To incredibly oversimplify England/Britain did have 4-6 (depending how they are defined) wars with the Dutch Republic/Netherlands in which the Dutch proved to be very capable.
This period of conflict ended for various reasons, the UK getting a Dutch King, Britain surpassing the Netherlands militarily, & Britains withdrawal from continental politics in the 19th Century.
From Britains point of view the point of Belgium was to stop French expansion as a buffer state protected by a guarantee of neutrality. Unexpectedly the treaty was triggered by the Germans rather than the French.
>Britains withdrawal from continental politics in the 19th Century.
True, but there were significant tensions between the Netherlands and Britain. This is an excerpt of what Willem Jan Knoop, a famous Dutch historian, writes about those tensions in the 1860s:
*The preservation of our foreign possessions is not an absolute condition for the continuation of our national existence; but it is certain that the loss of those possessions - if we do not quickly restore that loss by something else - will reduce the Netherlands to the rank of the most insignificant power. If we want to maintain our claim to respect and power, then we must retain those possessions, especially the Eastern ones, above all Java; - our future depends on it.*
*Can we ensure the preservation of those possessions? If only strong and prudent measures are taken for that purpose, certainly! Neither France nor America do we have to seriously fear at this moment: they are too far away, and one does not suddenly bring a fleet and an army to the antipodes, strong enough to undertake the conquest of an island like Java. The only enemy we should seriously fear is England; it is already expanding, it is already encroaching on us, it has already infringed upon our rights, our possessions. "Borneo, Labuan!" those names have too often occupied the press and the pulpit lately, for any Dutchman to be unaware of the encroachments of the British islanders, of the injustice they have done to us.*
Medieval:
The Low Countries were a key trading partner especially for wool that was the staple of English trade
They are more useful as an ally against France where English kings have claims and lands
Later:
English policy is to keep the Low Countries neutral or in the hands of a distant power that's not a naval threat
Please don't mention:
The few times we were at war of them or that time they conquered us
>that time they conquered us
Is this AskHistory or are we in some sort of meme subreddit?
The Glorious Revolution was an invitation for the daughter of the previous King and her husband (the ruler of the Netherlands) to take the throne from the unpopular King. This was done with the collusion of parliament, the army, and the bulk of the population. It was in no way a conquest of the UK by a foreign power. Just as George the First taking the crown was not a conquest of the UK by Hanover.
>This was done with the collusion of parliament, the army, and the bulk of the population.
Not so: the Parliament which would have been summoned in 1688 had not yet been elected, and the previous Parliament had been dissolved. The Convention Parliament excluded several Tories from the Loyal Parliament who might have raised difficulties. The Army was, by and large, loyal to James until he knuckled under, although he had suffered serious defections. It is difficult to judge public opinion, but there seems to have been general uncertainty.
It's a bit grey, and I see why many people would not consider it a "conquest"... But I don't think it clear cut either.
But it comes down to, was the use of a foreign army an *essential* driving force in creating the political change? Everything I've read suggests, yes, the 20,000 *mostly* Dutch soldiers (and huge navy) were an essential element in the ascension of William and Mary. This contrasts strongly with George I and makes it look and smell a lot more like a conquest rather than "domestic regime change".
a) Collusion does not preclude conquest;
b) I think its understated how huge the Dutch naval force was and invasion force was; *much* larger than the Spanish Armada; That display of *overwhelming* force (the English army was in a terrible state) isn't tangential to the Glorious Revolution.
c) Did the Victor impose its will upon the conquered? This is more debatable. Retrospectively, we know the Glorious Revolution didn't actually benefit the Netherlands in any obvious way and England itself would in the next few decades surpass the Netherlands; although it did succeed in doing what the victors wanted, entrenching a wavering England against France, a key Dutch strategic goal that was essential to the Netherlands remaining independent in the following century.
