The United Belgian States were a loose confederation of rebel states located in the previous territory of the Austrian Netherlands, which declared independence in negative response to attempted centralizing and anti-clerical reforms carried out by the austrian crown in the area. The UBS's foundations of government were quite unique in comparison to those of the French First Republic and other revolutionary states in the sense that they were more based on catholic and conservative principles. The state was ultimately short-lived and barely lasted for a year, but laid the foundation for a belgian national identity.
So, the challenge here is to simply make the United Belgian States somehow avoid conquest by either France, Austria, or some other state and allow their continuous survival for at least thirty to fifty years.
Bonus points if you manage to make the UBS survive until the present day. Further cookies if you manage to keep their government system virtually unchanged.
 
The problem is that it needs a great power patron, and who will that be? The Bourbons liked having a weak Austria on the order. Holland didn't want a rival. Maybe Prussia promotes it, to take the Austrians down a peg?
 
Have Joseph II live longer and continue to disrespect all the nonGermans. Then you have the Italians, Hungarians, and Czechs revolting. With all of those problems the Austrians will not be able to deal with the Belgian situation. Then have a revolutionary France become the UBS benefactor and voila.
 
Have Joseph II live longer and continue to disrespect all the nonGermans. Then you have the Italians, Hungarians, and Czechs revolting. With all of those problems the Austrians will not be able to deal with the Belgian situation. Then have a revolutionary France become the UBS benefactor and voila.

It's an interesting thought. If Austria is also collapsing, will France's Revolution be as radical? I assume they'd be mostly left to their own devices.
 
The problem is, as with anything west of the Elbe pre-1800, unless you butterfly away Napoleon you cannot guarantee a politic's existence post 1812. No possible way Napoleon allows Belgium to exist. And almost certainly the Vienna Congress does not allow Belgium to be re-created. 1) Just too weak, even with a larger nation guarantee, even British. 2) A United Netherlands (including Belgium and Luxembourg) was supposed to be just strong enough and have enough land to withstand initial attacks long enough for British or Prussian rescue. 3) A Belgium as guardian along France's borders would cause a Dunkirk like situation every time France flexed its muscles or a Napoleon heir sneezed. 4) France would find a Prussian or British vassal along it's northeastern border a constant threat and cause for pre-emptive war, and during the Vienna Congress Britain would agree that a Prussian vassal so near the Channel unacceptable.

While getting Belgium up to the point where Napoleon destroys it is easy. It is near ASB to have it reconstructed. To convince me of a Belgium lasting I'd need some reason that Belgium existing causes 1) Napoleon to be butterflied away (ASB, no way Belgium causes that kind of butterfly, and numerous PODs are annoying just to get the result you want). or 2) Some geopolitical conservative Realpolitik reason that causes the Vienna Congress to create it instead of what they did OTL (near impossible, would require liberalism to be dominate at the Congress and with the resulting Concert of Europe, and it wasnt, both were very conservative).
 
It's an interesting thought. If Austria is also collapsing, will France's Revolution be as radical? I assume they'd be mostly left to their own devices.

The POD is 1790, so you can do a lot to change the French Revolution.

The problem is, as with anything west of the Elbe pre-1800, unless you butterfly away Napoleon you cannot guarantee a politic's existence post 1812. No possible way Napoleon allows Belgium to exist. And almost certainly the Vienna Congress does not allow Belgium to be re-created. 1) Just too weak, even with a larger nation guarantee, even British. 2) A United Netherlands (including Belgium and Luxembourg) was supposed to be just strong enough and have enough land to withstand initial attacks long enough for British or Prussian rescue. 3) A Belgium as guardian along France's borders would cause a Dunkirk like situation every time France flexed its muscles or a Napoleon heir sneezed. 4) France would find a Prussian or British vassal along it's northeastern border a constant threat and cause for pre-emptive war, and during the Vienna Congress Britain would agree that a Prussian vassal so near the Channel unacceptable.

