Feedback on: What if the Belgian Revolution never happened

This is my script for a video regarding this scenario and I want to know what else I should add. This is getting a bit long as is for my videos since they just take a while for me to edit and I try to keep them simple and to the point, but this is slowly starting to expand into something different (I'm half tempted to make a whole separate video regarding the Congo) What are your thoughts? I've gone looked around the archives and read through a few threads but I'd prefer to get solid feedback on how I can make this better.


The Netherlands since it's independence went from a major European power to a mere shell all within two hundred years. It once boasted a navy that threatened the English, and a land army that threatened France, with a colonial empire spanning the world. But as happens with all empires, they fall and new ones rise. However, after the Napoleonic wars, the Netherlands had a chance to stay a dominate power even until the modern day. This would have been done with present day Belgium, otherwise known as the southern Netherlands that were given to the Dutch crown in the congress of Venice. This new united Netherlands wouldn't last long however, the lands currently known as Belgium declared and won their independence during the revolutionary fever of 1830. But that sparks the question, what would happen if Belgium lost their revolution? And stayed an integral part of the united Netherlands? But before I can go into detail, we need some history.


The Belgian Revolution had many causes; the main causes were the domination of the Dutch over the economic, political, and social institutions of the kingdom (although at that time the Belgian population was larger than the Dutch). Catholic bishops in the south viewed the Protestant-majority north with suspicion, and had been forbidden from working in the new government. The more numerous Northern provinces represented a majority in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands Lower Assembly, and therefore the more populous Southerners felt significantly under-represented. Hearing of the revolution that occurred in France that July, a general uprising in Brussels took place on August the 25th, King William sent eight thousand men to re-take Brussels, and after that failed, the rest of the Southern Provinces joined the rebellion. Independence was soon proclaimed, and the London Conference of 1830 confirmed it. But King William wasn't satisfied with the outcome so he ordered the Dutch army to invade Belgium on August the second the following year, and over the course of the next few days defeated Belgian forces several times in battle and advanced deep into Belgian territory. However, on August the eighth, the Belgian government appealed to France for support. Faced with an advancing French army, the Dutch withdrew and no further attempts to re-take Belgium were made.


So what if the Belgium revolution failed? For this scenario I am going to go on the basis that the Dutch Army is able to quell the rioters in Brussels within just a few days, and a wider revolution doesn't occur. But the Kingdom would also be particularly vulnerable in the near future. The upheavals of 1848 would almost certainly affect them as would the resulting French 2nd Republic and 2nd Empire, both of whom were interested in the idea of France's "Natural Borders" which assumed an annexation of Belgium. Napoleon III might be especially interested given his constant homage to his famous namesake. Europe was hit with two main revolution waves in the 19th century. The first in 1830, and the second in 1848. In OTL, the Netherlands weren't hit with the revolution during 1848, but Belgium was, King William had altered the Dutch constitution to reform the elections and reduce the power that the monarchy held. Something that would need to occur in TTL during 1830, along with other social and political reforms, to give the southerners a greater voice within the assembly. Assuming that Belgium doesn't ever gain it's independence. Massive changes would occur. One major change would be how Germany would be formed. The most important factor a unified Netherlands would have on the unification process of Germany is Luxemburg. Luxemburg was part of the German confederation and had been garrisoned by thousands of Prussian troops since the Congress of Vienna that ended the Napoleonic Wars. When Napoleon the third tried to buy Luxemburg in 1867, Prussia threatened war. The Netherlands would have wanted to integrate Luxemburg fully into the Netherlands just like it did with Limburg since the Belgian markets would still be thriving within Luxembourg. If we assume equal rights for Walloons which would need to occur for a united Netherlands to prevail, I am certain the people of Luxemburg would want that as well and I don't see anyone objecting, they were relatively satisfied with the Dutch rule. The question is then arises, would Germany or Prussia accept such a act? When Denmark tried to do something similar with Schleswick, it did not, and Prussia was able to incorporate Schleswick and Holstein following a short war. The problem is that attacking the Netherlands would have certainly driving the Netherlands into the hands of the French, creating another obstacle in the path of unification. The Netherlands had always been friendly towards Prussia, and Prussia wouldn't want to anger the other nations that had good ties with the Dutch, such as the Russians and the English. The key to Unification was to have France be isolated in the diplomatic sense, which was achieved through careful diplomacy and Napoleon the third, being very aggressive with his foreign policy.


