France annexes Belgium in 1748

A revolution will be unavoidable, I think. THE revolution, as OTL, is very unlikely.

The main question, IMO, is where the reforms stops.

Abolition des privileges and constitutional monarchy is a possibility.

So is equality of wealth and abolition of marriage....
 
How big and powerful would France get from this in the long term? A map of France and her borders after a few decades would be cool. How would this impact Europe long term also? Would it hold back German unification and for how long?
 
How big and powerful would France get from this in the long term? A map of France and her borders after a few decades would be cool. How would this impact Europe long term also? Would it hold back German unification and for how long?

This moves France close to the desired "natural borders"; the west bank of the Rhine would be the last region needed to complete them. It seems like this wasn't as big of a goal for Louis XV or XVI as it was for Louis XIV, though.

The biggest long-term change is that this greatly increases France's coal/iron reserves and likely causes it to industrialize sooner, which could change 19th century history quite a bit.
 
I think the entire are would become a ground for separatism(Rhineland), kinda like Lombardo-Venetia was for Austria. Given same societal conditions(in any case you wouldn´t see mass assimilation IMO)
 
I think the entire are would become a ground for separatism(Rhineland), kinda like Lombardo-Venetia was for Austria. Given same societal conditions(in any case you wouldn´t see mass assimilation IMO)

When you say "entire area", do you just mean the German parts?

If you mean the region in the OP, I think that's a pretty foolhardy assumption. It's a predominately French-speaking and overwhelmingly Catholic region with no history of nationhood and (excluding France) no particular identification with a neighboring state.

If you mean the German bits France might annex later as a result of this POD, I'm still not clear where you're coming from. Can you explain why you think Austria and Lombardo-Venetia are the parallels we should look at, rather than the obvious choice - France and Alsace-Lorraine?
 
When you say "entire area", do you just mean the German parts?

If you mean the region in the OP, I think that's a pretty foolhardy assumption. It's a predominately French-speaking and overwhelmingly Catholic region with no history of nationhood and (excluding France) no particular identification with a neighboring state.

If you mean the German bits France might annex later as a result of this POD, I'm still not clear where you're coming from. Can you explain why you think Austria and Lombardo-Venetia are the parallels we should look at, rather than the obvious choice - France and Alsace-Lorraine?
I was speaking of the Rhineland.

The Rhineland was a core of Germany for centuries, comparing it to a small region annexed 2 centuries earlier is silly.
 
I was speaking of the Rhineland.

The Rhineland was a core of Germany for centuries, comparing it to a small region annexed 2 centuries earlier is silly.

But this thread is about Belgium, not Rhineland. It's about annexing the Austrian Netherlands in 1748, not the annexations during the French Revolution.

Annexing modern Belgium in 1748 does not equate to annexing German Rhineland.
 
I was speaking of the Rhineland.

The Rhineland was a core of Germany for centuries, comparing it to a small region annexed 2 centuries earlier is silly.

As @Tonifranz mentions, we've gone a bit off-topic. But the Rhineland is a somewhat natural "what's next" question, so hey.

So if I understand your argument correctly, you believe a French Rhineland - because of its size and cultural significance - would have a similar history to the Königreich Lombardo–Venetien. And not be similar to the history of the adjacent ~German-speaking regions France did in fact annex. That about right?

IMO separatist sentiment is a fair assumption, at some level or other. But I'm skeptical that comparing Austria to France on a question of assimilating border regions is useful. The former was a multinational empire that assimilated basically no one ever (unless converting Protestants counts) and came apart at the seams (more than once, if you define it right). The latter was the most successful assimilator in Western Europe.
 
Largely agree with Admiral Matt.
No doubt there will be a sort of "Seven Years war" since this war is more or less a prolongation of the "War of the Austrian Succession " and again ignited by Frederick of Prussia.
Question is how the alliances are running when France did not have a "stupid peace" as in OTL the French citizens called the peace of Aix la Chapelle. Louis XV had all cards to hold to his gains but for some reasons he give them away.
There will be a diplomatic revolution, but to what extend?
The UK will no doubt leave the alliance they had with Austria, since it did not benefit them, and UK parliament was in the impression it was only benefiting the dynastic policies of their German King of Hanover.
The United Provinces might be not coming under the influence of Austria as it did OTL but looking more to be part of an alliance with the UK. This highly depend on the domestic policies in the Dutch Republic. Simply said if the power was at the side of the Orangist (as in OTL) then the Dutch will be no more than a vassal of Austria and stay neutral in the next conflict at best. If the Republicans or even an earlier emerge of the Patriots are in charge then it would likely side with the UK. But both would prefer to stay neutral. The State finances of the Dutch Republic were ruined by 1748, due to an inefficient tax system, a huge debt origination from the Spanish succession war and a complete locked political system, which was defacto and oligarchy with two rivaling factions, Republicans and Orangist. No money means no army. It would be also unclear what gains it could have, only new trade post at the expense of other powers like the most important reason for the British was.
 
Britain and United Provinces best option in the alt-7 Years War is essentially to run and hide their heads in the sand. Hannover is indefensible against France or Prussia so whether they keep the alliance with Austria or change it to Prussia they will be almost guaranteed to lose it. OTL result was exceptional and really was only achieved by Britain reneging on a Treaty commitment after France had occupied Hannover.

