Franco-Dutch partition of the Spanish Netherlands

Prior to the War of Devolution Louis XIV approached Jan de Witt with an offer to partition the Spanish Netherlands. He was open to the idea but thought the that the specific terms gave to much land to France.

That's about all I've been able to find. Does anyone know the specific terms of Louis's offer, or what would have been acceptable to de Witt?
 
So after google translating it, I get the following:
The "De Witt" distribution plan was an attempt to distribute the Southern Netherlands prior to the war of devolution. The plan was developed in 1663 by Louis XIV and presented to council member Johan de Witt of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. This so-called "de Witt" plan included the division along the Ostend-Maastricht line, north of the language border. Northern of this line would fall to the Republic and be south of the line for France.
With the following map:
Verdelingsplannen_Zuidelijke_Nederlanden_17e_eeuw.PNG


If I understand it properly, the proposed border to the Dutch side is the dotted one starting with "1663", with an Ostend-Maastricht line.
This would mean that:
- France get most of historical Flanders, except the main cities of Bruges and Ghent (north of the line, Bruges is probably the "B" on the map).
- France would get most of Brabant, including Bruxelles, but not Mechelen. Basically, France would get the today province of Flemish and Walloon Brabant, the Netherlands would get the Antwerp province.
- France would get all the southern French speaking and catholic provinces: Artois, Hainaut, Namur and Luxembourg.

- The United provincew would get an extended Flanders of the state, with Bruges and Ghent, a good chunk of Brabant including Antwerp and Mechelen (I know at this point it was a separate province but I simplified a bit there). And the strategic fortress of Maastricht.

If I understand this correctly, this is the plan proposed by Louis XIV to the Dutch. One can easily see how the response was "this is too much land for the French", as indeed this was clearly the case. What could have been a counterproposal from the Dutch, instead of them joining the Triple Alliance against the French?
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
The problem isn't really that the French would get too much territory. There are two major problems for the States faction that was in control of the Republic at that time:

  1. Partitioning the Southern Netherlands destroys the buffer between the Republic and France: 'France as friend, not as neighbour.'
  2. If Antwerp becomes part of the Netherlands the blockade of that city will have to be lifted. This will greatly damage the position of the port of Amsterdam.
The States Faction was very averse to any expansion. If you have a surviving Willem II then it will all be much easier, especially if he takes power.
 
The States Faction was very averse to any expansion. If you have a surviving Willem II then it will all be much easier, especially if he takes power.
Interestingly this is basicly the premise of the timeline I am developing.

I always believe that a continued Franco-Dutch alliance could be a rival to British dominance of the 18th and 19th century. This deal would secure this alliance for quite awhile and yes, I think Willem II is probably key. He would care less about the power of Amsterdam than the regents. Actualy I would say that he would even want to limit the power of Amsterdam and Holland as they are a thread to his own power.
 
Last edited:

HJ Tulp

Donor
Interestingly this is basicly the premise of the timeline I am developing.
Yeah, you mentioned before. Looking forward to reading it! :)
I always believe that a continued Franco-Dutch alliance could be a rival to British dominance of the 18th and 19th century. This deal would secure this alliance for quite awhile

It certainly has potential. I do think that the regents were right to be wary of the French though. 1672 was a very close run and if there is one thing the Republic lacked it's strategic depth. Furthermore, without the Republic building and financing various alliances against France it might turn hegemonic. This is potentially very dangerous to Dutch trade.

I think Willem II is probably key. He would care less about the power of Amsterdam than the regents. Actualy I wouls sat that he would even want to limit the power of Amsterdam and Holland as they are a thread to his own power.

Oh very much. I've been writing a paper on Willem II and it's pretty damning to read how far he went in his preparations for a deal with France.
 
The problem isn't really that the French would get too much territory. There are two major problems for the States faction that was in control of the Republic at that time:

  1. Partitioning the Southern Netherlands destroys the buffer between the Republic and France: 'France as friend, not as neighbour.'
  2. If Antwerp becomes part of the Netherlands the blockade of that city will have to be lifted. This will greatly damage the position of the port of Amsterdam.
The States Faction was very averse to any expansion. If you have a surviving Willem II then it will all be much easier, especially if he takes power.

With a benefit of a hindsight we can say that this position proved to be quite costly for the Netherlands and especially for De Witt and his brother. :teary:

Belgium as a barrier proved to be quite inefficient when the French decided to invade the Netherlands and, IIRC, maintaining Antwerp as a 1st rate port was requiring serious expenses (in 1800 Napoleon had to spend considerable amounts of money on deepening the Scheldt; perhaps this was not such a big problem at the time of De Witt). OTOH, I was under the impression that Franco-Dutch trade relations had been mutually-beneficial until this conflict (so basically there was no reason for Louis to attack the Netherlands) but then situation was reversed and the Dutch had to deal on their own with the British naval competition (and with the French invasion).

