Spanish-Habsburg-Burgundian Netherlands ?

Hi

I was looking in the Spanish Netherlands section and there a few coins that actually are not from the Spanish Netherlands  
 Every coin before 1556 are not Spanish Netherlands but Habsburg Netherlands or Burgundian Netherlands
the Burgundian Neth  started at 1384 til 1482
the Habsburg Neth     started at 1482 til 1556
and the Spanish Neth started at 1556 til 1714

My question is if maybe someone could make these countries in the country list, and separate the coins that are not from the Spanish Netherlands in the right country. Also the coin in the Belgium section that are pre-Belgium kingdom are belonging in one of these countries.

Regards niskij  

Hi,

Please send me a PM with links, and I'll take care of the issue.

Guys,

This is really not my cup of tea, but it is again happening because we do not have a definition of what a COUNTRY is. To me Netherlands is just a [legally continous] Netherlands regardless whether the Ruler is Spanish Habsburg or a Burgundian or an Austrian Habsburg, or it is indeed an early Republic...

Not to mention the fact that introducing a country now, called "Habsburg Netherlands" totally overlaps with the Spanish and Austrian Netherlands, because Austrian NL + Spanish NL = Habsburg NL.

Anyone thought of asking a Dutch about this? Maybe the referee for NL?

Also, with the exception of Saudi Arabia (in which case this is THE official name of the country), I hate to see family names in names of countries, or if we absurdly agree that it is okay, then let's have
"Tudor England", "Bourbon France", "Przemysl Bohemia", "Corvinus Bohemia", and "Reagan's US" ... and soon we will have 1289 countries!

Don't take me wrong, I just wish to highlight the absurdity of the approach: acting before agreeing on the format!

Well Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands were the official names for those Low Countries.

I think the right solution would be a Netherlands - Feudal (without Dutch Republic), which have all the disputed counties and duchies.

Well, to be true it shouldn't be all included under one country. There are been to many mutations in time to speak about one country.

It started with the Frankish Kingdom 5th till 8th century. In this period there was also a Frisian Kingdom between the 7th and 8th century.
Carolingian Empire after 800.
Kingdom of Lotharingia (843–870)
Kingdom then Duchy of Lotharingia in East Francia "Germany" (880–1190)
County of Flanders (862–1384) and other principalities (10th–14th centuries)
Duchy of Brabant (1183–1430) and other principalities (10th–15th centuries)
Duchy of Luxembourg (963–1443)
County of Holland (880–1432) and other principalities (10th–15th centuries)
Burgundian Netherlands (1384–1477)
Habsburg Netherlands (Seventeen Provinces) (1482–1581)
Spanish Netherlands (Southern Netherlands) (1556–1714)
Austrian Netherlands (Southern Netherlands) (1714–1795)
Dutch Republic (1581–1795) coins issued by Frisia, Utrecht, Gelderland and Zeeland Provinces) in this period the VOC did issue coins in the name of this Provinces as well.
The Batavian Republic (1795–1814) under French influence
Kingdom of the united Netherlands (1815–1830) include Belgium and Luxemburg
Kingdom of Belgium since 1830 and Grand Duchy Luxembourg since 1890
Kingdom of the Netherlands (1814-today)

Due to complexity of the history of my country I would like to plead, please do not change a thing.

Quote: Dutchgalego.....
Due to complexity of the history of my country I would like to plead, please do not change a thing.

I agree, don't make a mess with hundreds of countries, where almost nobody have coins of.
I even would prefer to make just one other country; "Netherlands before 1815" and put all other in there.
Probably not political, historical or whatever correct, but much more easy to manage and search!

Quote: mic-w-nl

Quote: Dutchgalego.....
Due to complexity of the history of my country I would like to plead, please do not change a thing.

I agree, don't make a mess with hundreds of countries, where almost nobody have coins of.
I even would prefer to make just one other country; "Netherlands before 1815" and put all other in there.
Probably not political, historical or whatever correct, but much more easy to manage and search!

I tend to agree, however it shall be you guys to come to a compromize.
The very correct list of eras looks more like a precise list for "currencies" in medieval Nehtherlands, much like German States and Hungarian States are organized now.

What do you think?

I agree with tony, in historical view, don't change it. I also understand Imreh, with the mess it might look like. Some of the countries are not really much used currencies, I agree on that, but I have to say, Frisia's coins I'll try to get them to 36 of the known coins, Habsburg and Burgondy, might be a country together. Don't change the Dutch republic, we already put some countries and provincies together on that one.

