WI : A sane 2nd Treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle

So, so far, we have something like this?

g10041.png
 
Great map. Duchy of Parma : I think it's spain influence but it can be debated. OTL don Philip younger brother of Charles III of spain inherits the duchy in 1748.
As he is a boubon, as he speaks french and spanish and as France is closer to Parma, he can also be under france influence.
The asiento in spain was also renewed.

About the west indies, giving guyana and St martin looks good. You can add st barth too : no economic value but it's between the dutch leeward islands. It will cancel a threat over st marteen, saba and st eustatius.

From 1756, st eustatius became the golden rock : neutral in the seven years war, freeport and a great center of contraband.
If netherlands stay ally to britain and didn't stay neutral in a seven years war : no dutch support in the american war of independance. The trade between US and st eustatius is the main reason for the 4th dutch-england war.

French fortification in the southern netherlands can also be limited to charleroi, namur, ostende, ghent and the harbors (already fortified cities). Netherlands will never start a war : with Prussia as ally, the french north border is more peaceful than OTL. The real threat for France is england : the naval development will continue.
 
Yes ! Killing Louis XV in the Metz sickness is a good POD. Great Idea.

I'm not sure about it : the dauphin would be too young to rule by himself, and as Fleury is dead you'll have a struggle for power from the high nobles that would likely destabilize the country (at best you'll have a Polysynodie-like issue).

You can also say goodbye to any coherent policy during all the minority of the king.
 
Great map. Duchy of Parma : I think it's spain influence but it can be debated. OTL don Philip younger brother of Charles III of spain inherits the duchy in 1748.

But Louis XV gave him a french "minister" that would end to become the main minister, Guillaume du Tillot that used mainly french workers, intellectuals or ministers.

And his antli-clerical policy is more french-tied (while not that appreciated by the french king) than spanish.
 
So does this ATL have the Scheldt open?
Escaut river would be likely opened, critically with his basin almost entierly taken by French that would benefit from such opening.

Did the British keep Louisburg?
Well, as OTL showed that Lousbourg was quick to fall...I think it's preferrable. Not sure though if it would be obvious for all. So, maybe France could revert Madras in exchange of Lousbourg.
 
I don't think giving anything to the dutch will prevent them for allying with the british and another war is pretty much unavoidable. The port even if closed is too important in my eyes to let it go.
 
I don't think giving anything to the dutch will prevent them for allying with the british and another war is pretty much unavoidable.

Possibly true. The Dutch were done with the Anglo-Dutch alliance, but if France annexes all of the southern Netherlands, it would be too great a threat to the Netherlands to ignore. From the southern Netherlands France can easily attack the Netherlands. If France wants to break the Anglo-Dutch alliance it has to make consessions and, as I said, it might not be enough (especialy as it depends on who rules the Netherlands). OTL the Netherlands didn't fought in the 7-years war, in this timeline if France annexes all of the Southern Netherlands the Netherlands will, France is just too dangerous (actually France always was, there is a reason half of Europe had to ally themselves just to fight France). France needs to make harsh consessions if France wants the Netherlands even to be neutral and even then it is hardly certain. In the end I don't think France will and has to figt the Netherlands next war.
 
Possibly true. The Dutch were done with the Anglo-Dutch alliance, but if France annexes all of the southern Netherlands, it would be too great a threat to the Netherlands to ignore.

Giving to Netherlands the forteress more close to their border would be a great thing, I would say. Antwerp being dutch as well Malines would seriously relativize the french threat against them, at least immediatly.
 
Giving to Netherlands the forteress more close to their border would be a great thing, I would say. Antwerp being dutch as well Malines would seriously relativize the french threat against them, at least immediatly.
True, but the question is though would it be enough* and would the French actualy do it.

*and as I said that really depends on which faction wins for dominance within the Netherlands. The stadholders were pro-British/Prussia for example, but others weren't.
 
True, but the question is though would it be enough* and would the French actualy do it.

At this point, France wouldn't be interested at all taking over UP. What matter is the coast against Great Britain, and as they have annexed southern Netherlands and Austrian alliance going to implausible, to protect against a northern Austrian attack.
 
If I was France I would not give up Antwerp not without a good fight but that's just me.

If I was the France of the 18th century, I would have bent over backwards to please the Dutch. The Dutch then was still a great maritime power. An alliance with the Dutch would have been invaluable to France in its fight for overseas colonies. If I was France, I would have given the Dutch what they needed to have their own defensive natural border and thrown in some overseas colonies to encourage the Dutch to maintain their navy. In return, the Dutch has to agree to a military alliance with France in case either one would be at war against Britain. France had the perfect opportuniy to get the Dutch on side by giving them the Austrian Netherlands. Instead, it chose to support the wrong ally, Prussia, which would go on to lead to disastrous results for France at the Seven Years War.

True, for this to work, France would have had to give up its need for a defensive border up to the Rhine, but it was worth it just for peace on the Continent. France had a sufficiently big army to protect itself without the Rhine in case it had to go to war with other Continental powers.

Likewise, 18th century Spain was another great maritime power and would have been an invaluable ally to France. France had a perfect opportunity for an effective alliance with Spain by succeeding in placing a Bourbon king on the Spanish throne after the War of Spanish Succession. But it squandered it by treating Spain as a junior partner and by even going to war with Spain following the war because it feared growing Spanish power.

An 18th century alliance between France, Dutch and Spain would have prevented Britain from being the agressor and stirring up trouble on the Continent. The balance of power overseas would then have been equal among the western European nations in the search for empires.
 
If I was France I would not give up Antwerp not without a good fight but that's just me.

Well...Would have been the point of keeping Antwerp is it causes only to keep a too great standing army to defend against British and Dutch armies?
Furthermore the main interest of the city is strategic, economically it's really secondary.

Neutralizing Dutch bellicitsts by giving up Antwerp and some other cities (as Louis XIV did in 1713 with Tournai) and by supporting discretly (funding by exemple) opposers more neutrals would be a good opportunity.
 
If I was France I would not give up Antwerp not without a good fight but that's just me.
Even though the Dutch could, and for quite a while IOTL did, block passage to & from it along the lower Scheldt so that it could no longer function as a seaport?
 
Top