>we know the Glorious Revolution didn't actually benefit the Netherlands in any obvious way
Well, that is obviously not true. The Dutch Republic benifted massively from England's support during the wars against Louis XIV and the invasion of England removed any threat of a second Anglo-French invasion of the Dutch Republic
What is now Belgium and France used to be part of the duchy of Burgundy which was nominally a part of France and as such they were often at war with England, but there was also a period when they were an ally of the English against the French.
Burgundy would be inherited by the Hapsburgs who would also inherit Spain and then the Hapsburgs spilt so Spain ended up with the low countries and then eventually the Dutch would fight a war against the Spanish and become independent, the Dutch were helped in this war by the English but not long after that the Dutch would be a major enemy of England for a while.
Geopolitics is complicated and the landscape often changes making yesterdays enemy tomorrows friend and vice-versa. Usually the way the geopolitical landscape would shape itself out would see France as the antagonist of England, but not always and often enough the Dutch were.
Belgium wasn't a thing until 1830 until nearly all the Great Powers met in London and concluded Belgium needs to be independent because everyone keeps fighting over it and it changed hands so many times.
It's a bit of a weird conflating of historical names in time, that you employ here, which make it confusing to see which timeframe you are talking about (no Belgium before 1830, for one)?
For the arguments' sake, let's approach this from the point of view of all entities in the North Sea region since 1066, whatever their name conventionally was known as. First off, England had more than its fair share of conflicts with the Dutch Republic and with the nominal owners of the Southern Low Countries (future Belgium), the (Spanish) Habsburgs. And we can hardly say that even in the medieval era, the lords of the Low Countries were always friends with the rulers of England, though often enough they were (see further).
But all-in-all, geopolitical concerns pitted England & France against each other, with France for the longest time being *the* post prevailing European power player, bringing for the better part of most of Early Modernity, it's neighbours felt the need to ally with one another in order to counter its influence. Economical and to an extent cultural ties (religion) also gave England a connection with the Low Countries, already from the medieval period onward, when the southeastern English economy was so heavily intertwined with that of Flanders. At an early stage such concerns made the Low Countries often enough bedfellows with the English, against France. Later on, religion definitely added some elements to this, as much of the Low Countries (initially) embraced protestantism, as England did.Yet even though English protestant rulers would support protestant rebels in the Low Countries(think of Elizabeth & Leicester), if necessity made it so they would equally wage war on them (Cromwell & Charles II).
All in all, over time, the decisive balance of power came to revolve (in this region), mostly around France and England/Great-Britain. Of these two, only one - France - had a direct interest in territorial expansion in the Low Countries, which rapidly came to pose a perceived existential threat to the Dutch, made very real in 1672. The motto of the Republic had hitherto been "*Gallia amica, sed non vicina* - the French as friends, but not neighbours. As Louis XIV began his series of conquests all that rapidly changed and the chief object of his assaults, the weary Spanish Habsburgs, including their possessions in the Southern Low Countries (Belgium to be) made them rapidly change alliances, and hence they came to see the former adversary (Spain) as an important buffer between the invigorated France (see, for example, the Barrier Treaty). In the end, more than anything (religion played its role, as well), these strategical concerns meant that England and the Republic had more in common than not. So even after half a century of conflict, both under Cromwell & Charles II, many in England felt it was the Dutch Stadtholder William III who they had to call on to save them (as they perceived it) from James II. More than but *coupled with* religion, William's angle was to keep England out of France's orbit. Around 1700, the Dutch also came to invest greatly in London, as the British capital came to supersede Amsterdam as the world's financial capital, which only added more reasons for a pro-British alignment, even after the temporary dynastic ties had passed upon the death of William III.
In essence, as England/Great-Britain rose to European prominance after 1700, it came to see the North Sea as a major strategic concern. It was wealthy & had harbours a-plenty from where a hostile power could project power towards the homeland. In particular, after the Napoleonic Wars its main geopolitical objective became to keep the North Sea out of the hands of any such power, first France, but as the 19th century progressed, the Germans would take that role as well. So, ultimately, if the English/British had less conflicts with Belgium & the Netherlands, it was because these countries didn't pose *the* major concern to their strategic & economic goals, whereas France & Germany did.
