A different solution for the Belgian revolution ?

Eurofed · Aug 30, 2009

Let's assume that ITTL Russian-supported, Prussian-led unification of Grossdeutchsland and Italian unification occur before than or at same time as Belgian Revolution. Let's also assume that for various reasons the great powers are not willing to come up with nationally-artificial neutral buffer states (like OTL Belgium) or other kooky Metternich-Talleyrand solutions like "free zones" with nationally bizarre borders if they can avoid it at all.

Let's also assume that Alsace and Lorraine (all of it, not just the 1870 part) were carved up as an independent kingdom after Napoleon, another nominal member of the old German Confederation like the duchy of Luxemburg (which at this time includes OTL Belgian Luxemburg, is in personal union with Netherlands, and is garrisoned by Germany too). The fate of independent A-L and Luxemburg after Grossdeutchsland unification is still up in the air, different sectors of their population want to stay independent, join Germany, or join France.

What would be a plausible territorial settlement ?

Jimbrock · Aug 31, 2009

Eurofed said:
Let's assume that ITTL Russian-supported, Prussian-led unification of Grossdeutchsland and Italian unification occur before than or at same time as Belgian Revolution. Let's also assume that for various reasons the great powers are not willing to come up with nationally-artificial neutral buffer states (like OTL Belgium) or other kooky Metternich-Talleyrand solutions like "free zones" with nationally bizarre borders if they can avoid it at all.

Let's also assume that Alsace and Lorraine (all of it, not just the 1870 part) were carved up as an independent kingdom after Napoleon, another nominal member of the old German Confederation like the duchy of Luxemburg (which at this time includes OTL Belgian Luxemburg, is in personal union with Netherlands, and is garrisoned by Germany too). The fate of independent A-L and Luxemburg after Grossdeutchsland unification is still up in the air, different sectors of their population want to stay independent, join Germany, or join France.

What would be a plausible territorial settlement ?

When is the PoD? Butterflies, anyone?

Eurofed · Aug 31, 2009

Jimbrock said:
When is the PoD? Butterflies, anyone?

1814 for Europe and 1774 for America. TL resume coming.

The first Congress of Vienna breaks down and Prussia & Russia (with the support of Murat's Naples) go to war against Austria, Britain, and Bourbon France because of the Poland-Saxony issue. In the middle of that war, Napoleon seizes the opportunity to stage his comeback and turns the conflict into a three-sided war, depriving the British and Austrians of critical support. Prussia and Russia screw Austria, Napoleon kicks Wellington's butt at Waterloo and wins some indecisive battles, but he's eventually vanquished by superior Russo-Prussian numbers. In the meanwhile, Britain is getting another butt-kicking in the War of 1812 because of a different PoD (the Canadian colonies join the ARW and the US, Washington accepts a third term and butterflies a 40-year Federalist dominance into being, and the Federalists build a very good US Army and Navy). Defeat at Waterloo brings down the pro-war Tory government and Britain sue for peace. Prussia and Russia dictate a one-sided peace at the Second Congress of Vienna.

Russia gets all of Poland but West Prussia, Finland, Galicia, Bukovina, and immediately thereafter evicts the Ottomans out of Europe, then annexes Moldavia, Wallachia, and Bulgaria, and makes Greece into an independent satellite and the Straits into a free zone. Balkan Muslims are expelled and resettle into the Ottoman Empire and South America.

Prussia gets Rhineland-Westphalia, Saxony, Hanover, and Bohemia-Moravia.

Because he's so successful, Tsar Alexander I maintains his liberal sympathies, and grants a constitution and the emancipation of serfs. Prussia follows his example, grants a constitution and some liberal reforms.

Murat keeps the throne of Naples and gets Lombardo-Veneto, Marche, Romagna, and later Albania and Montenegro. He follows a liberal course as well.

Austria loses all of the above, but gets Bosnia and Serbia. The shock of defeat freezes it into reactionary paralysis.

Netherlands and Scandinavia as OTL.

France loses Alsace and Lorraine (all of it) which is carved out as the independent Kingdom of Burgundy (part of the GC) and Corsica to Sardinia-Piedmont. Napoleon II keeps the throne (the victors reason out that the Bourbons are not that much better than Napoleon) under an Orleanist-Bonapartist regency. Napoleon dies a Russian prisoner. France follows a political course similar to the OTL July Monarchy, it humors the victors, makes a detente with Britain, tries to make Spain a satellite, and sets to build a colonial empire, starting with Algeria.

The USA get Rupert's Land (Quebec and NS are among the 15 original states), Northwest territory, Bermuda, Bahamas, Jamaica (Hispaniola was part of the Lousiana Purchase and French Caribbean was got in the Quasi-War), plus they stage a major intervention in the Spanish-American wars of independence, so Gran Colombia and Peru turn philo-US and later join the union.

Britain gets mostly estranged from continental Europe (although they gradually build an alliance bloc with France, Spain, and Scandinavia to contain the Prusso-Russian-Naples bloc in Europe and the Middle East), gives up North America, and goes to annex Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and southernmost Brazil as British colonies. OTL 1820s-1830s internal reforms are anticipated by a decade or so. They may or may not aim to annex Indonesia and/or South China as colonies in addition to their usual India stuff.

