France annexes Belgium in 1748

I think Holland would try to stay neutral or maybe even become an ally of France, if they would suddenly find themselves bordering France. France would easily invade and occupy their little country. France would likely annex Zeelandic Flanders too.
 
Last edited:
I think Holland would try to stay neutral or maybe even become an ally of France, if they would suddenly find themselves bordering France. France would easily invade and occupy their little country. France would likely annex Zeelandic Flanders too.
Louis XIV wasn't able to do it and that was with England as an ally.

OTOH Revolutionary France did successfully invade and set up the Batavian Republic in 1895, which Napoleon converted into the Kingdom of Holland in 1806 before incorporating it into France in 1810.

Edit 10/05/2017

The Batavia Republic was set up in 1795, not 1895.
 
Last edited:
Louis XIV wasn't able to do it and that was with England as an ally.

OTOH Revolutionary France did successfully invade and set up the Batavian Republic in 1895, which Napoleon converted into the Kingdom of Holland in 1806 before incorporating it into France in 1810.
Actually, Louis XIV could have done it, he simply was too ambitious in his war aims. Had he taken the Dutch peace offer, he would have ended up making the Austrian Netherlands completely indefensible and thus annexing them after two or three big wars.
 
Louis XIV wasn't able to do it and that was with England as an ally.

OTOH Revolutionary France did successfully invade and set up the Batavian Republic in 1895, which Napoleon converted into the Kingdom of Holland in 1806 before incorporating it into France in 1810.
The United provinces of 1748 are nothing alike those of 1688. It was the end of the second Stadtholderless period (1702-1747) during which the economy declined and the Netherlands lost their great power status. During the war of Austrian Succession, the Dutch lost all their battles against the French in the Low countries and were in a state of panic. Sure, France couldn't conquer them but Holland was in the midst of an internal revolution and would not be in any position to oppose a French "amicable" offer of alliance.
 
The United provinces of 1748 are nothing alike those of 1688. It was the end of the second Stadtholderless period (1702-1747) during which the economy declined and the Netherlands lost their great power status. During the war of Austrian Succession, the Dutch lost all their battles against the French in the Low countries and were in a state of panic. Sure, France couldn't conquer them but Holland was in the midst of an internal revolution and would not be in any position to oppose a French "amicable" offer of alliance.

The Dutch would have had allies that would have offset their relative weakness in 1745. There is no guarantee that France would be walking all over them because France did not have a great military record until Napoleon. Maurice de Saxe did do well for France in the Low Countries but it was offset by Austria doing well in Italy and he would have had to face Prussia as a likely enemy along with Austria and Britain.
 
The Dutch would have had allies that would have offset their relative weakness in 1745. There is no guarantee that France would be walking all over them because France did not have a great military record until Napoleon. Maurice de Saxe did do well for France in the Low Countries but it was offset by Austria doing well in Italy and he would have had to face Prussia as a likely enemy along with Austria and Britain.
France did not have a great military record? Then the RN was a handful of rowing boats filled with holes.
France is the country that fought the whole of Europe to a standstill fifty-ish years ago. That managed to get its pretender in the throne of Spain in the face of once again all of Europe against it. Louis XV's record may be less shiny, but it was still the major European land power. France is, and probably already was at the time, the country in the world with the highest amount of won wars.
Of course, it could not defeat all of Europe again, but England and Austria plus the Dutch against France, Prussia and Russia - the likely alliance, due to Russia being Francophile and Prussophile, at least a little, and Prussia not having the likely blowback from peaking out early having stopped France for getting its pound of flesh - would be by far a French victory.
 
France did not have a great military record? Then the RN was a handful of rowing boats filled with holes.
France is the country that fought the whole of Europe to a standstill fifty-ish years ago. That managed to get its pretender in the throne of Spain in the face of once again all of Europe against it. Louis XV's record may be less shiny, but it was still the major European land power. France is, and probably already was at the time, the country in the world with the highest amount of won wars.
Of course, it could not defeat all of Europe again, but England and Austria plus the Dutch against France, Prussia and Russia - the likely alliance, due to Russia being Francophile and Prussophile, at least a little, and Prussia not having the likely blowback from peaking out early having stopped France for getting its pound of flesh - would be by far a French victory.

France was only the European superpower during the days of Louis XIV because of its much larger population relative to Europe. But militarily-speaking, it didn't do much during those days: France and England together couldn't even defeat pipsqueak Netherlands decisively. France barely survived the War of Spanish Succession because its huge manpower eventually wore down the Allies but the war left France severely weakened such that the Hasburgs and Russia became stronger. France then regained superpower status only after Napoleon.

Why would Prussia or Russia join France in this case if France threatens to annex the Netherlands?
 

longsword14

Banned
@Mike
What are you on about? The Dutch army was not capable of dishing it with Louis XIV's army.
When we compare things to Napoleon's extent then they do seem small but monarchs did not go around annexing territory willy-nilly. England's contribution on land has always been very little.
Turenne had gone past the water line, the Dutch were in trouble.

Louis XV (the Useless as I like to call him) had quite a long rein during which things varied a lot.
Getting Belgium is not a problem, France managed to take it all despite their mismanagement of the army. The only one eho cared about it for a rematch, England, was incapable of taking unilateral action.
Giving it back was silly.
 
@Mike
What are you on about? The Dutch army was not capable of dishing it with Louis XIV's army.
When we compare things to Napoleon's extent then they do seem small but monarchs did not go around annexing territory willy-nilly. England's contribution on land has always been very little.
Turenne had gone past the water line, the Dutch were in trouble.

Then why weren't the Dutch defeated? The far smaller Dutch held out long enough against the powerful French and English, long enough for an anti-French coalition to form and push back the French. The same situation would have occurred if the French tried to annex the Netherlands in 1745: a coalition would have formed against them which would have been disastrous for the French because they were much weaker at the time than in the days of Louis XIV.