Prussia lose Silesia, Austria gets it back. No change for UP and GB
 
The dutch are hardly becoming neutral in this situation, the French at the Scheldt is an existential threat to the United Provinces, you could see TTL seven years war starting over it.
 
Can't really see the Dutch wanting to face up against France and Austria!
If Prussia is on the field the Dutch wouldn't face any Austrian for a while.

The Guelphic states and the Hessiana put a good fight against the French, put the UP on the mix (with British money to fund armies).

I'm not saying the Dutch would definitelly win, but they have two choices: submit and open the Scheldt, losing all their remaining power and becoming a French puppet or fight for it, considering the mindset of the pre-modern world they would take the latter, fight for honor and all that jazz.
 
I was speaking of the Rhineland.

The Rhineland was a core of Germany for centuries, comparing it to a small region annexed 2 centuries earlier is silly.
For centuries? Germany did not even exist back then. When France annexed the Rhineland it did not face separatism and integrated quite nicely to France.
 
For centuries? Germany did not even exist back then. When France annexed the Rhineland it did not face separatism and integrated quite nicely to France.
It did not "integrate quite nicely", some of the people enjoyed the revolutionaries ideas and reform, some other resented the attack on Catholicism. You could say the area was a bit apathetic to nationalism than Lombardo-Venetia was but to think that would stay the case in later decades(I don´t know if nationalism is inevitable, but even if it isn´t they are not going to become neither Frenchmen nor loyal to whatever king rules France in mere decades). The whole of Rhineland even after the conquest was more connected to Germany than to France, like I said still apathetic to Nationalism to either side.

By Germany I meant the HRE.
As @TonifranzSo if I understand your argument correctly, you believe a French Rhineland - because of its size and cultural significance - would have a similar history to the Königreich Lombardo–Venetien. And not be similar to the history of the adjacent ~German-speaking regions France did in fact annex. That about right?

IMO separatist sentiment is a fair assumption, at some level or other. But I'm skeptical that comparing Austria to France on a question of assimilating border regions is useful. The former was a multinational empire that assimilated basically no one ever (unless converting Protestants counts) and came apart at the seams (more than once, if you define it right). The latter was the most successful assimilator in Western Europe.
By 1870, most of France still was speaking more local languages than standard French(that might have been true till modern broadcast), plus the area they did have were ruled for either half a millennium(Britanny,Occitania) or were small(French Flanders, Perpignan, Nice and maybe Alsace), Rhineland is a totally different thing.


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.
A problem is the Austo-Prussian rivalry, if either of them is with France it would block any help for England coming from them, is it possible for them to resolve the question or have them just not fight for France? I mean I find weird that the Austrian just accept to lose such important piece of territory and fight for either of them, so I think neutrality would be chosen by the Hapsburg.

What would Russia and Spain do? I think the later would follow as OTL.
 
A problem is the Austo-Prussian rivalry, if either of them is with France it would block any help for England coming from them, is it possible for them to resolve the question or have them just not fight for France? I mean I find weird that the Austrian just accept to lose such important piece of territory and fight for either of them, so I think neutrality would be chosen by the Hapsburg.

What would Russia and Spain do? I think the later would follow as OTL.

Maria Theresa was pretty willingly to give up the Southern Netherlands for Italian clay in 1758, though she dropped it later, it was distant from the Habsburg corelands (Austria), under constant assault from France (IIRC Brussels was destroyed 2-3 times during Louis XIV's days) and economically in unproductive (since the Dutch had closed the Scheldt, killing the trade from Antwerp), tl;dr it was pretty much a burden and the Austrians wouldn't resent losing it if that means getting Silesia (close to Austria and rich, though it now needs eternal garrison against Prussia).
 
Maria Theresa was pretty willingly to give up the Southern Netherlands for Italian clay in 1758, though she dropped it later, it was distant from the Habsburg corelands (Austria), under constant assault from France (IIRC Brussels was destroyed 2-3 times during Louis XIV's days) and economically in unproductive (since the Dutch had closed the Scheldt, killing the trade from Antwerp), tl;dr it was pretty much a burden and the Austrians wouldn't resent losing it if that means getting Silesia (close to Austria and rich, though it now needs eternal garrison against Prussia).
But it wouldn´t really be a trade, both Belgium and Silesia are already annexed by Prussia and France, what would compel Austria to help France even more given its unchecked growth.
 
How exactly? France was against German unification and would have intervened to protect the Southern German states against Prussia. They were afraid of a united and powerful Germany.

Who says that Prussia is even a great power 100 years afterwards with such a different development of history? It never ceases to surprise me to what extent people tend to underestimate the power of butterflies.
 
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.

17th Century Netherlands is very different from 18th Century Netherlands. They were a busted flush by the mid 1700s. That is why they stayed neutral during the Seven Years War: either they would have lost all their colonies to the Brits, or had the homeland overrun by the French.

Anyway, I agree that with the French in control of the SN then a British-Austrian-Prussian alliance would form against them. Not least because the British were terrified of the low countries in French hands, and would subsidise alliances happily in this context.
 
I don't know why people think the Southern Netherlands were given back for nothing. It was done to get Louisbourg back, which was a crucial base for the French fisheries, which provided two thirds of the manpower for the French navy.
 
Top