CaliGuy
Banned
Up to the Rhine, perhaps?How big would France get in the long term, realistically speaking?
Up to the Rhine, perhaps?How big would France get in the long term, realistically speaking?
1805, no?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.
I've got a question--if France conquers the Austrian Netherlands in 1748, could this make Britain more willing to fight France to oppose a French purchase of Corsica in the late 1760s?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.
Well Britain and France joined Russia in war against Turkey, to free Greece. They united their navies and crushed the Turkish one at Navarino.
I've got a question--if France conquers the Austrian Netherlands in 1748, could this make Britain more willing to fight France to oppose a French purchase of Corsica in the late 1760s?
Not only that annexing the AN would have reduced the French frontier with the HRE and allowed it to gain the strategic fortress's in Luxembourg and Brabant thus strengthening France by 1.getting a very rich lands that have a near captive market, 2. taking some of the best fortifications in the world and using it to their advantage, and 3. these fortresses no longer block the French in any future war in the HRE, thus they can march on austria faster than before, thus their ability power project means that either their European rivals have to use more of their treasury in their defense budget thus the Brits keep more of their regulars at home or ally themselves with the french, thus giving the french a free hand to build a fleet based at Antwerp as you've said which they can use against the British.Not more and maybe less.
Louis XV made an enormous countersense when he decided not to annex the austrian Netherlands. He thought It would antagonize Britain and trigger an other war soon.
The austrian Netherlands were not the truest cause for Britain going to war against France. Britain just wanted to fight and weaken any strategic and economic rival. And France was such a rival until 1815. The best proof is that Louis XV's proposed peace terms in 1748 were perceived as a miracle in Britain : Britain had never hoped getting such miraculously favorable terms. It did not make the mistake to misread the new balance of powers. France calme out weakened of the austrian succession war because it had let an historic opportunity slip from its hands and because it was diplomatically isolated.
And Britain almost immediately seized its opportunity to strike the deadliest of blows on France. It started the 7 years war in fact as early as in 1754 in the colonies, that is 6 years after the treaty of Aachen. And It destroyed the french first colonial empire, enabling anglo-saxon America to turn from a coastal strip to a continental entity and turning India into its milkcow.
I think that if Louis XV had annexed the austrian Netherlands in 1748, France could have started turning Antwerp into the big natural harbour It lacked and this would have incented Britain to project less power overseas in order to be prepared to face à bigger threat on the european continent.
Question--if France would have turned Antwerp into a big natural harbor, couldn't this have caused Britain to invest more money in its Navy in order to counter the growing French naval threat? After all, developments at sea were much more important to Britain's security than developments on land were.Not more and maybe less.
Louis XV made an enormous countersense when he decided not to annex the austrian Netherlands. He thought It would antagonize Britain and trigger an other war soon.
The austrian Netherlands were not the truest cause for Britain going to war against France. Britain just wanted to fight and weaken any strategic and economic rival. And France was such a rival until 1815. The best proof is that Louis XV's proposed peace terms in 1748 were perceived as a miracle in Britain : Britain had never hoped getting such miraculously favorable terms. It did not make the mistake to misread the new balance of powers. France calme out weakened of the austrian succession war because it had let an historic opportunity slip from its hands and because it was diplomatically isolated.
And Britain almost immediately seized its opportunity to strike the deadliest of blows on France. It started the 7 years war in fact as early as in 1754 in the colonies, that is 6 years after the treaty of Aachen. And It destroyed the french first colonial empire, enabling anglo-saxon America to turn from a coastal strip to a continental entity and turning India into its milkcow.
I think that if Louis XV had annexed the austrian Netherlands in 1748, France could have started turning Antwerp into the big natural harbour It lacked and this would have incented Britain to project less power overseas in order to be prepared to face à bigger threat on the european continent.
Question--if France would have turned Antwerp into a big natural harbor, couldn't this have caused Britain to invest more money in its Navy in order to counter the growing French naval threat? After all, developments at sea were much more important to Britain's security than developments on land were.
There are only so many top tier harbours around. Antwerp was one, perhaps the best on the Channel. It's further long the coast than any other port and is East of Dover which is important strategically.They invested a lot in the Royal Navy as it was. Their enduring fear back then of French control of Antwerp has always seemed irrational to me. Merely possessing a good harbor doesn't mean that France would suddenly dominate the seas.