France annexes Belgium in 1748

Lol at Dutch and small German states being a threat to France. They would more likely try to get good relations with France.
With respect, but do you know anything about the 17th and 18th century Europe? You really sound ignorant about that era. Most of the wars in the 18th century consisted of several German states allying themselves with the Netherlands (a major player and one of the strongest countries in Europe) fighting of France.
 
France got Alsace and Lorraine at different times and both were big and rich provinces, but no coalition formed against them, to get them out of those lands.

Alsace was added into France in 1648, at least most of it, and Lorraine in 1766.

118 years of difference between the annexations.

By the time they begun negotiation to gain Lorraine, 1733, Alsace had already been recognized for almost 100 years as part of France.

In contrast if they tried to just annexed those two at the same time and ignoring the diplomatic map of Europe, France would get a very bloody war.

Look at the Nine Years War. The French tried to claim land of the wrong side of the Rhine and most Great Powers went "lets put our arguments on the side for a moment and lets bet the crap out of the Frog".

Another explanation (for EU4 players) I understand you want to annex all those beautiful and rich Italian, Dutch, German, Switz, Spanish, etc... (not the English provinces we both know you dont have money for ships at this point) provinces, but that is a no can do or your infamy will skyrocket and you get a big mean coallition against you (trust me I got two against me because, on a match with a friend (the idiot was spain by the way) I got greedy and was like "ME AS 150000 SOLDIERS ME WANTS EUROPE"... small space to cry as I remember my asskicking ... "ME PEACEFUL FRANCE IS WHITE FLAG NOT WAR FLAG".)

Got it now?
 
With respect, but do you know anything about the 17th and 18th century Europe? You really sound ignorant about that era. Most of the wars in the 18th century consisted of several German states allying themselves with the Netherlands (a major player and one of the strongest countries in Europe) fighting of France.
indeed, the netherlands successfully invaded britain twice, the 2nd time they still try to mask as the glorious revolution lol. The netherlands in that era (or to be precise, the United Provinces) were a Great Power
the dutch fleet in that era was often on par with the british one, and there were even moments that the dutch had a bigger army than france.
 
I think you guys give too much credit to the balance of power thing. After all, the Austrians, Russians and Prussians divided Poland between them and the other powers did nothing to atop it. And Holland seeing itself at the borders of France, they would shit their pants and kiss the ring of the French king. Holland and those German petty states could not do anything to France. On the continent the French army was the best and biggest.
 
France could not be challenged on land by any power.
In the 17th and 18th century France most certainly had the strongest army, but it could certainly be beaten and it was, quite often. The Dutch managed to beat the French in the Franco-Dutch war (while defeating the English at the same time). Why? Because the Dutch managed to form an alliance with Spain and the HRE. This basicly happened during most of the 17th and 18th century. The neighbouring countries of France formed alliances to stop French expansionism. And France was more or less contained and had to sitisfy itself with only minor territorial expansion. It was stopped every single time, even though they had the strongest army. This changed around the 7 years war, when Britain was the strongest countryin Europe and people started to ally against Britain, which is why the British only had Prussia as its ally during the 7 years war. If France is stronger, by annexing the Southern netherlands, than France will remain the biggest thread in Europe and most of Europe will ally again to defeat France, just like before.

And this is probably the last thing I will post in this thread.
 
I don't know about Louis 15, but his predecessor Louis 14 had this perpetual pipedream about France needing natural borders on all sides. Since you already have the Pyrenees to the West, the Atlantic and the Channel to the North, the Mediterranean to the South and the Alps to the Southeast, this only leaves the Northeast and for some reason he decided that France should by 17th century 'Manifest Destiny' stretch Eastwards all the way to the Rhine.

At least, that's what I have been thought in school back in Belgium in the '80s to explain why there were so many battles between the French and some other countries fought in our region.

(Although, in 12th grade in a course on local history and folklore research, I actually learned that my particular city Kortrijk / Coutrai, now two highway exits away from the French border, was actually a part of the French empire for most of that time and Kortrijk - built cannons have turned up in wrecks of French warships all the way to Louisiana.)
 