Spain is wracked by its usual internal instability, loses the colonies it lost OTL to America and Britain, and it becomes a French satellite.

Liberal and prosperous Prussia and Naples become the magnets of German and Italian national movements. In two stages, from 1820 to 1830, the unification of Greater Germany and Italy occurs, with a mix of diplomacy and revolutions. The Habsburg Empire collapses, Germany gets Austria and Slovenia (it already had Bohemia-Moravia), Italy Trento, Kustenland, and Dalmatia, Hungary (with Slovakia, Transylvania, Croatia) emerges from the wreck as a German-Russian satellite. Uncertain about the fate of Bosnia and Serbia. The Serbians are the usual geopolitical mess to settle.

Poland may or may not stage its national insurrection (Russia is somewhat more liberal ITTL, but only up to so much), if it does Russia (with German support) donkey kongs it as usual. Romanians may or may not join them. Bulgarians are sufficiently content under Russian rule, and Greeks are busy dreaming of the day they reconquer western Anatolia and Cyprus.

In this big resettlement, the Belgian revolution may or may not still happen. I question what it happens if it does, assuming that the OTL solution is butterflied away from existence.

Moreover, with the German unification, the fate of Luxemburg (which still includes OTL Belgian Luxemburg), Burgundy, and Schleswig-Holstein is up in the air. Germany supports Netherlands about Belgium but claims the above stuff as German lands and/or parts of the old GC, Denmark and Netherlands want to keep as much of their stuff as they can, France wants as much of Belgium, Luxemburg, and Burgundy as it can grasp, Britain supports Denmark and France but it's not too keen about major French expansion in the Low Countries, Russia and Italy support Germany, Sweden supports Denmark, Spain supports France. All European powers are still wary to stage another general conflict 15 years after the Napoleonic Wars (although it would happen if Russia tries to snatch more Ottoman stuff).

pompejus · Aug 31, 2009

Eurofed said:
In this big resettlement, the Belgian revolution may or may not still happen. I question what it happens if it does, assuming that the OTL solution is butterflied away from existence.

Moreover, with the German unification, the fate of Luxemburg (which still includes OTL Belgian Luxemburg), Burgundy, and Schleswig-Holstein is up in the air. Germany supports Netherlands about Belgium but claims the above stuff as German lands and/or parts of the old GC, Denmark and Netherlands want to keep as much of their stuff as they can, France wants as much of Belgium, Luxemburg, and Burgundy as it can grasp, Britain supports Denmark and France but it's not too keen about major French expansion in the Low Countries, Russia and Italy support Germany, Sweden supports Denmark, Spain supports France. All European powers are still wary to stage another general conflict 15 years after the Napoleonic Wars (although it would happen if Russia tries to snatch more Ottoman stuff).

Personaly, I believe you use far too little butterflies (a POD in the american war of independence, yet the Napolenic wars play out almost exactly like OTL?). Just watch out for Iblamecommunism, our local butterflyconservator. Because of that I think it is very hard to predict the situation in Belgium.
The Belgian revolution is something that could easily have gone some other way. No revolt in France, the Dutch king or the Dutch crown prince handling the situation better, no French involvement, No Polish revolt (leading to Prussian andRussian involvement), various different solutions, etc.

In your case you have to look at a couple of things. What do the major powers want. OTL it was pretty simple. The French wanted Belgium. The Brittish didn't want France to have Belgium and noone really cared about the Netherlands. The moment France intervened and the Prussians/Russians didn't, it was clear that the Netherlands had lost Belgium. THe would have defeated the Belgians if the French hadn't intervened, but they could defeat France. So the British and Prussians prevented the French to get Belgium by declaring it a new, neutral country, so noone got it.

In your case it is more complex. The British don't want the Netherlands inside the Prussian/Russian camp. They also don't want France to have the Flemish coast. The French want Belgium (and part of the Netherlands). The Prussians want to avoid France getting Belgium, want the Netherlands inside their sphere of influence and Luxemburg. In this case Prussia (and Russia) will get involved if the French get involved. This is bad for Britain as it means that possibly France gains the Flemish coast and the Netherlands will get into the Prussian sphere of influence (I assume it wasn't as for the Netherlands going against the British could mean losing their colonies). Britain wants to avoid any foreign influence in the Belgian revolt (which means that the Netherlands most likely beat the Belgian rebels). I suspect that if they succeed, they will force the Netherlands (and Luxemburg) into the neutrality Belgium had OTL.

Eurofed · Aug 31, 2009

pompejus said:
Personaly, I believe you use far too little butterflies (a POD in the american war of independence, yet the Napolenic wars play out almost exactly like OTL?).

About butterflies, I follow the theory that history is plastic, but with high resistance. It is radically alterable, but because of big background economic-social-cultural-geopolitical-strategic forces, it is hard to alter it with random changes. Small changes are canceled out by the background noise of history. Big changes, or small changes made with close causal proximity and/or exquisite timing, can change the future beyond recognition. In late 18th century, Europe and North America are still very distant causallly, and the PoD has its direct effects on America only. Britain loses a couple more colonies in North America, only amplying the OTL outcome a bit (almost all Canada is still wilderness at this point), America changes its internal political makeup a bit (not really affecting Europe in any way) and is a bit more successful in the Franco-American War (which remains a wholly peripheral footnote of the French Revolutionary Wars, France only loses an handful islands). Napoleon still has excellent motive to disinvest France of the Lousiana burden, which it would likely lose to a new war with America anyway, and focus on Europe. The only difference is that butterflies land Hispaniola in the package.

