Long term consequences of France annexing Southern Netherlands in 1748?

If Louis XV wasn't such a moron for returning the Austrian Netherlands for some weird reason like getting the approval of other states,how would things end?Obviously,France would get more money and the monarchy would get more prestige(instead of losing it like OTL).Would France be rich enough to avoid bankruptcy under his more idiot of a grandson if the guy another war?Another thing is would the diplomatic revolution still happen?Obviously though,the British would freak out,how will this play out in future wars against the British?
 
Last edited:
If Louis XV wasn't such a moron for returning the Austrian Netherlands for some weird reason like getting the approval of other states,how would things end?Obviously,France would get more money and the monarchy would get more prestige(instead of losing it like OTL).Would France be rich enough to avoid bankruptcy under his more idiot of a grandson if the guy another war?Another thing is would the diplomatic revolution still happen?Obviously though,the British would freak out,how will this play out in future wars against the British?

If the French could hold onto it into the Industrial era, it would do quite a bit for their resource base. Still wouldn't solve their population problems though.
 
There is a saying in this forum: "No one wanted the Southern Netherlands but France, and no one wanted France there".

With Antwerp blockaded by the Dutch, the Austrian Netherlands were pretty poor, France wouldn't really "get richer" in fact they would get a potential money-dumping.
 
There is a saying in this forum: "No one wanted the Southern Netherlands but France, and no one wanted France there".

With Antwerp blockaded by the Dutch, the Austrian Netherlands were pretty poor, France wouldn't really "get richer" in fact they would get a potential money-dumping.
Would that lead to future conflicts where France beats up the Dutch just to unblock Antwerp?
 
Well, we get "War of the Spanish Succession 2: The Electric Boogaloo" in terms of France + Spain vs the whole continent.
 
If Louis XV wasn't such a moron for returning the Austrian Netherlands for some weird reason like getting the approval of other states,how would things end?Obviously,France would get more money and the monarchy would get more prestige(instead of losing it like OTL).Would France be rich enough to avoid bankruptcy under his more idiot of a grandson if the guy another war?Another thing is would the diplomatic revolution still happen?Obviously though,the British would freak out,how will this play out in future wars against the British?

Keeping the Austrian Netherlands would have been a worse option for France. It just means that when a proto- Seven Years War comes along, France won't be just facing Britain and Prussia, but the rest of the coalition like the War of Spanish Succession. Except that this Seven Years War would have been likely to see France not only lose its overseas colonies to Britain like OTL, but also some of its European lands. France barely survived the War of Spanish Succession without losing its European lands. It may not be as lucky when a proto-Seven Years War comes calling. Hence, this alternate 7YW would have been even more catastrophic for France.

Since I don't see France holding on to the Austrian Netherlands to the industrial area, Louis XV was right to give it up to gain peace because debt-ridden France was in no position to fight a continuing war. Louis XV got what he wanted out of the war: Austria weakened by a stronger Prussia, which improved France's position on the Continent. That was a good strategy for France.

Louis XV big failure was not in giving up the Austrian Netherlands but in not reforming France and in not making France prepared for another war against Britain that he knew was inevitable. Britain had made the necessary reforms to its navy after its mediocre performance against Spain and was prepared to face France when the 7YW came calling. France did not and paid the consequences.
 
This is wrong about the Netherlands. Only Britain and the United Provinces were totally opposed to french control.

Austria would have gladly traded the Netherlands against a german territory neighbouring its other possessions. Austria wanted Silesia back.

In 1748, Austria would also have been willing to trade the Netherlands against italian possessions which short-sighted Louis XV prefered to have for one of his son-in-laws.
 
This is wrong about the Netherlands. Only Britain and the United Provinces were totally opposed to french control.

And Prussia and Russia. Britain and the Dutch had superior financial structures than France; they can afford and sustain a long war to get what they want, France couldn't. Britain could continue to attack and likely capture overseas French colonies in exchange. They were close to capturing Madras when the war ended, which would have prevented them needing to exchange Louisburg for it. Unless you are willing to say that it would be worth it for France to give up its overseas colonies and creating enemies in order to keep Austrian Netherlands (which was worthless until its industrial capacity was realized but Louis XV could not have known that), giving it up was the right thing to do. Not to mention the fact that he knew that because of France's inefficient financial structure, France could not sustain a long war. The war was already going way too long and he needed it to end quickly.

