What if in 1815 Wallonia stayed in France?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if during the 1815 peace conference historic (including French) Flanders was attached to the Netherlands, while Wallonia stayed part of France? Would that have prevented the Belgian Revolution and kept all Dutch speakers in one country to the modern day?
 
Well, I doubt it would be only Wallonia : the very concept didn't appeared before the end of XIX century, and a linguistical division didn't made much sense for the historical context.

At best you'll have something along Talleyrand partition plans for 1830, but I doubt even that.
See, Britain last wish would have been to have french harbours in Flanders, one of its natural doors to continental Europe : anything that could even remotly make them think continental blockade could survive even in a dwarfened form would be ruled out.

For the central and eastern part : too close from Rhine, Flanders and Netherlands. By 1815, France managed to regain troops in large numbers several time already : it was a serious possibility that french military power would once again rise and reach its traditional battlefields in Belgium.

Giving them towns, fortifications, military access to Rhine and Flanders would have looked slightly insane.
 
What if during the 1815 peace conference historic (including French) Flanders was attached to the Netherlands, while Wallonia stayed part of France? Would that have prevented the Belgian Revolution and kept all Dutch speakers in one country to the modern day?
If Wallonia stayed French, yes I think that Flanders would have remained Dutch, as most of the support for the Belgian revolution, especialy at the start came from Wallonia. Still there might have been some unrest in the south. Actualy I believe that it would have been better for the Netherlands, Flanders and France if Wallonia ended up French and Flanders Dutch.

Yet, I consider it very unlikely to happen. The idea of dividing Europe into countries that speak the same language was not something that was considered in 1815. That is why Prussia (and Russia) gained large parts of Poland. That is why the Netherlands gained Wallonia. That is why Austria gained large parts of Italy and France kept (Dutch speaking) Dunkirk and German (ok a German dialect) speaking Alsace. In 1815 these things were never considered. So I consider it quite unlikely to split the Southern Netherlands in 1815. Especialy considering they wanted to restore the borders of monarchal France, which did not include Wallonia (although they did try).

So for a split Belgium in 1815 (or even in 1830), you need a very different world. In short you need some POD during the Napoleonic wars or earlier.
 
there some miss understanding about Walloon
It's language is a Romance language based on Latin instead of french, it has been dying out of common use due to growing use of French in Belgium history.
but in 1815 they french need a translator to talk with a Walloon!, like example "Good bye" in french "Adieu" in Wallon: "Diè wåde"
also was Wallon culture different from the French

It's territory use to be Spanish then Austrian Habsburg dynasty, then they revolt it and form with Flanders the United States of Belgium.
then came the French and invade this new state

you understand now wiking, why the wallons were not very delighted, with idea to be part of france in 1815.

so the allies choose walloon to be annexed by Netherlands with Flanders and Luxembourg, but history show that was a bad idea, what let to Belgium revolution in 1830...
 
Maybe, maybe not. The main problem was hardly linguistic; it was religious. The catholics in the southern provinces were being oppressed... or at least, that's how they saw it. They were certainly second-rate citizens, which stung after the Napoleonic period, which had introduced religious equality.

With less catholics (the Francophone parts of the former Austrian Netherlands going to France and all), the Netherlands might be more tolerant towards them as a religious group. If that can be done, the revolution is prevented for sure.

Keep in mind that partitions on a linguistic basis were (sadly) not the norm in 1815. They'd have partitioned along provincial boundaries. The southernmost part of Brabant would still be French. What happens to Luxemburg? Is it divided? Does it become a separate nation? Part of the German lands? Personal union with the Netherlands? Part of the Nertherlands?

All this matters, because the final borders are not set in stone, and determine how many Frenchmen are included.