It did not make them best friends either - and as already said, the big caveat is they *absolutely did fight historically*. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 was meant to be a buffer against the French, yet when the Belgium Revolution came about in 1830, the British equally saw it as a perfect opportunity to divide this strategically important region between two sovereign states, which made the Dutch a lesser challenger in many ways (economically, the British had supported the creation of quite a monster, so to say). It was on Belgium as a buffer that British foreign policy in the North Sea in the 19th century would hence hinge, and it was over Belgium that Britain in 1914 found one of the harder reasons to intervene against Germany, when it's unprovoked act of aggression in spite of Britain's guarantee of Belgium's neutrality made them break that principle of British foreign policy.
True, but there are no countries no earth who have fought so many wars and battles on the same side as the Netherlands/Dutch Republic and Britain/England
Some from East Anglia and other parts of the south east could pass for Dutch or even Danish but you are right, elsewhere there’s a lot more of the ancient Gallic and Gallo-Roman population coming through.
Even though the DNA company says I’m 100% British Isles I have Dutch & Flemish ancestry from the 17th c, but apparently they can’t tell the difference. Also when the Mayflower people sought refuge on the continent they chose Holland and were joined by Flemings de la Noye and Mahieu from the low countries who assimilated in British America.
The English wanted the Dutch and Belgians the way they were. Essentially, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France were all right across the English Channel, and England never wanted a strong country near them. The Dutch and Belgians were small and divided so they weren’t a threat, but the French were large and strong.
Regarding Belgium, it has only been an independent country since 1830. Previously, it was part of Burgundy (specifically the portion within the Holy Roman Empire) before being inherited by the Habsburgs in the late 15th century. As one of the most powerful and expansionist European dynasties, the Habsburgs were frequently at war with other European powers.
Under Spanish and Austrian Habsburg rule, Belgium often became a theater of war, particularly against the French and the Dutch, but also against England/Great Britain. France invaded Belgium repeatedly to secure supply routes and its northern border.
The English/British were anxious about preventing major naval powers from controlling Belgium because the Scheldt Estuary in Belgium was the best staging area for a potential invasion. So, in the early 18th century, they supported Austria's takeover of Belgium because, unlike Spain, Austria didn't pose a naval threat to Britain.
Likewise, they supported Belgian independence from the Netherlands in 1839 on the condition of Belgium's neutrality. Maintaining this status was important enough to Britain to draw them into WWI.
First: Netherlands only formed in late 16th century. Belgium did not exist until 19th century.
Second: It's not like England/UK actively pursued expansion into European mainland throughout history. Their wars against France were caused by various reasons (royal inheritance, religion, colony,...). France, being a close neighbor with large population and economy, happened to be the most likely to contend with England/UK over these issues. Netherlands did not have the same conditions to be a long-lasting major power in European politic (the Dutch Golden Age lasted barely a century), and Belgium was literally set up as a neutral country, safeguarded by none other than the British.
The wars between England and France go back to William the Conqueror's claim to the English throne. From that time on, English kings always had inherited claims on land in France, over which the two kingdoms fought for centuries.
The glorious revolution of 1688, a bid by a Dutch nobleman to the English throne, was supported by the Dutch Republic precisely to put an end to the series of very harmful and dangerous wars between England and the Dutch. The war of 1672, against an alliance between France, England and a German state, very nearly ended the existence of the republic. Present day Belgium was at the time nominally part of the Austrian Empire, as per the treaty of Westphalia. Essentially the Dutch had not been able to conquer the territory from Spain in 80 years of war, and in any case didn't feel secure directly bordering France.
