The Austrian Netherlands 1815-1866

What if the Dutch decided that they didn't want to take over the Austrian Netherlands and Luxembourg in 1815?

If that is plausible, what becomes of the Austrian Netherlands and Luxembourg? Do they remain under the Hapsburgs by default? The only other options I can think of are that Belgium and Luxembourg are set up as independent states sooner or Prussia takes them over in 1815. Are there any other possibilities?

If they do remain Hapsburg territory by default, would they be part of the German Confederation? I think they would because the Austrian Netherlands and Luxembourg were part of the Holy Roman Empire so is it likely that they would both be part of the German Confederation. Would it alter German politics in the period 1815-66 significantly if they were part of the German Confederation?

Assuming that the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 still happens and Prussia still wins, what becomes of the Austrian Netherlands? My guess is that the Kingdom of Belgium is created 1866 and Prussia annexes Luxembourg. Germany still looses World War One and Luxembourg is annexed by Belgium in 1919.
 
Well, what do the Dutch get instead of the Austrian Netherlands?

And why would the Austrians keep the A. Netherlands as opposed to OTL? IIRC, the Austrians didn't exactly want the Austrian Netherlands.

Sure, it was wealthy, but it heavily complicated the Empire's defense architecture and geopolitical disposition.
 
Well, what do the Dutch get instead of the Austrian Netherlands?

And why would the Austrians keep the A. Netherlands as opposed to OTL? IIRC, the Austrians didn't exactly want the Austrian Netherlands.

Sure, it was wealthy, but it heavily complicated the Empire's defense architecture and geopolitical disposition.

Rhineland, , Prussia either would get back all his pre 1807 pre poland and or Whole Saxony, if not them whole Saxony plus south rhineland and North Rhineland for Netherlands, yeah Netherland is now german by default, the same with Austria Belgica(renamed because Netherland pressure). Things will be interesting in 1830-1848 equivalents.
 
And why would the Austrians keep the A. Netherlands as opposed to OTL? IIRC, the Austrians didn't exactly want the Austrian Netherlands.

Sure, it was wealthy, but it heavily complicated the Empire's defence architecture and geopolitical disposition.

That's why I said Austria keeps them by default. The best reasons I can think of for why they would want to keep them is to stop another major power taking them. That is France to diminish the power of the next Louis XIV or Napoleon and Prussia because that would make them more powerful within the German Confederation.

If the Austro-Prussian war still happened an Austrian Army in the Netherlands might be useful to the Hapsburgs.
 
You might see the Austrian Netherlands get given to a cadet branch of the House of Hapsburg.

Hasburg never do that, maybe maximilian will land here when he born or alternated second or third child of Fernindand II.

Still if Austria Netherlands(let's call it Belgica, Belgium in latin is easier and less confusing) is a member of german confederation and story is not derailed that much...1848 will be pretty interesting.
 
Still if Austria Netherlands(let's call it Belgica, Belgium in latin is easier and less confusing) is a member of german confederation and story is not derailed that much...1848 will be pretty interesting.

Have you any ideas? I know virtually nothing about the events of 1848.
 
The French speaking Walloons will cause a lot future tensions between France and Austria/Belgica.

Flanders also doesnt go to the Netherlands?
 
The French speaking Walloons will cause a lot future tensions between France and Austria/Belgica.
Unless it helps the Hapsburgs defeat the Prussians I don't see them keeping Belgica after 1866 anyway. I thought that Prussia would annex Luxembourg and the rest of Belgica would become Belgium in 1866 instead of 35 years earlier.

Flanders also doesnt go to the Netherlands?

Austrian Belgica would have the same borders of modern Belgium and Luxembourg.
 
What if the Dutch decided that they didn't want to take over the Austrian Netherlands and Luxembourg in 1815?

In 1815, it was less "the Dutch" and more "William of Orange-Nassau". He was at least as interested in getting a territorial connection to the hereditary Nasau lands along the Lahn River east of Koblenz. That would have meant the Rhineland with Kleve, Düsseldorf and Köln as Dutch territory or Orange-Nassau secundogeniture. The most extreme proposals had a territorial connection to the 1797 lost County of Nassau-Saarbrücken. Basically all of the later Prussian Rhine Province.

But of curse, the restoration of the "Seventeen Provinces" of Burgundian times was also a popular idea.

