france conquers netherlands (17th century)

something i wrote a while ago, check it out.




05-1667
Event Description: louis XIV invades the spanish netherlands.




08-1667
Event Description: French armies have engulfed all of brabant and flanders.



10-1667
Event Description: Louis defeats spanish forces at Brussels and completes his conquest of the spanish netherlands.



02-1670
Event Description: Charles and Louis sign the secret treaty of dover to divide up the free dutch republic.




02-1670
Parliment gave its approval to charles for outfitting a fleet to send against the dutch.



03-1670
french forces under the Comte de estres gathered at brussels head north into the dutch republic.



04-1670
the british fleet under the duke of york, 128 ships strong, sails out of chatham, headed for the dutch coast.



04-1670
Event Description: the british fleet catches de ruyter by suprise in sole bay and inflicts a devastating defeat on the dutch navy, destroying 45 dutch ships and inflicting 4,000 dutch casualties, a huge loss by any standards.



04-1670
Stadholder jan de witt is routed by the french at Tillburg.



06-1670
the dutch are again defeated, this time at arnhem.



08-1670
french and british forces converge on amsterdam.




10-1670
jan de witt surrenders to the Comte de estres. Holland is quickly partitioned between france and britain with groningen, gelderland and the frisian islands going to the british and everything from hilversum and amsterdam south, absorbed by the french. the former VOC enterprises (including warehouses and ships) where turned over to french entreprenuers and the company itself renamed the French-Orient Company (FOC)



03-1672
A french fleet of 63 ships and 9,000 troops under the command of admiral De la haye lands near the cape of good hope to take posession of the dutch colonies of south africa.




05-1672
the french troops under De la haye defeat 600 dutch settlers at stellenbosch.



03-1672
the french fleet bombards Kaapstaadt.


06-1672
the French capture Paarl.



04-1672
the french lay siege to Kaapstaadt.



08-1672
Event Description: Kaapstaadt surrenders to the french. the dutch Governer Albert van Breughel was clapped in irons and sent to france.



11-1672
Tulbagh, Franschoek, Swellendam, Mosselbaai and Uitenhage have all fallen to the french. the remaining dutch who still resisted the french advances retreat inland to Graaf-Reinet, the last remaining dutch stronghold in south africa.



1673
after a long and bloody battle between 4,000 french troops under the Marquis d'elanger anihilated the 1800 dutch defenders and captured Graaf-Reinet. d'elanger is made governer of the new colony of "Sud Afrique" by Louis XIV.



1674
the first 200 french settlers arrive at Kaapstadt. over the next 30 years, 60,000 more french settlers will come and settle the regions around Kaapstaadt, Stellenbosch and Swellendam, cementing the french dominance of the south african colony.



1685
400 french settlers estabilish homesteads in the transvaal. conflicts over land soon arise with the old dutch settlers.



1693
the great dutch rebellion begins in south africa with the recapture of Graaf Reinet. dutch homesteaders under jan vanderstaad massacre 112 french settlers.



1694
the rebellion ends in blood as french forces under the elderly D'erlanger corner vanderstaad on the south bank of the orange river. vanderstaad give himself up and is taken back to Kaapstaadt along with 200 of his followers. once there vanderstaad and all the other dutch prisoners are executed, vanderstaad by beheading, the rest are hung. a general roundup and deportation of the dutch settlers follows the executions. only 250 dutch manage to escape the roundups by french officials, these head north, deep into the karoo plateau to escape french pressure.



1695
the french annex ceylon and begin deporting the dutch and repupulating the conquered coastal colonies with new french settlers.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Romulus Augustulus said:
On Othertimelines.com, no doubt...

???

It's an interesting idea, actually. The French did invade Holland in the 1670's, and would've probably overrun it in 1672, if the Dutch hadn't broken the dykes and flooded the low countries.

Mind, I suspect Louis XIV would've set up a puppet state, with French troops in fortresses across the Low Countries.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Oh: There is, of course, no William of Orange. A United Franco-Spanish Empire in the early 18th century? Oh, yes.
 
Just a few comments:

1. I don't think you could have gotten rid of de Ruyter so easily...and even if caught by suprise, he wouldn't have had such a devestating defeat.
2. You kinda forget about the whole water thing, the water defenses of the Netherlands might have failed miserable in WWII, but they would have worked in that time.
4. The dutch had allies in OTL...
5. I don't think the French could have hold on to the Netherlands for long, without very harsh measures, just remember that the dutch culture is totally different from the french.....I wonder if it occupying the netherlands would have been worth it.
 
Qantrix said:
Just a few comments:

1. I don't think you could have gotten rid of de Ruyter so easily...and even if caught by suprise, he wouldn't have had such a devestating defeat.
2. You kinda forget about the whole water thing, the water defenses of the Netherlands might have failed miserable in WWII, but they would have worked in that time.
4. The dutch had allies in OTL...
5. I don't think the French could have hold on to the Netherlands for long, without very harsh measures, just remember that the dutch culture is totally different from the french.....I wonder if it occupying the netherlands would have been worth it.

Invasion may actually succeed if the French have the Brits with them instead of against them. Flooding won't be of much use against RN. In terms of occupation, I could envision the French keeping Spanish NL (which includes much of modern Southern NL), some parts of Zealand to protect access to Antwerp and parts of Utrecht as it was still quite Catholic. Going more North than that is really asking for trouble.

