Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle

What would have been the effects of King Louis XV opting to keep the Austrian Netherlands in the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, instead of returning them to the Habsburgs?

I know that most of Europe had been expecting him to annex them directly to France, and that at home, there was a huge desire for him to do so; however, aside from that, I'm very curious...
 
France would likely have to give up something else to allow for them to annex the Austrian Netherlands. Say, Cape Breton Island. This could lead to some very interesting effects as the return of Louisbourg was a big contributor to the initial resentment among the American colonies.
 
The biggest change would be different starting positions for the 7 Years War [French Indian].

Not sure I agree. Giving the French the Austrian Netherlands represents for Britain the critical failure of perhaps their most important strategic goal in foreign policy - restricting French control of the cross-Channel trade. With the French in control of the vital ports of the lower Netherlands (that is to say, Belgium) as well as controlling Antwerp, Brussels and Gent, economically things drastically change. In this respect, even claiming all of the French American colonies is not going to make it up for England. Their politics will now be radically changed towards either collapsing the economy of the Austrian (French) Netherlands, or persuading Austria to fight to win it back (which certainly wouldn't be easy).

Also, unless the French do far better in the war, it's going to take far more than Cape Breton Island to buy off Britain's acceptance.
 
Also, unless the French do far better in the war, it's going to take far more than Cape Breton Island to buy off Britain's acceptance.
Well, yeah, I was more suggesting a starting point. Not sure how much it would take to get Britain to accept, but it's definitely going to take a lot.
 
Since Holland, Great Britain and Austria aren't likely to agree to this I don't see how a peace treaty even takes place.

The french do have one slight advantage, that being the conquest by Maurice de Saxe of much of the low countries. That said, none of the aforementioned powers is going to be thrilled with this turn of events.

The french may be able to get away with claiming them as spoils of war, but that means that its opponents will be waiting for an excuse to retake them. So france probably has to concede something to make this work. The question is, what?
 
Aix-la-Chapelle, is that anywhere near Aachen?

BEP

It is Aachen ;)

Since Holland, Great Britain and Austria aren't likely to agree to this I don't see how a peace treaty even takes place.

Largely my thoughts.

So france probably has to concede something to make this work. The question is, what?

Whatever it is, it would have to be huge. As I said before, even ceding their entire empire of colonies would probably leave the British feeling uneasy, and that would be unacceptable to the French to boot. Possibly...just possibly...you could have some carve-up agreement, with the French offering the British some colonies (Cape Breton etc) and then handing them Antwerp, Dunkirk and Ostende in some form (directly or perhaps as a protectorate Free City set up) giving the British back control of the Channel trade. Even that isn't great though as without control of the inland the French could just make trade dry up with those cities so their economies collapsed.

Really, there's no reason the British would accept anything like this when they could just press for the RL Treaty terms, though...
 

Tellus

Banned
France was in a position to get more than OTL I think. Sure, pushing for maximum peace always brings some resentment, but I think that they had the military and diplomatic power to enforce such terms at the time. They had, after all, full control of the area. Possession is nine tenths, especially when your main challenger on the issue shares no common border anymore.

The general sentiment in France was that the treaty really shortchanged them. They did really well in the north and gained nothing for their trouble. It was an accepted practice to win land in war, and the treaty had various terms that would have made French gains in the low countries somewhat tolerable for the other powers. It should not be understated how happy the British were at the time to have France finally recognize the legitimacy of its claim to Hanover, for example, as well as the expulsion of the Jacobites.

Giving small bits of the northern part of the area to Holland might be enough to buy their support. The British are worried by the foothold France has gained in India with its conquest of Madras and they want to trade it back. Austria is powerless unless Britain wants to keep fighting. Thats essentially the situation. My own opinion is that the French simply undershot in that treaty, and it may have been seen as weakness and precipitated the Seven Year War.
 
Top