Louis XV's strategies during the War of Austrian Succession and Seven Years War were the right ones. In the former, he wanted to weaken powerful Austria by helping Prussia. He succeeded. The problem was that he expected a short war but the French army let him down (until Maurice de Saxe came along) prolonging the war far longer and far more expensive than he expected. Consequently, the French financial system went closer to ruin. He entered the 7YW to defend his overseas colonies which he knew was likely to fall under British conquest. He needed to capture European lands in exchange for them. He again expected a short war and he almost succeeded but the French army again let him down. The French financial system went further closer to ruin

Louis XV was not an idiot. It was the French armies that didn't perform to expectations. The 18th century French armies were overrated until Napoleon came along. In every major war France fought in that century: War of Spanish Succession, War of Austrian Succession, Seven Years War and American Revolution; France expected a short war in each case but it never happened because the French armies performed poorly in each one except the American Revolution. It was the incompetence and cowardice of the American Rebels that prolonged that war, not the French army.

Louis XV was not a great monarch; his failure to refom the France financial system and build up the French navy meant he was unprepared to fight Britain when the 7YW came along. He also failed to cultivate closer relations with Spain whose great navy would have been needed for Louis to fight Britain. His refusal to support Spain in its war against Britain during the Jenkins's Ear War was costly; Spain did not forget that and refused to support France in the 7YW until it was too late. But Louis XV was not a terrible monarch either nor was he an idiot.
 
Where did you find that Russia opposed France annexing the Netherlands ?

And Prussia ? Indeed it was France lack of consistency about the Netherlands that persuaded Friederich II to drop his alliance with France.

The Dutch could afford nothing. They risked total annihilation.

And the fact is that France not keeping the Netherlands was decisive in Britain's decision to start war anew just 6 years later.
 
Alot of my timelines end with France controlling the Austrian Netherlands.

My favorites include major trades after a successful 7 years war on the mainland of Europe for the French/Austrian/Russian alliance.

France gets the Netherlands and Austria/Russia get some Prussian territories to later exchange for Bavaria.
 
The British didn't start the 7 Year's War on the Continent, it was started by Friederich's invasion of Saxony which shocked everyone, Britain included. In the colonies the war was started by a bunch of colonial militia slaughtering Frenchmen.

You are right. But that's not what I said. I said that Britain started the war. Which it de facto did outside Europe as early as 1754.
 
Where did you find that Russia opposed France annexing the Netherlands ?

And Prussia ? Indeed it was France lack of consistency about the Netherlands that persuaded Friederich II to drop his alliance with France.

The Dutch could afford nothing. They risked total annihilation.

And the fact is that France not keeping the Netherlands was decisive in Britain's decision to start war anew just 6 years later.

The Dutch could afford almost anything to keep France away, because France owning Antwerp allows them indeed to annihilate the Republic.

Thus, the Dutch were wary of allowing the French in. And because of similar considerations, other powers were also willing to fight over it (and to tell Austria to stop trying to swap their bit away, since keeping Austria involved in keeping the area not-French was easier for everyone else).
 
The Dutch could afford almost anything to keep France away, because France owning Antwerp allows them indeed to annihilate the Republic.

Thus, the Dutch were wary of allowing the French in. And because of similar considerations, other powers were also willing to fight over it (and to tell Austria to stop trying to swap their bit away, since keeping Austria involved in keeping the area not-French was easier for everyone else).

Problem is that the Netherlands of the 18th century is not the Netherlands of the 17th century,it's no longer a great power nor does it have much influence.
 
Problem is that the Netherlands of the 18th century is not the Netherlands of the 17th century,it's no longer a great power nor does it have much influence.