While getting Belgium up to the point where Napoleon destroys it is easy. It is near ASB to have it reconstructed. To convince me of a Belgium lasting I'd need some reason that Belgium existing causes 1) Napoleon to be butterflied away (ASB, no way Belgium causes that kind of butterfly, and numerous PODs are annoying just to get the result you want). or 2) Some geopolitical conservative Realpolitik reason that causes the Vienna Congress to create it instead of what they did OTL (near impossible, would require liberalism to be dominate at the Congress and with the resulting Concert of Europe, and it wasnt, both were very conservative).

The scenario I laid out with a collapsing Ausrrian Empire I believe has enough of a butterfly effect to butterfly away Napoleon.
 
The POD is 1790, so you can do a lot to change the French Revolution.



The scenario I laid out with a collapsing Ausrrian Empire I believe has enough of a butterfly effect to butterfly away Napoleon.

Explain how please? It isn't an early enough POD to affect his birth, his personality, his raw skill and behavior. ASB I say until shown evidence, with respect.
 
Explain how please? It isn't an early enough POD to affect his birth, his personality, his raw skill and behavior. ASB I say until shown evidence, with respect.
Well, it is certainly possible to change the career of Napoleon or kill him of or whatever. There is no real that after Napoleon's birth he must become the leader of France.
 
Well, it is certainly possible to change the career of Napoleon or kill him of or whatever. There is no real that after Napoleon's birth he must become the leader of France.
You're simply adding a second POD to accomplish the results you wish to see your first POD accomplish. I believe in the acronym KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. I think if your original POD doesn't change something, then you shouldn't come up with a second POD of killing someone off that the original POD wouldn't accomplish. It's your thread, do what you wish, but in my eyes it isn't worth discussing because it's cheating, in my eyes.
 
You're simply adding a second POD to accomplish the results you wish to see your first POD accomplish. I believe in the acronym KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. I think if your original POD doesn't change something, then you shouldn't come up with a second POD of killing someone off that the original POD wouldn't accomplish. It's your thread, do what you wish, but in my eyes it isn't worth discussing because it's cheating, in my eyes.
If you keep Belgium out of French hands, which is basicly the idea, it would completely change the political landscape of France. Or more correctly, to keep Belgium out of French hands, you must completely change the political landscape of France. Thus you can't easily predict what would have happened to French politicians or militairy personel, like Napoleon. Basicly a France that accepts (or must accept) an independent Belgium, would be radicaly dofferent from OTL France.
 
You're simply adding a second POD to accomplish the results you wish to see your first POD accomplish. I believe in the acronym KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. I think if your original POD doesn't change something, then you shouldn't come up with a second POD of killing someone off that the original POD wouldn't accomplish. It's your thread, do what you wish, but in my eyes it isn't worth discussing because it's cheating, in my eyes.

That's not what's happening. If Austria implodes (which it must, for the United States of Belgium to survive), then how are there French Revolutionary Wars?
 
Explain how please? It isn't an early enough POD to affect his birth, his personality, his raw skill and behavior. ASB I say until shown evidence, with respect.

Multiple reasons really.

My scenario calls for Joseph II living longer and continuing to antagonise the non-Germans which provokes the many ethnicities of the Hapsburg Realm to rise up and rebel (those who aren't already rebelling that is).

This means that first off Joseph II not Leopold II is leading the Hapsburg Realm during the 1790s. Joseph II was not at all close to his sister, unlike Leopold. He wouldn't have made the same offer of shelter to Marie Antoinette that Leopold did. Also with Austria in the middle of multiple wars it is in no position to provide any sort of aid to the French royalists.

With no offer of shelter and no possibility of help from Austria, Louis and Marie Antoinette are going to act more cautiously and something light the Flight to Varennes is more unlikely.

Also with Austria in turmoil you change the geopolitical situation. OTL Leopold was wary of militarily involving himself in the French Revolution, because he knew Russia's urgings to him to involve himself were just a ploy to have Austria distracted so Russia could make plays in the East. If Austria is already distracted with its own problems, Russia isn't going to make diplomatic pushes to get Prussia and Austria fighting west of the Rhine.

OTL Prussia was cautious of moving against the French Revolution until they could secure Austrian support. But if Austria is fighting it's own rebellions no Prussia can't get Austrian support and their reluctance to attack France will remain.

