France annexes Belgium in 1748

CaliGuy

Banned
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.
1805, no?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
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.
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?
 
Well Britain and France joined Russia in war against Turkey, to free Greece. They united their navies and crushed the Turkish one at Navarino.

...because of conditions that aren't anywhere near guaranteed to be replicated with this many butterflies. Why do you insist on ignoring butterflies? There are PoD's in 1799 that could lead to wealthy and powerful Ottomans allied strongly with France in the 19th c. The conditions for the Greek revolt would be butterflied away utterly. The Christians in the OE aren't destined to hate the Ottomans forever in all timelines. In the OTL 1877 Parliament Christians and Muslims worked together fine. This is with ethnic national states and terrible conditions throughout the 19th c for both groups.
 
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 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.
 
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.
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.
 
What if France annexes most, but not all, of the Austrian Netherlands? Let's say France gets the regions east of the Scheldt while the lands to the west (including Antwerp) are ceded to the Dutch, or simply returned to Austria.

Would the British still be strongly opposed?

Locatiemaas2.GIF
 
I would not put the matter in terms of being opposed or not.

As previously mentioned, the right terms rather were ability or unability to oppose. And in 1748, the destiny of the austrian Netherlands did not rest on Britain's will. France had conquered the austrian Netherlands and held it.

Britain was opposed to any increase of power of France or Russia in strategic areas. When It was able to enforce its will, France or Russia could not expandin these strategic areas. When It was unable to, France or Russia took what that wanted. That's power politics.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.

No France won't dominate the seas but if they have an advantage in ports they might gain an advantage elsewhere.
 
It was not possible for any of the early modern states to maintain a world class army and a world class navy. The French realized this and decided to focus on the contest for colonial imperium over continental hegemony. It was a wise decision made too late for the French, and should have been made under Louis XIV. The annexation of the Austrian Netherlands would have been going in the opposite direction, with France deciding to make a bid for the continent, and would have made them the object of counter alliance.
In our timeline France's colonial focus lead to the eastern shift in the balance of power which is why Poland was annexed without serious damage to the balance. Technically France was required to make some limited annexations due to the big three land powers gains, but the revolution turned all that on its head and France never recieved compensation, while Vienna made the big three even more powerful. This is easily one of the prime reasons for France's lost power during the 19th century.
If France took the Austrian Netherlands and expected to continue their bid for dominance of the sea, things would probably have went far worse for France.
 
Would an alternative Congress of Vienna deprive France of Antwerp? The Brits were not happy with France holding that city OTL. Would they give it to Holland, since they still have to compensate that country for the colonies Britain takes from her? What would Holland get in exchange for lost colonies, since most of Southern Netherlands and Bishopric of Liege would presumably stay with France?
 
Also how would an ATL Franco-Prussian war end with this enlarged and stronger France? Would it be a disadvantage for France to have a longer border to guard?
 
France annexing the austrian Low Countries may butterfly away the french revolution because the peace of Aachen (about which the french said "stupid as peace") contributed very strongly to Louis XV turning from a very popular king to a very unpopular king.

It may then very probably butterfly away Napoleon.

And even if there was a french revolution and a Napoleon, and France finally defeated, the peace terms would quite probably be a return to pre-war borders as OTL.

Only Britain and the United Provinces staunchly opposed France annexing the spanish/austrian Low Countries. Austria was quite willing to trade its LC in exchange for other territories.

And the butterfly away effect would be even truer for the France-Prussia conflict of the second half of 19th century. France with Belgium and Luxemburg would remain on parity with Germany both on demographic and industrial fields.
 
Austria allying this enlarged France could well see the western German minors turn on her and I too am of the mind that a Anglo-Dutch-Prussian alliance is likely and that German Minors will look to this alliance to protection.
Personally I think the British led alliance has a short provided the Russian dont side against them.
 
the conventional wisdom on France seems to me a bit strange, especially with the advantage of hindsight. It's a constant mantra that they had to choose between a navy and an army, and chose the army, with catastrophic results. However, aside from the netherlands, France pretty much was a non entity on the continent. the netherlands came late in the WoAS. a few years later, France did poorly in the 7 years war. they managed to remove Hanover from the war, but as in the WoAS, they gave up any advantage. those 2 or 3 decades was really a lackluster time for France. They obviously should have done something different, because what they did do didn't work.

To me, a start would be not joining in the WoAS. Join Spain in the War of Jenkins Ear at a time ('41) that Britain was in crisis mode and vulnerable. Leave Prussia to deal with Austria, which they were doing quite well. Again, hindsight is 20/20, and France couldn't know that Prussia would prove to be a crappy ally, while Britain would end up the biggest threat to France's interests. But it was an ideal time to knock out Britain, and then turn on Austria. Instead, they floundered on the continent, flubbed in Italy, then didn't take advantage of an additional opportunity in Britain (the Stuart invasion), then gave up most gains that they did make (Netherlands). The WoAS reminds me a lot of the American Revolution: a lot of effort and money, and ultimately no gain. sandwiched in between was their absolutely dreadful performance in the 7 years war.

Given (again, hindsight) that they couldn't project power on the continent, and that they weren't really under threat of invasion, wouldn't it make more sense to invest in a navy, and take advantage of a complimentary ally who could weaken Austria, leaving them in a very dominant position?
 
Would be a lot of new Dutch speakers. And, unlike other areas for non-Francophoic languages and dialects, they would be wealthy and with a highly educated population. Might end up with problems done the line. You guys think they would be given one of those special tax autonomy things they used to have in France? Would the King try to take the title of Count of Flanders and Duke of Brabant for himself? As well as any income privileges that comes with it. I imagine that whatever course he takes, he may be too snooty to accept not interfering or overly squeezing these wealthy areas. I do wonder if the Austrians, Dutch, and English really would end the war with them having a large part of the southern Low Countries, though.
 
Top