France annexes Belgium in 1748

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.

Although Antwerp had then been ruined, the austrian Netherlands were all but poor. Brabant and Flanders were and had been one of the richest and economically most advanced areas of Europe since the middle ages (since the urban revolution of the 11th century).
 
The only way Napoleon gets butterflied away is if Corsica is not annexed anymore or if somehow there is no French Revolution. I doubt there would not be a French Revolution.
 
The only way Napoleon gets butterflied away is if Corsica is not annexed anymore or if somehow there is no French Revolution. I doubt there would not be a French Revolution.
There's nothing inevitable about the specific sequence of political events that lead to a Napoleonic takeover, not even if a revolution is guaranteed.
 
There's nothing inevitable about the specific sequence of political events that lead to a Napoleonic takeover, not even if a revolution is guaranteed.

Agreed.

A revolution was all but guaranteed. Only hindsight to such a degree that it turns into anachronism has accredited the idea that the french revolution was unavoidable.

The course of events was in fact extremely contingent.

The most decisive factor was the personnality of Louis XVI.

Even the hike in the literacy rate, the conjonctural poor harvests, the archaism of the french fiscal system, were not decisive.

Had the king ordered to use force soon enough and the revolutionary process would have been nipped in the bud the same way as the french Directorate, although extremely corrupt and unpopular, nipped in the bud the royalist attempted uprising in 1795 thanks to young general ... Bonaparte who just used guns against the crowd in the streets of Paris.

France annexing the austrian Nethetlands in 1748 does however not necessarily butterfly away the french revolution. There was a revolutionary movement in the austrian Netherlands that echoed the french one at the same time.

For France to avoid the risk of Revolution for sure, what France needs is a big milkcow. And in the second half of the 18th century, this big milkcow was India.

A decently good french king won't have the structural fiscal crisis of the french monarchy but he may succeed in hangling it.

Any king, french or not, that has control of a large part of India will have the money to avoid the ginancial crisis that led to the revolutionary pressure.

Remember that Clive and the english EIC did just copycat the strategy that had been devised by Dupleix for the french EIC some 15 years earlier.

Next to Louis XVI's personality and incompetence, the most decisive factor in french history and Revolution probably was the decision of the french government to oust Dupleix from the french EIC in 1754.

It was also decisive for all the western civilization.
 
About the Revolution thing, I think we are chasing the wrong butterfly. It is not Louis XVI's personality which matters, it is Louis XV's. If ITTL, Louis XV is capable of doing such potent move as annexing the ANL, he surely would have the same nerve in internal policy. Right or wrong, reforms would come with major changes in the French society. Going parliamentary monarch or enlightened despot, either way the precise set of conditions of the OTL French Revolution would be butterflied away.
 
About the Revolution thing, I think we are chasing the wrong butterfly. It is not Louis XVI's personality which matters, it is Louis XV's. If ITTL, Louis XV is capable of doing such potent move as annexing the ANL, he surely would have the same nerve in internal policy. Right or wrong, reforms would come with major changes in the French society. Going parliamentary monarch or enlightened despot, either way the precise set of conditions of the OTL French Revolution would be butterflied away.

I kind of disagree.

Louis XV, contrary to Louis XVI, was a capable leader. The fact that he became very unpopular after the war of austrian succession because not annexing the austrian Netherlands was perceived as spilling the people's blood in vain did not prevent him from making strong decisions. In the last 3 years of his reign, he finally made strong decisions on the home front : the Maupeou revolution that created a modern Justice and took It away from the nobility. It was Louis XVI who, when he became king, naively cancelled Maupeou's reforms. This was Louis XVI's doom.

Louis XV could perform the job of king bi hard times if only he decided he wanted to act. He could stick to a coherent policy in the long run.
Louis XV was able to make tough decisions, be they right or wrong. And he indeed made too many wrong decisions or too often failed to make good decisions.

Louis XVI could not and was unable to to stick to a coherent policy in the long run. Louis XVI was unable to make tough decisions, be they right or wrong.
 
This makes me wonder if France could ever control the Netherlands and/or the Rhine region in the long-term.

Concerning the austrian Netherlands there is no doubt. France would have assimilated what was to become (more or less) Belgium as easily as It assimilated what is the french part of middle ages Flanders, and more easily than It assimilated Alsace.

For the rest of Rhineland, which was germanic by culture and language, It would have been a far longer process that could not be finished before the second half of the 19th century. It takes 3 generations to make such changes in culture/identity of such a number of people that lived in Rhineland.
 
I kind of disagree.

Louis XV, contrary to Louis XVI, was a capable leader. The fact that he became very unpopular after the war of austrian succession because not annexing the austrian Netherlands was perceived as spilling the people's blood in vain did not prevent him from making strong decisions. In the last 3 years of his reign, he finally made strong decisions on the home front : the Maupeou revolution that created a modern Justice and took It away from the nobility. It was Louis XVI who, when he became king, naively cancelled Maupeou's reforms. This was Louis XVI's doom.

Louis XV could perform the job of king bi hard times if only he decided he wanted to act. He could stick to a coherent policy in the long run.
Louis XV was able to make tough decisions, be they right or wrong. And he indeed made too many wrong decisions or too often failed to make good decisions.

Louis XVI could not and was unable to to stick to a coherent policy in the long run. Louis XVI was unable to make tough decisions, be they right or wrong.