The "objective enemy" was Britain not France and while De Witt definitely was not a fool he clearly mishandled the situation. France was not competing with the Dutch trade and, even simply because the French merchant navy was quite small, the Dutch could get for themselves almost monopolistic position as far as the French imports and exports were involved and perhaps support of the French navy in conflicts with the Brits. Of course, this would require an elaborate policies that would keep Louis' ego flattered enough (and not alienate Colbert too much) but an alternative proved to be more expensive in a short and long term.
 
Yeah, you mentioned before. Looking forward to reading it! :)


It certainly has potential. I do think that the regents were right to be wary of the French though. 1672 was a very close run and if there is one thing the Republic lacked it's strategic depth. Furthermore, without the Republic building and financing various alliances against France it might turn hegemonic. This is potentially very dangerous to Dutch trade.

The greater "clear and present danger" for the Republic was British competition. France as an ally could help because it was building its own navy and because such an alliance would secure the Republic from the land attack. Also, France was a biggest trade partner in Europe and, with its merchant marine being relatively small, the Republic could get almost a monopoly on carrying the French imports and exports (with England being explicitly excluded from the equation).

As for the hegemonic tendencies, Louis had them anyway but in the case of a stable alliance the aggressive part of these tendencies would be applied against somebody else leaving the Dutch with a relatively simple task of pleasing his vanity by excessive flattery, which cost little.
 
How would the rest of Europe view this alliance and partition? In OTL, Louis XIV and his ministers were able to avert the involvement of the Holy Roman Empire by cutting deals with some of the nearby electorates, who would forbid foreign troops from passing through their territory and lobbying the Reichstag against further involvement. There also seemed to be a sort of gentleman's agreement between Louis and Leopold regarding a partition of the entire Spanish Empire in the event that Charles II of Spain died. At the time, this was considered to be a very imminent thing, so naturally Leopold wanted to make sure he kept as many of those Habsburg territories with the Habsburgs. Makes sense, but since the HRE and Spain were still allied, this particular treaty was never ratified and Charles II lived to die another day anyway. Either way, the poor kid was destined to unwittingly start a large land war.

Anyway, had France and the United Provinces gone in on this partition, the entire continent goes to war. No amount of lobbying or politicking would prevent Leopold and the HRE from declaring war on the Franco-Dutch Alliance, and the OTL Triple Alliance of England, Sweden, and the Dutch Republic sees the Dutch replaced here by the HRE. The Danes can get pulled in on the French side if for no other reason to perpetually oppose Sweden. Could Brandenburg-Prussia get pulled in too?
 
Anyway, had France and the United Provinces gone in on this partition, the entire continent goes to war. No amount of lobbying or politicking would prevent Leopold and the HRE from declaring war on the Franco-Dutch Alliance, and the OTL Triple Alliance of England, Sweden, and the Dutch Republic sees the Dutch replaced here by the HRE. The Danes can get pulled in on the French side if for no other reason to perpetually oppose Sweden. Could Brandenburg-Prussia get pulled in too?
The triple alliance was setup on initiative of De Witt and greased by money of the Republic, so it is very good possible that England and/or Sweden remain neutral in a conflict. Especialy Charles II could be bought off at this time. In 1663 the Sultan also declared war on Austria. That is a much bigger threat for them. It might well be that Spain will stand alone and will yield without a fight.

On a side-note: It is odd that this division-plan is called De Witt's plan in OTL, when it's clearly not his plan.
 
Who proposed those borders in 1632 and 1635? I assume the orange line is the language border?

Louis didn't care much about economics so he'd probably have accepted pretty generous commercial concessions in exchange for land. He'd probably threaten to revoke them to extort Dutch subsidies for his future wars though.
 
Yeah, you mentioned before. Looking forward to reading it! :)


It certainly has potential. I do think that the regents were right to be wary of the French though. 1672 was a very close run and if there is one thing the Republic lacked it's strategic depth. Furthermore, without the Republic building and financing various alliances against France it might turn hegemonic. This is potentially very dangerous to Dutch trade.

The problem is that by rejecting the partition plan, the Dutch alienated France and made a conflict much more likely. That started the breakdown of relations between the two states that led to the 1672 invasion. They were not guaranteed to be on good terms with France otherwise (Louis XIV might still view them as a commercial rival), but their chances were better.
 
The problem is that by rejecting the partition plan, the Dutch alienated France and made a conflict much more likely. That started the breakdown of relations between the two states that led to the 1672 invasion. They were not guaranteed to be on good terms with France otherwise (Louis XIV might still view them as a commercial rival), but their chances were better.
I agree. In a way it showed France that the Dutch republic was an unreliable ally. Partly because the way the Dutch Republic was governed its goals were very different and even alien to the kingdom of France. The Dutch republic had no interest in expansion, just in making money. In some ways the Dutch Republic was a very modern state.

Willem II as a ruler of the Dutch republic would make Dutch goals closer and more relatable to Fance.
 
Top