who had the confidence of the absolute monarch rather than the aristocracy however.

Thereabouts...
 
Jun 2017
519
maine
Because in 1536 the Danish king in parliament in Copenhagen had to accede to the demand of the Danish nobility that Norway was to cease being and independent kingdom. And he did. This change of status for Norway was pushed through with military means the following year, in 1537. Most importantly it meant the forcible imposition of Lutheran Protestantism as the religion in Norway. The last Catholic Bishop fled the country that year. Norway as a specified church province within the Catholic church was abolished, and Norway subsumed into the Danish church. Technically the Norwegian national council, tasked with advising the king as the ruler of Norway, was not formally abolished. It was however never again assembled after 1537. Instead Norwegian matters was decided in the Danish national council, staffed by Danish noblemen.

Technically Norway never had a formal aristocracy, but what happened – given those demands by the Danish nobility – was that Norway was divided into twenty provinces, administrated by a governor appointed by HMK in Copenhagen, cushy jobs reserved for upstanding member of the Danish aristocracy who that way had ensured they had access also to the wealth produced in Norway.

The imposition of royal absolutism in 1660 sealed the deal on whatever vestigial Norwegian actual independence could still be scrounged up, since from then on to 1814 the king ruled from Copenhagen as an absolute monarch. The background to the change was the disastrous war with Sweden, which completely gutted the hitherto powerful Danish nobility of any political capital (they started the war which lost Denmark 1/3 of its territory). The main beneficiary was the Danish king, who could make himself the absolute ruler. In Norway it meant things continued much as before, with all prominent functionaries in all Norwegian institutions appointed by Copenhagen, and staffed with Danes. This time people who had the confidence of the absolute monarch rather than the aristocracy however.

Thereabouts...
I'm not saying that Norway wasn't put upon but that, with its own laws, its own currency, its own army, and its own governing institutions it cannot be called a "direct province" . I began (way back) by saying "technically". It never ceased to exist.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,807
I'm not saying that Norway wasn't put upon but that, with its own laws, its own currency, its own army, and its own governing institutions it cannot be called a "direct province" . I began (way back) by saying "technically". It never ceased to exist.
The Norwegians typically divide their history into the "Subject kingdom 1537-1660" and "Absolutism 1660-1814". Not really any Norwegian ran anything in Norway in the period. Norway did not exist as an independent kingdom, even purely formally, and was bound to the Danish crown and the Danish royal dynasty for perpetuity from 1537 onwards. It was all set up for rule by Danes. It lacked for formal aristocracy because it had the Danish one foisted onto it, to order Norwegians about.
 
Jun 2017
519
maine
The Norwegians typically divide their history into the "Subject kingdom 1537-1660" and "Absolutism 1660-1814". Not really any Norwegian ran anything in Norway in the period. Norway did not exist as an independent kingdom, even purely formally, and was bound to the Danish crown and the Danish royal dynasty for perpetuity from 1537 onwards. It was all set up for rule by Danes. It lacked for formal aristocracy because it had the Danish one foisted onto it, to order Norwegians about.
I never, ever said that Norway was an independent state: it wasn't--it was a puppet regime. You keep trying to get me to defend that and this is an old debating trick. Norway can be said to have existed as a client kingdom but never as a Danish province. I've spent years doing Scandinavian genealogy and I've yet to find a Norwegian church record with Denmark as part of the geographical information.
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,967
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Even disregarding any concept of "unification", the HRE was still defined by essentially being "by Germans, for Germans". Just about every state - large or small - in the HRE was German both dynastically, linguistically and culturally. The unique constitutional and legalistic style of Imperial governance meant that the sovereignty and independence of German states in the HRE was strictly upheld, protecting them against both foreigners and other Germans (mostly). They had a concept called "German liberty" which they took very seriously, especially in the Early Modern era. Even if politically they still were vaguely subordinate to the Emperor, it was only surface level most of the time, and from a psychological perspective they were independent because their rights and privileges were usually respected. Italy, on the other hand, had no such luxuries, and was called the 'battleground of empires' for a good reason. In the eyes of the French, the Germans and the Spanish, Italy was nothing but a land to assert their control over and exploit its wealth and resources. A thousand years of mostly foreign dominance made serious considerations of independence pretty unrealistic, especially when faced with the enormous military might of the French and the Habsburgs.
About one third of modern France - The eastern third, of course - was stolen by France over many centuries from the Kingdom of Germany and from the Kingdom of Arles or Burgundy, which were both parts of the Holy Roman Empire. And most of the people in that large region spoke Romance dialects instead of Germanic dialects before France stole them.

