The Revenge of the Crown : An Alternate 1812 and Beyond.
- Thread starter Sarthak
- Start date
the francophones and dutch in Flanders and Wallonia are mostly fine with the arrangement. The Francophone in Prussian territory now are.....a different story
Honestly this division of the southern Netherlands feels wrong. So many areas that make no sense to go toFrance are now in France's hands. Even Brussels makes little sense imo. I'd have gone for a much more traditional division between traditional Dutch and French speaking areas, that's not to mention the mess that is now the Meuse river on the border. I also don't see France giving up territory even if it gains much. I don't really see the European powers going for this since it increases France by far the most.
Also this will screw over the Dutch over in industrialising because they just lost access to every single possible major mine that the Low Countries has at the time
Also this will screw over the Dutch over in industrialising because they just lost access to every single possible major mine that the Low Countries has at the time
actually much of the division doesn't make sense today but for the ethnic distribution back then, the division is around 80% accurate (well except for the parts given to Prussia).
Charles X was actually amenable to giving up Dunkirk otl for the rest, but didn't do so because his position in 1830......was weak to say the least. Which isn't the case ittl. Also the region given did have a major port, however the port served more military purpose than economic resulting in very few moneys lost.
About the partition deal, otl the Brits were neutral about it and Prussia was not enthusiastic since it gave them a larger border with France. Keeping Luxembourg as a buffer and getting rid of one of the channel ports for France was used here to change their minds. The British adhered to their divide and conquer strategy and balance of power, even otl they said they wouldn't look unfavorably to such a division because they were becoming fearful of a powerful russia and austria. 2 < 3. France + Britain + Prussia is enough to get the whole deal through as historically 1 state was firmly behind this and 2 states leaned towards it otl.
If the crimean war didn’t happen in this war, than it could be this world crimean war, either way it would be a meat grinder
For the Italian War I am guessing it will reach far beyond Italy. With an Austro-Prussian War breaking out as a theater.
Also with Jackson having been fairly in line with my previous prediction I am guessing the Great Powers being distracted will lead to renewed war in North America with Florida being the initial flare up.
I would exepct King Charles will give his support to the pope.
Really just too much I don't know to be sure how things will land.
Also with Jackson having been fairly in line with my previous prediction I am guessing the Great Powers being distracted will lead to renewed war in North America with Florida being the initial flare up.
I would exepct King Charles will give his support to the pope.
Really just too much I don't know to be sure how things will land.
In late 1830, the delegates from France, Prussia, Austria and Russia all stepped forward in London to discuss the Belgian crisis. There, Talleyrand unveiled a plan for the partition of Belgium. The predominantly Walloon areas of Belgium were to be annexed by France, and eastern Belgium would be annexed by Prussia. Netherlands would remain in control of Diest, Antwerp and Ghent. Though a body called the Free State of Antwerp would be created which would be under British influence, but still a part of Netherlands. As a buffer between Prussia and France, Luxembourg would get it’s independence under the rule of Prince Frederick of the Netherlands. Prussia would get some eastern portions of Wallonia. In return for this hefty annexation, the ethnically Flemish area of Dunkirk was offered by Talleyrand to the Netherlands.
Frederick I of Luxembourg.
This proposal was supported by Britain, France and Prussia. Prussia because it got territory and still had a buffer with France, Britain supported the plan because it got rid of one of the major channel ports from France, and France supported the treaty because of….well because it got to annex a good chunk of territory.
Austria and Russia spoke out against the partition, at one point even threatening war with Prussia, but stood back as they were outnumbered by Britain, France and Prussia.
The partition of Belgium. (Maastricht is still Dutch, just right at the border).
King William I of the Netherlands was loathe to accept the points of the London Conference, but with the Prussian Army starting to conduct ‘training’ exercises at the border to ‘encourage’ him, William I reluctantly accepted the London Conference and the partition of Belgium. Luxembourg was given independence as the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ruled by his young son, Prince Frederick, now called Grand Duke Frederick I of Luxembourg. Dunkirk was ceded to the Netherlands whilst Wallonia was divided between France and Prussia.” Talleyrand’s Masterpiece: The Partition of Belgium, Penguin Publishing.
I'm taking a bit of an issue of this partition as the way its laid out is pretty much ASB. There's no way under any circumstances France or Britain would ever tolerate a "Free State of Antwerp." The British government under Liverpool had good relations with King Charles X, would want to avoid pissing off France like this. The British government has actively been trying to get out of large continental obligations to focus on its own Empire. This was why it was happy to ditch Hannover when Queen Victoria took the throne.
Talleyrand himself quite harshly denounced this "so-called" plan of his in otl. He didn't want a British puppet state right on France's doorstep. No French King or government worth their salt would ever tolerate a British protectorate on their doorstep like that. Its basically like a dagger pointed at France's heart of Paris. In most wars involving France most successful invasions in the country happened through the Rhineland. this was why French Kings have for centuries sought the Rhine as a natural border to enhance the Kingdom's defense. This plan was rather a start to negotiations rather than it being a real solid and workable plan.
As for William I, there's no way he'd accept something like based on how stubborn he was in otl. If anything this would some sort of crisis that would invoke the Congress of Vienna reconvening like it did to discuss the Polish-Saxon Crisis. Russia which was hesitant to intervene might actually do so along with Austria and Prussia. Prussia at this time was heavily tied to Russia while Austria would not want Bourbon France to be expansionist so soon.
