that was my thought, he dies during the wars, somewhere in the 1805-1815 period
What if no Belgium?
- Thread starter Prime Minister
- Start date
that was my thought, he dies during the wars, somewhere in the 1805-1815 period
HJ Tulp
Donor
W I was very pigheaded but I wouldn't call him a idiot. Remember that he was the engineer of the Dutch revival post-1815. Ofcourse his pigheadedness squandered that revival after 1830 but still. W II was almost the opposit. He was a immense fool in his younger years (though non-British sources give him a fair bit of credit for his actions at Waterloo) but improved over the years. Personally I think it would be best for the UKN if W II dies at Waterloo or otherwise at the extreme beginning of the Belgian Revolution. It might even scare some Belgians into the Dutch camp.
I suppose that he could be killed during the battle of Waterloo, sense he was wounded in it. However, could Prince Frederick lead the army to put down the Belgian Rebellion? Personally I don't understand why everyone is so anti-William II. He was popular in Belgium before the Revolution and nearly negotiated administrative autonomy while remaining part of the United Kingdom, but it was vetoed by William II. It would be better to kill William I in the 1820s instead.
on the other hand louis-napoleon was liked, and in negotiating him switching sides i could imagine promises being made. He actually blocked supply of dutch troops to the empire for some time until he was directly overruled by his brother. So maybe some events might actually make him think about changing sides.
waterloo would be a good moment indeed. and somewhere between 1815-1820 his father passes too, so frederik can become king.
Again not gonna happen. Look at OTL's defected Bonaparte relative, Joachim Murat. He was promised that he would continue to reign in Naples by Austria but at the Congress of Vienna it was all but decided that he would be removed from Naples, in favor of the Neapolitan Bourbons. He may have preempted his deposition by siding with Napoleon during the Hundred days but it would have happened either way. So its likely that the same would happen to Louis Bonaparte, who was closer in relation to Napoleon. Face it post Napoleonic Europe was all about turning back the clock and maintaining the status quo. Hard to do that with a reminder ruling the Netherlands. And even IF he remained King of Holland, the Congress would NEVER allow him to gain the Southern Netherlands. It would make a potential threat (because that is what the rest of Europe would view him as) stronger. So again, the Southern Netherlands would go to Austria or as compensation to the House of Orange.
HJ Tulp
Donor
He wasn't negotiating a good deal for the United Kingdom. He was negotiating a good deal for himself. He tried to become King of France for crying out loud. Until he became King of the Netherlands all he did was looking out for No. 1.
Frederick on the other hand was always focused on his duties and modernised the Dutch Army.
HJ Tulp
Donor
I'm not sure. When Frederik entered the Netherlands in 1813 he couldn't even speak Dutch. I think 1820 would be much to soon for him to take over as King.
It is not that we dont like William 2, it is that we like Frederick more!
This may sound weird, but what about William 2 gets wounded at Waterloo, at his balls, making him infertile. Then he could put the Belgian revolution down, die an heroic death and Frederick becomes king after William 1 dies, or abdicates.
Are we sure Frederik would have been a good King? I ask because I can't seem to find much on him. The fact that he didn't even speak dutch doesn't really bode well for his reception among the Nation, that's for sure. The only info I can find about him is his service in the army, but besides that nothing.
Well he would be the only European Royal eunuch
but would that really help? I ask because I can't seem to find any info about Frederik besides his military service. So would he really be a liberal monarch or not? Looking at his family, I would guess he would definitely be a hands on monarch, whether thats a good thing or not is up for debate.Well he would be the only European Royal eunuch
Well, what we do know that he was very reasonable. He turned down the Greek throne because he didnt speak language or knew the country's culture. He wasnt as... conservative as the three Williams.
OK thats good. However, a lot of people turned down the Greek throne, which was no doubt influenced by the fact that it was a new,small state and very poor to boot. That aside, what proof do we have that he was more liberal than his relatives? Not being antagonistic on purpose, legitimately wondering. I saw that he was active in the army and tried to modernize it but I can't find much else. Also, for all we know he would get involved in government just as much as the Williams did.
napoleon III spoke french with a german accent his entire life, so doesn't really say much.
Frederik was the big peacemaker within the royal family at the time whenever there were incidents he would calm everyone down, and bring them back together.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_van_Oranje-Nassau_(1797-1881)
there are of course other ways to get rid of william II, he might get caught really redhanded in one of his gay relations, something that in those days would mean a big scandal.
and for him dying at waterloo, he got wounded at Quatre Bras, so him dying there is not far fetched.
HJ Tulp
Donor
Well he would be the only European Royal eunuch
The Oranjes were all a bit....foreign when they 'returned' to the Netherlands after the Napoleonic Wars and Frederick went to college pretty quick to rectify the situation.
What I gather from Dutch Wiki is that Frederick became the man who kept the Oranje-family together. Keeping contact with his abdicated (and remarried!) father, paying off various debts and taking care of business when times got bad. He was also Grandmaster of the Freemasons which he steered towards a more society-aiding organization.
Was he a liberal? Given his Prussian orientation I'm inclined to say no but I do think that he would steer the nation into a more democratic direction sooner but maybe less far.
A united Netherlands would probability ally with who ever pulls a Germany to keep the Franch from getting any ideas toward Wallonia
I actualy don't like Willem II. I think he was an idiot and the only good thing he did was to relinquish his power. Still he was miles better than his son Willem III.
I can see this Netherlands gaining control of the Straits of Malakka and the Sunda Straits and as such be able to get controle over - not neccisarilly by forcing others out of buisness but by controlling those important straits - of the European-Asian trade.
If the Dutch then also manage to get the southern approach covered by establishing a colony at the Straits of Magellan that would be most lucrative, atleqst untill the creation of a Panama Canall annalogue. I think they'll have the capabilities and the strength there to
If the Dutch then also manage to get the southern approach covered by establishing a colony at the Straits of Magellan that would be most lucrative, atleqst untill the creation of a Panama Canall annalogue. I think they'll have the capabilities and the strength there to
How? They actualy exchanged Malacca for British Sumatra before the Belgian revolution. It is clear that the Dutch gave up all aspiration to Malaysia.
Doubtfull. It is too far away from any Dutch colonies or trade routes.
if the POD happens prior to 1825 it can be maintained.
Though while I agree about the Magellan Straits, a different King might decide that would be a good way to obtain controle over the trade routes