Quote: HippaforalkusI agree with tony, in historical view, don't change it. I also understand Imreh, with the mess it might look like. Some of the countries are not really much used currencies, I agree on that, but I have to say, Frisia's coins I'll try to get them to 36 of the known coins, Habsburg and Burgondy, might be a country together. Don't change the Dutch republic, we already put some countries and provincies together on that one.

All Frisia coins are on rarity 100%. I guess that means that nobody in Numista have these coins?
I think that will be the same for the other 36-8 coins? So for who we're creating these countries?

Well for me, I'm trying to buy some, bit expensive. And were an online catalogue, everyone, member and non-member should be able to find most coins. I also keep an eye on the site ofbodemvondsten, quite a few Id's needed, so I always sent them to this site, but if they come here, those coins, Frisia and others should be in the catalogue.

I totally agree that it's nice to have as much as possible coins in the Numista database, so thanks for that effort! But I think more than 30.000 of the Numista members never will look in Frisia, if they find/bought an old Dutch coin ...

Yes, that why we have a forum for id's

So?

Guys, Kenny and Monéphil are waiting for some kind of consensus from you on what would be the right/proper structure.

The fact the Frisian coin rarity is 100% on Numista, means nothing.
Most of the medieval Hungarian coin rarity is 97% (e.g. me, lonely   ) or 100% (e.g. I put it up to help myself differentiate from the one I have)
But I know about 300+ people who have a way larger collection than me (outside of Numista),

Let me put it this way:
If you structure it in a transparent, proper manner, people with a larger NL collection will be more likely to join in the future, and that means larger swap possibilities for you!

Quote: imrehSo?

Guys, Kenny and Monéphil are waiting for some kind of consensus from you on what would be the right/proper structure.

It's really very simple. FORMAT  FORMAT FORMAT

If you detail one detail them all....

Quote: derfIt's really very simple. FORMAT  FORMAT FORMAT

If you detail one detail them all....

 YES

Hello,

I revive this old post to get your opinion as collectors of Netherlands old coins:

Due to several requests for Spanish Netherlands coins, I started a thread on the referees forum to solve this same issue. I would like your opinions on those options (largely inspired by this old thread):

1st proposition:

Netherland / Low Countries Feudal until approx 1400 including (with plenty of currencies)
Kingdom between the 7th and 8th century.
Carolingian Empire after 800.
Kingdom of Lotharingia (843–870)
Kingdom then Duchy of Lotharingia in East Francia "Germany" (880–1190)
County of Flanders (862–1384) and other principalities (10th–14th centuries)
Duchy of Brabant (1183–1430) and other principalities (10th–15th centuries)
Duchy of Luxembourg (963–1443)
County of Holland (880–1432) and other principalities (10th–15th centuries) 1 coin included in Dutch Republic / Holland
Plus Frisia with some feudal coinage but also older 15th century. Maybe the latest coins should be in the next section.

Netherlands / Low Countries - Burgundian for about a century.
Burgundian Netherlands (1384–1477) Now some coins are now within Spanish Netherlands / Briquet, one Mite in Dutch Republic / Holland

Low Countries under Habsburg influence (instead of 3 countries, don't know how to call it)
Including Habsburg Netherlands (Seventeen Provinces) (1482–1581) Now some coins are within Spanish Netherlands / Briquet
+ Spanish Netherlands (Southern Netherlands) (1556–1714) exists but has also older coins
+ Austrian Netherlands (Southern Netherlands) (1714–1795) exist as such and includes the Brabant revolution coinage (which could go under Belgium)

Netherlands - 7 provinces
Dutch Republic (1581–1795) coins issued by Frisia, Utrecht, Gelderland and Zeeland Provinces) in this period the VOC did issue coins in the name of this Provinces as well. Exists now

Netherlands - since 1795
Incl. as currencies:
The Batavian Republic (1795–1814) under French influence (now in Netherland / Guilder (non decimalized)
Kingdom of the united Netherlands (1815–1830) included Belgium and Luxemburg now within Netherland / decimalized Guilder (those last 2 are a bit problematic because they cover a different area)
Kingdom of the Netherlands (1814-today) now Netherland / decimalized Guilder

Belgium - Kingdom since 1830

======================================
2nd proposition:

Use the split of 1581 when the "big" Low Countries got divided into north and south (roughly).

