France annexes Belgium in 1748

Occitania was under French rule for(not considering the pre HYW era when Occitan was an important language of Europe) 5 centuries(11 centuries starting from East Francia), and it´s more similar to French. Flemish is not.
There aren't that many primary Breton speakers either.
 
Britanny was under France for 5 centuries(and that´s when the Eastern part of it was already Gallo/French speaking).
You do know that French was dominant amongst most of the Belgian elites and bourgeoisie of the time, including in Flemish cities like Zeebrugge/Bruges?
When that much is done, there's only the peasantry to get to speak French, and that was done very efficiently by France in the XIXe century.
 
You do know that French was dominant amongst most of the Belgian elites and bourgeoisie of the time, including in Flemish cities like Zeebrugge/Bruges?
When that much is done, there's only the peasantry to get to speak French, and that was done very efficiently by France in the XIXe century.
Wasn't it pretty much everywhere?
 
French language assimilation didn't start in earnest until the late 19th century and the public schooling efforts of the 3rd Republic.

That Breton or Occitan speakers were under French rule for 5 centuries doesn't matter, as little effort was made to standardize French amongst the wider populace until the 19th century.
 
Wasn't it pretty much everywhere?
French was quite widespread amongst the elites everywhere, that's true, but it was rarely the case with the bourgeoisie, which tended to speak the local language in many cases. And at the time, the bourgeoisie consisted of a large part of the urban population, since this takes place before the industrialisation.
Besides, during the industrialisation, internal migration will further weaken the regional identity of the industrialising provinces, if only because a Picard moving to Flanders for work has more chances to know French than Flemish.
 
You do know that French was dominant amongst most of the Belgian elites and bourgeoisie of the time, including in Flemish cities like Zeebrugge/Bruges?
When that much is done, there's only the peasantry to get to speak French, and that was done very efficiently by France in the XIXe century.
Yes even today the old flemish nobility speak flawless french. And till the 60s the flemish bourgeoisie was also able to speak french some still do.
 
French language assimilation didn't start in earnest until the late 19th century and the public schooling efforts of the 3rd Republic.

That Breton or Occitan speakers were under French rule for 5 centuries doesn't matter, as little effort was made to standardize French amongst the wider populace until the 19th century.
And why exactly are those going to work everywhere without problems?

While also Flanders had a French speaking upper class, being under very long rule has effects on how the also middle class is going to behave or what language they speak. That would be like saying that Spain can annex Portugal and make it Spanish speaking in mere decades.

You do know that French was dominant amongst most of the Belgian elites and bourgeoisie of the time, including in Flemish cities like Zeebrugge/Bruges?
When that much is done, there's only the peasantry to get to speak French, and that was done very efficiently by France in the XIXe century.
And the nobility is at best 5% of the population.

Wait a moment, Belgium itself Frenchified a lot of areas, if we are going to run on irrelavant historical comparison why assume France is going to do a better job than Belgium?(dominated by French speakers nobilty till WW2, that like you said lived also in Flanders) I think they will assimilate more than Belgium but places like Antwerp and Ghent are not going to be French speaking, or at least not through sheer assimilation efforts only.

Yes even today the old flemish nobility speak flawless french. And till the 60s the flemish bourgeoisie was also able to speak french some still do.
Learning French as a prestige language is one thing, having it as mother language is another.
I think pretty much most of the middle to upper class is going to know French on some degree.
 
The Revolution made a huge difference. All of the sudden, you get the church leading whatever resistance against the French state there was, which extended to a resistance against the French language, thus de-Francifying the Flemish regions. Before that, the Church was more pro-French, since Flemish was more related to Protestant country languages than Catholic country languages.
By making Belgium French pre-revolution, not only do you ensure they stay French (no revolt on religious terms of the Belgians ITTL at least), but you really get an overbearing strength position for the French language.
 
The Revolution made a huge difference. All of the sudden, you get the church leading whatever resistance against the French state there was, which extended to a resistance against the French language, thus de-Francifying the Flemish regions. Before that, the Church was more pro-French, since Flemish was more related to Protestant country languages than Catholic country languages.
By making Belgium French pre-revolution, not only do you ensure they stay French (no revolt on religious terms of the Belgians ITTL at least), but you really get an overbearing strength position for the French language.
Yes ok, but how´s that different from the situation under Belgium? For all purposes, Flanders was the milking cow of the country(the poorer part)
 
Yes ok, but how´s that different from the situation under Belgium? For all purposes, Flanders was the milking cow of the country(the poorer part)

In this scenario, the Flemish will no longer be the suppressed majority population of a small country, but rather a small minority in a much larger polity.
 
In this scenario, the Flemish will no longer be the suppressed majority population of a small country, but rather a small minority in a much larger polity.
Well Flanders is not Occitania, but is bigger than Britanny, Alsace or any other non romance area. At the same time while I acknowledge that Flanders is going to be more French speaking than today, it´s still not quite primary French.