Getting French Flanders included in the Netherlands, incidentally, is only realistic if it is somehow stretched to Calais. (The idea being that France loses Calais and gains some of the Austrian Netherlands; the British would love that.) But that, in itself, includes new Frenchmen into the Netherlands. I have included here a map (sloppily edit, I know). In green, the linguistic borderline at the time. In orange, the Francophone areas likely to be awarded to the Netherlands in the scenario you propose.

taalgrens.jpg

Mind you: I'm Dutch, and I'm all for your scenario. Especially if it includes religious equality. But I'd prefer the border to be fully along linguistic lines, since adding Frenchmen to the Netherlands never helps anyone. But that's unrealistic. That orange line on the map; that's the closest you're likely to get.

taalgrens.jpg
 
there some miss understanding about Walloon
It's language is a Romance language based on Latin instead of french, it has been dying out of common use due to growing use of French in Belgium history.
but in 1815 they french need a translator to talk with a Walloon!, like example "Good bye" in french "Adieu" in Wallon: "Diè wåde"

Very interesting; but how many people still spoke actual Walloon at the time? Nowadays, numbers are rapidly declining. What were the numbers like in 1815? Because I always got the impression that French was widely spoken in the area, even then.

Also, I'm sure you know that Walloon was only ever spoken in the eastern 2/3ds of Belgian Wallonia. In the west, Picardian was the local language. (Also nearly extinct today, sadly.)
 
Wouldn't OTL (Flemish) Brabant Province be likely to stay with France in this timeline?

I don't see why that would be the case. Brabant was a historical Duchy that was once the Dutch heartland. Only after the Netherlands were divided by war (1580s) did it split into two halves, one under control of the Dutch Republic, and one under control of the Habsburgs. The very southern tip of Brabant was Francophone, but it was largely Dutch... and it included Antwerp and Brussels. No-one, and especially not Britain, would accept both or either of those cities falling into French hands. Especially not in 1815.
 
Last edited:
there some miss understanding about Walloon
It's language is a Romance language based on Latin instead of french, it has been dying out of common use due to growing use of French in Belgium history.
Wallon is part of the same continuum than Picard, that is a french dialect, while distinct from it. (As, any dialect or local speech is distinct from standard form of its language that is by definition, an "artificial" elaboration and evolution.)

but in 1815 they french need a translator to talk with a Walloon!, like example "Good bye" in french "Adieu" in Wallon: "Diè wåde"
Adieu or "Dieu Aide". Considering that part of a greater ensemble of religious expression that evolved in everyday life expression, I don't see the great difference.
If it's about graphical one, graphy difference doesn't make linguistic differences.
Whatever you say "Bonjour" or "Bjr", it's still the same. Graphy itself evolve along different lines from linguistical ones : different administration, different inspirations etc.

On a related note, it is not at all unusual for european french-speakers to not understand at all canadian French or african French. It's indeed very distinct ensembles but so far nobody makes difficulties to aknowledge it's the same language.

Remember that before the appearance of mass-medias and mandatory education, french dialects were often very distinct from each other, sometimes at a great point and todays localisms and regionalisms are but of a shadow of this : people being no longer used to this great differenciation can see in these dialects something totally foreign when it's not (the well known principle of "they don't use the same language in the next village/valley")

also was Wallon culture different from the French
That's also another thing : a same language can be used for different cultures. English is as well used for Americans, British, Indians, Australians, etc. and says nothing about the degree of linguistic separation.

It's territory use to be Spanish then Austrian Habsburg dynasty, then they revolt it and form with Flanders the United States of Belgium.
then came the French and invade this new state
Not really.
1787 : Révolution barbançonne against progressists reforms of Joseph II. It's divided from the beggining into two factions
1789 : Belgians actually attack Austrians. Proclamation of Etats Belgiques Unis, as a separate entity not under austrian soverignity (even nominal)
In the same time, Liege known its own revolution, separately, and don't join EBU.
End of 1790 : Austria takes back southern Netherlands.
1792 : War between Austria and France, that tries to advance in Belgium and fail to.