The real effects of the PoD only start to appear for Europe when the USA show up for the War of 1812 fully geared to kill the British bear, with a much better strategic position on the North American mainland.

The Belgian revolution is something that could easily have gone some other way. No revolt in France,

True, France already enjoys a political regime rather like the July Monarchy under young Nappy II, so a revolution is quite unlikely. The social unrest caused by early French industrialization has not yet built up which triggered the 1848 one, the 1830 one was a liberal one against the reactionary Bourbon.

the Dutch king or the Dutch crown prince handling the situation better,

Quite possible. For that matter, the tailend of the Napoleonic Wars are different, so there may be a different crown prince (IIRC both princes were soldiers, the elder with Wellington, the younger with Blucher).

no French involvement,

Well, they lost Alsace, Lorraine, and Corsica in the Napoleonic Wars, they are likely eager to get something back, even if the are wary of the Russo-Prussians.

No Polish revolt (leading to Prussian andRussian involvement),

About this, I think that it could swing both ways. The successor of Alexander I, whichever of the two brothers, is going to be more reactionary. OTOH, ITTL Alexander I was emboldened by his victories to grant the constitution and emancipate the serfs, and Poland got its OTL autonomy. While this makes Russia kinda more liberal than OTL; the new tsar is going to backtrack a little, but I think more in thre sense of giving laws an illiberal interpretation than wrecking the constitution, Alexander is cast too much of a precedent as a national hero, the conqueror of Napoleon, Austria, and the Sultan alike. IOTL Poland was pushed to rebellion by the Tsar abusing his constitutional powers, ITTL he may do as well, but starting from a more liberal threshold. I honestly dunno whether this is sufficient to trigger a Polish rebellion. If I may tap a clichè, given Poland's typical kamikaze nationalist bullheadedness, maybe it might.

various different solutions, etc.

The whole point of this thread.

In your case it is more complex. The British don't want the Netherlands inside the Prussian/Russian camp. They also don't want France to have the Flemish coast. The French want Belgium (and part of the Netherlands). The Prussians want to avoid France getting Belgium, want the Netherlands inside their sphere of influence and Luxemburg. In this case Prussia (and Russia) will get involved if the French get involved. This is bad for Britain as it means that possibly France gains the Flemish coast and the Netherlands will get into the Prussian sphere of influence (I assume it wasn't as for the Netherlands going against the British could mean losing their colonies). Britain wants to avoid any foreign influence in the Belgian revolt (which means that the Netherlands most likely beat the Belgian rebels). I suspect that if they succeed, they will force the Netherlands (and Luxemburg) into the neutrality Belgium had OTL.

The OTL solution is just what I want to avoid. Hmm, what about all foreign influences balance out, and Netherlands suppresses the revolt ? Or alternatively, a partition scheme: either a) Netherlands keeps Flanders, France gets Walloonia west of the Meuse, Prussia/Germany keeps Walloonia east of the Meuse and Luxemburg, Alsace-Lorraine stays neutral or b) Netherlands keeps Flanders, France gets Walloonia west of the Meuse, Prussia/Germany gets Alsace, Lorraine stays neutral and gets Walloonia east of the Meuse and Luxemburg ? What is most plausible ?

pompejus · Sep 1, 2009

Eurofed said:
The OTL solution is just what I want to avoid. Hmm, what about all foreign influences balance out, and Netherlands suppresses the revolt ?

Certainly possible. During the 10-day campaign the Netherlands basicly beat the Belgiab rebels until France got involved,

Eurofed said:
Or alternatively, a partition scheme: either a) Netherlands keeps Flanders, France gets Walloonia west of the Meuse, Prussia/Germany keeps Walloonia east of the Meuse and Luxemburg, Alsace-Lorraine stays neutral or b) Netherlands keeps Flanders, France gets Walloonia west of the Meuse, Prussia/Germany gets Alsace, Lorraine stays neutral and gets Walloonia east of the Meuse and Luxemburg ?

Also possible, but only when foreign powers get involved or the Netherlands doesn't beat the Belgian rebels, but I see no reason why Lorraine would get involved. It is basicly up to you. Do you want the other major powers involved or don't you. If you do it might very well lead to a all out war, which all of them know and might want to avoid.

Fiji · Sep 1, 2009

pompejus said:
Certainly possible. During the 10-day campaign the Netherlands basicly beat the Belgiab rebels until France got involved,

things could have been over even faster then that.
Had the Brussels garrison had stayed put iso running back to the Netherlands proper, they would have suffered horrible casualties but the uprising would have ended then and there.
Of course, the problem with garrisons is that they're usually made up of pro soldiers near retirement and poor sods plucked off some farm, gun shoved in their hands and told to go walk in circles in some place they've never heared of.
Hardly the kind of troops that weather the storm, still, you never know.