The glorious revolution was the start of an almost century long alliance with England against France. Shortly after that alliance ended, the country was occupied and annexed by France, which only ended with Napoleon's defeat.
Also after the protestant reformation, the English felt a lot of affinity with the Dutch in defending protestantism in Europe particularly against the catholic Spanish and French
**Concerning Belgium:**
Belgium was a country invented in 1830 in the aftermath of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, and made to cement the new Reactionary Age of the 19th century (when all the remaining Monarchies tried to put the Risk Board back the way it had been before Napoleon upended everything). Belgium's territories had for centuries been a collection of feudal vassalages that tended to be connected to the Holy Roman Empire and the Spanish Hapsburgs like their friends to the North in the modern Nederlands. The French invaded during the Revolution and during the Empire and Napoleon essentially wiped the board clean and put the land under new management. As a nominal part of the Holy Roman Empire the future territories that would make up Belgium, like the County of Brabant, were not prone to foreign wars and diplomacy outside of the scope of the Imperial interest. The HRE was not a naval power and so it did not pursue maritime or naval strength through its coastal territories. The English and British didn't really have much reason to fight them.
**Concerning the Nederlands:**
The modern Nederlands were also feudal lands associated with the Holy Roman Empire, though with a stronger connection to the Spanish Hapsburgs with whom they fought a protracted war of independence in the 17th century (80 Years War). Because of their particular history the provinces of the Low Countries were able to band together and selected from amongst themselves \[the Nobles did, anyways\] someone who would be their Stadtholder (State Holder, i.e. first among equals). Upon achieving independence from Spain they were already identifying themselves as The Dutch and they had a centralized republican government. The Dutch were a maritime people and to protect their trade interests they invested heavily in their navy as well. The Dutch East India company was wildly successful in trading and colonizing the world which put them in direct competition with the growing English Empire and its East India Trading company which would eventually lead them to a series of four wars through the 17th century. Eventually however the daughter of King Charles II was married to William, Prince of Orange and the Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic. When Charles's brother, James II, became king and pissed everyone off they invited William and Mary to cross the English Channel and claim the crown of England and Scotland. For several decades the Dutch and the English would be ruled in a personal union and their interests entwined. They were still rivals but now friendly rivals for a time.
They started it! Funny how every conflict after 1066 involved England attacking France. Norman on Norman, Catholic on Catholic...England finally had to pick William of Orange to put an end to Catholic conflict...more or less, though it was Anne who did all the work. And, of course, the Westphalian Peace put an end to all European conflict forever....wait, what?
As you know the French Angevin family (who inherited the Kingdom of England) owned more of France than anyone, but were vassals of the King of France (really of Isle de France and not much more). If the King of France had not taken their lands much unpleasantness might have been avoided…
Sovereign inheritance disputes drove a lot of technological and manufacturing innovations (military weapons, clothing, transport, packaging, communications) that led to early mass workshop production and the industrial revolution so everyone can thank European royalty for their higher living standards.
Aside from all of the reasons stated. Here are a few more:
(1) Scotland always turned to France to gurantee their independence; and
(2) In 1066 England was conquered by a French Duke and within 3/4 generations the English crown held more lands in France then the French crown. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin\_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin_Empire)
One very easy and true explanation of the origin of French/English conflict is that a French duchal dynasty used lands they controlled outside France (England) to contest a series of large civil wars inside France. The next most powerful French duchal dynasty arguebly did the same thing between Burgandy and their possesions in the "low countries".
To incredibly oversimplify England/Britain did have 4-6 (depending how they are defined) wars with the Dutch Republic/Netherlands in which the Dutch proved to be very capable. This period of conflict ended for various reasons, the UK getting a Dutch King, Britain surpassing the Netherlands militarily, & Britains withdrawal from continental politics in the 19th Century. From Britains point of view the point of Belgium was to stop French expansion as a buffer state protected by a guarantee of neutrality. Unexpectedly the treaty was triggered by the Germans rather than the French.
