AHC: Make Belgium indepened earlier.

As you all know, Belgium got his independence from The Netherlands in 1830.

Now I ask you, can you make Belgium get his independece earlier? And how would you make that possible? A revolution in Brussels in 1825? A riot with far lasting effects in Limburg in 1820? The thoughts are all yours!
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Earliest I can think of is the War of the Bavarian Succession, Austria wins, annexes Bavaria. Whatever remains of the Wittelsbach (namely Charles IV Theodore and his cousin, the Duke of Weibrucken) trades Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands.
 
Earliest I can think of is the War of the Bavarian Succession, Austria wins, annexes Bavaria. Whatever remains of the Wittelsbach (namely Charles IV Theodore and his cousin, the Duke of Weibrucken) trades Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands.
You'd have to somehow neutralise the Fürstenbund, though.
Otherwise, you've got the United States of Belgium, which is an extremely cool footnote of history but probably didn't have the potential the become much more than that.
 
Otherwise, you've got the United States of Belgium, which is an extremely cool footnote of history but probably didn't have the potential the become much more than that.
For the United States of Belgium to work you not only need to neutralise Austria, but also avoid France trying to annex it. Even if the USB is succesful, it can easily be conquered by France. Still, I think it is the most interesting option, assuming it can actualy survive long enough.
 
I can't see how Belgium could emerge before being forced into union with the Netherlands.

The succession war of Bavaria would change nothing. In what would the austrian Low Countries, which had before been the spanish low countries, would become aware of some new national identity is they became bavarian ?

Bavaria was catholic like Austria. The religious difference between the Dutch of Netherlands on one side and the Flaemish or french-speaking of the south was a key factor in the separatism that would give birth to Belgium.

But Belgium by itself was an artificial creation forced by the UK to make sure the Austrian low countries would never again be absorbed bu France. That's why this territory and populations where first given to the Netherlands when Napoleon was defeated and France forced to relinquish them.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
I can't see how Belgium could emerge before being forced into union with the Netherlands.

The succession war of Bavaria would change nothing. In what would the austrian Low Countries, which had before been the spanish low countries, would become aware of some new national identity is they became bavarian ?

Bavaria was catholic like Austria. The religious difference between the Dutch of Netherlands on one side and the Flaemish or french-speaking of the south was a key factor in the separatism that would give birth to Belgium.

But Belgium by itself was an artificial creation forced by the UK to make sure the Austrian low countries would never again be absorbed bu France. That's why this territory and populations where first given to the Netherlands when Napoleon was defeated and France forced to relinquish them.

The territory that made up Belgium was mostly the County of Flanders. So even if it wasn't called Belgium (which you are right, was essentially an artificial state created by the UK) it would still be a Franco-Dutch Roman Catholic state in the Southern Netherlands, most likely to be called, if not Belgium, then by the name of Flanders.
 
I can't see how Belgium could emerge before being forced into union with the Netherlands.

The succession war of Bavaria would change nothing. In what would the austrian Low Countries, which had before been the spanish low countries, would become aware of some new national identity is they became bavarian ?

Bavaria was catholic like Austria. The religious difference between the Dutch of Netherlands on one side and the Flaemish or french-speaking of the south was a key factor in the separatism that would give birth to Belgium.

But Belgium by itself was an artificial creation forced by the UK to make sure the Austrian low countries would never again be absorbed bu France. That's why this territory and populations where first given to the Netherlands when Napoleon was defeated and France forced to relinquish them.
So the belgian revolution never happened?:rolleyes:
On what ground are you saying that Belgium is more artificial then any other states?
 
The religious difference between the Dutch of Netherlands on one side and the Flaemish or french-speaking of the south was a key factor in the separatism that would give birth to Belgium.
The religious differences between the Netherlands and Belgium generrally are greatly exaggerated. 1/3 of the Netherlands was also catholic and not just the south. There were many catholics in provinces like Holland, Gelderland and Overijssel. The linguistic differences were exaggerated too. The Dutch upperclass (and the royal court) spoke as much French as the Flemish upperclass (and the Walloon upper class). I believe that even the cultural differences weren't as big (the cultural difference between someone from Gent and someone from Rotterdam are not bigger than the cultural differences between someone from Rotterdam and Friesland; the people in Friesland even speak a different language). The various differences between Belgium and the Netherlands were exagerated to create more of a national identity after independence, which makes sense: why become a different country if you are not that different.

That said, the Belgians did have many legitimate grievances and it was completely understandable they revolted against the Dutch king. I just believe that with a more competent Dutch ruler (and crown prince) the whole revolt could be avoided and Belgium could have remained part of the Netherlands (and I realise that the Belgian poster will disagree with me).

But does that mean Belgium is an anomaly, an artificial country that never should have existed and would never exist unless by force from outside nations? Of course not. Having a national culture that completely differs from neighbouring countries is not a condition to become an independent country (although people here often think it is, just look at how often Belgium is split between the Netherlands and France); that would mean that countries like Luxemburg, Slovakia and even Canada don't have the right to exist. They do! The thing is, you don't need a lot to have your own different country. The only thing you need is to want to live in an independent country. The Belgians had that and managed to convince the Dutch that they had that and now they live in a different country than the Netherlands.