Considering how close the partition was otl, it isn't exactly ASB, considering the OTL deal was quite frankly insane.
It isn't a part of the UK nor a British protectorate like the otl plan, nor is it any state under a personal union with Britain. The FrStAn is still a part of Dutch territory, with it's autonomy being checked by the British for a few years, much like how Britain checked the autonomy of Lombardy and Venetia from 1815 - 59 by sending observers and such.
Previous paragraph.
William I backed down on the threat of a full blown war with France otl. He would have to contend with not only France, but Prussia as well ittl, to some extents Britain. The man was stubborn to a halt, however even otl, he stated that if anything he wanted Flanders back not Wallonia, not only did he get it back, he gained Dunkirk.
- North Africa: While Libya flipping back to Ottoman rule is something I knew was going to happen, Tunis becoming a part of Algiers irks me on an OCD level, it's as if we're trying to reform Almoravid North Africa without the core lands of Almoravid North Africa (Morocco), and it makes for some...less flattering borders. (it's probably why it flairs up every time I look at Kaiserreich which is pretty much a similar predicament)
- Japan and Ryukyu: First off, the Three Mountains Achievement is back on...no I'm not being serious, but a British Okinawa would be fascinating, although unlike Japan, I don't think the Ryukyus have what it takes to fend off encroaching British influence. It'll be interesting to see how a diarchy would work under the Emperor and the Shogun though, but I feel like I've treaded old ground when I say this, since I think I mentioned this in an earlier post here, so moving on...
- AUS: Well Calhoun's dead, and at least the threat of America getting jumped on by everyone goes with it. But the Union is still an agrarianist dictatorship (yes I know, it's really a no-frills dictatorship, but given that it's built on the character of "the farmer is the king of the country and slavery is still practiced nationwide" I still stand by my statement.) It's better now because the worst of Calhoun's excesses on domestic policy has now ended, but it's still a great eyesore to see.
- The Southern Netherlands Partition Plan: How do I feel about it? Well...I'm not too overly bothered honestly, on one hand, @Basileus_Komnenos is right on not wanting a British puppet on the French border as it would be ASB, but it's a Dutch puppet (or rather, it's a state that I think is still under PU with the Dutch), not the British, so it shouldn't ruffle any feathers in Paris. I'm kinda unsure why they would trade a fairly important trading port in Dunkerque for Wallonia, sure you're getting more French speakers but I feel like it's a geostrategic fuck-up, not gonna lie. I do agree with @Sārthākā though, that it doesn't matter how stubborn Willem I is, he isn't going to risk getting invaded by France and Prussia in an attempt to keep the Southern Netherlands, even more so if Britain gets involved in support of the latter. And this is in-spite of the fact that I would love to see a scenario in which the "United Kingdom of the Netherlands" survived for more than what...2½ decades?
- Italy: The House of Savoy has been eyeing Lombardy for more than a century and a half now, it's at this point, royal policy to be desiring Lombardy...for what reasons, still escapes me to this day. Didn't know they would be greedy for Tuscany though, but I feel that Austria will still put them in the penalty box though. Then again, given how it'll shape Europe for centuries, I wonder what other Great Power will get involved in Italy? I can see France and Britain, but what does Prussia, Russia or arguably (in the case of Vicky 2 esque GPs) Turkey or Spain want to do with Italy again?
Sardinia loses badly its too early and French support may be insufficient or lacking entirely why should the bourbons undermine naples and fight Austria and the papacy for Sardinia
But the current languague border was the linguistic/ethnic border back then as well. The frenchification of Brussels and the area around the city is something that happened the last 50 years.
So with giving the entire Scheldt valley and the Brussels area to France they now have a pretty large pissed off population in their territory that will keep on causing problems.
The flemish won’t be happy with this arrangement at all. There is a reason why they revolted against Willem and staying with him is not an option in their eyes. The same is having a large historical part Flanders/Brabant suddenly become part of France.
“he wanted Flanders back, not Wallonia”
Then why did he agree to give up the entiretly of what is today the southern part of East Flanders and the entirety of Flemish Brabant
So with giving the entire Scheldt valley and the Brussels area to France they now have a pretty large pissed off population in their territory that will keep on causing problems.
The flemish won’t be happy with this arrangement at all. There is a reason why they revolted against Willem and staying with him is not an option in their eyes. The same is having a large historical part Flanders/Brabant suddenly become part of France.
“he wanted Flanders back, not Wallonia”
Then why did he agree to give up the entiretly of what is today the southern part of East Flanders and the entirety of Flemish Brabant
I just wanted to say that I really like the book names ITTL. However, by far the best are the ones such as "Talleyrand's Masterpiece: The Partition of Belgium" as they have a bit more flair. "A History of X" can be a bit repetitive, although I know how much effort it can be thinking up creative book titles, especially ones that don't give too much away!
Northstar
Oh I'm betting there's going to be a war over the partition eventually, these aren't borders that can last into the modern day.
If anything his "masterpiece" would be the peace settlement after Napoleon's defeat. That's far more impressive as it got France, a defeated power, a seat among the other Great Powers where it was treated as an equal. Portugal and Spain got screwed over in this regard.