Archdevil · Sep 1, 2009

It also doesn't help that two thirds of the Dutch army at the time came from Belgium (which made up two thirds of the population 4.5 million vs. 2.5 million IIRC). These troops naturally all went over to the other side.

(As an aside, now the population ratio is reversed with 16.5 million Dutch and 10.4 million Belgians)

Combine that with the fact that the Catholics in the Netherlands itself were also not trusted (and rightly so, several cities in Dutch Limburg wanted to join the revolutionaries) and it becomes clear that it took some time for the army to reorganize for the 10 day campaign.

To make up the numbers, the Dutch army was partly composed of student shooting clubs, which from anectotal stories mainly distuingished themselves with running away from battle before it started, drinking captured liquor and thus drunk drowning in shallow moats. The regular troops performed quite reasonable, capturing Antwerp and much of the north of Belgium in ten days, but then wisely went back home when the French army appeared. (As another aside, the Belgian that enlisted the help of the French was not supposed to do that, so there's a possible POD: no French intervention, better negotiating position for William I)

All in all, the biggest losers were the Flemish people of Belgium, who would become second class citizens until the 1960s despite forming a 60% majority. The loss of trade with the Netherlands brought initial poverty in primarily the Flemish cities which were of course more entwined with the Dutch part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Belgium also lost the comprehensive basic education system implemented by William I and the role of the state was taken over by the RC church, which gave less attention to the Flemish language and in general led to reduced educaton levels and attendence. And finally Belgium became involved in WWI while the Netherlands, thanks to not being in between Germany and France were spared trench warfare.

The Protestant elite in the North was also glad to be the majority after the Belgians seceded. Dutch industrialization however, in contrast to the Belgian version which was the first on the continent, only took off around 1880-1890, as one of the latest in Western Europe.

pompejus · Sep 1, 2009

Archdevil said:
It also doesn't help that two thirds of the Dutch army at the time came from Belgium (which made up two thirds of the population 4.5 million vs. 2.5 million IIRC). These troops naturally all went over to the other side.

Actually I heard somewhere that the FLemish and Luxembourgish troops remained loyal to the Netherlands. Wasn't one of the most important generals on the Dutch side born in what is now Flanders? Sadly i can't remember the source, so I don't know how reliable it is.

Archdevil said:
Combine that with the fact that the Catholics in the Netherlands itself were also not trusted (and rightly so, several cities in Dutch Limburg wanted to join the revolutionaries) and it becomes clear that it took some time for the army to reorganize for the 10 day campaign.

Brabant remained loyal to the Netherlands and so did the catholics in the rest of the Netherlands (Volendam, Twente etc.) Most of Limburg had not been part of the republic, like most of Belgium. Its situation was comparable to Belgium and if it hadn't been for Maastricht it would have become part of Belgium (something I love to remind to my friends in Limburg).

Archdevil said:
All in all, the biggest losers were the Flemish people of Belgium, who would become second class citizens until the 1960s despite forming a 60% majority. The loss of trade with the Netherlands brought initial poverty in primarily the Flemish cities which were of course more entwined with the Dutch part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. Belgium also lost the comprehensive basic education system implemented by William I and the role of the state was taken over by the RC church, which gave less attention to the Flemish language and in general led to reduced educaton levels and attendence. And finally Belgium became involved in WWI while the Netherlands, thanks to not being in between Germany and France were spared trench warfare.

Correct. It was a good thing the Netherlands lost the Walloon parts (and the border areas between Wallonia and Flanders), or else we would now have the exact same problems Belgium has with their bilinguality. It was good for the Walloon, who created a rich independent state. Only the Flemish didn't realy profit. They are doing very well now, but I think that their history would have been better if they had remained part of the Netherlands (which of course does not mean that the Flemish now would be better of if they became part of the Netherlands).

Archdevil · Sep 1, 2009

pompejus said:
Actually I heard somewhere that the FLemish and Luxembourgish troops remained loyal to the Netherlands.

The Dutch army in Belgian just desintegrated, including the Flemish soldiers. The Belgian revolution was basically an alliance between a liberal French speaking elite and a Catholic inspired populist movement, where the Flemish were basically used by the Flemish French speaking elite to split the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. For Luxemburg, you're probably right as it remained with the Netherlands until 1890.

Wasn't one of the most important generals on the Dutch side born in what is now Flanders? Sadly i can't remember the source, so I don't know how reliable it is.

General Van Geen was born in Gent. That's probably the one. He secured North Brabant for the North. Eindhoven and Tilburg had been occupied by Belgian insurgents.

Brabant remained loyal to the Netherlands and so did the catholics in the rest of the Netherlands (Volendam, Twente etc.) Most of Limburg had not been part of the republic, like most of Belgium.

True, although the government distrusted the southern Catholics nevertheless: soldiers from Brabant and Limburg were reassigned to Friesland and Groningen to prevent them switching sides.

Its situation was comparable to Belgium and if it hadn't been for Maastricht it would have become part of Belgium (something I love to remind to my friends in Limburg).