I note that the Kingdom of Germany within the Holy Roman Empire stretched from parts of Switzerland in the southwest to parts of modern Germany and Poland in the northeast with many Slavs in the population, and from Belgium with many French speakers in the northwest to Slovenia with many Slovene speakers in the southeast. The Kingdom of Germany also included the Netherlands with many Dutch speakers for many centuries.

The Holy Roman Empire also included Czech Bohemia and Moravia, and Silesia with a part German, part Czech, and part Polish population.

And even up until the French Revolutionary Wars, A large part of Italy was part of the Holy Roman Empire.

So claiming that the HRE was essentially "by Germans, for Germans" seems like a gross exaggeration since Germans might have been a minority of the population even when the HRE was smallest.

Furthermore, until the era of mass education began in the 19th century, every large country in Europe had many regional accents and regional cultural variations. So Swabians in southwest Germany might not feel like they had much in common with Pomeranians in the northeast, and Rhinelanders in the northwest might not feel they had much in common with Austrians in the southeast. Many Germans might described their political nationality as their particular state and/or the Empire as a whole, and their cultural nationality as their region and not Germany as a whole.

And you exaggerate the degree of independence of the states in the HRE.

Before 1494 Northern Italy was still nominally under the influence of the HRE, however weak it was in many states, and Sardinia, Sicily and Naples were under Aragonese/Spanish control (with a couple of brief interruptions). France also had some control over Genoa in the late 14th/early 15th century, if I remember rightly. After 1559 most of Italy was either directly part of the Spanish Empire (e.g. Milan, Mantua, Sardinia, Sicily, Naples) or in their sphere of influence (e.g. Rome and Genoa). This Spanish dominance wasn't seriously altered until 1714, when much of Italy was transferred to the dominion of the Austrian branch of the Habsburgs.
Before, during, and after 1494 northern Italy was not "nominally under the influence of the HRE", it was part of the Kingdom of Italy or Lombardy, which was part of the Holy Roman empire since 962. Being part of a state is a lot different from being nominally under the influence of that state.

In 1494 Sardinia & Sicily were kingdoms in a personal union with the Kingdom of Aragon.

Personal union - Wikipedia

In 1494 "Naples" (the other Sicily) was an independent Kingdom. It did not come into into a personal union with the Kingdom of Aragon until 1504.

You wrote: "After 1559 most of Italy was either directly part of the Spanish Empire (e.g. Milan, Mantua, Sardinia, Sicily, Naples) or in their sphere of influence (e.g. Rome and Genoa)."

There never was a "Spanish Empire", so no part of Italy was ever part of it. Sardinia, Sicily, and "Naples" (the other Sicily) were kingdoms in a personal union with the Kingdom of Aragon, which was now in a person union with the Kingdoms of Castile, etc. The Duchy of MIlan was a fief in the Kingdom of Lombardy in the Holy Roman Empire. The Duchy of Milan was in a personal union with the kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, etc, etc. The Duchies of Mantua and Montferrate were ruled by the Gonzagas and were only influenced by Spain like Rome and Genoa.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,634
Republika Srpska
So claiming that the HRE was essentially "by Germans, for Germans" seems like a gross exaggeration
Given that the title of the Empire was expanded to add the part "of the German nation" and that German replaced Latin as the language of administration, I wouldn't call that a GROSS exaggeration.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,653
Spain
There never was a "Spanish Empire", so no part of Italy was ever part of it. Sardinia, Sicily, and "Naples" (the other Sicily) were kingdoms in a personal union with the Kingdom of Aragon, which was now in a person union with the Kingdoms of Castile, etc. The Duchy of MIlan was a fief in the Kingdom of Lombardy in the Holy Roman Empire. The Duchy of Milan was in a personal union with the kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, etc, etc. The Duchies of Mantua and Montferrate were ruled by the Gonzagas and were only influenced by Spain like Rome and Genoa.[/QUOTE]


I agree with you.. if you say there never was a "British Empire".... too.. (not double standar).. and Yes, you are right... it never existed nor Spanish nor British Empires (not Dutch either). Italy belonged to Spain in the same way India or Australia belonged to UK.

When the union between Castile and Aragon took place (1475).. spaniards were in Italy.. (from 13th Century)... and when Charles joined the Spanish and Austrian lands.. born the "Spanish Empire"... I agree with you.. it was not an Empire (either the British)...French one was an Empire because it was built very late (only from 1870 onwards)...
Spain as the others European States (also France) were organized as Polysinodal State (Many kingdoms joined by a King).... so it was the Crown of Spain or the Crown of Britain. or the Crown of France (till Revolution)...

But if you tried and saying.... "Italy" was "sovereign"... not way... the Sovereign belonged to the Catholic King.... and if the King decided to send spanish troops to Sicily or Lombardy.. or to have Spanish garrisons (as in fact, there were).. no problem... There was a Spanish Garrison in Rome.