If that is plausible, what becomes of the Austrian Netherlands and Luxembourg? Do they remain under the Hapsburgs by default? The only other options I can think of are that Belgium and Luxembourg are set up as independent states sooner or Prussia takes them over in 1815. Are there any other possibilities?

If they do remain Hapsburg territory by default, would they be part of the German Confederation? I think they would because the Austrian Netherlands and Luxembourg were part of the Holy Roman Empire so is it likely that they would both be part of the German Confederation. Would it alter German politics in the period 1815-66 significantly if they were part of the German Confederation?

Austria lost the Netherlands almost in 1790, and lost them again a few years later. If Austria has to keep them, they will expect concessions, like a stronger military authority over South and West Germany (ie everything close to France) and some contribution system that will make the smaller kingdoms pay for the Austrian efforts in guarding the border. And if they are to keep lots of soldiers there anyway, they will probably try to use them as a potential "bracket" to enclose the lesser German states from Northwest and Southeast.

The last Austrian governor-general of the Netherlands (and 1830 an OTL candidate as King of the Belgians) was Archduke Karl, the younger brother of Emperor Franz I., who had defeated Napoleon at Aspern in 1809.
He seems like the natural person to be chosen as ruler of the new Kingdom of *Burgundy or *Lotharingie.

Assuming that the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 still happens and Prussia still wins, what becomes of the Austrian Netherlands? My guess is that the Kingdom of Belgium is created 1866 and Prussia annexes Luxembourg. Germany still looses World War One and Luxembourg is annexed by Belgium in 1919.

No. Sorry, but that are assumptions that are difficult to accept. I won't enumerate in detail what had to happen to even get a war in 1866, but assuming that a completely different disposition of territories will cause no serious changes over half a century is not good. After all, in 1815 is still the boogieman, Belgium is the territory it wants and no other power wants them to have, but no one wants it very much, since fortifying and defending will be difficult and expensive.
And speculating that not much will change in a period of one century is weird.

That's why I said Austria keeps them by default. The best reasons I can think of for why they would want to keep them is to stop another major power taking them. That is France to diminish the power of the next Louis XIV or Napoleon and Prussia because that would make them more powerful within the German Confederation.

Well, there is the far-off idea of 1815 to swap Hanover and the Netherlands: The UK gets the continental counter-coast as secundogeniture (since the split was expected for the accession of Princess Charlotte anyway) and the House of Orange gets compensated between Weser and Elbe.
 
Have you any ideas? I know virtually nothing about the events of 1848.

First there will probably be an equivalent of the July Revolution of 1830 in France. I can hardly see how Charles X would avoid provoking the nation with his ancien-regime-style conservatism.
The revolution will probably provoke unrest in the Francophile elite of Brussels, since no Congress-of-Vienna-imposed monarch will have been able to win its loyalty without losing the trust of the reactionary rulers of the German Bund.

Direct rule by Austria will be the least popular, presumably, but other rulers will have massive problems as well.
 
No. Sorry, but that are assumptions that are difficult to accept. I won't enumerate in detail what had to happen to even get a war in 1866, but assuming that a completely different disposition of territories will cause no serious changes over half a century is not good. After all, in 1815 is still the boogieman, Belgium is the territory it wants and no other power wants them to have, but no one wants it very much, since fortifying and defending will be difficult and expensive.

Thanks for your input, there was no need to apologies for it.

Then if nobody wants it except France and the other powers don't want France to have it then is set up Belgium 15 years earlier the next logical option? The second option might be Prussia as it has a border with Prussia's western territory, but that probably makes Prussia too powerful. OTOH there is a Prussian Army in Belgium in 1815.
 
Well, there are the branches of Habsburg-Tuscany and Habsburg-Modena that kind of disprove this.

Umm but that more count like conquered territories(they got it during spanish war) under minor spunoff, Belgica was always part of old Burgundy and Part of the old hereditaries lands(that is the title of Austria proper,BTW) like Hungary(more on that later) who only got the dual status after a lot of political bickering and own austria weakness after austro-prussian war.

Have you any ideas? I know virtually nothing about the events of 1848.

Depend if Netherlands got Rhineland and how much got it and how affect other goverments, as people say, 1830 july revolutions will be far different as at least Belgica is under old managment even if via Viceroy and depend if part of ther german confederation and later zollverein.

