Other than 1748, Were There Any Other Opportunities for France to Acquire Belgium?

CaliGuy

Banned
Other than 1748, were there any other realistic opportunities for France to acquire Belgium (then known as the Austrian Netherlands)?

Also, only pre-1900 cases count for this; in addition to this, the French Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars are both excluded from this.
 
If the Seven Years war (1756-63) had gone better for France and Austria, it was supposed to be transferred to France (as a client state) if Austria obtained Silesia via the defeat of Prussia.
 
Actually that deal was later rescinded, even before the war was lost.

I know, but it was rescinded in part because the quicker victories that had been hoped for were not achieved. Do better in the war at the outset and/or get more promises from France for financial and military support it might not get rescinded. The point is it was a real opportunity.
 
During the early phases of the Franco-Dutch war, the Dutch apparently offered the Generalty lands to the French: North Brabant, Zealandic Flanders, Maastricht (in condominium with Liege). With such a commanding position, and contued support of the Bishop of Liège (not hard with enough cash), then the Spanish Netherlands would be completely surrounded by French lands and thus ripe for the taking.

But Louis got greedy and didn't take the offer on the spot. :(
 
Would he really have deprived his grandson of that possession? After all, he is fighting for the entire Spanish inheritance to be passed intact to Philip V.
He would, trust me. Louis considered even Spain a part of his kingdom, and one of the major complaints of the Spanish aristocracy was the overbearing presence of the French ambassador in the Privy Council.
As a matter of fact, it makes much more sense for the Spanish Netherlands to be united to French Flanders rather than remain a distant possession of Spain or Austria
 
He would, trust me. Louis considered even Spain a part of his kingdom, and one of the major complaints of the Spanish aristocracy was the overbearing presence of the French ambassador in the Privy Council.
As a matter of fact, it makes much more sense for the Spanish Netherlands to be united to French Flanders rather than remain a distant possession of Spain or Austria

Louis did not try to make Spain part of his kingdom. Philip V was the younger son, and Louis XV was the son of Philip's older brother. If Louis wanted to make Spain part of his kingdom, he would have fought to put the Dauphin or the Duke of Burgundy on the Spanish throne, not the younger brother who would not, in the normal course of events, inherit the French throne.

As for the Spanish Netherlands, I don't think so. It wasn't a French wargoal to acquire the Spanish Netherlands. The entire war was to put Philip V on the Spanish throne and prevent Archduke Charles from being "Carlos III". Spain is not an enemy. It's his grandson. He would make his grandson his enemy if he took the Spanish Netherlands. And I don't think he would do that. Would he try to make Spain his satellite, close ally, and puppet? Absolutely? But dismember his grandson's inheritance? I don't think so.
 
During the early phases of the Franco-Dutch war, the Dutch apparently offered the Generalty lands to the French: North Brabant, Zealandic Flanders, Maastricht (in condominium with Liege). With such a commanding position, and contued support of the Bishop of Liège (not hard with enough cash), then the Spanish Netherlands would be completely surrounded by French lands and thus ripe for the taking.

But Louis got greedy and didn't take the offer on the spot. :(

That's the story of like... every French leader from Charlemagne to Napoleon though, some being more successfull than others.
 
agree with LordKalvan: WSS was first about denying the enemy habsburg, by putting a Bourbon on the throne. then it was about taking as much as possible from the Spanish empire. France would have loved to take as much as possible from the Spanish empire while inserting a Frenchman on the throne. After ostensibly 'winning' the WSS, France promptly set about screwing over the Spanish at every opportunity. kinsmanship was a nice notion, but in reality, not much of a policy.

Thus, had France done better, they'd have had the opportunity to take the Netherlands. whether they would have squandered that opportunity, as they did in the War of Austrian Succession, or possibly traded it to keep Rupert's land, is another matter. Spanish interests (even if represented by Philip the Frenchman) were tertiary in the matter.
 