This could easily happen before it united with the Netherlands. It wasn't as if the Netherlands was so different from the rest of the Holy Roman Empire when they became independent. They decided they didn't want to be part of it and after the treaty of Westphalia they weren't anymore. The exact same thing can happen with Belgium. If the United States of Belgium succeeds somehow, the Belgians have their own country and will probably keep it (unless some other country, like France, succeeds in absorbing it agaist their wishes). The Wittelsbach idea has the problem of remaining part of the HRE, but I believe that the Belgian culture differs enough from German (because of the French and Dutch influences) that it is possible it won't get involved in a possible German unification.

So could we see an independent belgium before the French revolutionairy wars? Yes most certainly we can. The biggest problems are: how do we convince either the Spanish or the Austrians to renounce it? and how do we avoid it being gobbled up by neighbouring countries (and mainly France)?
 
The territory that made up Belgium was mostly the County of Flanders. So even if it wasn't called Belgium (which you are right, was essentially an artificial state created by the UK) it would still be a Franco-Dutch Roman Catholic state in the Southern Netherlands, most likely to be called, if not Belgium, then by the name of Flanders.

And, after all, it had existed under one name or another since the 1580s, when the southern Netherlands were reconquered by Spain. From that time onward, there had always been a separate political unit between France and Holland, though it had gone by different names over time.

Agreed, it would be very lucky to escape French annexation in the 1790s, and even if they contented themselves with a "Belgic Republic" instead, it would almost certainly have been annexed at some point by Napoleon. However, there's no reason why it couldn't have regained independence in 1815. After all, if it didn't, its monarch would need to be compensated elsewhere, which wouldn't be easy, esp if Austria was unwilling to give up Bavaria.

This raises another point. OTL, Austria received Venice as compensation for giving up the Netherlands. But TTL that doesn't arise. Does Venice (and maybe Lombardy too) become a separate principality, and if so under whom?
 
The territory that made up Belgium was mostly the County of Flanders. So even if it wasn't called Belgium (which you are right, was essentially an artificial state created by the UK) it would still be a Franco-Dutch Roman Catholic state in the Southern Netherlands, most likely to be called, if not Belgium, then by the name of Flanders.

Actually I have to disagree here, half of Flanders eventually became French. Another important part is the southern 2/3 of Brabant (with Brussels and Antwerp), then there also were Namur and Hainaut and (also relatively large) Luxembourg.

Furthermore a Wittelsbach Southern Netherlands could work under such a scenario the Southern Netherlands would be united with the Wittelsbach possessions in the Palatinate (including the electorate), in return Austria (Habsburg-Lorraine) would receive Bavaria. Remaining a part of the HRE also doesn't have to be a problem; though if a German unification would arise that could become a problem for the Wittelsbach possessions in the Palatinate.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore a Wittelsbach Southern Netherlands could work under such a scenario the Southern Netherlands would be united with the Wittelsbach possessions in the Palatinate (including the electorate), in return the Austria (Habsburg-Lorraine) would receive Bavaria. Remaining a part of the HRE also doesn't have to be a problem; though if a German unification would arise that could become a problem for the Wittelsbach possessions in the Palatinate.


Might our hypothetical Belgium extend to the left bank of the Rhine? On this scenario it owns about half of the Rhineland anyway. Prussia is allowed to annex Saxony in lieu, and the King of Saxony (who conveniently happens to be Catholic) is transferred to Lombardy-Venetia. Austria/Bavaria gets a bit more of south Germany to make up.
 
The succession war of Bavaria would change nothing. In what would the austrian Low Countries, which had before been the spanish low countries, would become aware of some new national identity is they became bavarian ?
Not Bavarian. Palatinan.

Carl Theodore of Palatinate was hoping to establish an independent "Kingdom of Burgundy", containing his family's possessions along the Rhine. He was born near Brussels btw, if you want the Belgian connection.

This planned kingdom was to contain the Rhenish Palatinate, the Austrian Netherlands (Belgium), the Duchies of Jülich and Berg (western Ruhr and Rhineland area) and through family connections would have been closely allied with the bishopries of Liege and Cologne located within it. Assuming the French Revolution and the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss takes place as planned, we'd probably have a "Belgium-Burgundy" coming out of the Napoleonic Wars containing everything west of the Rhine between the French border and a bit north of Düsseldorf.

Ally this state with the French in the 19th century and you can probably keep it out of the German Empire up till the 1870s or so, from when it would be in a similar historic position as Alsace.
 

ingemann

Banned
You'd have to somehow neutralise the Fürstenbund, though.
Otherwise, you've got the United States of Belgium, which is an extremely cool footnote of history but probably didn't have the potential the become much more than that.

Just make Austria offer Prussia Berg and Jülich and give them the right to annex the Franconian Hohenzollern duchies (as they did after the war) and Prussia is out of the conflict.
 
Top