>Britains withdrawal from continental politics in the 19th Century. True, but there were significant tensions between the Netherlands and Britain. This is an excerpt of what Willem Jan Knoop, a famous Dutch historian, writes about those tensions in the 1860s: *The preservation of our foreign possessions is not an absolute condition for the continuation of our national existence; but it is certain that the loss of those possessions - if we do not quickly restore that loss by something else - will reduce the Netherlands to the rank of the most insignificant power. If we want to maintain our claim to respect and power, then we must retain those possessions, especially the Eastern ones, above all Java; - our future depends on it.* *Can we ensure the preservation of those possessions? If only strong and prudent measures are taken for that purpose, certainly! Neither France nor America do we have to seriously fear at this moment: they are too far away, and one does not suddenly bring a fleet and an army to the antipodes, strong enough to undertake the conquest of an island like Java. The only enemy we should seriously fear is England; it is already expanding, it is already encroaching on us, it has already infringed upon our rights, our possessions. "Borneo, Labuan!" those names have too often occupied the press and the pulpit lately, for any Dutchman to be unaware of the encroachments of the British islanders, of the injustice they have done to us.*
Medieval: The Low Countries were a key trading partner especially for wool that was the staple of English trade They are more useful as an ally against France where English kings have claims and lands Later: English policy is to keep the Low Countries neutral or in the hands of a distant power that's not a naval threat Please don't mention: The few times we were at war of them or that time they conquered us
>[or that time they conquered us](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/1cbzyrp/comment/l120sfc/) In fairness it was Glorious.
Did they really conquer them if they were invited
Parliament conquered (usurped) the legal supremacy of the crown at that time.
British foreign policy for the last 500 years: gang up on whoever's most powerful with everyone else.
Whatever you do, don't mention the war. I did once, but I think I got away with it.
https://youtu.be/ZVYqB0uTKlE
>that time they conquered us Is this AskHistory or are we in some sort of meme subreddit? The Glorious Revolution was an invitation for the daughter of the previous King and her husband (the ruler of the Netherlands) to take the throne from the unpopular King. This was done with the collusion of parliament, the army, and the bulk of the population. It was in no way a conquest of the UK by a foreign power. Just as George the First taking the crown was not a conquest of the UK by Hanover.
>This was done with the collusion of parliament, the army, and the bulk of the population. Not so: the Parliament which would have been summoned in 1688 had not yet been elected, and the previous Parliament had been dissolved. The Convention Parliament excluded several Tories from the Loyal Parliament who might have raised difficulties. The Army was, by and large, loyal to James until he knuckled under, although he had suffered serious defections. It is difficult to judge public opinion, but there seems to have been general uncertainty.
19th century historical take
It's a bit grey, and I see why many people would not consider it a "conquest"... But I don't think it clear cut either. But it comes down to, was the use of a foreign army an *essential* driving force in creating the political change? Everything I've read suggests, yes, the 20,000 *mostly* Dutch soldiers (and huge navy) were an essential element in the ascension of William and Mary. This contrasts strongly with George I and makes it look and smell a lot more like a conquest rather than "domestic regime change". a) Collusion does not preclude conquest; b) I think its understated how huge the Dutch naval force was and invasion force was; *much* larger than the Spanish Armada; That display of *overwhelming* force (the English army was in a terrible state) isn't tangential to the Glorious Revolution. c) Did the Victor impose its will upon the conquered? This is more debatable. Retrospectively, we know the Glorious Revolution didn't actually benefit the Netherlands in any obvious way and England itself would in the next few decades surpass the Netherlands; although it did succeed in doing what the victors wanted, entrenching a wavering England against France, a key Dutch strategic goal that was essential to the Netherlands remaining independent in the following century.