@MikeLouis XV (the Useless as I like to call him) had quite a long rein during which things varied a lot.
Getting Belgium is not a problem, France managed to take it all despite their mismanagement of the army. The only one eho cared about it for a rematch, England, was incapable of taking unilateral action.
Giving it back was silly.

As I have said, de Saxe's victories for France in the Low Countries was offset by Austria's victories in Italy, so Louis XV gave up the Austrian Netherlands in exchange for Austria to give up Italy. Louis XV also wanted peace because he knew that France could not continue the war without drowning in debt after already fighting for several years. Britain would have continued fighting to ensure that France does not get the Austrian Netherlands and they would have organized another coalition against France.

Britain also had a misreading of France at the time; they overestimated French power. If Britain had realized that France's financial structure was very inefficient compared to Britain's and as a consequence could not have sustained a long war, they would have continued fighting France for another 5 years and possibly gotten French colonies earlier.

Louis XV was a bad leader for France not because he gave up the Austrian Netherlands, but because he learned nothing from the war and did nothing to reform France's finances and navy in order to fight Britain when the next war came along that both Britain and France knew was inevitable. Britain, by contrast, learned from the war and reformed their navy, which performed poorly against Spain, in preparation for the next war, the productive SYW for Britain and disastrous for France.
 
@Mike
What are you on about? The Dutch army was not capable of dishing it with Louis XIV's army.
When we compare things to Napoleon's extent then they do seem small but monarchs did not go around annexing territory willy-nilly. England's contribution on land has always been very little.
Turenne had gone past the water line, the Dutch were in trouble.

Louis XV (the Useless as I like to call him) had quite a long rein during which things varied a lot.
Getting Belgium is not a problem, France managed to take it all despite their mismanagement of the army. The only one eho cared about it for a rematch, England, was incapable of taking unilateral action.
Giving it back was silly.
The Dutch were in trouble, but Turenne had emphatically not passed the Water line. Exact reasons (it being a defensive line, France not being promised Holland anyway so Turenne not wanting to risk it, ...) are unknown, but Holland remained free for the duration of that war.
 
The Dutch were in trouble, but Turenne had emphatically not passed the Water line. Exact reasons (it being a defensive line, France not being promised Holland anyway so Turenne not wanting to risk it, ...) are unknown, but Holland remained free for the duration of that war.

Louis XIV halted his armies in 1672, for hopes of a peace settlement ; Turenne was not stopped militarily or by the Water line (which was brought in action after the pause of the french advance).
 

longsword14

Banned
@Mike
I called Louis XV the Useless not because of one particular action but because of several others combined with his habits.
No war happened in a vacuum so France did not face one enemy at a time plus Louis XIV was in for a negotiated settlement. As usual England did not have much to do with the land forces.
 
I don't know why some people here think it was easy to form a coalition against France, just so she wont get the AN. Even the Austrians probably didn't care. France was already the continental hegemon since 1659, with the treaty of the Pyrenees, which followed their great victory over Spain, which had been the hegemonic European power up until that point.
 
I don't know why some people here think it was easy to form a coalition against France, just so she wont get the AN. Even the Austrians probably didn't care. France was already the continental hegemon since 1659, with the treaty of the Pyrenees, which followed their great victory over Spain, which had been the hegemonic European power up until that point.
I think it's a yes and no situation.

It's not on the scale of Louis XIV scheme to unite the French and Spanish crowns under a Bourbon prince, but the population and wealth of the Austrian Netherlands do make France more powerful and for some people that might be a reason to continue the War of the Austrian Succession.

OTOH the nations fighting the war must have wanted to end it in 1748 or they wouldn't be negotiating a peace treaty. Plus France is in physical possession of the Austrian Netherlands and according to a British proverb, possession is nine tenths of the law. Plus IIRC it has been said that the French were exhausted financially by the war, but what was the financial state of France's enemies? Do they have the money to fight on even if they wanted to?

So the question is if the French negotiating team insists that their price for peace is everything they got IOTL plus the Austrian Netherlands will the other side be prepared to pay it? I suspect that they will have to give up something else to keep it, which I think has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Or you're going to have the French do even better in the war so that they are in a stronger negotiating position.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of France annexing what becomes Belgium and Luxembourg because of what it would have done for France in the 19th and 20th Centuries. However, doing it in 1748 seems to create too many butterflies. Therefore is it possible for the Southern Netherlands to be kept by France after the Napoleonic Wars?
 
I find the talks of a coalition funny because if there's gonna be a coalition against France for conquering Belgium,it's mostly just the same countries that France has just defeated.
 
Last edited:
Would a bigger and stronger France, that does better against Prussia in 1870, take part in the Russo-Turkish war, on the side of the Russians and the Balkan states? Napoleon III was a champion of the rights of nationalities. What if he sent an expeditionary force to Greece and started military operations against the Turks? They could also get the Lebannon as a protectorate or colony.
 
Would a bigger and stronger France, that does better against Prussia in 1870, take part in the Russo-Turkish war, on the side of the Russians and the Balkan states? Napoleon III was a champion of the rights of nationalities. What if he sent an expeditionary force to Greece and started military operations against the Turks? They could also get the Lebannon as a protectorate or colony.

The annexation of the Netherlands in 1748 butterflied away most of the French and European history of the late 18th and 19th c., so there is no chance you could have a Napoléon III reigning over "Greater France" or a Franco-Prussian war in 1870. Another war with a german state, probably, but an offensive against Turkey, when alliance is a long-term french policy ? I think not.
 
Well Britain and France joined Russia in war against Turkey, to free Greece. They united their navies and crushed the Turkish one at Navarino.
 
Top