North Brabant had been treated as occupied territories by the North for about 150 years (Generality Lands). Limburg the same and also was a codominium with the Bishophric of Liege. If they wanted to secede they at least had good reasons. But although they welcomed Belgian troops initially, they never took up arms themselves. IIRC Maastricht at the time even had a significant French speaking minority.

Correct. It was a good thing the Netherlands lost the Walloon parts (and the border areas between Wallonia and Flanders), or else we would now have the exact same problems Belgium has with their bilinguality.

But then it would have been the Walloons that would have been forced to learn Dutch instead of the other way around.

But would it be as bad as the Walloons made it for the Flemish?
The status of Frisian in Friesland (or officially: Fryslân

) seems to suggest that the Dutch follow a much softer line regarding language politics than for example the French, who until recently actively tried to replace every dialect in the country with Langue d'oïl.

It was good for the Walloon, who created a rich independent state. Only the Flemish didn't realy profit. They are doing very well now, but I think that their history would have been better if they had remained part of the Netherlands (which of course does not mean that the Flemish now would be better of if they became part of the Netherlands).

No, but at least the Belgians would get decent roads.

Jimbrock · Sep 1, 2009

I assume this complex backstory is going into a TL eventually?

Eurofed · Sep 1, 2009

Jimbrock said:
I assume this complex backstory is going into a TL eventually?

It is being done already. Check here.

Promethean · Sep 1, 2009

Archdevil said:
No, but at least the Belgians would get decent roads.

I so agree with that. I just came back from Belgium yesterday and the roads are really annoying. You have to cycly over a stripe of road smaller then a meter!!

Jimbrock · Sep 2, 2009

Eurofed said:
It is being done already. Check here.

Ah, I hadnt looked at that since it looked like just another American TL, with not much focus on europe. I assumed that this scenario would have its own TL. My mistake!

seraphim74 · Sep 2, 2009

Concerning Poland...
Originally posted by Eurofed

About this, I think that it could swing both ways. The successor of Alexander I, whichever of the two brothers, is going to be more reactionary. OTOH, ITTL Alexander I was emboldened by his victories to grant the constitution and emancipate the serfs, and Poland got its OTL autonomy. While this makes Russia kinda more liberal than OTL; the new tsar is going to backtrack a little, but I think more in thre sense of giving laws an illiberal interpretation than wrecking the constitution, Alexander is cast too much of a precedent as a national hero, the conqueror of Napoleon, Austria, and the Sultan alike. IOTL Poland was pushed to rebellion by the Tsar abusing his constitutional powers, ITTL he may do as well, but starting from a more liberal threshold. I honestly dunno whether this is sufficient to trigger a Polish rebellion. If I may tap a clichè, given Poland's typical kamikaze nationalist bullheadedness, maybe it might.

ITTL most of Poland is under the tsar's rule. Also, Kingdom of Poland is, at least officially, an independent state only in personal union with Russia - i.e. Tsar of Russia is also King of Poland. IOTL at least at the beginning Tsar Alexander I was quite popular among Poles - ITTL he would be even more popular as the one who united and freed Poland - yeah, without Lithuania and Ruthenia, but still it was more than Napoleon had given to the Poles. Kingdom of Poland has its constitution and is on a good way to prosperity (if Franciszek Drucki-Lubecki wasn't butterfly away). Alexander I is more liberal, so he more or less respects Polish constitution. The progressive politicians are happy about abolition of serfdom and are busy to reorganize Polish economy. If more liberal Russia respects Polish autonomy and keeps Grand Duke Constantine and Novosiltsev away from Warsaw, Poles might become quite loyal allies (especially against Prussia and Austria). With possible exception of some radicals, but in prosper and liberal Kingdom of Poland they would have no chance to start a national uprising, beacause there is no reason to do it. Even if they had managed to organize some kind of rebelion, it would have been probably stopped by pro-Russian Poles.
It is also good to rememeber, that Congress Poland is much bigger ITTL - and that means much stronger. Polish generals were respected veterans of Napoleonic wars and Polish army was quite good at that time. Another reason for Russian tsars to keep Poles happy (just not too happy and not too confident).

Eurofed · Sep 2, 2009

seraphim74 said:
ITTL most of Poland is under the tsar's rule. Also, Kingdom of Poland is, at least officially, an independent state only in personal union with Russia - i.e. Tsar of Russia is also King of Poland. IOTL at least at the beginning Tsar Alexander I was quite popular among Poles - ITTL he would be even more popular as the one who united and freed Poland - yeah, without Lithuania and Ruthenia, but still it was more than Napoleon had given to the Poles. Kingdom of Poland has its constitution and is on a good way to prosperity (if Franciszek Drucki-Lubecki wasn't butterfly away). Alexander I is more liberal, so he more or less respects Polish constitution. The progressive politicians are happy about abolition of serfdom and are busy to reorganize Polish economy. If more liberal Russia respects Polish autonomy and keeps Grand Duke Constantine and Novosiltsev away from Warsaw, Poles might become quite loyal allies (especially against Prussia and Austria). With possible exception of some radicals, but in prosper and liberal Kingdom of Poland they would have no chance to start a national uprising, beacause there is no reason to do it. Even if they had managed to organize some kind of rebelion, it would have been probably stopped by pro-Russian Poles.
It is also good to rememeber, that Congress Poland is much bigger ITTL - and that means much stronger. Polish generals were respected veterans of Napoleonic wars and Polish army was quite good at that time. Another reason for Russian tsars to keep Poles happy (just not too happy and not too confident).

