Greater French Kingdom?

I don't really even see it as a betrayal. Louis was asking for far too much of the Spanish Netherlands in the negotiations leading up to the war, costing him support. Had he moderated his demands and kept the de Witts on side, things would have been different.

I think the sense of betrayal wasn't so much over the partition proposal breaking down, but that the Dutch actually joined an alliance against France, right after France had declared war on their behalf in the second Anglo-Dutch War.

In any event, I agree with your larger point - it was absolutely in France's best interest to be on the same side as the Dutch, and I think it could have benefitted the Dutch as well. Both nations' resources were strained by the need to maintain powerful land and sea defenses.
 
I am sure you understand and admit that all these mutual accusations of betrayal by the rulers of the kingdom of France and the United Provinces were both superficial and bad faith.

The point is that these 2 powers had conflicting interests.

France had filled its role when it had helped defeat the Habsburgs and secure peace for the Netherlands. To a lesser extent when it was fighting alongside the United Provinces against England. But the Netherlands did not want a more powerful France nor a neighbour France. "Gallicus amicus sed non vicinus". One could add "si gallicus vicinus, gallicus inimicus."

And France was the emerging great power of the time, wanting to increase its power and area of control in Europe and wanting to gain a bigger share on the extremely lucrative transoceanic trade of which the United Provinces, Britain, and of course Spain and Portugal were top dogs.

France considered it needed more and the United Provinces considered more was too much and dangerous.

They just were on a natural collision course. A medium-size country like the United Provinces can feel confortable and secure when it faces a very big country emerging as some kind of superpower. Medium-size countries interest is to have balkanized environment, not to be surrounded by very big powers. France was almost 10 times as populated as the United Provinces.

One would have needed treasures of diplomacy on both sides to avoid collision. Neither the dutch ruling class, nor (even less !) Louis XIV, had such a temper or such a will. Their world was mercantilist, imperialist, and intolerant, on both sides.
 
no French Wars of Religion= France get Rhine river border

French Wars of Religion massive weaken France. cost was 3 million death in French Wars of Religion and the main political consequence of the Wars of Religion was a drastic diminution of royal authority.
bourbon kings spend half century to strength the royal power. so let say Henri II of France don't get jousting incident of 1559.
Henri II nip in bud French Wars of Religion by destroying Guise and bourbon faction early .
France can aid dutch revolt earlier in 1570. and fight Spain earlier in 1600 instead of 1635. essentially have Louis xiv earlier in 1625 instead of 1670.
 

All Rounder

Gone Fishin'
Interesting scenarios, if you want to go checkout an interesting one as well, look at my "Dinosauroid" thread on the ASB. You may enjoy it!
I honestly can't answer anything before 1871 in the world's history if presented with a what if scenario.
 
One thing that may be missing in our discussion of Dutch-French emnity: part of the rise of this emnity was trade. Initially France had been fairly laissez-faire on trade, and as a result Dutch merchants (as they did everywhere) took over a huge chunk of France's trade and associated profits. France was strong enough to eventually object, and it would've taken quite some diplomacy on both sides to either make the Dutch accept a mercantilist France (when the Baltic states were a bit nasty on mercantilism, they'd see a Dutch fleet on their worst enemy's side, and trying the same against France makes sense) or to make France accept free trade and the associated Dutch dominance (I mean, France accepting someone else taking all its wealth? Not very likely).

The big problem was that France and the Republic were both Great Powers in a rather small pond; hostility was natural so long as England or Spain was no lethal threat to both (and England, for all its failings, wasn't dumb enough to be such).
 
no French Wars of Religion= France get Rhine river border

French Wars of Religion massive weaken France. cost was 3 million death in French Wars of Religion and the main political consequence of the Wars of Religion was a drastic diminution of royal authority.
bourbon kings spend half century to strength the royal power. so let say Henri II of France don't get jousting incident of 1559.
Henri II nip in bud French Wars of Religion by destroying Guise and bourbon faction early .
France can aid dutch revolt earlier in 1570. and fight Spain earlier in 1600 instead of 1635. essentially have Louis xiv earlier in 1625 instead of 1670.

Henri II would have given France stronger leadership than his sons, certainly. But he didn't seem inclined to give Protestants religious tolerance, even as they were rapidly growing in number. I think France was probably headed for conflict anyway.
 
