Congress of Vienna and the Polish-Saxon Crisis

I was wondering if maybe the growth of the Netherlands will rather be compensated by giving Britain more colonies. Historically, only South Africa and Ceylon were lost, but there's several more points to consider (Britain was probably ok leaving the Netherlands to have isolated East Indies with a slightly more southerly border, but Surinam, the Caribbean, and Ghana might be taken entirely).
 
I was wondering if maybe the growth of the Netherlands will rather be compensated by giving Britain more colonies. Historically, only South Africa and Ceylon were lost, but there's several more points to consider (Britain was probably ok leaving the Netherlands to have isolated East Indies with a slightly more southerly border, but Surinam, the Caribbean, and Ghana might be taken entirely).
Doubtful, because the interests aren't connected. Britain has barely anything to gain or lose in Germany. So you would be giving Britain something for nothing, while countries in Germany that have something to lose when the Netherlands gain some territories in the area, don't get anything as compensation.

This is of course ignoring the fact that for a country like the Netherlands colonies are probably more valuable than some random lands in Germany.
 
Why was France not "punished" more by forcing to cede all of French Flandres and French Hainaut ( ~ departement Nord or even Pais de Calais) after Napoleon's 100 days?
Note: Belgian revolt was organized by French Rattachist who, inspired by the French July revolution, wanted to united the former Austrian Netherlands with France.
Furhter as is mentioned before in this thread, Bavaria joined the winning side in time while the King of Saxony was in the losing camp, so why borther to give him a new kingdom.
Can it be that Prussia and Rissia made deal iwth each other which infuriate Metternich
 
Migrating towards Silesia and Saxony are of course options, but don't ignore the possibility of them leaving Prussia and maybe even Germany all together! Maybe ITTL there's more Prussians emigrating to the US, for example, or South America.
According to the Wikipedia article about the Ostflucht, the US lost attraction as a destination for the people of Polish Prussia once it stopped giving free land to settlers in 1893. That's a pretty long time after the PoD, however, and certainly long after the height of the Ruhr Boom. I think you might be correct in assuming that there'd be increased immigration to the Americas ITTL.

I wonder if more parts of Silesia could end up with a Polish majority ITTL anyway though.


Maybe a "anything but Catholicism" attitude will emerge, maybe not. Since I don't see Prussia ITTL in a position to unify all of Kleindeutschland, just trying to keep Catholic influences out could be enough for the Hohenzollerns.
That sounds very likely, but keep in mind that even if they don't succeed in unifying Germany, they're still going to have to deal with the heavily Catholic Polish population. They can't just pretend that Catholics only live outside of Prussia.


Considering the many situations where the dual system of the German Confederation nearly collapsed, I can definitely see the lack of Saxony between Prussia and Austria to cause an earlier, more intense falling out.
I wonder how that would turn out. OTL, the Prussian military was in decline until the reforms of the 1850s, and there was a growing anti-war sentiment in the population in general, a sentiment that was only turned around thanks to the series of victories in the 1860s. Austria might well win such an earlier falling out, assuming the Prussian military follows a similar path as OTL.


Personally I'd like to see the Rhineland ITTL as part of a South German Union, basically covering everything south of Hannover and the Thuringian statelets (so that the two Lippe principalities and the Hessian states are South German), while the remainder falls into the Prussian orbit.
That's more or less what I was thinking as well, though I am inclined to agree with JCVocke regarding Hanover.


Agreed, but I assume the new "German" territories, who have a relatively large amount of protestants will remain loyal to the Netherlands. So this increases the strength of the Netherlands, so they might be able to keep more territories under Dutch control. The Netherlands might be able to keep all of Limburg and/or Antwerp. That said, it probably depends on the layout of the new provinces in the Netherlands. For example I could see Cleves and Gueldres (including northern and middle Limburg) be fused into 1 province.
That sounds like a good province layout. What would the fused province be called though?


Without the Prussians all of Luxemburg will probably be lost, even in the unlikely case it ends up Dutch.
Lost to Belgium in the event of a successful uprising, or lost to someone else?

I know we've been going back and forth regarding Luxemburg a lot, but if not the Netherlands, who would get it?


I'm not so sure that would be the case. Historically Hanover sided with Austria, and lost their country over it. They sided with Austria despite the factors you mention still being in place and, arguably, being even strong since historically they controlled much of the territory lying directly between the two chunks of Prussia.