I'm more Inspired how Jared make an alternate germany with Netherlands and the three kaisers, maybe somethig would happen, maybe just Belgica added into a different union, maybe butterflies make Austria Decided and leave hungary under their own spun-off(Maximiliam? a son of FJ?) and those would be alternate history pretty massive.
 
Thanks for your input, there was no need to apologies for it.

Then if nobody wants it except France and the other powers don't want France to have it then is set up Belgium 15 years earlier the next logical option? The second option might be Prussia as it has a border with Prussia's western territory, but that probably makes Prussia too powerful. OTOH there is a Prussian Army in Belgium in 1815.

There is one problem with an independent Belgium in 1815: The local nobles were not only thoroughly Francophone (even in the Flemish parts) but also quite Francophile. It is hard to see the Great Powers trusting a purely Belgian state not to ally with France in the near future. Just putting an anti-French monarch on the throne in Brussels would not matter much if all of his subjects wanted him gone.

Prussian *Belgium would be remarkable. They would treat it as one or two provinces with some autonomous rights, like the GD of Posen 1815-1830.
I assume that Prussia would emphasize that they are everyone a favor by keeping it, so they will probably not accept any big losses elsewhere. Further probable demands: The opening of the Scheldt to Prussian shipping, so they can use the port of Antwerp. No British attempts to obstruct Prussian (ie Rhenish) trading via Antwerp or Ostend. A territorial strip combining Main Prussia with Westphalia.
After all, to defend a ~750 km long border you need secure connections.

The main problem here is that in 1815, Prussia is very much seen as a Russian client in Vienna and Austria. In itself, Prussia does not look like a threat to London, but the Russian connection is problematic.
If the UK accepts a Prussian *Belgium as no better solution can be found, this might lead to the attempted creation of a bigger and stronger Hanover, so the UK can potentially cut the link batween the east-Elbian and the Rhenish-Belgian parts of the Hohenzollern monarchy.
OTOH, if the Berlin government bungles the treatment of the *Belgian clergy and nobles, they might lose everything south of Duisburg once ATL 1830 comes. One big point of contention was the "mixed marriages" conflict: It were pre-civil marriage times and the catholic church tried to deny marriage to mixed-denomination couples unless they promised to raise the children in the catholic faith. Now imagine a Lutheran Prussian officer or official wishing to marry a Rhenish, Flemish or Walloon girl and getting practically denied by the local priest, with the bishops's backing ...
 
There is one problem with an independent Belgium in 1815: The local nobles were not only thoroughly Francophone (even in the Flemish parts) but also quite Francophile. It is hard to see the Great Powers trusting a purely Belgian state not to ally with France in the near future. Just putting an anti-French monarch on the throne in Brussels would not matter much if all of his subjects wanted him gone.
Prussian *Belgium would be remarkable. They would treat it as one or two provinces with some autonomous rights, like the GD of Posen 1815-1830.
I assume that Prussia would emphasize that they are everyone a favour by keeping it, so they will probably not accept any big losses elsewhere. Further probable demands: The opening of the Scheldt to Prussian shipping, so they can use the port of Antwerp. No British attempts to obstruct Prussian (i.e. Rhineish) trading via Antwerp or Ostend. A territorial strip combining Main Prussia with Westphalia.
After all, to defend a ~750 km long border you need secure connections.

The main problem here is that in 1815, Prussia is very much seen as a Russian client in Vienna and Austria. In itself, Prussia does not look like a threat to London, but the Russian connection is problematic.

If the UK accepts a Prussian *Belgium as no better solution can be found, this might lead to the attempted creation of a bigger and stronger Hanover, so the UK can potentially cut the link between the east-Elbian and the Rhineish-Belgian parts of the Hohenzollern monarchy.

OTOH, if the Berlin government bungles the treatment of the *Belgian clergy and nobles, they might lose everything south of Duisburg once ATL 1830 comes. One big point of contention was the "mixed marriages" conflict: It were pre-civil marriage times and the catholic church tried to deny marriage to mixed-denomination couples unless they promised to raise the children in the catholic faith. Now imagine a Lutheran Prussian officer or official wishing to marry a Rhineish, Flemish or Walloon girl and getting practically denied by the local priest, with the bishop's backing ...