I globally agree to your point, especially the inability of Louis XVI to pretty much everything concerning ruling, but I think Louis XV had to many changes of mind and was often afraid of antagonizing the elites. He had a reign of 58 years, but the Maupeou reforms came after 40 years of back-and-forth. In the scope of the thread, had Louis XV strongly backed Machault in 1749 and extended the fiscal system to the nobles and the clergy, he probably would have butterflied away one of the main reasons of the Revolution's opening act. Given the "second estate" (the nobility) likely opposition, extending a hand to the new bourgeoisie a la Philip Augustus could be a wise move, with a Louis XV with an iron will. Perhaps we could bring up a PoD about the early death of madame de Pompadour in 1746 or 1747, with the king blaming the court nobility's smear campaign for it.
 
I globally agree to your point, especially the inability of Louis XVI to pretty much everything concerning ruling, but I think Louis XV had to many changes of mind and was often afraid of antagonizing the elites. He had a reign of 58 years, but the Maupeou reforms came after 40 years of back-and-forth. In the scope of the thread, had Louis XV strongly backed Machault in 1749 and extended the fiscal system to the nobles and the clergy, he probably would have butterflied away one of the main reasons of the Revolution's opening act. Given the "second estate" (the nobility) likely opposition, extending a hand to the new bourgeoisie a la Philip Augustus could be a wise move, with a Louis XV with an iron will. Perhaps we could bring up a PoD about the early death of madame de Pompadour in 1746 or 1747, with the king blaming the court nobility's smear campaign for it.

I totally agree. Maupeou was very late, although not too late. It was Louis XVI's stupid faults to cancel the courts' reform in order to please the nobility that anyway intended to oppose royal power. Machault in 1749 should have been the right moment. Louis XV would have remained highly popular if he had concluded a glorious peace by annexing the austrian Netherlands, which would have helped implementing the reforms.
 
I think I remember in this thread being said that France Anschlussing Belgium might put the Dutch on high alert.

Say... How likely is for them to end up on a protectorate of the Prussians or British/Hannoverians as a result from that?
 
I think I remember in this thread being said that France Anschlussing Belgium might put the Dutch on high alert.

Say... How likely is for them to end up on a protectorate of the Prussians or British/Hannoverians as a result from that?
Well, given the Netherlands effectively became a Prussian protectorate over various internal issues (the Patriot rising) I'd say odds are pretty good, though I think the 1740's are still a bit too early (the rot isn't quite as far along).
 
Well, given the Netherlands effectively became a Prussian protectorate over various internal issues (the Patriot rising) I'd say odds are pretty good, though I think the 1740's are still a bit too early (the rot isn't quite as far along).
I see.

Another poster said it could be possible that in time, a stronger France could push the Dutch into an alternate German Confederation just to protect themselves from French aggression. How likely would that be?

In fact... would Switzerland feel threatened, too?
 
What would a strong France do when the Bulgarians and Serbs rise up against the Ottomans in the 1870s? Would France participate in the war against Turkey, as an ally of Russia? Would Britain join them too? France under Napoleon III championed the principle of self determination of nationalities.
 
What would a strong France do when the Bulgarians and Serbs rise up against the Ottomans in the 1870s? Would France participate in the war against Turkey, as an ally of Russia? Would Britain join them too? France under Napoleon III championed the principle of self determination of nationalities.
I believe that this revolt, these alliances, and Napoleon III will all be butterflied away
 
That is OTL.
You'd need :
1-These nationalities to be under Ottoman rule
2-Ottoman rule to be harsh (or at least unfair) on these nationalities
3-A trend in nationalistic ideals
4-A spark to start these revolts at that moment.

And probably a lot more conditions I'm not even considering.
There are so many butterflies in 100 years, it's impossible to tell what could happen and if these conditions would be met.
 
This makes me wonder if France could ever control the Netherlands and/or the Rhine region in the long-term.
In addition to what Matteo wrote in Post 208 they managed to do so with no problems that I know of for 20 years during the Napoleonic Wars.

I hear the tapping of keyboards quoting all the problems the French did have in the Netherlands and/or Rhine region between about 1795 and 1815.
 
I think I remember in this thread being said that France Anschlussing Belgium might put the Dutch on high alert.

Say... How likely is for them to end up on a protectorate of the Prussians or British/Hannoverians as a result from that?
The English/British had an alliance with the United Provinces anyway. It began with William of Orange becoming King of the British Isles in the Glorious Revolution which lasted through the War of the Spanish Succession and AFAIK continued until the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War broke out in 1780.

I don't know very much about the history of the Dutch Republic in the second half of the 18th Century, but if they were that afraid of the French they might try to elect the King of Great Britain, Ireland and Hannover as Statholder as an act of defiance against Louis XV and to strengthen relations with their allies. It would also help if the male members of the House of Orange could have X.P.D.s (expedient demises) and the first female in line to be married off to Frederick Prince of Wales. Or to make it simpler do we know if Sophie of Hannover had any Orange blood in her?

King George II in his capacity of King of Hannover might be very keen on the idea. However, I'm not sure that the British Political Nation would want that to happen. AFAIK the British Political Nation already though the connection with Hannover was more trouble than it was worth and adding the Dutch Republic would make it a lot more trouble than it was worth.

When I suggested it I was thinking in terms of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars still happening and the French still loosing, but being allowed to keep what is now Belgium and Luxembourg because they were French territory before 1789 ITTL. However, as that means the Kingdom of the United Netherlands can't be created the former Dutch Republic is annexed by Hannover to balance the bigger France, with all the Dutch colonies being transferred to the UK.
 
Top