I think this Hanover would, especially if it is enlarged as the last map suggested would be firmly in the Austrian Camp, as would the new Rhenish State. Historically all of the large German States chose Austria, because a distant Austria preserving the loose German Confederation is better for them than a Close Prussia creating a German Empire.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Prussia now having a history of outright annexing another medium-sized German state isn't exactly a point in its favor either. Hanover is still going to be a potentially juicy target for future Prussian expansionism due to the reasons Iserlohn mentioned though.


I meant the saxon Rhineland, yeah

it's hard to figure out; but the only significant German state that DID border the Netherlands (namely Prussia) was repeatedly willing to intervene in Dutch politics (in the late 1700's) and supposedly planned to intervene against the Belgians too. The Saxons might, too.
Rhineland, being a Catholic state ruled by a Catholic king, might feel a bit conflicted in aiding the Protestant Netherlands in suppressing a rebellion which was, in part, motivated by religious conflict. What pompejus said about them not really caring much about Dutch politics sounds about right too.


Would this new arrangement change anything in the Polish Revolution? If it takes place at a different time or is butterflied away entirely the Russian Army will march to aid King Willem I.
Interesting. Do you have a source on that?

The Polish Revolution would not necessarily change much, but the sum of the changes in the east and the west might result in both the Belgian and Polish revolutions taking place at different times.

How would a Russian move so far west be seen in Britain? Could the revolt lead to a bigger European war in this scenario?


@ Pompejus: IMHO Luxembourg probably becomes Saxon ITTL. They won't have the longest border with France, but by giving them Luxembourg did well share some of the burden.
Giving Luxemburg to the Saxons means less of Westphalia for the Saxons, which in turn means there's more land I don't really know what to do with, since giving too much land to Hanover is out of the question. I guess giving more land to the Netherlands, as suggested earlier in the thread, is a possibility, but that raises the question of why they didn't just get Luxemburg instead to begin with.


Wasn't the reason Prussia ended up with the Rhineland so that France would be forced to confront a major German state on the Rhine? Without that, are the Congress Powers satisfied with having a few weak states, a middling Netherlands and a Saxon king who chose to aid France arrayed against potential French expansionism?

Seems to me like they'd want more assurances, like giving Austria back her South German holdings or giving the Palatinate to someone more powerful than Bavaria.

I would think that you would need either Austria or Prussia in the Rhine region.

Perhaps Austrian Luxembourg or Austrian Palatinate, Bavaria gets other land in compensation such a keeping parts of Tirol and Vorarlberg.

Well, I see that the purpose of the TL is to keep Prussia East of the Weser. So what about an enlarged Austrian presence, perhaps in compensation for Prussian Saxony, in the Upper Rhine? Chunks of Switzerland?
Interesting idea. If memory serves, Austria and Prussia actually seriously considered forcing France to cede Alsace, or at least the part that was originally Austrian, back to Austria after the Hundred Days. Other territories of the original Habsburg Vorlande were to be returned to Austria as well, with the South German states in question receiving appropriate compensation. The idea was to create a strong Austrian military presence at the French border.

Perhaps something like this, though it might be a little excessive: (France cedes Alsace, but keeps Lorraine)
rIDpNul.png


Given that Prussia got Saxony, it could be implied that France had a weaker hand in the negotiations (Someone other than Talleyrand?), so something like this *could* work.


I'm also wondering what Prussia's compensation for losing her territory in Poland is, as she initially held everything West of the Vistula IIRC. I'm just not sure if the Great Powers will be satisfied with this balance of power, it favours Russia and France far too much for either Austria or Britain's liking, while Prussia is happy about Saxony. Is Sardinia still receiving her gains in Italy?
Prussia still gets Posen on top of Saxony and Swedish Pomerania, so I'd say they get a decent amount of territory for what they lost. If you have any suggestions for other territories east of the Weser they might acquire, do tell.

Sardinia is still receiving their gains in Italy, and I also considered letting them have parts of Valais to boot. Haven't decided what to do with Italy yet though.


Well I found these maps here and here:


The Netherlands and its new borders, as proposed in Willem Frederik's memorandum of 9 November 1813.

PLATE 4: The Prussian ideas about the territory of the new Netherlands state, as formulated by chancellor Hardenberg on 29 April 1814. In these plans the Netherlands would become a member of the German Confederation. Comparison with Plate 4 clearly shows the conflicting territorial aspirations between Prussia and the Netherlands.
Thanks, I hadn't seen those maps before. I knew roughly what William wanted, but I didn't know it was quite that ambitious.


It would be interesting to see what Prussia's conception of how Europe should be organized was versus Austria's conception, and Britain's conception and Russia's conception at the Congress of Vienna
Yeah, I'd like to see that as well.