1. Low Countries as a whole with many feudal currencies, Burgundian Briquet, First Habsburg period called Habsburg Netherlands, also including the recently created Belgium feudal

then after 1581 2. Northern Low Countries, that is Dutch Republic, what they call the Provincial coinage
3. Southern Low countries incl 2 currencies Spanish Netherlands (mainly Livre Flamand, we would pool all cities currencies keeping the info in the name of the coins Artois, Brabant, Flandres, Tournais etc...), Austrian Netherlands (Gulden) + Brabant revolution

Current kingdoms, so 2 countries 4. Belgium and 5. Netherlands (incl Batavian Rep and French influence)

We also have the question of Luxembourg which still exists as a country and where we could put all coins since the feudal times following a logics a bit different from the rest.

What do you think ?

As referee for Austrian Netherlands and Team member, I will move this until something is done, and hope someone will apply as a referee for the older periods.

1. But you already know that.

Well put Ecapoe.

Looks pretty good. I have a small preference to move the coins of the United Belgian States (rebel state) from Austrian Netherlands to Belgium.

And what about Liege? Separate country or somehow part of Habsburg Low Countries?

Agreed and very well put Ecapoe. What should we do about the VOC coinage that circulated beyond the East Indies?

Also regarding Liege, it should be separate, considering that it was under neither influence (although used the same currency as the Habsburgs)

OK, thanks. So let's try this:

Low Countries Feudal until approx 1400 including (with plenty of currencies) (except Luxembourg and Liege)

Netherlands / Low Countries - Burgundian for about a century.

Low Countries - Habsburg influence . I still hesitate because first period was all the low countries, then was only the southern. And Imreh won't like if I put Habsburg in the name

Move the Brabant Rev coinage under Belgium. I already asked a while ago on the forum https://en.numista.com/forum/topic46529.html and the idea was there, but I did only half of the move. Let's go then ! I'll send a note to Florino28.

Netherlands - 7 provinces = Dutch Republic (1581–1795)

Netherlands - since 1795

Belgium - Kingdom since 1830 + Brabant Revolution

Luxembourg complete (including Feudal and later).

Liège ?? In fact, Liège should have been from the beginning same as other SRI bishoprics, that is within the German States . The legends state clearly the titles of Prince Bishops, who were occasionaly Bishops of Cologne, it was part of the circle of Westphalia. I don't know why it was separated by KM. Though, it is and I will certainly not merge it but it will need to be included in discussions about the German States.

So the first 3 need to be created. The others are there. Maybe some coins sent there. Some adjustment.

Never thought of Liege as a German state, seems more like an integral part of the Low Countries. In this case, it had the same ecclestiatial status under HRE as Munster and Osnabruck. Would definitely like to see more insight over its listing under German states.

So... when will we make the final absolute decision and merge these countries?

Concerning Liege, forgot the idea to merge it with German states. apuking don't want to keep inside the German states listing coins which were part of HRE but which are no more German. Lorraine, Liege, Luxembourg, Swiss cantons, Austria - Habsburg, Bohemia... They host coins which were part of HRE but he diesn't want them anymore. Even Alsace coinage should be merged to France - Feudal for him.

Quite frankly the Alsace coinage looks far more Germanic, if we move it to France - Feudal we must also move Bisanz, but I disagree with the move.

I was talking with Kenny by PM, and I think we should add to this debate our thoughts from the previous talks in the Referee forum.
I only remove the French translation I made for each post, to make this reply "lighter" (as this would be quite heavy).

Quote: "chomp-master"​My humble opinion: +1 for Burgundian & Habsburg Netherlands.
​For territorial currencies, they may be kept if the coinage is enough considered separate between territories. But which level of "enough separate"? Coins of Feudal Netherlands are not my domain of knowledge so I can't answer.
​
​I would also add in the topic 3 Numista countries: Frisia, Luxembourg and Feudal Belgium.
​

• Frisia existed before I registered, so I've no idea about its "history". However it seems to be messy in minting periods, from the 6th-7th century to the 15th century at least.
  ​
  
• Feudal Belgium is a recent "country" created by apuking for older Belgian coinage. Would we re-use this, and for what? My opinion would be, if we consider this country to remain separated from German states (as HRE constitutives), this would concern pre-Burgundian coinage only.
  ​
  
• Luxembourg have been extended by its referee to older coinage up to the County of Luxembourg. Should they remain listed inside Luxembourg? I don't think so, I consider a discontinuity between modern Grand-Duchy and former history. Should be Luxembourg splitted the same way as feudal Netherlands/Belgium? Why not? What about specific Luxembourg coinage under Austrian NL or similar? I'm hesitating, but I think the debate should be opened too.
  ​
  

Quote: "chomp-master"​So your Feudal Netherlands would lead to a rename of Belgium - Feudal (useless name as part of the historical Netherlands that way) as including all concerned coinage?
​
​Globally I like the idea. This would give a real historical field of this old coinage. The only remaining debate would be about Luxembourg, as said before, but we have that way a strong base for these medieval territories, and about the merging of Spanish and Austrian NL. Despite there is a territorial continuity, they're not from the same branch of the Habsburg family (Spanish branch VS Austrian branch).

