Modified partition of Belgium

Eurofed

Banned
ITT; we sprinkle handwavium and ignore the realities of 19th century revolutions.

"Oh, you just won your own nation after defeating a foreign despot? Well here, now half of you are Prussian, and the other half are French. What, no, you can't have your own country. What are you doing with that cannon by the way, you're getting it awfully close to my castle..."

I'm an ardent fan of successful 1848 revolutions, but we cannot ignore the hard reality that an awfully big number of uprisings, rebellions, and guerrilla wars *failed* during the 19th century, many more than they succeeded.

There was absolutely nothing high-probability or irresistible about the OTL success of the Belgian Revolution or the fragile Belgian national identity, it was almost all about the ineptitude of initial Dutch repression and the later French intervention to help the French-speaking rebels. ITTL the former is more timely and the latter is counterbalanced by a Prussian intervention. So, there is no 'nation won'.
 
Last edited:
Since France would be intervening after a more successful s Dutch crackdown on the Belgian rebels which in turn triggers the Prussians to join in on the party, would France not be disciplined more harshly then not gaining Walonia? I'd think the French would also lose French Flanders and perhaps even Alsace-Lorraine. After all the previous decision to treat France fairly resulted in yet another French northbound expansion.

Now if France does end up losing said lands this will force the Dutch and the German states, especially Prussia into a far close relationship then OTL, and if that would result in a stronger and larger Deutsche Bund - even if it is without a real dominant power in it , this would eventually result in a WW I style alliance system after all, that Bund would be on its way to create a new hegemon which the Brits would then in turn oppose, France would go revange-ist. Then the Dutch colonies in Indië will cause even more trouble between the Brits and the Bund. Europe will be even more of a powder keg.

It an interesting POD though!


Thats exactly what i think might happen, not sure how far they would push it (maybe even handing french territory in the south to spain & savoy).

I would expect the Netherlands to retake all of its former holdings in belgium and annex french flanders/ Nord-Pas-de-Calais. And then punish france by creating a buffer state in the northern part of france.

And yes it would drive the Netherlands into the arms of the bund. I think it would make the bund much more balanced than otl and longer lasting as the powergrab bismarck did in otl is far less likely to happen/succeed because the Netherlands will either balance out or have more influence that prussia.

If it happens what i wrote before (Frederik-Willem becoming king instead of his annoying brother) that might have interesting repercussions in 1848.
In otl the prussian king refused the kaisers crown from the frankfurter parliament in 1848 because he did not want to receive the crown from the people, Frederik-Willem very likely would have no reservations (because getting the crown from the people is what was already practice in the netherlands for some time). Of course with the demise of france in the 1830s, one would have either earlier revolutions there, or the otl ones from 1848 (what caused most european revolutions that year) would be butterflied.
 
Last edited:
Thats exactly what i think might happen, not sure how far they would push it (maybe even handing french territory in the south to spain & savoy).

I would expect the Netherlands to retake all of its former holdings in belgium and annex french flanders/ Nord-Pas-de-Calais. And then punish france by creating a buffer state in the northern part of france.

And yes it would drive the Netherlands into the arms of the bund. I think it would make the bund much more balanced than otl and longer lasting as the powergrab bismarck did in otl is far less likely to happen/succeed because the Netherlands will either balance out or have more influence that prussia.

If it happens what i wrote before (Frederik-Willem becoming king instead of his annoying brother) that might have interesting repercussions in 1848.
In otl the prussian king refused the kaisers crown from the frankfurter parliament in 1848 because he did not want to receive the crown from the people, Frederik-Willem very likely would have no reservations (because getting the crown from the people is what was already practice in the netherlands for some time). Of course with the demise of france in the 1830s, one would have either earlier revolutions there, or the otl ones from 1848 (what caused most european revolutions that year) would be butterflied.

I must say I agree but I'm wondering what the Austrian empire is going to do, are they going to go up against Prussia out will they fight a renewed French threat, furthermore what will Russia and the Ottomans do?

Also I must day I like your idea of having a different Dutch king and have him become the German emperor, though would this not become a revival of the Holy Roman Empire inserted of a Kaiserreich-like empire?

Another thing would be that if Frederik-Willem becomes the Kaiser would Austria and Prussia not feel bypassed, especially since even an expanded United Kingdom of the Netherlands would be no match for either Prussia or Austria.

One way I can see it happen is if Frederik-Willem had married a Prussian princess, daughter of the Prussian king and the Prussian king slang with his sons dies in battle that allows Frederik-Willem to become king of Prussia also.the same can not happen between Frederik-Willem and a Hapsburg princess since the Dutch will never accept a catholic king.
 
Personally I am not so sure the combined Dutch and Prussian armies actually can defeat France. So I doubt the Netherlands would be able to annex French Flanders and such. Our best bet is that neither party really wants a war, especially so close after the Napoleonic wars.