So, chronologically, we can see that French didn't invade Belgium after EBU were created, but after it was crushed by Austria.

Roughly summarized, the following can be considered : Liege is particularly francophile and seems to have supported unification relativly well; Flanders on multiple ground (by exemple the weakening of its maritime trade) was the most opposed, and the rest was roughly in-between while having a francophile bias.

you understand now wiking, why the wallons were not very delighted, with idea to be part of france in 1815.

In 1815, the population wasn't really more hostile to Empire than the rest of the kingdom (Napoleon wasn't at all popular in its last years of reign, due to conscription, weakening trade, exception regime, etc. Apart for maritime Flanders, it doesn't strike me that Beglians were much hostile to maintaining union with France while not showing great distress not being so, it's true and eventually favouring union with Netherlands as a good compromise to avoid being returned to a really repressive austrian rule.

Point being, eventually : linguistical differences being not that relevant, what mattered was the degree of political realism among Belgian bourgeoisie and urban population (the most probably francophile), the reject of imperial regime amongst peasantry and maritime population (as it existed as well in France proper), and of course the allies intention (see above post).

Even if the latter wouldn't have mattered, the two others would have likely played in the maintained division between Belgium and France (at the exception, *maybe*, of Liège) in the form of either a badly functioning EBU (under allied influence, probably British and Prussian, in a first time), or to an unification with Netherlands as OTL (being seen as a compromise in face of austrian or allied influence on Belgium).
 
Last edited:
Very interesting; but how many people still spoke actual Walloon at the time? Nowadays, numbers are rapidly declining. What were the numbers like in 1815? Because I always got the impression that French was widely spoken in the area, even then.

Also, I'm sure you know that Walloon was only ever spoken in the eastern 2/3ds of Belgian Wallonia. In the west, Picardian was the local language. (Also nearly extinct today, sadly.)
At the time only the "bourgeoisie" speak french the common peoples spoke the local dialect well until WWI, and was still widely spoken in the fifties. In fact mandatory school in belgium was only put in place in 1914.
 
At the time only the "bourgeoisie" speak french the common peoples spoke the local dialect well until WWI, and was still widely spoken in the fifties. In fact mandatory school in belgium was only put in place in 1914.

Noticing that belgian bourgeoisie was either flemish or "wallonian" (under commas, as the name didn't existed at this time) one at these times, IIRC.
At this point, furthermore, the dialectal difference between "wallon" and picard wasn't that much important, allowing easier exchanges.

That said, it seems that northern french bourgesoisie was seen as a rival by beglian ones, being admittedly an obstacle (another one) to a maintained union.
 
I've already toyed with the idea of an alt-Congress of Vienna where:
- Genoa goes to Marie Louise instead of Savoy (instead of all OTL complex arrangements to make her duchess of Parma).
- Savoy gets Corsica instead of France (not because it's Italian-speaking but because it'd have a good symbolic value to alienate the place of origin of Napoleon and label him as a foreign tyrant)
- France gets southern Southern Netherlands (~Wallonia) to compensate her for her loss of Corsica and avoid her lose her pre-1792 weight.
 
Here's what I think could be possible in a compromise peace in 1813 : aka, no "natural borders" in North (but Savoy and Nice being kept by France), possible french-sattelite Italy without Papal States and Venice and a strict return to Pyrenean borders.

1 - Ypres. More or less what Louis XIV tried to obtain in his time. Plausible.
2 - Tournai. Less plausible but could be obtained.
3 - OTL Borders of France in 1814 Treaty. Shouldn't be a problem.
4 - Bouillon could be more debatable, but still think it's quite plausible as well.
5 - Pro-French Liege state. Bishops take back power there, but within french sphere of influence.
6 - EIther to Netherlands, or forming a rump United Belgican States on Austrian/Netherland/British influence
7 - Luxemburg : wouldn't be given to France in a compromise peace. Either "neutralized" under allied influence or fully integrated into Prussia.
 
Top