France annexes Belgium in 1748

On the subject of the American Revolutionary War I've heard that the debt the French Government accumulated fighting the British in that conflict was a major cause of the French Revolution.

If that is true does having the Southern Netherlands prevent that? The same debt is supported by a bigger economy.
Yes. Plus, if Big France wins the alt-SYW, there might still be a need for the Americans to stay with England due to the Big Blue Blob being next door. And in turn France doesn't get that far into debt supporting the Americans.
 
There might not be a Revolution in the first place since the French will be satisfied with owning Belgium, thus decreasing the impopularity of the monarchy for a while. And a stronger, richer France could repay its debts more easily. Which means no big 1789 crisis.
However, the French might use their extra wealth to increase the size of their armed forces. A larger navy might make the difference in the American Revolutionary War and in the early stages of the Napoleonic Wars too. It depends upon how much the British can afford on expanding the Royal Navy to compensate for the bigger French Navy.
 
However, the French might use their extra wealth to increase the size of their armed forces. A larger navy might make the difference in the American Revolutionary War and in the early stages of the Napoleonic Wars too. It depends upon how much the British can afford on expanding the Royal Navy to compensate for the bigger French Navy.
Indeed. Especially since it wouldn't take long for the French flag to fly in London should France decisively beat the RN in the channel.
 
I haven't read the thread so I don't know if it has already been discussed.

AFAIK there wasn't a major war in Continental Europe between the War of the Austrian Succession and the Napoleonic Wars. I'm not counting the American War of Independence. AFAIK what became Belgium was conquered by Revolutionary France and integrated into the French State. Again, AFAIK the Southern Netherlanders were perfectly happy with this and would have preferred to remain part of France instead of being incorporated into the new Kingdom of the United Netherlands.

IOTL it seems to me that having the future Belgium and Luxembourg as part of France for years didn't help them win the Napoleonic Wars IOTL so it won't ITTL. But will they still be lumped together with the United Provinces to create the United Netherlands. Or will being part of France for about 65 years instead of 20 years be long enough for France to keep them in 1815?
Edit

I forgot about the Seven Years War. Does having the Southern Netherlands help the French significantly?
 
Edit

I forgot about the Seven Years War. Does that help the French significantly?
Having Antwerp always helps France significantly. Should France have Austria on-side, Austria needs to promise France something else or France gets not to have to finance Austria and gets to focus its money on other fronts. An India for America trade as per other wars in the past is a much better outcome.
 
Having Antwerp always helps France significantly. Should France have Austria on-side, Austria needs to promise France something else or France gets not to have to finance Austria and gets to focus its money on other fronts. An India for America trade as per other wars in the past is a much better outcome.
I forgot that Austria was an ally of France in that war. Therefore does having a French Netherlands instead of an Austrian Netherlands doesn't make a difference to the balance of land forces? Presumably France would have a bigger navy as well as the "Pistol pointed at the heart of England."
 
In the unlikely event that the History of the World saw no significant change between 1748 and 1945 the extra people and wealth would help France maintain its position as a major world power after 1945.

E.g. in decolonisation I think they would still give up on Indo-China, but they might be able to defeat the communists and leave behind a unified pro-western Vietnam. I don't know much about the Algerian War, but being able to maintain a larger army in the country for the same period of time or an army of the same size as OTL for a longer period must help.

If the E.E.C. is still formed in 1957 it has 4 members instead of 6 so the French Government has only 3 other nations to agree with what it wants to do instead of 5 and France has more influence when qualified majority voting is introduced.
 
The biggest advantage it would bring France are the extensive coal fields of Wallonia. OTL the French were never self-sufficient in coal, which limited their industrial growth somehow.
 
E.g. in decolonisation I think they would still give up on Indo-China, but they might be able to defeat the communists and leave behind a unified pro-western Vietnam. I don't know much about the Algerian War, but being able to maintain a larger army in the country for the same period of time or an army of the same size as OTL for a longer period must help.

France's problem in the Algerian War was more political than military: it had military superiority, but was fighting to maintain a regime in which 85-90% of the Algerian population was disenfranchised, and that could not continue.

From a colonial standpoint, a larger French population might result in more French colonists moving abroad, so perhaps France would have a few more overseas departments today. But Algeria, or at least most of it (maybe there would be a partition) was going to be lost.
 
The biggest advantage it would bring France are the extensive coal fields of Wallonia. OTL the French were never self-sufficient in coal, which limited their industrial growth somehow.
Belgium's coal output was about half that of France. For example...
If its of any relevance France was the world's third largest producer of crude steel in 1929, making 11.7 million short tons. Adding the OTL production of Belgium and Luxembourg increases that to 18.4 million short tons, putting her into second place because Germany produced 16.0 million short tons.

In the same year France produced 55 million tons of coal, but Belgium produced 30 million tons. French iron ore production in 1929 was 49.9 million short tons and Luxembourg produced 7.5 million short tons.