So what happens:
The belgians revolt. The Dutch king reacts quicker and smarter. Dutch troops quickly defeat the Belgian revolutionaries and come close to the Dutch-French border. France intervenes and the Dutch retreat. The Prussians intervene on the Dutch side (quickly occupying the southeast before the French can). None of those three countries want a war, which would be ruinous for all three and peace is made.
 
I've always seen France from that period as wanting to expand just as much a France under Louis XVI. Another thing though to take into consideration is that Britain would be forced to join in against France since Britain guaranteed Dutch survival against the French to prevent France from breaking out of its confines.if Britain does not join I'm against France they'll lose so much face that they'd end up being the laughingstock of Europe, british honour and the threat of France will force the brits to intervene on the Dutch side if the Dutch and Prussians can't do it by themselves.

Also would several smaller German states not join in on the war to gain some glory and territorial expansion? The memory of France during the napoleonic wars will result in a coalition against France, only it's key players would be the Dutch and the Prussians.

The reason that I asked if Austria would join in on a war witch France or if they'll attack Prussia. Personally I think Austria will remain neutral and use the fact that Prussia is occupied to expand further into Italy or on the Balkan.

The Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia might however be tempted to attack France as well if it may annex parts as France as extra payback. After all Piedmont-Sardinia went as far as to discourage h the use of Ross made by France, after the Napoleonics wars.


A big problem I'd though that Italy will try to unite in the coming decades that will draw in Austria and if the Bund has grown to be more like an empire on its own, it may be drawn into that as well. The coming decades will be very hard to survive.
 
I'm an ardent fan of successful 1848 revolutions, but we cannot ignore the hard reality that an awfully big number of uprisings, rebellions, and guerrilla wars *failed* during the 19th century, many more than they succeeded.

There was absolutely nothing high-probability or irresistible about the OTL success of the Belgian Revolution or the fragile Belgian national identity, it was almost all about the ineptitude of initial Dutch repression and the later French intervention to help the French-speaking rebels. ITTL the former is more timely and the latter is counterbalanced by a Prussian intervention. So, there is no 'nation won'.

But you can't deny that they did happen, and fairly regularly, and ultimately whether or not a particular uprising failed or succeeded there would be another, and another, and another, and at some point the reactionaries were toppled from power, either through the revolutionary forces or by reformists inspired by the revolutionaries.

You can't exactly argue that there's any hardline absolutist oligarchical reactionary monarchies left in Europe, and there wasn't even any by WWI. Hell even by the 1870s places like Wilhelmine Germany were the exception, not the rule.

EDIT: So we're going with a POD of King William I not backing down? OK, let's see what happens.

IOTL Prince Frederick couldn't take Brussels, and Prince William was sympathetic to the the separatists and attempted to act as a diplomat between the two sides (which William I rejected even IOTL). When not only Antwerp (as per OTL), but also Maastricht and Venlo are bombarded by the Dutch after a cease-fire had already been agreed upon, the provisional government is likely drawn up even earlier. This means some delegates don't make it to the congress as fast as they did IOTL, such as Louis Joseph Antoine de Potter or Sylvain Van de Weyer, both of whom were out of the country at the time. So, someone other than Charles Rogier is likely elected the provisional prime minister. I'm going to put my bets on a Francophilic such as Alexandre Gendebien. This is going to have an impact on the formation of the National Congress; Félix de Mérode is likely made the Regent of the country instead of Erasme Louis Surlet de Chokier. With the Dutch forces still unable to break the major cities or surge into the south, while the Belgians would be unable to throw them off, the National Congress would call on foreign assistance (which they didn't IOTL).

This is where your idea starts to break down. IOTL the Belgians did offer the throne to Prince Louis, Duke of Nemours, the son of the Orléanist King of France, Louis Philippe I. However the French turned it down. With the Belgians still fighting the Dutch ITTL, they have even more reason to do so. The National Congress' two other top choices IOTL were Auguste de Beauharnais, the then Duke of Leuchtenberg, and the step-grandson of Napoléon; and Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen, the last Hapsburg Statthalter of the southern provinces. Beuharnais was a close second to Louis IOTL, so he's likely to get the nod now ITTL. He was acceptable enough to the great powers IOTL to become the Portuguese Prince-Consort due to his lack of connections to any reigning family; the British were somewhat ambulant about the idea of 'a Napoleon' taking the throne of a restive, Catholic, state with links to France, but I think Beuharnais himself would leap at the offer. Now he lived/ruled already in the Bavarian 'principality' of Eichstätt, so he'd probably arrive in Belgian sometime in early spring 1831 (BTW, with the fighting on-going between Belgians and Dutch, the National Congress is likely held in a more southern city - Charleroi, Mons, or Namur). Actually being in person at the congres, Beuharnais would be able to swing votes his way to getting elected to the throne. There'd be some resistance, especially by ultramontanes, but with the Dutch literally pounding at the door it would be hang together or hang separately, and its not like Beauharnais didn't have Catholic credibility of his own. Now with their own King, likely elected sometime in April or May (2-1 month ahead of OTL), and their own constitution, the Belgians would begin to push back.