Also what difference does that make when at the end the small minority ruled the country for more than a century? I mean is not like they didn´t force their hands with the policies.
 
Well Flanders is not Occitania, but is bigger than Britanny, Alsace or any other non romance area. At the same time while I acknowledge that Flanders is going to be more French speaking than today, it´s still not quite primary French.

Not now, no. OTL's language demographics have been altered by the existence of Flemish autonomy and vibrant language policy, and even then have had their limits, most notably with Brussels' solidification as a Francophone metropolis and the Francophonization of its nominally Flemish suburbs.

We can't necessarily count on the factors which led to a Dutch language revival OTL in Flanders emerging in this TL. Even without any revolutionary centralization, we could easily have a situation where the attractiveness of participating in a larger France makes a shift to French language popular.

Also what difference does that make when at the end the small minority ruled the country for more than a century? I mean is not like they didn´t force their hands with the policies.

It does, by virtue of minoritization in a larger polity. There were roughly as many speakers of Cornish as there were of Icelandic at the beginning of the 14th century, but because Cornwall was part of a larger Kingdom of England while Iceland was an isolated and self-governing island the pressure for assimilation was that much greater. In a scenario where the southern Netherlands, already run by Francophones, are directly incorporated into the French state, the Flemish will face that much more pressure.

Language is not the same thing as ethnic identity. English is now the dominant language in Ireland notwithstanding the Irish people's sense of its own nationhood. In this scenario, I would not care to bet in favour of Dutch remaining the main language of OTL Flanders.
 
I think he is mistaken; there are many sources for a Madras/Louisbourg exchange. Here is one example.

As for the Austrian Netherlands, I believe they were returned in exchange for Austria withdrawing from Italy.

I take it this is one of the events that has multiple interpretations in history, correct?

It is possible that Madras was thrown into the swap too as a minor extra, but the French EIC never had major sway at the French court. Meanwhile Louisbourg is an incredibly valuable fortress that is the lynchpin of defence for the Canadian hinterland and thus the Atlantic fisheries, which the French navy was utterly dependent on for recruitment. The British were completely jubilant over winning Louisbourg, and hated giving it back. It just doesn't make sense Louisbourg would be dropped in exchange for Madras.
 
What if the Bourbons had on on both fronts, in Italy and Flanders? If Flanders was returned for an Austrian retreat from Italy (Parma to Infante, Modena restored etc.) then here there would be no incentive to give anything back. Philip would still get his Italian duchy and Flanders could be kept. Perhaps not all of it if Louis XV still wants to be generous but at least a part of it could stay in French hands. And still, there definitely other reasons for the "stupid peace" other than Louis' foolish decisions, the most important one being the fact all of Europe would hate on the French for breaking the balance of power and all.
 
What if the Bourbons had on on both fronts, in Italy and Flanders? If Flanders was returned for an Austrian retreat from Italy (Parma to Infante, Modena restored etc.) then here there would be no incentive to give anything back. Philip would still get his Italian duchy and Flanders could be kept. Perhaps not all of it if Louis XV still wants to be generous but at least a part of it could stay in French hands. And still, there definitely other reasons for the "stupid peace" other than Louis' foolish decisions, the most important one being the fact all of Europe would hate on the French for breaking the balance of power and all.
I don´t think Austria would be that keen on having its Belgium holdings limited to Flanders, they would be even less protected from French troops than before, could there be a Belgium to France and Italy to Austria agreement?
 
That already was the deal, except it was vice versa, Flanders remained, and Austrian army retreated from Italy, ceded Parma and restored Genoa and Modena. I don't really see Italy given to the Bourbons unless the Austrians were defeated there heavily. Maria Theresa seemed quite fond of those lands and wanted them much more than she wanted Flanders.
 
That already was the deal, except it was vice versa, Flanders remained, and Austrian army retreated from Italy, ceded Parma and restored Genoa and Modena. I don't really see Italy given to the Bourbons unless the Austrians were defeated there heavily. Maria Theresa seemed quite fond of those lands and wanted them much more than she wanted Flanders.
I think you are misusing the term Flanders, it was called(or at least we in thread are using it that way) effectively Austrian Netherlands. I don´t see France annexing just Wallonia if you meant literally Flanders.
 
No, I think if the entire Austrian Netherlands couldn't be taken then the French would take some parts of the ANL (Ypres, Tournai, Courtrai, Mons and parts of the county of Hainault, or maybe that entire county). It would anger the others much less to see most of the ANL remain Austrian and would be much easier to defend and incorporate into France. That's actually more similar to the way they slowly took parts of the Low Countries, bit by bit, rather than the entire region at once.
 
Top