In the 17th and 18th century France most certainly had the strongest army, but it could certainly be beaten and it was, quite often. The Dutch managed to beat the French in the Franco-Dutch war (while defeating the English at the same time). Why? Because the Dutch managed to form an alliance with Spain and the HRE. This basicly happened during most of the 17th and 18th century. The neighbouring countries of France formed alliances to stop French expansionism. And France was more or less contained and had to sitisfy itself with only minor territorial expansion. It was stopped every single time, even though they had the strongest army. This changed around the 7 years war, when Britain was the strongest countryin Europe and people started to ally against Britain, which is why the British only had Prussia as its ally during the 7 years war. If France is stronger, by annexing the Southern netherlands, than France will remain the biggest thread in Europe and most of Europe will ally again to defeat France, just like before.

France's biggest problem in the 17th/18th centuries was its archaic financial system, which led to the government continually running out of money during wars. The army often was unable to follow up victories with offensives into foreign territory because the government could not afford to keep them paid and supplied. The government also often agreed to peace terms that were less favorable than one would expect, simply because it couldn't afford to keep its army in the field much longer - the Peace of Ryswick being probably the most notable example.

If France had access to easy credit like England and the Netherlands had, history could have been very different. France did attempt to found a national bank during Louis XV's regency (the Banque Générale) but it was under-capitalized and quickly collapsed. It was not until 1800 that the Banque de France was founded under Bonaparte.

An interesting timeline idea would be for France to more properly support this initiative, giving it greater ability to pay its armies in the 18th century - not to mention possibly butterflying away the Revolution, or at least changing it quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
France's biggest problem in the 17th/18th centuries was its archaic financial system, which led to the government continually running out of money during wars. The army often was unable to follow up victories with offensives into foreign territory because the government could not afford to keep them paid and supplied. The government also often agreed to peace terms that were less favorable than one would expect, simply because it couldn't afford to keep its army in the field - the Peace of Ryswick being probably the most striking example.

If France had access to easy credit like England and the Netherlands had, history could have been very different. France did attempt to found a national bank during Louis XV's regency (the Banque Générale) but it was under-capitalized and quickly collapsed. It was not until 1800 that the Banque de France was founded under Bonaparte.

An interesting timeline idea would be for France to more properly support this initiative, giving it greater ability to pay its armies in the 18th century - not to mention possibly butterflying away the Revolution, or at least changing it quite a bit.
It does help a lot that the French were consistently angering the merchant powers (something this idea of annexing Belgium only makes worse). Prussia and Austria weren't particularly rich or financially exceptional either, but with Dutch or English subsidies they could usually hold out just long enough for French finances to give out first. Of course France really did have the chance to be richer, unlike Prussia...

So yes, your idea would be interesting, but would require some large changes all around, maybe even destroying the desire of France to conquer so much in Europe (a more mercantile France will probably want more rich trade routes to Asia/America, rather than a bunch of annoying provinces that all of Europe is gonna fight to keep them out of).
 
I don't know about Louis 15, but his predecessor Louis 14 had this perpetual pipedream about France needing natural borders on all sides. Since you already have the Pyrenees to the West, the Atlantic and the Channel to the North, the Mediterranean to the South and the Alps to the Southeast, this only leaves the Northeast and for some reason he decided that France should by 17th century 'Manifest Destiny' stretch Eastwards all the way to the Rhine.

At least, that's what I have been thought in school back in Belgium in the '80s to explain why there were so many battles between the French and some other countries fought in our region.

(Although, in 12th grade in a course on local history and folklore research, I actually learned that my particular city Kortrijk / Coutrai, now two highway exits away from the French border, was actually a part of the French empire for most of that time and Kortrijk - built cannons have turned up in wrecks of French warships all the way to Louisiana.)
I'm aware of that aspiration, but he was more level-headed, and knew to play the long game.
 
France's biggest problem in the 17th/18th centuries was its archaic financial system, which led to the government continually running out of money during wars. The army often was unable to follow up victories with offensives into foreign territory because the government could not afford to keep them paid and supplied. The government also often agreed to peace terms that were less favorable than one would expect, simply because it couldn't afford to keep its army in the field much longer - the Peace of Ryswick being probably the most notable example.

If France had access to easy credit like England and the Netherlands had, history could have been very different. France did attempt to found a national bank during Louis XV's regency (the Banque Générale) but it was under-capitalized and quickly collapsed. It was not until 1800 that the Banque de France was founded under Bonaparte.