There were a few opportunities in Louis XIV's reign.

I read once that Turenne was disappointed that peace was signed with Spain in 1659, as he was convinced the Spanish forces were on the verge of collapse and one more campaign would have conquered the Spanish Netherlands, or at least more of them instead of just Artois. Problem was, France was out of money and couldn't afford to keep the war going.

Louis XIV then approached the Dutch Republic with the idea of a joint invasion of the Spanish Netherlands and partition of them afterwards. The Dutch, however, became uneasy at the idea of sharing a border with France and relations between the two broke down. I think an interesting POD would be to have the Franco-Dutch alliance survive. (I think both nations could have benefited from its continuation.) This would make the War of Devolution much more decisive; France wouldn't need to give back its conquests since there would be no Triple Alliance arranged against it. So France could have gotten most of the Spanish Netherlands in 1668.

As mentioned, there was the rejected peace proposal in 1672, which would have given France some southern Dutch territory and all but guaranteed the future conquest of the Spanish Netherlands, but Louis held out for more and ended up losing all of that (though he did gain some Spanish territory).

And maybe, if Charles II of Spain had died earlier (everyone was surprised he lived as long as he did), there could be some alternate treaty that gave the territory to France, as compensation for the throne of Spain going to someone other than Philip.
 
Last edited:
There were a few opportunities in Louis XIV's reign.

<snip>

And maybe, if Charles II of Spain had died earlier (everyone was surprised he lived as long as he did), there could be some alternate treaty that gave the territory to France, as compensation for the throne of Spain going to someone other than Philip.

There were four or five different versions of treaties to partition the Spanish empire, starting in 1668 IIRC.
However Charles II never accepted the idea of partitioning his heredity, and in the end he willed the lot to Philippe of Anjou, with the only proviso that the crown of France and Spain would never be united. Louis XIV, who had recently agreed to a last version of the partition was surprised himself but could not resist the temptation of putting Philippe on the throne in Madrid. The result was a war lasting 12 years and costing France a fortune.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There were four or five different versions of treaties to partition the Spanish empire, starting in 1668 IIRC.
However Charles II never accepted the idea of partitioning his heredity, and in the end he willed the lot to Philippe of Anjou, with the only proviso that the crown of France and Spain would never be united. Louis XIV, who had recently agreed to a last version of the partition was surprised himself but could not resist the temptation of putting Philippe on the throne in Madrid. The result was a war lasting 12 years and costing France a fortune.
So, should Louis have simply agreed to have Philippe renounce his claims to the French throne immediately and get compensated for this by having France get the Austrian Netherlands?
 
You can believe whatever you like, but I would suggest you read some books on the war of Spanish Succession

I have. And nothing suggested to me that from the moment Charles II's will was read that Louis XIV's goal was nothing less than the entire Spanish inheritance going to Philip V.

I would have agreed that he contemplated a partition before the will, especially with Joseph Ferdinand alive to be the heir, but the moment the will gave Philip the lot, and if he rejected it, giving it to the future Emperor Charles VI, he fought for giving everything, from Spain to the Southern Netherlands to the Americas and Naples going to his grandson.
 
So, should Louis have simply agreed to have Philippe renounce his claims to the French throne immediately and get compensated for this by having France get the Austrian Netherlands?

No. Spain would have gone to Archduke Charles and resurrected the empire of Charles V if all of the Bourbons rejected the will of Charles II. Accepting the inheritance made a lot of sense strategically, and it would fulfill the goal of every French king since Francis I--remove the Habsburg encirclement of France.

What Louis XIV should have done was to avoid further antagonising the allies--things like recognizing the Old Pretender, sending troops to the Southern Netherlands to compel the Estates to recognize Philip, and unnecessesarily proclaiming the rights of Philip in the French succession--which unless he could predict that his eldest grandson would die without male heirs, was something of no immediate value. This was Louis' true blunder.
 
Last edited:
Top