Furhter as is mentioned before in this thread, Bavaria joined the winning side in time while the King of Saxony was in the losing camp, so why borther to give him a new kingdom.
Can it be that Prussia and Rissia made deal iwth each other which infuriate Metternich
The idea was that Prussia had to make concessions to Austria (etc.) in order to get all of Saxony, which in this case meant the Kingdom of Rhineland for the Saxon king.
 
Like the idea of an Austrian Elsass. It ties up the power on the Rhine question nicely.

I think that as Bavaria does not get Palatine, that they would want something else. Possibly some Austrian territory but I am not really sure what.
 
That sounds like a good province layout. What would the fused province be called though?
Personaly I think that East-Frisia would become the Province of East-Frisia (kind of obvious).
I would call the area south of it would the province of Emsland. It has no real good old county to call it after, so calling it after the main river seems like a good idea. Kind of Like how Overijssel is called after the river IJssel.

And the area of Cleves/Gueldres I would call either Overkwartier (after the upper quarter of Gueldres) or Kleef (after Cleves) or maybe a combination like Kleef-Overkwartier.

Lost to Belgium in the event of a successful uprising, or lost to someone else?
Lost to Belgium, yes. It was basicly the Prussian troops that kept Luxemburg out of Belgian hands.


Could the revolt lead to a bigger European war in this scenario?
No, Belgium was not important enough for a major war. It was the lack of response of the Dutch king that created Belgium. Britain would not go to war over it. At least not as long as they can keep France out of Belgium. If it actualy would lead to a war, it would just be The Netherlands and Russia vs France and the Belgian rebels and probably result in France wanting to annex at least part of Belgium for its trouble (if not all of it). In that case british synpathy will quickly switch from the Belgian side to the Dutch side.

Perhaps something like this, though it might be a little excessive: (France cedes Alsace, but keeps Lorraine)

I really doubt Alsace would end up outside France. Most of the Alsace had been French for quite a while and they didn't want to punish France too much. France was restored to prerevolutionary borders, partly to give legitamacy to the French king, partly because they weren't as stupid as the allies after WWI and they knew you have to treat your defeated enemy with respect.

Thanks, I hadn't seen those maps before. I knew roughly what William wanted, but I didn't know it was quite that ambitious.
Willem I was a bit of a megalomaniac. Still I suspect he was just trying to see how far he could go. He wanted to keep his lands in Nassau and connecting it to the Netherlands would be nice. So it was a case of making high demands, so you can lose something during the negotiations (and he lost a lot).
 
Like the idea of an Austrian Elsass. It ties up the power on the Rhine question nicely.

I think that as Bavaria does not get Palatine, that they would want something else. Possibly some Austrian territory but I am not really sure what.
I like the idea as well, and it's something the Austrians and Prussians both wanted. However, as much as I like the idea, Britain, Russia and (of course) France bitterly opposed any such territorial losses for France. I'd need yet another change to the Congress to make more powers willing to back such a move against France.

As for Bavaria; I'd argue it already got way more than it deserved OTL. It gave up territories it had no right to in the first place and got lots of land to the north. The only reason Bavaria came out of it with gains instead of significant losses was that it changed sides at the right time.

Personaly I think that East-Frisia would become the Province of East-Frisia (kind of obvious).
I would call the area south of it would the province of Emsland. It has no real good old county to call it after, so calling it after the main river seems like a good idea. Kind of Like how Overijssel is called after the river IJssel.

And the area of Cleves/Gueldres I would call either Overkwartier (after the upper quarter of Gueldres) or Kleef (after Cleves) or maybe a combination like Kleef-Overkwartier.
Yeah, those names sound good.

No, Belgium was not important enough for a major war. It was the lack of response of the Dutch king that created Belgium. Britain would not go to war over it. At least not as long as they can keep France out of Belgium. If it actualy would lead to a war, it would just be The Netherlands and Russia vs France and the Belgian rebels and probably result in France wanting to annex at least part of Belgium for its trouble (if not all of it). In that case british synpathy will quickly switch from the Belgian side to the Dutch side.
That's a major war in itself though. Perhaps the resulting peace could result in a partition of Belgium between the Netherlands and France as a compromise? Or is a Flemish/Walloon split a bit too early to consider at that point?