Luxembourg didn't produce any coal and Belgium didn't produce any iron ore according to the source I used, which were the Encyclopaedia Britannica Books of the Year.
These sources say that between the end of World War II and 1959 France produced a maximum of 60 million metric tons of coal per year and Belgium's never exceeded 30 million tons a year. However, for all I know more coal could be mined in Belgium had there been the demand for it.
 
France's problem in the Algerian War was more political than military: it had military superiority, but was fighting to maintain a regime in which 85-90% of the Algerian population was disenfranchised, and that could not continue.
Were the financial and human cost of the war to France factors in the decision to pull out? IIRC they had 700,000 men there at the peak of the war. Would they have fought on if the cost of lives lost and money to pay for such a large army was supported by a larger population and a bigger economy?
 
Were the financial and human cost of the war to France factors in the decision to pull out? IIRC they had 700,000 men there at the peak of the war. Would they have fought on if the cost of lives lost and money to pay for such a large army was supported by a larger population and a bigger economy?

The costs were certainly a consideration, but beyond that, the war was not very popular in Metropolitan France. The population was tired of war after WWII and Indochina, and there was a growing sense that it was unjust to maintain the colonial regime, especially for a country that had recently gone through a foreign occupation itself.
 
Belgium's coal output was about half that of France. For example...These sources say that between the end of World War II and 1959 France produced a maximum of 60 million metric tons of coal per year and Belgium's never exceeded 30 million tons a year. However, for all I know more coal could be mined in Belgium had there been the demand for it.

A rise of 50% of the coal production has important benefits, especially in the early stages fo the IR. Belgium was the second country to know its industrial take-off, OTL.
 
How big and powerful would a France with this pod get to be?
In terms of population France would have about 20% more people.

This is the population of OTL France 1930-1990 from the Encyclopaedia Britannica Books of the Year (I only have up to 1995 so I can't do 2000 and 2010)

1930 - 41,150,000
1940 - 41,300,000
1950 - 41,736,000
1960 - 45,684,000
1970 - 50,770,000
1980 - 53,880,000
1990 - 56,735,000

This is the combined population of Belgium, France and Luxembourg from the same source.

1930 - 49,576,000
1940 - 49,897,000
1950 - 50,671,000
1960 - 55,151,000
1970 - 60,799,000
1980 - 64,103,000
1990 - 67,377,000

AFAIK Belgium and Luxembourg had per capital Gross National Products that were the same or larger than France so Greater France is effectively 20% more powerful economically and could afford armed forces 20% larger than OTL.

The 1985 BOTY that I happen to have open says that the French Armed Forces had 492,850 active duty personnel in 1982, which ITTL would work out as about 600,000. As it happened Belgium had 94,717 active duty personnel in 1983, which is about what the increase in the French Armed Forces would have been. The Belgian Forces were 73.6% Army, 4.8% Navy and 21.6% air force with 3.4% of GNP spent on defence. For France it was 62.3% Army, 13.6% Navy, 20.1% Air Force and 4.0% Strategic Nuclear Forces with 4.2% of GNP spent on defence.
 
In terms of population France would have about 20% more people.

This is the population of OTL France 1930-1990 from the Encyclopaedia Britannica Books of the Year (I only have up to 1995 so I can't do 2000 and 2010)

1930 - 41,150,000
1940 - 41,300,000
1950 - 41,736,000
1960 - 45,684,000
1970 - 50,770,000
1980 - 53,880,000
1990 - 56,735,000

This is the combined population of Belgium, France and Luxembourg from the same source.

1930 - 49,576,000
1940 - 49,897,000
1950 - 50,671,000
1960 - 55,151,000
1970 - 60,799,000
1980 - 64,103,000
1990 - 67,377,000

AFAIK Belgium and Luxembourg had per capital Gross National Products that were the same or larger than France so Greater France is effectively 20% more powerful economically and could afford armed forces 20% larger than OTL.

The 1985 BOTY that I happen to have open says that the French Armed Forces had 492,850 active duty personnel in 1982, which ITTL would work out as about 600,000. As it happened Belgium had 94,717 active duty personnel in 1983, which is about what the increase in the French Armed Forces would have been. The Belgian Forces were 73.6% Army, 4.8% Navy and 21.6% air force with 3.4% of GNP spent on defence. For France it was 62.3% Army, 13.6% Navy, 20.1% Air Force and 4.0% Strategic Nuclear Forces with 4.2% of GNP spent on defence.

We need to address alternative PoDs for all the post-1748 annexations of France (Lorraine, Corsica, Venaissin, Savoy, Nice) in order to have good figures on alt-France's population. I stil think a more powerful France would make a move towards the Rhineland or at least part of it in the early 19th c.
 
We need to address alternative PoDs for all the post-1748 annexations of France (Lorraine, Corsica, Venaissin, Savoy, Nice) in order to have good figures on alt-France's population. I stil think a more powerful France would make a move towards the Rhineland or at least part of it in the early 19th c.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't try to expand beyond the Rhine. However, from the French history I studied the objective from Richelieu to Napoleon and even into the 19th Century was to get a secure North Eastern border by advancing to the Rhine, which on a map looks like the natural border. If they keep what is now Belgium and Luxembourg after 1748 they've achieved what they set out to do.
 
Top