But more seriously, why on earth would Charles want to have the French control such a large strip of coast along the North Sea? That's really asking for trouble. You'd need a very serious reason.
 
benedict XVII said:
Invasion may actually succeed if the French have the Brits with them instead of against them. Flooding won't be of much use against RN. In terms of occupation, I could envision the French keeping Spanish NL (which includes much of modern Southern NL), some parts of Zealand to protect access to Antwerp and parts of Utrecht as it was still quite Catholic. Going more North than that is really asking for trouble.

But more seriously, why on earth would Charles want to have the French control such a large strip of coast along the North Sea? That's really asking for trouble. You'd need a very serious reason.


Well, the Anglo-French agreement to partition the Netherlands is historic, so that objection doesn't really hold. IIRC Louis XIV plannes either to annex the Netherlands outright or reorganise it into a monarchy under . . . William of Orange!, which might actually have been possible if the Dutch collapse comes too quickly for the Stadtholder to become the centre of defiance. Of course there would be french garrisons everywhere, but imagine the intrigue that would have taken off once William found himself ruling the netherlands as a French puppet, but presumably with at least some freedom of action
 
It will be in Britain's interest that France doesn't gets the Netherlands, because if it does, France will be too strong, you need to see it in the time frame, during the time, Holland was experiencing a golden age, and was a major competitor of France and Britain. France did actually want to conquer the Netherlands, but knew it couldn't beat it without Britain, Britain knew it had no chance to keep land on the continent, but wanted to give the Netherlands a good beating.

Britain knew that if the Netherlands would get partitioned, they wouldn't keep their continent lands for long, and Britain didn't enter with the intention to actually get to continent land from the Netherlands. They didn't want to see the Netherlands annexed and especially not by the French (who were a bigger threat to them, and alliances weren't exactly stable at the time.)
 
This ATL doesn't require the british to be more whole-heartedly engaged on the French side, just (by luck) more successfully so. Actually the real POD seem to be France holding onto and attacking through the Southern Netherlands rather than relying on a precarious route through German allies that could be (and was) cut by Dutch diplomacy

It's not like the UK of the 1670s can do much about a French conquest of the netherlands even if it did decide to oppose it, a decision which would entail direct confrontation with France and thus be deeply unbcharacteristic of britain under the later Stewarts anyway.
 
Matthew Craw said:
Well, the Anglo-French agreement to partition the Netherlands is historic, so that objection doesn't really hold. IIRC Louis XIV plannes either to annex the Netherlands outright or reorganise it into a monarchy under . . . William of Orange!, which might actually have been possible if the Dutch collapse comes too quickly for the Stadtholder to become the centre of defiance. Of course there would be french garrisons everywhere, but imagine the intrigue that would have taken off once William found himself ruling the netherlands as a French puppet, but presumably with at least some freedom of action

Didn't know about the plan. How long would it have taken to see a reversal of alliances?
 

Faeelin

Banned
benedict XVII said:
Didn't know about the plan. How long would it have taken to see a reversal of alliances?

Depends. Wasn't the King of france subsidizing England at this point? Or was that a bit later?
 
Faeelin said:
Depends. Wasn't the King of france subsidizing England at this point? Or was that a bit later?

OK, subsidizing the King of England so he does not have to rely on Parliament. But how fast would the King stay on his throne if Louis XIV's France ends up controlling the entire North Sea board?
 
Closer links with France and a role in the destruction of a protestant republic might well make the Exclusion crisi worse for Charles - leading to the outbreak of a second English civil war in 1678, with William of Orange taking advantage of the opportunity to tear off the mask and lead a Dutch revolt againt the French garrisons. At this point other European powers (the Spanish and German Habsburgs, the German states etc.) might intervene against France and we have something like the War of the League of Augsburg, but fought a decade earlier and under far more favourable circumstances for Louis XIV.
 
Now we're getting somewhere. I was thinking that Republicanism in England and Scotland had been reduced to a lunatic fringe by this point, though. James may be an unacceptably bad monarch, but most Britons still think he's better than Cromwell...so where will Britain get its next monarch, if William is busy and not yet impressive?
 
ShawnEndresen said:
Now we're getting somewhere. I was thinking that Republicanism in England and Scotland had been reduced to a lunatic fringe by this point, though. James may be an unacceptably bad monarch, but most Britons still think he's better than Cromwell...so where will Britain get its next monarch, if William is busy and not yet impressive?

Has Mary married William before or after the POD?
 

Faeelin

Banned
ShawnEndresen said:
Now we're getting somewhere. I was thinking that Republicanism in England and Scotland had been reduced to a lunatic fringe by this point, though. James may be an unacceptably bad monarch, but most Britons still think he's better than Cromwell...so where will Britain get its next monarch, if William is busy and not yet impressive?

Does England have to get one? My expectation would be that the Stuarts would remain on the throne.
 
Faeelin said:
Does England have to get one? My expectation would be that the Stuarts would remain on the throne.

I'd have to agree, the army was large enough to secure London and make it very difficult fo any large-scale armed opposition to coalesce, though not to actually establish military rule over the nation as a whole. Plus there'd be French support and no prospect of anyone else in Europe being able to provide meaningful help to the Whigs - I'd expect a relatively brief civil war ending in a Royalist victory but preventing England from helping France much i Europe and distracting Louis XIV during the critical early phase of the Second Dutch Revolt.
 
Top