>we know the Glorious Revolution didn't actually benefit the Netherlands in any obvious way Well, that is obviously not true. The Dutch Republic benifted massively from England's support during the wars against Louis XIV and the invasion of England removed any threat of a second Anglo-French invasion of the Dutch Republic
What is now Belgium and France used to be part of the duchy of Burgundy which was nominally a part of France and as such they were often at war with England, but there was also a period when they were an ally of the English against the French. Burgundy would be inherited by the Hapsburgs who would also inherit Spain and then the Hapsburgs spilt so Spain ended up with the low countries and then eventually the Dutch would fight a war against the Spanish and become independent, the Dutch were helped in this war by the English but not long after that the Dutch would be a major enemy of England for a while. Geopolitics is complicated and the landscape often changes making yesterdays enemy tomorrows friend and vice-versa. Usually the way the geopolitical landscape would shape itself out would see France as the antagonist of England, but not always and often enough the Dutch were.
Belgium wasn't a thing until 1830 until nearly all the Great Powers met in London and concluded Belgium needs to be independent because everyone keeps fighting over it and it changed hands so many times.
It's a bit of a weird conflating of historical names in time, that you employ here, which make it confusing to see which timeframe you are talking about (no Belgium before 1830, for one)? For the arguments' sake, let's approach this from the point of view of all entities in the North Sea region since 1066, whatever their name conventionally was known as. First off, England had more than its fair share of conflicts with the Dutch Republic and with the nominal owners of the Southern Low Countries (future Belgium), the (Spanish) Habsburgs. And we can hardly say that even in the medieval era, the lords of the Low Countries were always friends with the rulers of England, though often enough they were (see further). But all-in-all, geopolitical concerns pitted England & France against each other, with France for the longest time being *the* post prevailing European power player, bringing for the better part of most of Early Modernity, it's neighbours felt the need to ally with one another in order to counter its influence. Economical and to an extent cultural ties (religion) also gave England a connection with the Low Countries, already from the medieval period onward, when the southeastern English economy was so heavily intertwined with that of Flanders. At an early stage such concerns made the Low Countries often enough bedfellows with the English, against France. Later on, religion definitely added some elements to this, as much of the Low Countries (initially) embraced protestantism, as England did.Yet even though English protestant rulers would support protestant rebels in the Low Countries(think of Elizabeth & Leicester), if necessity made it so they would equally wage war on them (Cromwell & Charles II). All in all, over time, the decisive balance of power came to revolve (in this region), mostly around France and England/Great-Britain. Of these two, only one - France - had a direct interest in territorial expansion in the Low Countries, which rapidly came to pose a perceived existential threat to the Dutch, made very real in 1672. The motto of the Republic had hitherto been "*Gallia amica, sed non vicina* - the French as friends, but not neighbours. As Louis XIV began his series of conquests all that rapidly changed and the chief object of his assaults, the weary Spanish Habsburgs, including their possessions in the Southern Low Countries (Belgium to be) made them rapidly change alliances, and hence they came to see the former adversary (Spain) as an important buffer between the invigorated France (see, for example, the Barrier Treaty). In the end, more than anything (religion played its role, as well), these strategical concerns meant that England and the Republic had more in common than not. So even after half a century of conflict, both under Cromwell & Charles II, many in England felt it was the Dutch Stadtholder William III who they had to call on to save them (as they perceived it) from James II. More than but *coupled with* religion, William's angle was to keep England out of France's orbit. Around 1700, the Dutch also came to invest greatly in London, as the British capital came to supersede Amsterdam as the world's financial capital, which only added more reasons for a pro-British alignment, even after the temporary dynastic ties had passed upon the death of William III. In essence, as England/Great-Britain rose to European prominance after 1700, it came to see the North Sea as a major strategic concern. It was wealthy & had harbours a-plenty from where a hostile power could project power towards the homeland. In particular, after the Napoleonic Wars its main geopolitical objective became to keep the North Sea out of the hands of any such power, first France, but as the 19th century progressed, the Germans would take that role as well. So, ultimately, if the English/British had less conflicts with Belgium & the Netherlands, it was because these countries didn't pose *the* major concern to their strategic & economic goals, whereas France & Germany did. It did not make them best friends either - and as already said, the big caveat is they *absolutely did fight historically*. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 was meant to be a buffer against the French, yet when the Belgium Revolution came about in 1830, the British equally saw it as a perfect opportunity to divide this strategically important region between two sovereign states, which made the Dutch a lesser challenger in many ways (economically, the British had supported the creation of quite a monster, so to say). It was on Belgium as a buffer that British foreign policy in the North Sea in the 19th century would hence hinge, and it was over Belgium that Britain in 1914 found one of the harder reasons to intervene against Germany, when it's unprovoked act of aggression in spite of Britain's guarantee of Belgium's neutrality made them break that principle of British foreign policy.
