Orangists, Patriots, and European War

In 1785 in the Netherlands there was a short civil war between the Orangists, those who wanted statholder William V of Orange to hold more power, and the Patriots, who favored continuing Dutch democratic traditions. The uprising was crushed by a combination of British support of Orange and a Prussian military intervention in favor of William. Louis XVI wanted to intervene in favor of the Patriots, but the recent Franco-American war against the British had drained his treasury and he could not start another war.

So lets say that Americans don't rebel. The First Treaty of Paris in 1763 is different, or the British deal with the Americans better. Whatever it is, the French have managed to spend the entire 1770's without having a war with the British.

Without bankrolling the American Revolution France is in bad financial straits, but no where near OTL. Plus it hasn't been engaged in a long. draining war with the British. So the Patriots revolt as per OTL, in 1785, but instead of being quickly overwhelmed by the Prussians and British, they find support from the French and Austrians. The French openly support the Patriots, sending them arms and warning the Prussians that to intervene means war. Joseph II honors his alliance with his brother-in-law the King of France and makes it clear that he supports the Patriots.

The Prussians send troops, so do the French, and the Netherlands' War(for lack of better name) is on. The French, Spanish, Austrians, and Bavarians face off against the UK/ Hanover and Prussia. Catherine the Great does not immediately take sides, as she is engaged in war on her southern frontier. Frederick the Great returns to command his army one last time, however after scoring one victory against the Austrians he dies, and the Prussians have no great commander to replace him. The war comes to an end in 1789, when food riots in Paris turn into an open revolt and the army is required to return in order to crush them. The Treaty of Stockholm leaves the Orangists in control of the Netherlands, and the Spanish lose Louisiana to the British, but otherwise there are few territories exchange.

Thoughts?
 
1) So are the American colonies simmering with untapped revolt or has somebody in Britain defused that with a cunning plan? I'd imagine the acquisition of Louisiana has many Americans ready to forget any grievance they might have with the British. But it was just such an acquisition that paved the way for OTL's ARW. Furthermore, there'll be a lot of Indians to deal with and they will feel justifiably surrounded without any major powers to play off one another.

2) It seems like the lack of the ARW may contribute to a significantly different result to the food riots of 1789. For one, revolutionary sentiment may not be as high. For another, different people should be dead and in different places. IIRC the tipping point for the chain of events that begins with the food riots in the convocation of the Estates-General and Louis XVI favoring of the aristocrats--a very unconventional move in absolutist France. I have to imagine something about this chain of events is pretty different, so there may be a chance for enough of a peaceful solution to the fiscal crises to allow for a united front against any true Jacobinism. Of course, the Bourbon Regime may then descend into a technocratic police state unless it can parse out the contradictions of the Ancien Regime. Long way of saying that you can avoid the French Revolution, but you can't avoid the problems that caused it.

3) Say you have something like the Revolution: it seems like the military expereinces of Prussia would be different enough that the Revolution might not lead to the kind of Europe-wide cataclysm it did OTL. Maybe it's just a Civil War, a la the British in the 17th century.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Louis wanted to support the Patriots? First time I've heard that. Alot of Dutch Patriots contributed alot to the French Revolution.
 
The idea is interesting, but don't forget that the patriot movement was inspired by the American revolution, so getting rid of it, will change it. I doubt it will be butterflied away. The problems in the Netherlands were too big that something like it won't arise.

Also, I can see France supporting the "patriots" (or is it patriots*?), if only to weaken the netherlands as much as possible or to get the Netherlands in the pro-France sphere. The patriots did fled to France after the prussians kicked them out of the netherlands (although I can imagine that Louis' France did disapoint them when they arrived after which they supported the revolution).
 
1) So are the American colonies simmering with untapped revolt or has somebody in Britain defused that with a cunning plan? I'd imagine the acquisition of Louisiana has many Americans ready to forget any grievance they might have with the British. But it was just such an acquisition that paved the way for OTL's ARW. Furthermore, there'll be a lot of Indians to deal with and they will feel justifiably surrounded without any major powers to play off one another.[/quote]

I'm thinking they have a cunning plan, or at least are not bone headed. A more healthy Pitt the Elder is able to argue long and hard and successfully that it was illegal to tax the colonies. He maintains this position, and his popularity, all the way through his death in 1778. By this time it has been widely accepted by the Parliament that the American colonies cannot be directly taxed. Instead "Imperial tariffs" are imposed on goods, which the Americans don't like, but which they accept (tariffs are legally different from taxes) with much smuggling and a little outcry.