Quote: "chomp-master"​Naming this section would be more difficult than expected. However keeping links with Burgundian Netherlands would be more comfortable. Historically Belgium, modern Netherlands and Luxembourg were historically "unified" in their main ruler, with the only notable difference of Liege.

Quote: "chomp-master"​Concerning Luxembourg coinage, I'm suspecting the existence of duplicates between coins in Luxembourg and in actual Spanish NL. This would be a perfect occasion to cleanse possible duplicates.

Quote: "chomp-master"​Small precision: Austrian Netherlands = Belgium + Luxembourg - Principality of Liege

​And I forgot this: Spanish Netherlands = Austrian Netherlands + Dutch Republic territories (modern Netherlands) in the 1st years of existence, like were Burgundian Netherlands.

However if the merge has to be acted, I saw a few Wiki articles about the territories, under a common name: Southern Netherlands / Pays-Bas méridionaux. And this is sending a link to Low Countries / Pays-Bas (région historique). So we have a secured way to name them.

There is no real distinct "Dutch" coinage until the Dutch Republic, so the actual "Netherlands" should start at Dutch Republic (although Rep. and Netherlands should be separate)

Is there any real difference between Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands, since the territories are the same but the successors are different?

I updated my message since then to give a last way to have a consensus through a country rename.

Concerning Burgundian/Habsburg, even they're the same territories, they were technically part of the Duchy of Burgundy, with only the change of name due to a patronymic dynasty change (the Duchess of Burgundy spoused a Habsburg). I still consider this apart, but I already gave an alternative naming, so no matter.

Seems like Habsburg Netherlands is also named Southern Netherlands or Catholic Netherlands, what other name can we give the territory? Or is Low Countries - Habsburg the only solution

No. Southern Netherlands is the territorial continuity of the Southern part of the Low countries before the Dutch secession. Please notice they've the secondary name of Catholic Netherlands, as Belgium & Luxembourg remaining Catholic and the Dutch Republic seceded becoming a Protestant Eldorado. If we consider geography only:

• Southern Netherlands = post-secession Spanish Netherlands + Austrian Netherlands
  
• Low Countries = pre-Burgundian era + Burgundian Netherlands + Habsburg Netherlands + pre-secession Spanish Netherlands
  

For me only remains the Luxembourg issue as there is a major discontinuity. The County and Duchy were larger than the modern Grand-Duchy (the Western part became the Luxembourg Province of Belgium, the Southern part became French and is part of the new Grand-Est region*, and the Eastern part is now German, not sure about which Länder).



*new name to be voted soon by the Region Council

From feudal period to 1581 (birth of the United Provinces), it was all the same territory, roughly. The Low Countries. But I fear it would be a mess to put all that together.

Key dates are (reminder of first message)
around 1384, start of Burgundian influence
1482 death of Mary of Burgundy, passes to Habsburg Maximilian I
1556 Abdication of Charles V, passes to Spanish Habsburg
1581 Split of Dutch Provinces, until 1795, and the Spanish Netherlands continue with only half territory.
1714 (end war Spanish succession) South passes to Austrian Netherlands > 1795 French, then Napoleon, then Belgium

Forget about Alsace for this post.

Luxembourg is a difficult decision to take. I have no opinion. Remember Smy remarks on referees forum.

Have we reached any ultimate consensus?

I know we are quite all agreeing, but there is a last thing we forgot: the French side.

We're getting hell from the French side. Ecapoe, can you try to extinguish the fire and explain better than me the changes please?

Too much rant, but when something is being finalized nobody says anything....

I am beginning fully understand why Florino deleted those medal or whatever it was, or why Kenny changed something (I do not even know what it was). Because nothing can be agreed here it seems and when it is finally done, somebody always arises from sleep.

I am even afraid to publish "my" Exonumia idea on the French side. Referee forum - no response at all. Team forum - 1 one angry response stating basically - do it on your own if you want to do something.

I am anticipating pretty big backlash when I actually start to do something.