On a colonial note this would have a rather large effect, The Congo was only acquired by Leopold of Belgium because of his scheming. He convinced the various European powers that the Congo would be open to traders and missionaries from all countries, and played all of them off of each other. He also convinced missionaries, explorers, and human rights advocates that he would end the slave trade and bring "civilization" to the Congo. It was also used much like a buffer between British and French colonial zones. While this likely would have meant that the Congo as a whole would be heavily divided but the populace and land would have almost certainly been less abused. The lack of a neutral border could have easily created colonial skirmishes that would have soured relations back in Europe. During the Berlin Conference, the Congo region was given to the Belgians as a way to keep the area from becoming a point of contention, if you are to remove that then you would likely see the region carved up between the French, British, and Portuguese, with the French getting the provinces of Kasia, and Bandundu, The British gaining Katanga, while the remaining northern provinces would be split between France, Britain, and Portugal. Having a division like this would likely create more situations much like the Fashoda incident that occurred in 1898.
 
The Netherlands since it's independence went from a major European power to a mere shell all within two hundred years. It once boasted a navy that threatened the English, and a land army that threatened France,

When did its land army threaten France? I think it was more the other way around.
 
When did its land army threaten France? I think it was more the other way around.

It was for the most part. For some reason I was thinking of the Netherlands still under Spanish rule and the problems that France had with the army stationed.
 
A kingdom of the United Netherlands, IMHO would be one tier below the European Great Powers (United Kingdom, France etc.), still more influential than many other European countries.

However even though Protestants had dominated the North since the days of the Republic, in many areas the Catholics were the largest Christian group (the Protestants were divided in smaller groups). OTOH Catholic emancipation only started in 1795 (Batavian Republic) and IOTL lasted until about 1960.
Also a lot of the Economic efforts Willem I did in fact greatly benefit the South economically. He greatly supported industrialization, the digging of canals, the South now had access to the Dutch colonies etc.

The kingdom of the United Netherlands had the following provinces: Antwerpen (B*), Drenthe (NL*), Friesland (NL), Gelderland (NL), Groningen (NL), Hainaut (B), Holland (NL), Limburg (B/NL), Liège (B), Namur (B), Noord Brabant (NL), Oost Vlaanderen (B), Overijssel (NL), Zuid Brabant/Brabant-Méridional (B), Utrecht (NL), West Vlaanderen (B), Zeeland (NL). (*= the division after the OTL Belgian Revolt). This leaves 7.5 'Belgian' versus 9.5 'Dutch' provinces, however Limburg and North Brabant, though Dutch or partially Dutch both had a Catholic majority, however they had been Generality Lands of the Dutch Republic of the 7 United Netherlands and weren't a part of the Spanish and later Austrian Netherlands (like Liège BTW).
IMHO balancing the North and South will be delicate, improving the representation based on population should be balanced by something to prevent the North from feeling threatened by the large Catholic majority in the South. For instance the Second Chamber of the Estates General (house of Commons/Representatives) should be more population based after a reform (better for the South), but the First Chamber of the Estates General (Senate) should favour the provinces after the reform (better for the North). Neither North nor South should be able to dominate the other.

The Netherlands, especially the house of Orange-Nassau, which was closely related with the Prussian house of Hohenzollern, did indeed have good relations with Prussia. Integrating Luxemburg could be price the United Netherlands asks for the unification of Germany, however de facto Luxemburg would probably have already been integrated in the United Netherlands by that point.

By a 15th century treaty Schleswig and Holstein were to remain united; however another component here were the populations, Holstein was mostly German and Schleswig was part Danish and part German.

As for colonial ventures, I don't see the United Netherlands being interested in the Congo, though they might keep the possessions in the Gold Coast (Ghana) and expand from there. It will never gain the same priority as the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) though.
 
Last edited:
IMHO balancing the North and South will be delicate, improving the representation based on population should be balanced by something to prevent the North from feeling threatened by the large Catholic majority in the South. For instance the Second Chamber of the Estates General (house of Commons/Representatives) should be more population based after a reform (better for the South), but the First Chamber of the Estates General (Senate) should favour the provinces after the reform (better for the North). Neither North nor South should be able to dominate the other.
That is true, the way to get to that point exists but it is dependent on the existing monarchy to actually implement that which may or may not happen. Especially after a revolt of the provinces.

As for colonial ventures, I don't see the United Netherlands being interested in the Congo, though they might keep the possessions in the Gold Coast (Ghana) and expand from there. It will never gain the same priority as the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) though.
Oh I agree, I didn't really see the Netherlands investing too much in Africa unless it was produced by a war reparation or something along that line. I was more trying to figure out how the other colonial empires would fair mainly in the Congo region. I could go into alot more detail about it but I'm more then likely going to make that whole thing a separate video in itself.

Does anything need to be added or changed? (it's my script for the video) I could pretty much leave it as is but I'm not sure if that's a great point to stop is all, I didn't want to talk about WW1 just because of the changes in Europe mainly.
 
Top