DBWI The Netherlands divided after Belgian Revolt

1830 was a year with much revolts and uprisings in Europe one of them was the Belgian Revolt but is was quickly repressed by King Willem I with help from Prussia and Russia,what if Willem didn't have the support of them could the Southern Netherlands create an independent state and what would it be a Kingdom or Republic?Anu suggestions ?
 
1830 was a year with much revolts and uprisings in Europe one of them was the Belgian Revolt but is was quickly repressed by King Willem I with help from Prussia and Russia,what if Willem didn't have the support of them could the Southern Netherlands create an independent state and what would it be a Kingdom or Republic?Anu suggestions ?
I find it highly unlikely that Flanders would join.
A Walloon state, despite how industrialized it would have been by contemporary standards, probably cannot maintain its independence long-term, de facto at any rate. It is simply too small and not populous enough.
Either it falls victim to Dutch revanchism, or it becomes a satellite of a larger power.
It can only hope that its suzerain is committed to continued Walloon independence and relatively benign.
 
So the French/Walloon section gets mated with what, half to a third of an equal area of Dutch/Flemish nationality? I suppose the corridor for their Luxembourg holding would go to Germany as a result? Making three nationalities that do not like each other very much mashed together under either a king that belongs to none of them (Another Hapsburg or such with a crown! Yay!) or a glorious republic that may or may not survive the year. Maybe, *just maybe*, a military dictatorship could pull it off...for a few years, tops.
 
I find it highly unlikely that Flanders would join.
A Walloon state, despite how industrialized it would have been by contemporary standards, probably cannot maintain its independence long-term, de facto at any rate. It is simply too small and not populous enough.
Either it falls victim to Dutch revanchism, or it becomes a satellite of a larger power.
It can only hope that its suzerain is committed to continued Walloon independence and relatively benign.

Well, it's not that small - I mean there are smaller European states that have done well, like Gotland and Aosta.
 
Well, it's not that small - I mean there are smaller European states that have done well, like Gotland and Aosta.
An island and a small, high mountain valley, respectively.

In the case of Wallonia, we'd have a flat, densely populated (but not that well-populated in absolute terms), practically indefensible territory in a strategically important part of the low countries.

Given that the German Union or its ATL counterpart is unlikely to fully coalesce until the late 19th century, and that France will quite probably seek to incorporate Wallonia within its own patrimony, never mind continuing Dutch revanchism, Britain, a commercial rival, is its only hope.
 
Well, it's not that small - I mean there are smaller European states that have done well, like Gotland and Aosta.

The Duchy of Aosta is rich now, but back when it was created it was nothing but a glorified place of exile for the Savoia-Aosta branch of the House of Savoy, similarly to how the main branch of the family was "granted" the Duchy of Savoy. And neither states would even exist if not for the civil war between monarchists and republicans that followed the 1848 revolutions in Italy... the revolutions achieved their goal of a democratic, united Italy only because Austria was dealing with even worse shit at home - hell, most of the republican leaders loathed each other, too.
 
The Duchy of Aosta is rich now, but back when it was created it was nothing but a glorified place of exile for the Savoia-Aosta branch of the House of Savoy, similarly to how the main branch of the family was "granted" the Duchy of Savoy. And neither states would even exist if not for the civil war between monarchists and republicans that followed the 1848 revolutions in Italy... the revolutions achieved their goal of a democratic, united Italy only because Austria was dealing with even worse shit at home - hell, most of the republican leaders loathed each other, too.

The Austrian Civil War was such an incredible stroke of luck for the Italians—and for the Germans, for that matter, since it helped them begin to coalesce too.
 
The Austrian Civil War was such an incredible stroke of luck for the Italians—and for the Germans, for that matter, since it helped them begin to coalesce too.

"Stroke of luck" is putting it mildly; Giuseppe Garibaldi in particular was single-handedly responsible for some of the most insane decisions ever taken during the whole revolutionary period, such as the whole business surrounding the Battle of Preßburg - who else but Garibaldi would ever think about sending, while fighting a civil war, a whole regiment to Hungary, led by his wife of all people because he didn't trust anyone else to carry out his borderline suicidal orders?

Anyway, if Belgium had been able to secede back then, it's very likely that Luxembourg wouldn't have been absorbed into the Netherlands later on, and the Dutch colonial empire would've surely been smaller as well.
 
It would have to be a Kingdom. This is 15 years after Napoleon, anti-republicanism was at a high. Even the Greeks, inventors of republicanism, got a King for their new country.

That said, it would probably be two separate kingdoms, a British-aligned Flemish Kingdom and a French-aligned Waloon Kingdom. Luxembourg would probably be a Prussian-French condominium until the National Wars, where it could end up in the Second Republic or the German Union. I can see the Waloon Kingdom getting annexed by the Second Republic during the National Wars, too. It's what happened to Monaco and Neuchatel.
 
Top