An interesting timeline idea would be for France to more properly support this initiative, giving it greater ability to pay its armies in the 18th century - not to mention possibly butterflying away the Revolution, or at least changing it quite a bit.
This.Absence of large land seizures had nothing to do with a fear of coalitions.
 
The timing of this makes a tricky moment. In normal circumstances for the era you would expect this kind of expansion to be taken as a threat to the balance of power (as many have said), and for a shift of alliances with those powers feeling threatened aligning to reverse the expansion or otherwise weaken the power in question.

But 1748 is not "normal circumstances". This is taking place just after Prussia put itself in just the same position - expanding far outside its "station", upsetting The Balance, and aligning continental Europe against the new threat. So into a period in which OTL many European states were casting about for security against Prussian expansionism, we are throwing in a strong incentive for many European states to cast about for security against French expansionism.

The result would be messy, and hard to predict, but we can speak to some general principles (as several other posters have already). The focus of France's neighbors would be even more on the threat the kingdom posed. The Netherlands would take it as an existential threat, and organize their entire European policy around it. Great Britain would be even more interested in a strong continental alliance, so the London-Berlin portion of the Diplomatic Revolution is likely to occur as in our TL. Austria may feel even more alienated from their previous British alliance ITTL, and may well view the French Netherlands as a regrettable but necessary price to deal with the Prussian threat.

The broad strokes that lead up to the 7 Years War of OTL, then, are likely to remain. The details of the next great conflict, though, who knows? It strikes me that many northern German states would be much less comfortable aligning with France against Hanover and Prussia. And its hard to imagine how the Netherlands, though it's incentives might pull both ways, could avoid being drawn in.
 
I think France would keep these lands, once they got them and no army could drive them out. At an ATL Congress of Vienna the Brits would probably want for Holland to annex the so called pistol aimed at them, the city port of Antwerp with part of Brabant, but not too much territory. France would keep most of the Flemish region, Liege and the Walloon area. Part of Luxembourg might go to Prussia and Limburg goes to either Holland or to Prussia or split between them.
 
I think France would keep these lands, once they got them and no army could drive them out. At an ATL Congress of Vienna the Brits would probably want for Holland to annex the so called pistol aimed at them, the city port of Antwerp with part of Brabant, but not too much territory. France would keep most of the Flemish region, Liege and the Walloon area. Part of Luxembourg might go to Prussia and Limburg goes to either Holland or to Prussia or split between them.

The Seven Years War is going to be significantly different in a timeline diverging so dramatically in 1748. To go from that year to 1815 requires skipping 5-8 major European wars, depending how you define the term. There is no reasonable argument for assuming an ATL Congress of Vienna corresponding with our TL's in anything but name.

It could be useful, perhaps, as a reference point for reflection on and discussion of the OTL Congress, but for alternate history purposes, no.
 
The Seven Years War is going to be significantly different in a timeline diverging so dramatically in 1748. To go from that year to 1815 requires skipping 5-8 major European wars, depending how you define the term. There is no reasonable argument for assuming an ATL Congress of Vienna corresponding with our TL's in anything but name.

It could be useful, perhaps, as a reference point for reflection on and discussion of the OTL Congress, but for alternate history purposes, no.
I thought that too but in reflection I wonder how important to Austria the Netherlands actually were. In the run up to our Seven Years War the Austrians considered trading the Netherlands for a French alliance and assistance in successfully reclaiming Silesia.

Britain would apoplectic - Hannover is now horribly exposed and Austria and Prussia are more concerned with kicking each other than the French. Britain's options are complicated. With hindsight the alliance with Prussia doesn't seem too bad as effectively France had access through the Netherlands via her ally anyway in the Seven Years War. Without hindsight - Britain will want at least the Dutch AND Prussia onside - but this alienates Austria and triggers the same Seven Years War as OTL. The alternate of Austria / Russia probably will alienate the Dutch (who will be eyeing up nibbling chunks of French Netherlands which won't happen if they are restored to Austria) and leave Hannover exposed to the Prussians (and presumably French).

So on balance I think Britain would try to avoid European war if presented with a fait acompli of French Netherlands - but if pressed I think the alt-Seven Years War alliances would be very similar,
 
Probably not. The social and political inequality and injustice, poverty, political despotism and other societal ills would still exist.
Although, the influx of wealth from the conquest (plundering, new revenue sources...) might stabilise finances a bit longer, or butterfly the 7YW and so the ARW
 
Top