Is that ok for consensus ? I just want to be very clear. I also post that on the french forum .

Low Countries - Feudal (pre 1384)
Low Countries - Burgundian (1384-1482)
Low Countries - Habsburg (1482 ...) ends with Austrian Netherlands (mix of whole Low Countries and Southern after 1581)
Low Countries - Dutch Republic - 7 Provinces (1581-1795)
Belgium post ... incl Brabant Revolution
Netherlands post 1795 (including French period)

Luxembourg ??? If we follow Smy request, it means an exception to what is above.
Liege, we don't touch (also an exception).

It makes sense for me. As it is not my area, I state this as an outsider: I can easily navigate in this. And that is the purpose isn't it?

For Exonumia, you have better chances to be thank as this has a very low incidence for much people. Except maybe the few ones collecting fantasy currencies, maybe... But this would be less "dangerous" for you.

EDIT: you may remember exactly which tokens would be moved in Exonumia to help translating to the French section again

I do not want to spoil this thread. (As I already did ) But that dividing line is exactly Neil's rule. Token stays a token when it is or ever was exchangeable for money or services. (Directly, and not indirectly. For example selling bullion and they paying with money made from it would breach the rule.)

Thats all, more in the appropriate forums.

Quote: "Jarcek"​I do not want to spoil this thread. (As I already did ) But that dividing line is exactly Neil's rule. Token stays a token when it is or ever was exchangeable for money or services. (Directly, and not indirectly. For example selling bullion and they paying with money made from it would breach the rule.)
​
​Thats all, more in the appropriate forums.
​
​

​
My subsections idea would solve this thread too

This region definitely has a twisted history. It's remarkable how peaceful this region has been despite all the linguistic and ethnic peculiarities.

If only the rebel factions could have prevented Ghent and Antwerp from falling in Spanish hands history could have took a different turn with a Dutch Republic next to a French-speaking area which Habsburg Spain at some point would have ceded to France. It was actually the time that France annexed French Flanders (Dunkirk area).

Also in 1815 it was somehow necessary to put all together in an unsustainable state. No one knows if the Belgian Revolution of 1830 would have happened if the French-speaking parts would have stayed with France. Of course, the English and Prussians were not in the mood to award France anything after the Napoleonic Wars.

Now Belgium is the ideal anarchistic state that functions with so many governments that it might as well have none. Actually, recently its economy seemed to be doing even better during the 500 days it didn't have a federal government. It's a nice country btw. It makes so little sense but it works.

Quote: "Ecapoe"​Is that ok for consensus ? I just want to be very clear. I also post that on the french forum .
​
​Low Countries - Feudal (pre 1384)
​Low Countries - Burgundian (1384-1482)
​Low Countries - Habsburg (1482 ...) ends with Austrian Netherlands (mix of whole Low Countries and Southern after 1581)
​Low Countries - Dutch Republic - 7 Provinces (1581-1795)
​Belgium post ... incl Brabant Revolution
​Netherlands post 1795 (including French period)
​
​Luxembourg ??? If we follow Smy request, it means an exception to what is above.
​Liege, we don't touch (also an exception).

​Hello.
I do not see correct a common section "Habsburg", we classify territories, not by dynasties
My proposal is:

Belgium > 1830
​Low Countries - Feudal > pre - 1384
​Low Countries - Burgundian > 1384-1506
Spanish Netherland > 1506/1714
Austrian Netherland > 1714/1790
Dutch Republic > 1581/1806
Luxemburg > 1815
Netherland > 1815

I can detail each group upon request based in Delmonte and Gelder&Hoc catalogs.

Quote: "DAZAYA"​

Quote: "Ecapoe"​Is that ok for consensus ? I just want to be very clear. I also post that on the french forum .
​​
​​Low Countries - Feudal (pre 1384)
​​Low Countries - Burgundian (1384-1482)
​​Low Countries - Habsburg (1482 ...) ends with Austrian Netherlands (mix of whole Low Countries and Southern after 1581)
​​Low Countries - Dutch Republic - 7 Provinces (1581-1795)
​​Belgium post ... incl Brabant Revolution
​​Netherlands post 1795 (including French period)
​​
​​Luxembourg ??? If we follow Smy request, it means an exception to what is above.
​​Liege, we don't touch (also an exception).
​
​
​
​