I really doubt Alsace would end up outside France. Most of the Alsace had been French for quite a while and they didn't want to punish France too much. France was restored to prerevolutionary borders, partly to give legitamacy to the French king, partly because they weren't as stupid as the allies after WWI and they knew you have to treat your defeated enemy with respect.
I re-checked my sources, and as mentioned earlier in the post; Austria and especially Prussia pushed fairly hard for an Austrian western barrier including most of Alsace. They were, however, forced to back down by the other powers. You're probably right in that it's unlikely to actually happen though. There'd need to significantly stronger anti-French sentiments in Britain and Russia, at the very least.
 
IMHO not really that surprising that German powers under Austrian and Prussian leadership wanted France to be punished harder than some of the other powers. Among other things France had the nasty habit to expand into 'German' lands.
Furthermore Prussia (and Russia) had been utterly humiliated in the treaty of Tilsit (1807), in some ways harsher* than the 1871 treaty of Frankfurt (in 1807 Prussia lost half their territory and population and had to pay high indemnities).
It also is telling that in German the wars of the sixth coaltion are known as 'Befreiungskriege' (wars of Liberation).
Early on in the Napoleonic wars Austria had to share most of the burden, but in 1805 Austria had to sign the humiliating treaty of Pressburg (losing territories like Tyrol, Vorarlberg, Istria).

In both cases Austria and Prussia had to also give up core territories, so I'm not surprised at least some of them wanted to return the favour.

(*= Talleyrand wasn't in favour of such harsh terms)

As for Willem I maybe autocratic visionary is a bit more fair than megalomaniac. Amongst Dutch interested in this period, Willem I's ambitions are well known, though aren't judged as being realistic. ITTL without Prussia in the region and a Saxony, which isn't totally trusted, Willem I might get some more territories, though not necessarily the territories he wants.

As for Emsland, how about Bentheim or Bentheim-Lingen?
 
Last edited:
That's a major war in itself though. Perhaps the resulting peace could result in a partition of Belgium between the Netherlands and France as a compromise? Or is a Flemish/Walloon split a bit too early to consider at that point?

A partition is certainly possible, depending on the situation on the ground. That said, a Flemish Walloon split is unlikely. People didn't think that way in these days. Flemish speaking Brussels for example would be more likely to end up French than Dutch, since that's the place were the revolution started (it was just the elite that spoke French, but that was true everywhere even in the Netherlands). It would not surprise me if part of the Flemish coast would end up French too, for example and maybe some Walloon parts south of Limburg would end up Dutch, since they are closer to the Dutch border. It depends all on the situation on the ground. Personaly I think such a war would either end up with all of belgium becoming Dutch, or becoming French (possibly including the Netherlands up to the Rhineborder) or an indpendent Belgian country arises after all (very likely with different border than OTL) created as a peace compromise. Basicly if the Russians and French both get involved all bets are of. Actualy, I think this will end in negotiations before any of the fighting start.



As for Willem I maybe autocratic visionary is a bit more fair than megalomaniac. Amongst Dutch interested in this period, Willem I's ambitions are well known, though aren't judged as being realistic.
Megalomanic is maybe taking it a bit far, Willem I was the most competent of first three Dutch kings. Still I wouldn't call him a good king, just that the other two are worse.
As for Emsland, how about Bentheim or Bentheim-Lingen?
personaly I prefer Emsland, since most of it did not belong to either Bentheim and Lingen. It could have been named after a major city (like Antwerp was), but I don't think there was a major city that would dominate the provence.
 
Well in medieval times there also was a margraviate of Antwerp, which was connected to the ducal dignity of Lower Lorraine and later Brabant.

Not to mention the (smaller) burgraviate of Antwerp, which is still part of the titulature of the king of Netherlands (most in these in the capacity as the head of the house of Orange-Nassau).

Maybe you're right about Lingen, but most of Bentheim would be a part of TTL Netherlands. Furthermore most of the territory belonging to another state or province and/or being in the wrong location, wasn't an issue in the OTL kingdom of the United Netherlands, just look at (Belgian & Dutch) Limburg.
 
Furthermore most of the territory belonging to another state or province and/or being in the wrong location, wasn't an issue in the OTL kingdom of the United Netherlands, just look at (Belgian & Dutch) Limburg.
That's true. There are only three villages in both Limburgs that were actualy once part of the duchy of Limburg (and one of those villages wasn't even part of Limburg when the province was created, but only became part of Limburg in 1963).

Still i like the name Emsland better than Bentheim.
 
I am inclined towards Emsland as well, though Bentheim wouldn't be a bad name for the region either.


About Alsace; while ceding the whole region to Austria is probably out of the question, would ceding only Sundgau be a possibility? Add in Breisgau and compensate Baden with territory elsewhere, and it seems like it could be a relatively solid bastion of Austrian territory on the French border.
 
Top