At this point the Dutch would begin to panic. There's been no London Conference ITTL, and the Dutch have never truly let up on their attempts to retake the southern provinces, so there's nothing akin to the Ten Day's Campaign ITTL; at this point Dutch forces on the continent are largely spent or held down attempting to take the major northern Belgian cities such as Brussels, Ghent, and Antwerp (the latter of which has likely fallen), or have deserted (IOTL some 2/3rds of troops from the southern provinces deserted - that number is likely even higher ITTL. We're looking at a desertion rate of perhaps 80%, which means effectively one-half of the Dutch army, including their arms and material, is now fighting for the Belgians). The colonial forces are too far away to be of any use at this point, if William has even summoned them yet. So the only option left to the Dutch is foreign assistance. Even at this point IOTL William I knew he wouldn't be able to retake the southern provinces, and merely wanted to negotiate from a position of strength - that's likely to be the same ITTL, so he's going to call upon aid from someone who isn't going to be able to, or won't, hold it over his head at a later point (or at least not to a degree that he would find unacceptable). So that means the British. Palmerston, being Palmerston, is going to say no. He doesn't want to piss off the French, and he wants to maintain the balance of power on the continent. The idea of the Brits getting martially entangled in some affair across the English Channel is not something he is going to be interested it. You also have to remember that this is at the start of the reign of William IV; the British are rather busy with their own Reform Crisis.

So now the Dutch have no one left to turn to. The Prussians are too busy, and rather too small at this point. Still paying off their war debt from the Napoleonic Wars, involved with the various German states in trying to set up the Zollverein, busy guarding her eastern border and watching over her Polish subjects due to the outbreak of the November Uprising, and dealing with her own internal issues; Frederick William III had inadvertently set off a religious schism between Calvinists and Lutherans when he attempted to force both to play nice together in his pet-project, the Prussian Evangelical Church. Hell, the Prussian Chief Minister of the time, Graf Lottum, was also the General of the Infantry and busy with his troops on the eastern border.

That really leaves no one else. The next closest possible allies, the Bavarians and the Danes, certainly aren't going to get involved. The Russians wished to intervene IOTL, but they were busy with the November Uprising, and besides which a massive Russian army moving across the continent or through the Baltic would surely piss off the other great powers, and would take a long time to mobilize - time the Dutch don't have.

So the war carries on for a time longer than IOTL, but ultimately no great intervention comes of it. Hell, the French likely never even get involved; Étienne Gérard expedition IOTL was a direct response to the Ten Day's Campaign, which as I've already covered never occurs IOTL. Ultimately the Dutch aren't going to be able to reconquer the Belgians, but the Belgians won't be able to reclaim all of their lost territory. A general cease-fire is likely introduced sometime in late 1831/spring 1832, with the new borders established where the front lines where. The Dutch keep all of Limburg and Antwerp, and some northernly parts of East & West Flanders, the Flemish Brabant, and Liège. The Belgians get their OTL country plus Luxembourg.

The Great Powers accept this because it keeps the peace and contains the revolution. The French aren't going to attempt to integrate a 'Napoleonic' kingdom into their newly established Orléanist one, Talleyrand be-damned; the British are simply interested in their own affairs and making sure the balance of power isn't over-turned by the 1831 Revolutions; the Russians (and Austrians) can do nothing to stop the outcome; and the other European states were hardly 'great powers' in 1830-1832.

No intervention, no great European war, and no partition of Belgium (or at least what we as OTL observers would think of ITTL; ITTL's own Belgians and Dutch would likely be highly antagonistic to each other - the Belgians craving the 'lost' provinces, the Dutch for revenge for the lost prestige and power).
 
Last edited:
One way I can see it happen is if Frederik-Willem had married a Prussian princess, daughter of the Prussian king and the Prussian king slang with his sons dies in battle that allows Frederik-Willem to become king of Prussia also.the same can not happen between Frederik-Willem and a Hapsburg princess since the Dutch will never accept a catholic king.

Frederik was married in otl to Louise von Preußen the daughter of the prussian king, younger sister of the later wilhelm I.

As for the position of Austria you need to remember that at this point in time Austria was still a member of the bund, in otl the prussian grab for power alienated Austria, and with the Netherlands in the bund that might be prevented. And if the bund as a whole manages to draw together a bit more, it might to the point where they start supporting each other military.
 
Last edited:
Just an thought on how to get britain from the start, in otl prince william (the later william II) was engaged to Princess Charlotte (the british heir to the throne) but she broke it off. for the story in atl it survives and they do get married, because being married to someone else might increase the chances that charlotte survives childbirth (big change for britain). like in otl he still commands troops during the belgian revolution, but in atl he gets killed by the french troops. There is no way the british can stay out now without massive loss of face.
 
Top