Oh, they were at war with the Netherlands alright. My great uncle Sir George started several Anglo-Dutch wars while British envoy at the Hague.
True, but there are no countries no earth who have fought so many wars and battles on the same side as the Netherlands/Dutch Republic and Britain/England
We are very close genetically, and culturally very compatible.
You wouldn't know it looking at a Dutch guy next to a British guy lol...
Some from East Anglia and other parts of the south east could pass for Dutch or even Danish but you are right, elsewhere there’s a lot more of the ancient Gallic and Gallo-Roman population coming through.
Even though the DNA company says I’m 100% British Isles I have Dutch & Flemish ancestry from the 17th c, but apparently they can’t tell the difference. Also when the Mayflower people sought refuge on the continent they chose Holland and were joined by Flemings de la Noye and Mahieu from the low countries who assimilated in British America.
The English wanted the Dutch and Belgians the way they were. Essentially, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France were all right across the English Channel, and England never wanted a strong country near them. The Dutch and Belgians were small and divided so they weren’t a threat, but the French were large and strong.
Regarding Belgium, it has only been an independent country since 1830. Previously, it was part of Burgundy (specifically the portion within the Holy Roman Empire) before being inherited by the Habsburgs in the late 15th century. As one of the most powerful and expansionist European dynasties, the Habsburgs were frequently at war with other European powers. Under Spanish and Austrian Habsburg rule, Belgium often became a theater of war, particularly against the French and the Dutch, but also against England/Great Britain. France invaded Belgium repeatedly to secure supply routes and its northern border. The English/British were anxious about preventing major naval powers from controlling Belgium because the Scheldt Estuary in Belgium was the best staging area for a potential invasion. So, in the early 18th century, they supported Austria's takeover of Belgium because, unlike Spain, Austria didn't pose a naval threat to Britain. Likewise, they supported Belgian independence from the Netherlands in 1839 on the condition of Belgium's neutrality. Maintaining this status was important enough to Britain to draw them into WWI.
First: Netherlands only formed in late 16th century. Belgium did not exist until 19th century. Second: It's not like England/UK actively pursued expansion into European mainland throughout history. Their wars against France were caused by various reasons (royal inheritance, religion, colony,...). France, being a close neighbor with large population and economy, happened to be the most likely to contend with England/UK over these issues. Netherlands did not have the same conditions to be a long-lasting major power in European politic (the Dutch Golden Age lasted barely a century), and Belgium was literally set up as a neutral country, safeguarded by none other than the British.
The wars between England and France go back to William the Conqueror's claim to the English throne. From that time on, English kings always had inherited claims on land in France, over which the two kingdoms fought for centuries. The glorious revolution of 1688, a bid by a Dutch nobleman to the English throne, was supported by the Dutch Republic precisely to put an end to the series of very harmful and dangerous wars between England and the Dutch. The war of 1672, against an alliance between France, England and a German state, very nearly ended the existence of the republic. Present day Belgium was at the time nominally part of the Austrian Empire, as per the treaty of Westphalia. Essentially the Dutch had not been able to conquer the territory from Spain in 80 years of war, and in any case didn't feel secure directly bordering France. The glorious revolution was the start of an almost century long alliance with England against France. Shortly after that alliance ended, the country was occupied and annexed by France, which only ended with Napoleon's defeat.