Britain OTL wasn't ready for a war in 1791, but got involved because Austria and Prussia were going to do the heavy lifting. Britain as always provided monetary and naval support as well as some Continental troops. Without Austria and with Prussia maintaining that 1790 reluctance, Britain has no way to take on the Feench revolution itself. In fact without Austria a lot of countries aren't in a position to fight the French Revolution. Because in the early FRW Austria was providing a lot of troops and a lot of diplomatic effort against the French Revolution. But with Austria gone there goes so much of the war effort.

So essentially without Austria you are changing the beginning of the FRW. And the beginning of the wars when France was imperilled by the Austro-Prussian invasion had a huge affect on the Revolution. It caused a feeling of insecurity and pushed France more towards radicalism. Which provoked the instability in which military officers became the stars of the Revolution and saw them rapidly rising through the ranks and saw them gaining vast quantities of political power.

In essence without Austria's involvement there are huge butterflies affecting the nature of the latter half of the French Revoluion.

And this is not even touching on the potential butterflies caused by the more successful Belgian Revolution and the Milanese uprising on the French Revolution and on Napoleon, respectively.
 
Multiple reasons really.

My scenario calls for Joseph II living longer and continuing to antagonise the non-Germans which provokes the many ethnicities of the Hapsburg Realm to rise up and rebel (those who aren't already rebelling that is).

This means that first off Joseph II not Leopold II is leading the Hapsburg Realm during the 1790s. Joseph II was not at all close to his sister, unlike Leopold. He wouldn't have made the same offer of shelter to Marie Antoinette that Leopold did. Also with Austria in the middle of multiple wars it is in no position to provide any sort of aid to the French royalists.

With no offer of shelter and no possibility of help from Austria, Louis and Marie Antoinette are going to act more cautiously and something light the Flight to Varennes is more unlikely.

Also with Austria in turmoil you change the geopolitical situation. OTL Leopold was wary of militarily involving himself in the French Revolution, because he knew Russia's urgings to him to involve himself were just a ploy to have Austria distracted so Russia could make plays in the East. If Austria is already distracted with its own problems, Russia isn't going to make diplomatic pushes to get Prussia and Austria fighting west of the Rhine.

OTL Prussia was cautious of moving against the French Revolution until they could secure Austrian support. But if Austria is fighting it's own rebellions no Prussia can't get Austrian support and their reluctance to attack France will remain.

Britain OTL wasn't ready for a war in 1791, but got involved because Austria and Prussia were going to do the heavy lifting. Britain as always provided monetary and naval support as well as some Continental troops. Without Austria and with Prussia maintaining that 1790 reluctance, Britain has no way to take on the Feench revolution itself. In fact without Austria a lot of countries aren't in a position to fight the French Revolution. Because in the early FRW Austria was providing a lot of troops and a lot of diplomatic effort against the French Revolution. But with Austria gone there goes so much of the war effort.

So essentially without Austria you are changing the beginning of the FRW. And the beginning of the wars when France was imperilled by the Austro-Prussian invasion had a huge affect on the Revolution. It caused a feeling of insecurity and pushed France more towards radicalism. Which provoked the instability in which military officers became the stars of the Revolution and saw them rapidly rising through the ranks and saw them gaining vast quantities of political power.

In essence without Austria's involvement there are huge butterflies affecting the nature of the latter half of the French Revoluion.

And this is not even touching on the potential butterflies caused by the more successful Belgian Revolution and the Milanese uprising on the French Revolution and on Napoleon, respectively.

I can accept that reasoning.
 
So, the most plausible scenario for this would be to give a bit more lifetime to Joseph II and to kill off Napoleon early.
Just these two PoDs would already flap immense butterflies throughout the world, i hope early Belgium survives with them.
Question: would a Directoire-dominated France accept an independent Belgium to the northeast, in the case of this scenario? Especially if the Girondins in the Directoire promote a stance of power projection and intimidation, but not outright war?
 
You are sure who Joseph was less close than Leopold to Marie Antoinette? I remember to have read somewhere exactly the other thing.
 
Top