WI: A different Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle

The one in 1748. Louis XV gave back the Austrian Netherlands. Can anyone give me a good reason to do that?
If the Netherlands were kept, most likely a puppet state under a Bourbon cadet, how would that affect the rest of Europe? I'm guessing the new ruler it would be Infante Philip, OTL Duke of Parma since he was the most senior Bourbon with no land. But would the Bourbons then have to cede Parma back? If they do, Elisabeth Farnese would like that but she was out of the picture once Fernando VI became King of Spain. But still, the Spanish fought for that a very long time and might be angry at giving their hard-fought gains back and Charles III, at the time still King of Naples, was also participant in that war. his brother would be getting a much bigger prize but it hardly helps the Bourbons in Italy.
The other option is to give back the AN but then demand a compensation, which might not be such a stupid thing. Louis XV wouldn't have done it since he said "he is no shopkeeper :mad::mad::mad:", but someone smarter like his son with some good advisers. How much were the Allies willing to give up the get back the region? France could've gotten a lot for it. Philip gets Parma, France regains Louisbourg, maybe even all of Acadia, keep Madras, throw in some sugar islands from both the British and the Dutch, some deals on the Barrier Treaty, maybe fortifications in Dunkirk rebuilt, there is the Asiento...How far could they go, actually?
 
I'm a bit curious about this treaty myself, as I understood it weren't the ANL returned in exchange for colonies, not to say Louis XV couldn't keep them; also France entered the war in support of Bavaria no? They recognised the sanction (and as far as I know never reneged on that point) but entered the war with Bavaria as pre-text taking territory in Europe without cause would've made many powers extremely wary of France even more so than usual.

I think it was more a diplomatic move to allay the potential of a coalition (This is about one generation from the War of the Grand Alliance/Nine Years War and Spanish Succession, both saw France almost lose (they may have lost here if the Imperial troops could concentrate on France as opposed to fighting a 2 front war with the Ottomans as well) and them come back)

That being said would trading privileges and some concessions in Canada be a viable option?
 
Louis XV gave back the Austrian Netherlands saying he was king not a merchant...

Yes, and why did he do that? Even if he didn't have any claims to the land...Taking the ANL would probably antagonize Austria and GB and make them fight again for it but he could at least get something for it in return. OTL he gave it back for nothing. Madras was conquered in India and Louisbourg lost so they just swapped that and ended the war. Could he be persuaded to change his mind, at least to make the British to give some better terms?
 
Taking the ANL would probably antagonize Austria and GB and make them fight again for it
Well Britain was going to remain an antagonist no matter what. Keeping the Austrian Netherlands may prevent the diplomatic revolution (though that is far from certain as it may make the British even bullish on allying with Prussia), but France's alliance with Austria was fairly fruitless anyway.
 
Yes, and why did he do that? Even if he didn't have any claims to the land...Taking the ANL would probably antagonize Austria and GB and make them fight again for it but he could at least get something for it in return. OTL he gave it back for nothing. Madras was conquered in India and Louisbourg lost so they just swapped that and ended the war. Could he be persuaded to change his mind, at least to make the British to give some better terms?
He did that because he was an idiot. He became impopular at home and within the army. Even searching french sources I can't find any good reason for him to give back the ANL like he did. His generals and diplomats probably had a collective facepalm.
 
Last edited:
He did it for several reasons, each bad, countersense, or anachonistic.

- Louis XV thought it was the interest of France to appear as a noble and disinterested player on the european diplomatic field. In the age of crude imperialism, it was both laughable and despisable.

-He thought it would help build a more friendly and peaceful relationship with Britain ! Mooohahahahahahahah ! Britain wanted to weak en France at any cost because it saw France as its most dangerous competitor. Seeing France decided to weaken itself by giving back a conquest it had brillantly made and that everybody considered nobody could prevent France regaining was just like Santa Claus becoming real. Actually it did hasten the next war rather than avoid it.

- he prefered to secure an italian principality for one of his son-in-laws, that is to reinforce his dynasty rather than his kingdom.
 
Well he got super ill at one point during the war, so the easiest way to keep it French might be to have him die off so his son could take over and hopefully not make such a bad decision.


(Totally not plugging my timeline, no sir-y.;))
 
Well he got super ill at one point during the war, so the easiest way to keep it French might be to have him die off so his son could take over and hopefully not make such a bad decision.


(Totally not plugging my timeline, no sir-y.;))
Had he died he would have died being a popullar king.
 
How would Louis Ferdinand solve the situation?
From what I have read he was much more authoritarian than his father and very devout. The downside is that his father kept him away from the government affair. If he became king he will want to prove himself. He would probably not hand back the ANL without compensation of equal value.
 
I'm a bit curious about this treaty myself, as I understood it weren't the ANL returned in exchange for colonies, not to say Louis XV couldn't keep them;

The colonial swap you may be thinking of was Madras (captured by France) for Louisbourg (captured by Britain).

The restitution of the Austrian Netherlands doesn't seem to have given France anything. Well, I guess he got the friendship of Austria.
 
Last edited:
France did not get the alliance of Austria. It bought it at a very high cost. The treaty of alliance was almost all about how many troops and how much money France engaged to support Austria in its wars in Germany.

The treaty was just a very bad one for France's interests. I mean the provisions of the treaty, not the principle of a franco-austrian alliance in itself.
 
Top