That's very interesting. I was expecting the Prussian Netherlands to be a non-starter. Re-the territorial strip to link the two halves of Prussia balanced by a bigger and stronger Hanover...

Looking at the maps of Germany in 1815 and 1867 it seems to me that the additions to Prussia would be Nassau, Hesse-Kassel and Frankfurt. Prussia would also be given Maastricht for a better join between Belgica and Rheinish Prussia and the Dutch would receive Limburg 50 years earlier as compensation. Greater Hanover would be created by annexing Oldenburg, Mecklenburg and Brunswick. But would the rulers of these states agree to loosing their independence at the Congress of Vienna? Or were they not powerful enough have a choice in the matter?

According to a programme on BBC Radio called In Our Time the main cause for the Austro-Prussian War was that Bismarck wanted to annex Hanover to join the two parts of the Hohenzollern monarchy. Therefore if Prussia wasn't divided into two parts in OTL would Bismarck or whoever was in charge of Prussia ITTL be less determined to annex Hanover?

Would the Prussians try to Germanize the Flemish and Walloons? AFAIK they attempted to Germanize the Poles within their territories IOTL? In the long term could Flemish evolve from a dialect of Dutch into a dialect of German? However, if the Berlin government bungled Germanization and the "mixed marriages" conflict would the result have been disastrous for Prussia in the short term? In this context the short term is 1815 to 1866 and the long-term is 1867 to 1914.

Would Belgica under Hapsburg or Hohenzollern rule be part of the German Confederation and Zollverein? I think it would have been as it had been part of the Holy Roman Empire for centuries. How would that influence the economic development of Belgica? AKAIK Luxembourg benefited economically from its membership of both. Is it likely that the same would have happened to Belgica? If the Flemings and Walloons could see that there were economic benefits to being Prussian would that offset the discontent caused by Germanisation and the "mixed marriage" question?
 
Well, there is the far-off idea of 1815 to swap Hanover and the Netherlands: The UK gets the continental counter-coast as secundogeniture (since the split was expected for the accession of Princess Charlotte anyway) and the House of Orange gets compensated between Weser and Elbe.

I can't see the Dutch estates accepting this. They got screwed by the events of 1688 and won't want to be second fiddle in another personal union.
 
I can't see the Dutch estates accepting this. They got screwed by the events of 1688 and won't want to be second fiddle in another personal union.
Personal Unions were not allowed in the constitution of the Netherlands* in 1815, so the Dutch apparently agree with you. A personal union between the Netherlands and Britain will not happen.

Anyhow, if the Netherlands won't get Belgium, it is possible to get other areas. It could even include parts of Belgium. For example Belgian Limburg was part of Liege and not of the Austrian Netherlands.It is entirely possible for the Netherlands to gain it, even if it won't get the rest of Belgium. There are several other options, like the rest of Prussian Gueldres, Cleves, The western area of Hanover (including East Frisia),etc. The thing is, you need to redraw the entire area. You need to know why the Netherlands doesn't gain Belgium (doesn't want is unlikely), who does get Belgium. How would other countries get compensated. For example, if Prussia ends up with Belgium, what does Prussia lose? and who would gain it (in this case it is possible for the Netherlands to gain some parts of Prussian nw Germany, like Cleves, Gueldres, Lingen and East Frisia)? Basicly, you need to redraw the map od Europe for such a POD.

*With the exception of the personal union between the Netherlands and Luxxemburg.
 
I can't see the Dutch estates accepting this. They got screwed by the events of 1688 and won't want to be second fiddle in another personal union.

Personal Unions were not allowed in the constitution of the Netherlands* in 1815, so the Dutch apparently agree with you. A personal union between the Netherlands and Britain will not happen.

Ahem. Secundogeniture. " a dependent territory given to a younger son of a princely house and his descendants, creating a cadet branch." In 1815, that would mean picking a younger son of George III. one who might still produce heirs of his own, and put him on the throne of the Netherlands. Just like it happened with Hanover; or Austria and Tuscany.

Anyway, how much power had the Dutch Estates in 1815 realistically if the Concert of Powers unanimously decided something? The only power I see potentially protecting their interests would be the UK, after all.
(But I certainly agree that this plan to swap the Netherlands and Hanover was, while historical, very far-fetched.)
 
Top