This is just flat out wrong. France's policies under Colbert were protectionist, and manufacturing oriented. He originated the idea of mercantilism. France was perfectly happy to let Dutch merchants buy French goods in French ports, to sell to the Baltic and other places. The flow of gold from that transaction was still inward to France, which was the goal. The Dutch wanted to be traders. The French wanted to be producers.

The Dutch were naturally shut out of French colonies, as the French were from Dutch colonies, but the Dutch were perfectly welcome to purchase goods in French ports. The French wanted to be exporters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbertism
Uhh...

"He spent a lot of energy trying to reorganize industry and commerce. He believed that in order to increase French power it would be essential to grow France’s share of international trade and reduce the commercial hegemony of the Dutch."

From 1665 to 1683 a minister was ruling who wanted to threaten Dutch commercial hegemony, and I say that helped cause Dutch-French hostility. I don't see the flat out wrong?
 
One thing that may be missing in our discussion of Dutch-French emnity: part of the rise of this emnity was trade. Initially France had been fairly laissez-faire on trade, and as a result Dutch merchants (as they did everywhere) took over a huge chunk of France's trade and associated profits. France was strong enough to eventually object, and it would've taken quite some diplomacy on both sides to either make the Dutch accept a mercantilist France (when the Baltic states were a bit nasty on mercantilism, they'd see a Dutch fleet on their worst enemy's side, and trying the same against France makes sense) or to make France accept free trade and the associated Dutch dominance (I mean, France accepting someone else taking all its wealth? Not very likely).

The big problem was that France and the Republic were both Great Powers in a rather small pond; hostility was natural so long as England or Spain was no lethal threat to both (and England, for all its failings, wasn't dumb enough to be such).

This is just flat out wrong. France's policies under Colbert were protectionist, and manufacturing oriented. He originated the idea of mercantilism. France was perfectly happy to let Dutch merchants buy French goods in French ports, to sell to the Baltic and other places. The flow of gold from that transaction was still inward to France, which was the goal. The Dutch wanted to be traders. The French wanted to be producers.

The Dutch were naturally shut out of French colonies, as the French were from Dutch colonies, but the Dutch were perfectly welcome to purchase goods in French ports. The French wanted to be exporters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colbertism

Uhh...

"He spent a lot of energy trying to reorganize industry and commerce. He believed that in order to increase French power it would be essential to grow France’s share of international trade and reduce the commercial hegemony of the Dutch."

From 1665 to 1683 a minister was ruling who wanted to threaten Dutch commercial hegemony, and I say that helped cause Dutch-French hostility. I don't see the flat out wrong?
I have this feeling that French traders should be the ones doing inside French borders was what was intended by Colbert anyway, however I cannot pronounce myself when it comes to external trade. Hell, it would make sense for France to let the Dutch get external trade, since it would concurrence the British.
Henri II would have given France stronger leadership than his sons, certainly. But he didn't seem inclined to give Protestants religious tolerance, even as they were rapidly growing in number. I think France was probably headed for conflict anyway.
Than François II and Charles IX? I completely agree. Than Henri III? Not that sure. After all, he seemed to have better political sense than his two brothers which were always their mothers' puppets.
Then, again, if the dynastic situation doesn't change (no legitimate sons for Henri II's four sons), the crown will go to Henri de Navarre one way or another.
There was this saying among French Huguenots : 'Henri II refused to see the reality of the Reform, God struck him in the eye. François II refused to hear it, and God struck him in the ear" or something like that. It sorta reflects the way the more radicals protestants felt at the time.

I believe an early Edict of Nantes would have been necessary (the Edict of Amboise was that IOTL; having Henri III not murdered and managing to push it forward despite opposition might make the transition at his death much smoother), but before that, maintaining a strong royal authority is necessary because protestantism is an easy revolt matter. One way or another, the problem France faced was mostly foreign interference : the Guise descended from the House of Lorraine, and Philip II was willing to spend money to destabilize France.
 
Well, maybe, but the Dutch took a big chunk of French internal trade too, AFAIK. And they certainly set the terms (and thus who'd profit) for external trade, to French chagrin.
 
Top