Very true. This is not about the Dutch power, this is about French power only. The Southern Netherlands of the 18th century weren't the great rich lands they were before anymore. But they are still comparably rich and they still have a comparably high population. All that now adds to France, which by itself is the most populous country in Europe at the time. and this effectively sums it up: a lot of what happened in the 17th and 18th century was France trying to dominate Europe and being beaten back. With the Southern Netherlands in French hands, this becomes so much more difficult.
 
Very true. This is not about the Dutch power, this is about French power only. The Southern Netherlands of the 18th century weren't the great rich lands they were before anymore. But they are still comparably rich and they still have a comparably high population. All that now adds to France, which by itself is the most populous country in Europe at the time. and this effectively sums it up: a lot of what happened in the 17th and 18th century was France trying to dominate Europe and being beaten back. With the Southern Netherlands in French hands, this becomes so much more difficult.
Problem is that the Prussians wouldn't give a thing about the Southern Netherlands as their main bone is with Austria,they don't even bother the French.The French were always perfectly fine with giving up the Austrian Netherlands for a price,and they are currently being beaten the f#%k out of them by the Prussians.The British were shocked IOTL with the French willing to relinquish the Southern Netherlands for a reason,they too thought that there's no way they could keep it out of French hands this time.
 
Where did you find that Russia opposed France annexing the Netherlands ?

Maybe not as much as as the Dutch, British Austrians and Prussians but they didn't want France getting it. The 3 biggest land powers: Russia, France, Austria feared and mistrusted each other. The Franco-Austro-Russian alliance during the 7YW was fragile and could easily have broken up. Frederick's unprovoked invasion of Saxony angered Austria and Russia (who had wanted parts of Saxony) and brought them closer together. Louis XV's mistress, Pompadour, who was angry at Frederick for insulting her, convinced him to join the alliance.

If Frederick did not invade Saxony, the alliance would have broken up. It might have ended up as Britain/Russia versus France/Prussia with Austria on the sidelines. France might even have Spain onside since France would not be allied with feared Austria. If Spain joined, then Britain would have been likely to drop out entirely.

And Prussia ? Indeed it was France lack of consistency about the Netherlands that persuaded Friederich II to drop his alliance with France.

It was France that broke up the alliance with Prussia, not the other way around. Frederick did think that the French were wimps in not declaring war on Britain after the latter was making aggressive moves on French ships and colonies but that was not enough for Frederick to break up the alliance. In fact, diplomacy leading up to the 7YW was complicated but Frederick at one point was willing to betray Britain to court France. Frederick's invasion of Saxony and Madame de Pompadour pushed France more deeply into Austria's camp.

The Dutch could afford nothing. They risked total annihilation.

The Dutch was still a major player. They had an excellent banking system and would have had Britain, the best naval power, and Prussia, the best land power, as allies. The Dutch was also an important supplier of badly needed naval supplies to France. Antagonizing the Dutch was not in France's best interests. In fact, everyone was surprised that the Dutch remained neutral during the 7YW; when the war started, Britain had sent transports to pick up Dutch troops, figuring that the Dutch would join the war only to be forced to call back the transports when the Dutch told them no. The Dutch were satisfied by France's promises not to attack the Austrian Netherlands and stayed neutral. They even continued to sell naval supplies to the French during the war. Britain objected to this but, like France, still felt it important not to antagonize the Dutch, proving that the Dutch, while in decline, was not yet a minor player.

And the fact is that France not keeping the Netherlands was decisive in Britain's decision to start war anew just 6 years later.

What is it about the Austrian Netherlands that would have prevented Britain from going to war against France? If France had Hanover, (which France planned to capture in the 7YW to exchange for any lost colonies) then that would be a different story.
 
Last edited:
This would give France a great deal of leverage over Britain. They had relatively few good harbors the French Navy could retreat too in times of trouble. Prevailing winds in the Channel go from west to east, allowing for a relatively easy way to invade Britain but major problems getting out.

Antwerp would greatly assist this.

Britain would have to heavily fortify southern England and keep a larger "Home" fleet.

There was a reason by centuries of British policy revolved around maintaining power over Ireland and keeping a balance of power in the low countries.

This would be a massive blow to Britain.
 
Top