2) It seems like the lack of the ARW may contribute to a significantly different result to the food riots of 1789. For one, revolutionary sentiment may not be as high. For another, different people should be dead and in different places. IIRC the tipping point for the chain of events that begins with the food riots in the convocation of the Estates-General and Louis XVI favoring of the aristocrats--a very unconventional move in absolutist France. I have to imagine something about this chain of events is pretty different, so there may be a chance for enough of a peaceful solution to the fiscal crises to allow for a united front against any true Jacobinism. Of course, the Bourbon Regime may then descend into a technocratic police state unless it can parse out the contradictions of the Ancien Regime. Long way of saying that you can avoid the French Revolution, but you can't avoid the problems that caused it.

I think that revolutionary sentiment would still be high. Although the American Revolution was definitely done in the Enlightenment ideal, France had its own rich history of Enlightenment thinkers. The ideals laid out by the First French Republic were similar to the American Republic its true, but they were also similar to other Enlightenment thinkers writings which preceded the American Revolution. Basically, I think the sources of inspiration were similar for the two Revolutions, and the main way that the French fed off the American Revolution was the financial spark that allowed France to explode.

3) Say you have something like the Revolution: it seems like the military expereinces of Prussia would be different enough that the Revolution might not lead to the kind of Europe-wide cataclysm it did OTL. Maybe it's just a Civil War, a la the British in the 17th century.

If the American Revolution didn't happen, then I don't think that the French and British can make it all the way into the 1790's without another military confrontation. The "Diplomatic Revolution" that occured when Marie Antoinette married Louis XVI would need to be tested, and the contest over the always valuable Netherlands was the place to test it.

The idea is interesting, but don't forget that the patriot movement was inspired by the American revolution, so getting rid of it, will change it. I doubt it will be butterflied away. The problems in the Netherlands were too big that something like it won't arise.

The Netherlands had been brought the point of near civil war because of the royal/absolutist pretensions of the House of Orange before. During the English Civil War the Dutch Republic overthrew the House of Orange and nearly had a civil war when the Prince of Orange convienently died. The clash between the long-standing democratic traditions of the Netherlands and the equally long-standing royal ambitions of the House of Orange was going to come to a head.

Add in the Netherlands' strategic importance to both the French and British (and then the Anglo-French rivalry that so defined 18th century international politics) and I think that the Patriots present the opportunity for the French to try and get their claws into the Netherlands.

Of course, if the French are successful, then there is a shining example of the victory of democratic institutions over an absolutist King. Might be enough to encourage the more radical minded in France, eh?
 
The Netherlands had been brought the point of near civil war because of the royal/absolutist pretensions of the House of Orange before. During the English Civil War the Dutch Republic overthrew the House of Orange and nearly had a civil war when the Prince of Orange convienently died. The clash between the long-standing democratic traditions of the Netherlands and the equally long-standing royal ambitions of the House of Orange was going to come to a head.

Add in the Netherlands' strategic importance to both the French and British (and then the Anglo-French rivalry that so defined 18th century international politics) and I think that the Patriots present the opportunity for the French to try and get their claws into the Netherlands.

Of course, if the French are successful, then there is a shining example of the victory of democratic institutions over an absolutist King. Might be enough to encourage the more radical minded in France, eh?

You are of course correct about this. Although calling the Dutch republic democratic is not entirely correct (as in incorrect), not even all the patriots wanted democratic chances made. Some of the patriots were the old fashion corupt regents who already ruled the Netherlands and didn't want to lose power to the stadholder, but neither to lose power to the (more democratic) middle class other patriots supported.
 
You are of course correct about this. Although calling the Dutch republic democratic is not entirely correct (as in incorrect), not even all the patriots wanted democratic chances made.
Some of the patriots were the old fashion corrupt regents who already ruled the Netherlands and didn't want to lose power to the stadholder, but neither to lose power to the (more democratic) middle class other patriots supported.

And yet I'm sure that whether they were the more democratically minded middle class or the corrupt regents, they both used language that involved defending "Dutch Liberty" from the evil Anglo-Prussian backed Prince of Orange.

Would the Franco-Austrian and Anglo-Prussian alliances be willing to go to war over the Netherlands, or would they support a Dutch civil war?
 
Top