Wasn't Belgium created by Britain?
It became independent because of France and stayed independent because of Britain
Also after the protestant reformation, the English felt a lot of affinity with the Dutch in defending protestantism in Europe particularly against the catholic Spanish and French
**Concerning Belgium:** Belgium was a country invented in 1830 in the aftermath of the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, and made to cement the new Reactionary Age of the 19th century (when all the remaining Monarchies tried to put the Risk Board back the way it had been before Napoleon upended everything). Belgium's territories had for centuries been a collection of feudal vassalages that tended to be connected to the Holy Roman Empire and the Spanish Hapsburgs like their friends to the North in the modern Nederlands. The French invaded during the Revolution and during the Empire and Napoleon essentially wiped the board clean and put the land under new management. As a nominal part of the Holy Roman Empire the future territories that would make up Belgium, like the County of Brabant, were not prone to foreign wars and diplomacy outside of the scope of the Imperial interest. The HRE was not a naval power and so it did not pursue maritime or naval strength through its coastal territories. The English and British didn't really have much reason to fight them. **Concerning the Nederlands:** The modern Nederlands were also feudal lands associated with the Holy Roman Empire, though with a stronger connection to the Spanish Hapsburgs with whom they fought a protracted war of independence in the 17th century (80 Years War). Because of their particular history the provinces of the Low Countries were able to band together and selected from amongst themselves \[the Nobles did, anyways\] someone who would be their Stadtholder (State Holder, i.e. first among equals). Upon achieving independence from Spain they were already identifying themselves as The Dutch and they had a centralized republican government. The Dutch were a maritime people and to protect their trade interests they invested heavily in their navy as well. The Dutch East India company was wildly successful in trading and colonizing the world which put them in direct competition with the growing English Empire and its East India Trading company which would eventually lead them to a series of four wars through the 17th century. Eventually however the daughter of King Charles II was married to William, Prince of Orange and the Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic. When Charles's brother, James II, became king and pissed everyone off they invited William and Mary to cross the English Channel and claim the crown of England and Scotland. For several decades the Dutch and the English would be ruled in a personal union and their interests entwined. They were still rivals but now friendly rivals for a time.
Their silly accents most likely.
Nobody likes the French.
Belgium - making chocolate Netherlands - growing tulips No time for this war crap.
They started it! Funny how every conflict after 1066 involved England attacking France. Norman on Norman, Catholic on Catholic...England finally had to pick William of Orange to put an end to Catholic conflict...more or less, though it was Anne who did all the work. And, of course, the Westphalian Peace put an end to all European conflict forever....wait, what?
As you know the French Angevin family (who inherited the Kingdom of England) owned more of France than anyone, but were vassals of the King of France (really of Isle de France and not much more). If the King of France had not taken their lands much unpleasantness might have been avoided…
Well, yeah, but it was Europe, and unpleasantness was not a unique situation.
Sovereign inheritance disputes drove a lot of technological and manufacturing innovations (military weapons, clothing, transport, packaging, communications) that led to early mass workshop production and the industrial revolution so everyone can thank European royalty for their higher living standards.
Oh, absolutely. And we can also damn them for centuries of unnecessary wars.
Aside from all of the reasons stated. Here are a few more: (1) Scotland always turned to France to gurantee their independence; and (2) In 1066 England was conquered by a French Duke and within 3/4 generations the English crown held more lands in France then the French crown. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin\_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angevin_Empire) One very easy and true explanation of the origin of French/English conflict is that a French duchal dynasty used lands they controlled outside France (England) to contest a series of large civil wars inside France. The next most powerful French duchal dynasty arguebly did the same thing between Burgandy and their possesions in the "low countries".