You make good points. My main concern about whether the Polish revolution might not butterflied away is that both of Alexander I's possible successors were more reactionary than him, so they are bound to abuse Polish and Russian consitutions to some degree. From what I know, such abuses (esp. from Viceroy Constantine) were the main reasons the 1830 stuff happened. OTOH, such abuses would occur from a more liberal background, so it is possible they are not enough.

A side note: Just as you point out that there are less reasons for Polish-Russian antagonism to entrench itself ITTL, so there are less for Polish-German antagonism to entrench itself, too. Posen is united with Poland, the amount of Poles still under German rule (West Prussia and Upper Silesia) is relatively minimal, Prussia/Germany and Russia share a strong partnership which is in all likelihood going to remain in place till *WWI and maybe beyond. If Poles remain content Russian partners/vassals, they get to share the buddy relationship with Prussia/Germany and Naples/Italy (even if it wasn't so, the Tsar would harshly clamp down possible Polish nationalist claims against Prussia/Germany) and the imperialistic antagonism with Britain, France, and their allies in Spain and Scandinavia. Austria and the Ottomans are of course other rivals of Russia but ITTL they are even more the decaying reactionary dinosaur. The main reason that Russia is not gobbling another piece of the Ottoman pie yet is that it needs time to digest its Balkan gains and further Russian expansion in the Middle East would unleash another general war with Britain and France. As for Austria, it's a deer caught in the headlights of the liberal-national revolutions.

Thanks for the input, this thread has given me good ideas about how the Belgian and Polish revolutions might be butterflied away after all.

Eurofed · Sep 4, 2009

Eurofed said:
It is being done already. Check here.

To anyone interested, I've updated the TL with coverage of TTL's equivelent of the 1830-1848 revolutions. Following this thread's discussion, I've decided to buttefly the Belgian Revolution away for now (becuase Frederick is crown prince ITTL, his elder brother died at Waterloo, and he acts to crush the uprising decisively in its nascent stage), even if the issues feuling it may resurface again later.

pompejus · Sep 4, 2009

Eurofed said:
To anyone interested, I've updated the TL with coverage of TTL's equivelent of the 1830-1848 revolutions. Following this thread's discussion, I've decided to buttefly the Belgian Revolution away for now (becuase Frederick is crown prince ITTL, his elder brother died at Waterloo, and he acts to crush the uprising decisively in its nascent stage), even if the issues feuling it may resurface again later.

If the Belgianrevoltis crushed it is very likely it will reappear once again. There are some interesting things to think about. The longer the Flemish parts of Belgium remain under Dutch rule the more pro Dutch they will become, as all the French speaking upper and middle class will slowly become Dutchafied (as the Dutch speaking part of the population has more influence than the French speaking part and because of rising nationalism). The second thing to consider isthat the longer it takes before the Belgians revolt again, the more unhappy the Dutch middle class gets with their almost absolute king. At some point a Dutch liberal revolt becomes likely. And if it happens at the same time as a Belgian revolt (or one leads to another), the two will probably combine. Both want basicly the same thing,more freedom and equality for the people and if these revolts succeed, the Belgians migth get exactly what they want within the Dutch kingdom (or even Dutch repblic if the Dutch king plays his hand wrongly). With the death of Willem II, the 1848 constitutional change is butterflied away, but I always said that if the Belgians would have remained within the Netherlands up to 1848, they wouldn't have revolted afterwards.

AuroraBorealis · Sep 4, 2009

Eurofed said:
1814 for Europe and 1774 for America. TL resume coming.

The first Congress of Vienna breaks down and Prussia & Russia (with the support of Murat's Naples) go to war against Austria, Britain, and Bourbon France because of the Poland-Saxony issue. In the middle of that war, Napoleon seizes the opportunity to stage his comeback and turns the conflict into a three-sided war, depriving the British and Austrians of critical support. Prussia and Russia screw Austria, Napoleon kicks Wellington's butt at Waterloo and wins some indecisive battles, but he's eventually vanquished by superior Russo-Prussian numbers. In the meanwhile, Britain is getting another butt-kicking in the War of 1812 because of a different PoD (the Canadian colonies join the ARW and the US, Washington accepts a third term and butterflies a 40-year Federalist dominance into being, and the Federalists build a very good US Army and Navy). Defeat at Waterloo brings down the pro-war Tory government and Britain sue for peace. Prussia and Russia dictate a one-sided peace at the Second Congress of Vienna.

Russia gets all of Poland but West Prussia, Finland, Galicia, Bukovina, and immediately thereafter evicts the Ottomans out of Europe, then annexes Moldavia, Wallachia, and Bulgaria, and makes Greece into an independent satellite and the Straits into a free zone. Balkan Muslims are expelled and resettle into the Ottoman Empire and South America.

Prussia gets Rhineland-Westphalia, Saxony, Hanover, and Bohemia-Moravia.

