France annexes Belgium in 1748

I doubt many British industrialists will be investing in factories in Belgium if it's under French control.
I think nearly all of them would put their wallets before their sense of patriotism. So I think the more pertinent question is, would the British Government allow British industrialist to invest in factories in Belgium if it is under French control? It would be trying to reconcile national security with free trade.
 
Precisely, annexation of the ANL is not enough for the Rhine border, you need a bug chunk of german lands in the Sarre, the Palatinate and some parts of Prussia Julich and ecclesiastical electorates.
Point taken. That's exactly what Revolutionary France did IOTL. Later on Napoleon incorporated the whole of the Dutch Republic into France, not just the part south of the Mass and Waal.

Furthermore the French annexed Savoy in 1792, Piedmont in 1802, Genoa in 1805 and Catalonia in 1812.
 
I think nearly all of them would put their wallets before their sense of patriotism. So I think the more pertinent question is, would the British Government allow British industrialist to invest in factories in Belgium if it is under French control? It would be trying to reconcile national security with free trade.

If the two nations are at peace, would the British government be willing to make that kind of move? That would seem provocative.
 
If the two nations are at peace, would the British government be willing to make that kind of move? That would seem provocative.
I think it would depend upon how seriously HMG took the threat.

Furthermore although the two nations were officially at peace relations might be less peaceful in the 19th Century than OTL. I don't know much about Anglo-French relations in this period, but I think there was at least one period when there was effectively a cold war between the UK and France.

It would also depend on the mood of the rest of Europe.

There is also British public opinion to consider. There will be a pro-free trade faction and an anti-French faction. Plus both factions might think preventing the investment in the French steel industry when both nations were officially at peace was a breach of civil liberties.
 
How much stronger economically would France be with all the Belgian coal? Would it be at the same level as Britain and Germany? Would there still be a united Germany at the same time as in OTL?
 
Last edited:
How much stronger economically would France be with all the Belgian coal? Would it be at the same level as Britain and Germany? Would there still be a united Germany at the same time as in OTL?
If there was a bigger France, with a stronger economy and a longer border with Germany I think there would be more unity between the German states between 1748 and 1870 but not necessarily earlier German unification. The French threat would be considered more important than Germany's internal differences like religion and Austria v. Prussia.
 
If there was a bigger France, with a stronger economy and a longer border with Germany I think there would be more unity between the German states between 1748 and 1870 but not necessarily earlier German unification. The French threat would be considered more important than Germany's internal differences like religion and Austria v. Prussia.
That's a big if. France had German states who were it's allies like Bavaria who see the Habsburgs as a bigger threat. You had the Prussian looking to expand into the empire. The austrian netherlands at the time was a poor region that Austria could not defend. It is the loss of Silesia that hurt Austria the most.
 
That's a big if. France had German states who were it's allies like Bavaria who see the Habsburgs as a bigger threat. You had the Prussian looking to expand into the empire. The austrian netherlands at the time was a poor region that Austria could not defend. It is the loss of Silesia that hurt Austria the most.
Immediately after the War of the Austrian Succession and (if events more or less proceed as OTL) to the French Revolution I can't argue with that because I don't know enough. However, after the Napoleonic Wars is a different matter.
 
How would the Dutch feel about having a common border with France? Would that push them closer to the German states? After the Napoleonic Wars would they join the German Confederation or at least the Zollverein?
 
Immediately after the War of the Austrian Succession and (if events more or less proceed as OTL) to the French Revolution I can't argue with that because I don't know enough. However, after the Napoleonic Wars is a different matter.
One thing if Louis XV keep the Austrian netherlands he would likely keep his popularity and the prestige of the monarchy. By this point there are a lot of buterfly.
 
A British politician said that, "A week is a long time in politics," and 1748 to 1789 is over half a century. Having said that if the history of France was close enough to OTL for the Revolution and rise of Napoleon to still happen, would France still have lost the Napoleonic Wars?

I think France would have still lost because the it conquered and absorbed the Austrian Netherlands into France almost immediately and they lost. The French might be even more successful in the early stages because they have larger standing armed forces and the starting line is further north, but in the long term they still don't have the resources to win.
 
One thing if Louis XV kept the Austrian Netherlands he would likely keep his popularity and the prestige of the monarchy. By this point there are a lot of butterflies.
I accept that a lot can go right between 1748 and 1789 but that's also half a century for a lot to go wrong.

AFAIK the debt France built up in the Seven Years and American Revolutionary Wars was the main cause of the French Revolution. Earlier in the thread we discussed the possibility that spreading the debt over a larger and richer France would reduce the burden sufficiently to prevent the Revolution.

OTOH I think the conclusion was that the French Government would use the extra money to maintain an even larger army and navy so that the National Debt would be just as big as a proportion of the nation's wealth as OTL, so the revolution would still happen.

Would a spectacular victory 51 years earlier prevent starving French peasants from revolting in 1789? Personally I think that would only help if Louis XV was still alive.
 
Some sort of French Revolution is still possible or maybe even likely, but the specific circumstances that led to Napoleon's rise are likely butterflied away with a POD this much earlier.
 
Some sort of French Revolution is still possible or maybe even likely, but the specific circumstances that led to Napoleon's rise are likely butterflied away with a POD this much earlier.
The leader might not have been Napoleon Bonaparte, but it has also been said that if Bonaparte had not been Bonaparte, Moreau would have been. In other words another obscure artillery officer would have risen to the occasion. France had a population of over 26.75 million in 1801, just within its present day OTL borders.
 

longsword14

Banned
The leader might not have been Napoleon Bonaparte, but it has also been said that if Bonaparte had not been Bonaparte, Moreau would have been. In other words another obscure artillery officer would have risen to the occasion. France had a population of over 26.75 million in 1801, just within its present day OTL borders.
It is not necessary that one person would have gone so far. A person rising prominence is possible but I doubt it would be anything like Napoleon (Moreau was not even close).
The Revolution might nt even go as far as it did in OTL.
 
It is not necessary that one person would have gone so far. A person rising prominence is possible but I doubt it would be anything like Napoleon (Moreau was not even close). The Revolution might not even go as far as it did in OTL.
I'm not saying that Moreau was and the book I took the quote from said he was a good soldier, but didn't have Napoleon's political and administrative abilities.

OTOH this revolution might go even further and the ALT Napoleon might have achieved even more. However, if he didn't go as far as Napoleon he might have remained in power longer and his empire might have lasted longer than Napoleon's empire therefore achieving more over the long term.

As Napoleon was from recently conquered Corsica, it would be fitting if the man that became leader of France ITTL came from the Austrian Netherlands or Luxembourg regardless of whether he went as far as Napoleon did or he was more or less successful than Napoleon.
 
It has been established that it's highly unlikely that Europe in general and France in particular would exist in a recognisable form in 1815, but if they did what would France be like in the remainder of the 19th Century?

So its 1816, Louis XVIII is on the restored throne and France has been reduced to its 1789 borders, but ITTL the 1789 borders included Belgium and Luxembourg.
 
Last edited:
Established by who? You are double posting and refusing everyone point to fit your view of France ignoring how much butterfly the addition of thoses region could create.
 
Established by who?
The people contributing to this thread.
You are double posting...
No I am not double posting because Post 197 is about what happens between 1789 and 1815. Post 198 is asking what happens after 1815.
...and refusing everyone point to fit your view of France ignoring how much butterfly the addition of thoses region could create.
Do you mean I am refusing everyone or I am refusing all the points? I am doing neither.
 
Top