Where would the border be of a divided Southern Netherlands?

[pompejus]

Lets say that during the mid 17th century the Netherlands and France decide to kick the Spanish out of the Southern Netherlands (for exapmle the 80-year war continues for a while, or Willem II lives and makes a deal with France) and they succeed. Which parts would France gain and which parts would the Netherlands gain? It is realy tempting in such a situation to simply give the Flemish parts to the Netherlands and the Walloon parts to France, but personaly I think that would be rather unlikely in the 17th century, since that was not the way they thought in those days*. Especialy considering that the Flemish coast would probably be far more important for the French than the hills of the Ardennes forest. So I was wondering, where would roughly the border be in such a situation.


BTW I would like to remind everyone that I am talking about the 17th century (and maybe the 18th, although that seems less likely), not the 19th or 20th century.


*That said, Both Brabant and Flandres had been part of the Union of Utrecht, while the Walloon provinces hadn't been, so the Netherlands does have some claim over the Dutch speaking parts.

 

[NeonHydroxide]

The Sambre, I'd think.

 

[wietze]

would they even be able to find a solution?

for a long time the french wanted the border to be on the rhine, and any agreement with the french would soon be broken.

it could be very different if the edict of nantes wasn't broken and that there was no St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, in other words Henry IV surviving and preferably Henry I, Duke of Guise perishing early just like catherine de medici

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre

 

[Anneessens]

Yes, it's very likely that a hypothetical compromise between the UP and France would only be temporary, given France's ambitions and the legitimate wariness of the UP towards France.

France will certainly want to expand its coastline; it would most likely claim Dunkirk (in OTL annexed in 1678) and at least the southern parts of present day West-Flanders. Due to the sheer size of it, I doubt the UP would allow France to annex the entire County of Flanders, despite its historical claims on it. One would think that the UP, too, would like to expand its coastline, or at least would want to prevent a potential competitor to annex the area.

Artois (annexed in 1658), also a French province, would naturally go to France, however, because of its geographic position. One would expect (most of) Hainault, Namur and Luxembourg to become French - not because of linguistic reasons (I guess that Luxembourg would be almost evenly split between Romance and Germanic speakers), but because of geographic reasons.

At lot would of course depend on the relative strength of the French and the Dutch. However, unless the French have other things on their mind, one would think that just using the Sambre as border would mean a too limited gain for the French.

I'm also curious as to the internal political consequences this would have for the United Provinces. Would the conquered parts of Flanders, Brabant and Gelre be gain full fledged membership of the union and be reunited with their respective generality lands? I doubt that the UP would like loose their (political and economical) control over these areas.
Antwerp would most likely become Dutch, because of its geography and because of the fact that the UP would like France to have it. However, I can imagine Amsterdam being wary of this potential competitor; I guess it would still try to block its expansion, despite there being no legitimation anymore for blocking the Scheldt.

 

[pompejus]

Personaly I believe that the border on the coastline would be somewhere between Nieuwpoort and Ostend with Bruges, Ghent and Antwerp on the Dutch side and Brussels and Leuven on the border, although I am unsure on which side of it. Brussels was a very important part of Dutch history, so I guess it might end up part of the Republic.

About the Rhine border and peace with France. Personaly I believe that a lasting peace with France is possible. Actualy it would be rather smart of France to keep the Dutch Republic friendly, since it would secure its northern border and if the the Dutch Republic looks mostly towards overseas trading and colonial oppertunities, it would mean that France and the Republic won't have a conflict of interests, especialy if both see England as their main rival. I would say it depends on who rules either country. If Willem II survives, I can see him be rather friendly towards France, especialy if both come to an agreement to kick Spain out of the Netherlands. That said, yeah, for this division to have lasting effects, France must get the insane idea of its "natural" borders at the Rhine out of its head and focus more on for example Italy (when did French politics start to get the deluded idea of the natural border anyway?).

An expanded Flandres and Brabant would certainly have major consequences for internal Dutch politics, especialy if major cities like Ostend, Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp, Leuven and Brussels are part of it. Even if they aren't turned into the 8th and 9th province immediatly, it is only a matter of time before they become too important to ignore (especialy Antwerp). It mainly depends on who is in charge in the Netherlands. I suspect that if is the stadholders, they would be far more willing to give Flandres and Antwerp more rights than the regents of Holland/Amsterdam would; actualy for the exact same reason. The regents don't want to lose the power they already got, while the stadholders would want to limit the power of the regents.

 

[Parma]

During the last Pahse of the Dutch revolt the border could be more South if the campaign of 1631 started eralier and not in June 1632. The Dutch entered an Aliance with France. With a combined army the marched along the Meuse. All went relative well but atht e small city of Tienen things went wrong wich resulted in the slaughter of the population and bunrning of the city depriving the Dutch/Frnech of a supply base. Badly paid and disiplined French soldiers made a siege of Louvain falter and after that the Stad holder lost his influence and power in the Dutch republic completly to the patricienc of Holland. Other attemped of a moore Southern border could be a opposite outcome of the battle of Callo near Antwerp. In OTL it was masive defeat of the Dutch army. If the result of this battle was the opposite it could result in a destruction of the Spanish army of Flanders and possible capture of Antwerp and more Flemish and Brabant teritory.

Beside this there were some other partition plans the last, presented by Louis XIV to the Dutch state pesioner Johan de Wit in 1665, was somtehing like this: Louis XIV claimed nearly all, Hainaut, Flandre, parts of Brabant, Luxembourg leaving the Dutch only Spanish Guelre and some left overs of Limbourg. Do not know what the would do with Antwerp. The dilemma of Johan de Wit was that htis would result in a direct border with a by now clearly teritirial driven French king. He declined thinking it was safer to have a forreign buffer state in between. Louis XIV was deeply insluted which was one of the origins of the Dutch War of 1672.

 

[funnyhat]

Yes, it's very likely that a hypothetical compromise between the UP and France would only be temporary, given France's ambitions and the legitimate wariness of the UP towards France.

France will certainly want to expand its coastline; it would most likely claim Dunkirk (in OTL annexed in 1678)

A nitpick - Dunkirk was ceded to England in 1659 and sold to France in 1662.

it could be very different if the edict of nantes wasn't broken and that there was no St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, in other words Henry IV surviving and preferably Henry I, Duke of Guise perishing early just like catherine de medici

If the Franco-Dutch alliance had survived under Louis XIV, could that have butterflied away the revocation of the Edict of Nantes? His persecution of the Huguenots coincided with the breakdown of relations with the Dutch.