Because he's so successful, Tsar Alexander I maintains his liberal sympathies, and grants a constitution and the emancipation of serfs. Prussia follows his example, grants a constitution and some liberal reforms.

Murat keeps the throne of Naples and gets Lombardo-Veneto, Marche, Romagna, and later Albania and Montenegro. He follows a liberal course as well.

Austria loses all of the above, but gets Bosnia and Serbia. The shock of defeat freezes it into reactionary paralysis.

Netherlands and Scandinavia as OTL.

France loses Alsace and Lorraine (all of it) which is carved out as the independent Kingdom of Burgundy (part of the GC) and Corsica to Sardinia-Piedmont. Napoleon II keeps the throne (the victors reason out that the Bourbons are not that much better than Napoleon) under an Orleanist-Bonapartist regency. Napoleon dies a Russian prisoner. France follows a political course similar to the OTL July Monarchy, it humors the victors, makes a detente with Britain, tries to make Spain a satellite, and sets to build a colonial empire, starting with Algeria.

The USA get Rupert's Land (Quebec and NS are among the 15 original states), Northwest territory, Bermuda, Bahamas, Jamaica (Hispaniola was part of the Lousiana Purchase and French Caribbean was got in the Quasi-War), plus they stage a major intervention in the Spanish-American wars of independence, so Gran Colombia and Peru turn philo-US and later join the union.

Britain gets mostly estranged from continental Europe (although they gradually build an alliance bloc with France, Spain, and Scandinavia to contain the Prusso-Russian-Naples bloc in Europe and the Middle East), gives up North America, and goes to annex Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and southernmost Brazil as British colonies. OTL 1820s-1830s internal reforms are anticipated by a decade or so. They may or may not aim to annex Indonesia and/or South China as colonies in addition to their usual India stuff.

Spain is wracked by its usual internal instability, loses the colonies it lost OTL to America and Britain, and it becomes a French satellite.

Liberal and prosperous Prussia and Naples become the magnets of German and Italian national movements. In two stages, from 1820 to 1830, the unification of Greater Germany and Italy occurs, with a mix of diplomacy and revolutions. The Habsburg Empire collapses, Germany gets Austria and Slovenia (it already had Bohemia-Moravia), Italy Trento, Kustenland, and Dalmatia, Hungary (with Slovakia, Transylvania, Croatia) emerges from the wreck as a German-Russian satellite. Uncertain about the fate of Bosnia and Serbia. The Serbians are the usual geopolitical mess to settle.

Poland may or may not stage its national insurrection (Russia is somewhat more liberal ITTL, but only up to so much), if it does Russia (with German support) donkey kongs it as usual. Romanians may or may not join them. Bulgarians are sufficiently content under Russian rule, and Greeks are busy dreaming of the day they reconquer western Anatolia and Cyprus.

In this big resettlement, the Belgian revolution may or may not still happen. I question what it happens if it does, assuming that the OTL solution is butterflied away from existence.

Moreover, with the German unification, the fate of Luxemburg (which still includes OTL Belgian Luxemburg), Burgundy, and Schleswig-Holstein is up in the air. Germany supports Netherlands about Belgium but claims the above stuff as German lands and/or parts of the old GC, Denmark and Netherlands want to keep as much of their stuff as they can, France wants as much of Belgium, Luxemburg, and Burgundy as it can grasp, Britain supports Denmark and France but it's not too keen about major French expansion in the Low Countries, Russia and Italy support Germany, Sweden supports Denmark, Spain supports France. All European powers are still wary to stage another general conflict 15 years after the Napoleonic Wars (although it would happen if Russia tries to snatch more Ottoman stuff).

Two words....
never happening.....in a million years...Even if Napoleon where to come back..he would never stand for the peace you describe at the expense of Saxony..and murat was in the Austrian camp until Napoleon came back as you well know.

AuroraBorealis · Sep 4, 2009

Eurofed said:
1814 for Europe and 1774 for America. TL resume coming.

The first Congress of Vienna breaks down and Prussia & Russia (with the support of Murat's Naples) go to war against Austria, Britain, and Bourbon France because of the Poland-Saxony issue. In the middle of that war, Napoleon seizes the opportunity to stage his comeback and turns the conflict into a three-sided war, depriving the British and Austrians of critical support. Prussia and Russia screw Austria, Napoleon kicks Wellington's butt at Waterloo and wins some indecisive battles, but he's eventually vanquished by superior Russo-Prussian numbers. In the meanwhile, Britain is getting another butt-kicking in the War of 1812 because of a different PoD (the Canadian colonies join the ARW and the US, Washington accepts a third term and butterflies a 40-year Federalist dominance into being, and the Federalists build a very good US Army and Navy). Defeat at Waterloo brings down the pro-war Tory government and Britain sue for peace. Prussia and Russia dictate a one-sided peace at the Second Congress of Vienna.

Russia gets all of Poland but West Prussia, Finland, Galicia, Bukovina, and immediately thereafter evicts the Ottomans out of Europe, then annexes Moldavia, Wallachia, and Bulgaria, and makes Greece into an independent satellite and the Straits into a free zone. Balkan Muslims are expelled and resettle into the Ottoman Empire and South America.

