Your challenge is with a POD after 1812 have no Belgian nation come into existence (note this does not invalidate a separate kingdom of Walloon however).
AHC: No Belgium
- Thread starter EnglishCanuck
- Start date
I've not considered it in-depth, but the easiest seems to have a POD in 1830 distracting the French during the Belgian revolution. So while the revolution breaks out, there's no French support so the Dutch counterstrike is launched with more success.
The French will probably recover enough to support the rebels at some point, but by that time the rebellion may have been driven back to a few towns in Wallonia, and the French won't have a hand to play for the new country getting Flandres/Brabant/Limburg.
The French will probably recover enough to support the rebels at some point, but by that time the rebellion may have been driven back to a few towns in Wallonia, and the French won't have a hand to play for the new country getting Flandres/Brabant/Limburg.
Is there any realistic way in the early 19th century to split Belgium up between the Netherlands and France? Because I can only see three likely outcomes for Belgium are remaining French (in a Napoleon/France does better scenario), Belgium remains Dutch (in a the Dutch beat or avoid the Belgian revolt scenario, which is not as unlikely as people here seem to think) or a Belgium becomes an independent nation after it revolts from the Netherlands. Ok, there might be a fourth scenario in which Belgium becomes Prussian, but that is quite unlikely.
Looking at the political and diplomatic situation in the early 19th century, I can see realy no way to make such an arbitrary division in splitting Flanders from Wallonia.
Looking at the political and diplomatic situation in the early 19th century, I can see realy no way to make such an arbitrary division in splitting Flanders from Wallonia.
Talleyrand's 1830 OTL partition plan. Brussels and Wallonia becomes French, Flanders becomes a British protectorate, Luxemburg becomes Prussian. In 1848 Dutch nationalist overthrow the Brits.
I doubt such a stalemate would accepted in the days after the Napoleonic wars, both by Napoleon, who would want his entire empire back or the allies, who want Napoleon gone. But yeah, in theory that would lead to a Flanders-Wallonia split, but it would be entirely accidental that it would split Belgium at the linguistic line. The border could easily be more to the north or south, or west (with part of Flanders French) or etc.
I have always been sceptical about the Talleyrand partician plan. Not only does it completely ignore the wishes of the Belgian people (which to be fair can be expected in the 19th century), it ignores Dutch history or culture (for example Zeelandic Flanders had been Dutch for century and has a protestant majority, which would end up in the Catholic freestate of Antwerp). It gives Prussia, who was not involved a major part of the Netherlands, including the Meusse border (which it had been decided 15 years before they wouldn't get for various reasons) and it gives France a good part of Belgium, which I doubt anyone wants to happen (besides France of course). Oh and don't forget that it would give Britain some major responsibilities on the continent, which it would probably want to avoid.
But if some deal can be made, the Netherlands keeps Limburg and Zeelandic Flanders, while Prussia gains only Luxemburg and a maybe small part of Liege, I do consider it theoretically possible for Antwerp to join the Netherlands. Hardly a certainty though, it depends on Dutch internal politics (if we see a similar 1848 constitution, like OTL it would help). It would depend on internal Antwerp politics (if life in the freeatate of Antwerp is good, why become part of another country), it depends on Britain (I could easily see the British trying to dump their responsibility for Antwerp onto the Netherlands). So yeah, it might work, in theory, but it has the odds against it. It possibly is the best solution, though.
Well actualy the Talleyrand-Wellington plan is the best solution, but I doubt it ever existed.
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but had Willem I attempted to mollify French speakers and Catholics in the south, then it seems less likely that they would have had reason to rebel?
Driftless
Donor
My suggestion was a pretty weak straw, but still marginally possible. The only way that could have worked is if the main theater of action were somewhere else. However, I have no good suggestion for the somewhere else right now.
Last edited:
Cook
Banned
Even if Napoleon had won at Waterloo, his chances of holding on further were very slim; the Austrian and German Federation had a combined army of 225,000 approaching France's eastern frontier, and behind that the Russians had crossed the Elbe with an army of 168,000 men.
partition with Netherlands and France using linguistic lines is not possible?
the situation is somewhat strange, as quite few sources seem to suggest that the one who actually stimulated was the crownprince (the later willem II), the idiot wanted to be king and couldn't wait for his father to die. of course afterwards things took a different turn.
let willem II get killed in some napoleonic campaign would probably do a lot to prevent the belgian situation from boiling over (plus his brother frederik would have been a way way way better king)
That would have made things more interesting, how will the UK and France react, if William has the full support of Russia and Prussia?