​​Hello.
​I do not see correct a common section "Habsburg", we classify territories, not by dynasties
​My proposal is:
​
​Belgium > 1830
​​Low Countries - Feudal > pre - 1384
​​Low Countries - Burgundian > 1384-1506
​Spanish Netherland > 1506/1714
​Austrian Netherland > 1714/1790
​Dutch Republic > 1581/1806
​Luxemburg > 1815
​Netherland > 1815
​
​I can detail each group upon request based in Delmonte and Gelder&Hoc catalogs.
​
​

​​​Low Countries - Burgundian > 1384-1506
Why not more simple: Burgundian Netherlands, like former ones?
However Burgundian Netherlands stops with Habsburg Netherlands, which is a short period before being successively Spanish and Austrian (which are, in fact, both Habsburg branches)

Quote: "chomp-master"​​​​​Low Countries - Burgundian > 1384-1506
​Why not more simple: Burgundian Netherlands, like former ones?
​However Burgundian Netherlands stops with Habsburg Netherlands, which is a short period before being successively Spanish and Austrian (which are, in fact, both Habsburg branches)

​Good, Bergundian Netherlands, (Pays-Bas Bourguignons)
It is a way of simplifying periods and territories. Philip the Handsome an inheritance of Mary of Burgundy, Duke of Burgundy remained until his death in 1506. From now on call Spanish Netherlands to 1714.

Should we really keep Austrian and Spanish Netherlands separate?

Yes. Not really the same territories, Spanish N was larger from the beginning to 1581, and people know those areas well, coinage are really different.

When looking at peoples opinions, it seems that we should keep all current subdivisions, add the older ones (3), and one day, Xavier create an additional level above those to pool.

If we have all the "countries", then we can clean up the catalogue, add coins, and the "pooling" phase that you (Kenny) seem to expect, can come later. It is easier to pool than to separate.

I asked Xavier and got no answer so far.

Quote: "KennyG"​​I think the right solution would be a Netherlands - Feudal (without Dutch Republic), which have all the disputed counties and duchies.

​I know I'm late in the game, but I actually think this idea is the best. I mean, we have Germany - 1871-1948, which includes the German Empire, The Third Reich and Weimar Republic. So how would a Netherlands - Feudal be different?

Despite having somewhat different coinage, the countries are dynastic. Italian states groups together Austrian and Spanish coinage from Milan, for example. Should we separate these into a separate country or two?

The way it looks like is this: we have territorial continuity that grows and shrinks, and we have different rulers. We should either list the rulers together (all Austrian coinage listed under one Austrian subsidiary), or list all the territories together (all Low Countries or old Belgium, excl. Dutch Rep.). If we separate the different dynasties for all countries and territories like Spanish Netherlands, the country list will be an even bigger mess.

Look Kenny, we have already said that 20 times, territories and/or rulers ... or a mix ...
Make a precise proposition for what you want and we see. OK ?

Little up for technical reasons

Hi all,

Never realized how much went into organizing this area and why it is so confusing to find things and why some things are omitted.
Thank you for what it is, not perfect but better than nothing and always improving.
I have books to help me more specifically; it is tedious to do so.

To give a “9 years later update” 😊. This area is now structured in Numista according to the principality where the coins were issued, and the current country (consistent with comparable sections like France > French States, Germany > German States, Italy > Italian States): 

 

Belgium > Belgian States >

Brabant, Duchy of

Flanders, County of

Namur, County of

Tournai, Lordship of

 

France > French States >

Artois, County of

Burgundy, County of (Franche-Comte)

Hainaut, County of 

 

Netherlands > Dutch States >

Guelders, Duchy of

Holland, County of 

Overijssel, Lordship of 

Utrecht, Lordship of

Zeeland, County of

… and all the city issues (Deventemm Kampen, Zwolle, Groningen, Nijmegen …) 

 

As with other issuer decisions, sometimes there is a difficult decision (is Hainaut better under Belgium or France??).  We have done out best to also include the many small issuers in this area, but if something appears to be missing, please just ask!

Thanks for the reply. Kinda new to using the forum so looking at a lot of older topics relative to my interests.

Just an FYI, my focus atm is collecting Gelderland province and its included cities (among other areas NL related). The borders have changed many times over the centuries, so I include cities only when they were part of Gelderland at the time of the mintage. Where there are some disputed areas and/or rulers and overlaps of either, I collect both as long as it is designated Gelderland in the inscription.
I also have a few different catalogs/reference materials where these disputes are also included or omitted depending on the writers' views. It gives me a lot of food for thought to how I organize my collection, not that it should have any influence on your site with all it is trying to do. Which I greatly appreciate because I use you as one of my resource destinations.