Prussia gets Rhineland-Westphalia, Saxony, Hanover, and Bohemia-Moravia.

Because he's so successful, Tsar Alexander I maintains his liberal sympathies, and grants a constitution and the emancipation of serfs. Prussia follows his example, grants a constitution and some liberal reforms.

Murat keeps the throne of Naples and gets Lombardo-Veneto, Marche, Romagna, and later Albania and Montenegro. He follows a liberal course as well.

Austria loses all of the above, but gets Bosnia and Serbia. The shock of defeat freezes it into reactionary paralysis.

Netherlands and Scandinavia as OTL.

France loses Alsace and Lorraine (all of it) which is carved out as the independent Kingdom of Burgundy (part of the GC) and Corsica to Sardinia-Piedmont. Napoleon II keeps the throne (the victors reason out that the Bourbons are not that much better than Napoleon) under an Orleanist-Bonapartist regency. Napoleon dies a Russian prisoner. France follows a political course similar to the OTL July Monarchy, it humors the victors, makes a detente with Britain, tries to make Spain a satellite, and sets to build a colonial empire, starting with Algeria.

The USA get Rupert's Land (Quebec and NS are among the 15 original states), Northwest territory, Bermuda, Bahamas, Jamaica (Hispaniola was part of the Lousiana Purchase and French Caribbean was got in the Quasi-War), plus they stage a major intervention in the Spanish-American wars of independence, so Gran Colombia and Peru turn philo-US and later join the union.

Britain gets mostly estranged from continental Europe (although they gradually build an alliance bloc with France, Spain, and Scandinavia to contain the Prusso-Russian-Naples bloc in Europe and the Middle East), gives up North America, and goes to annex Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and southernmost Brazil as British colonies. OTL 1820s-1830s internal reforms are anticipated by a decade or so. They may or may not aim to annex Indonesia and/or South China as colonies in addition to their usual India stuff.

Spain is wracked by its usual internal instability, loses the colonies it lost OTL to America and Britain, and it becomes a French satellite.

Liberal and prosperous Prussia and Naples become the magnets of German and Italian national movements. In two stages, from 1820 to 1830, the unification of Greater Germany and Italy occurs, with a mix of diplomacy and revolutions. The Habsburg Empire collapses, Germany gets Austria and Slovenia (it already had Bohemia-Moravia), Italy Trento, Kustenland, and Dalmatia, Hungary (with Slovakia, Transylvania, Croatia) emerges from the wreck as a German-Russian satellite. Uncertain about the fate of Bosnia and Serbia. The Serbians are the usual geopolitical mess to settle.

Poland may or may not stage its national insurrection (Russia is somewhat more liberal ITTL, but only up to so much), if it does Russia (with German support) donkey kongs it as usual. Romanians may or may not join them. Bulgarians are sufficiently content under Russian rule, and Greeks are busy dreaming of the day they reconquer western Anatolia and Cyprus.

In this big resettlement, the Belgian revolution may or may not still happen. I question what it happens if it does, assuming that the OTL solution is butterflied away from existence.

Moreover, with the German unification, the fate of Luxemburg (which still includes OTL Belgian Luxemburg), Burgundy, and Schleswig-Holstein is up in the air. Germany supports Netherlands about Belgium but claims the above stuff as German lands and/or parts of the old GC, Denmark and Netherlands want to keep as much of their stuff as they can, France wants as much of Belgium, Luxemburg, and Burgundy as it can grasp, Britain supports Denmark and France but it's not too keen about major French expansion in the Low Countries, Russia and Italy support Germany, Sweden supports Denmark, Spain supports France. All European powers are still wary to stage another general conflict 15 years after the Napoleonic Wars (although it would happen if Russia tries to snatch more Ottoman stuff).

Two words....
never happening.....in a million years...Even if Napoleon where to come back..he would never stand for the peace you describe at the expense of Saxony..and Murat was in the Austrian camp until Napoleon came back as you well know.

Not to mention that Beauharnais was also courting the Austrians, and under the scenario you propose both he and Murat are likely to have the Hapsburg blessing. While Murat has a Bonaparte wife, Beauharnais has a Wittelsbach.... again tying him into the Austro/Saxon/Bavarian camp and he was Napoleon's viceroy in Italy.

Its unlikely in the extreme that napoleon will even return uder the same auspices as he did OTL, but he may be persuaded to enter the services of the Austrians under the right conditions...cannot remember if Marie-Louise is still his wife at this point or not.

Even if he does...manage to do so under your suppositions... then Murat and Beauharnais will likely become his allies with the Austrians so hard pressed...and after defeating Wellington a return of the Austro - French rapprochemont will once again dawn to save the Hapsburgs and punish the Prussians and Russians for their audacity. The French will be re-ensconsed on the Rhine and in Belgium. And while the British will be dismayed by the turn of events... they cannot really do anything by themselves in the West. Napoleon if he is smart or listens to some of his diplomats, Berthier or the Austrian, Metternich then he will allow William to establish smaller version of the kdm of the Netherlands (Minus Belgium, Luxembourg (personal union), and Limburg.) provided napoleon doesn't meddle further in Spain or Iberia in general... a tenative peace may be possible with Britain with this Napoleonic France.