Wait a second; is Dutch and Flemish technically the same language, isn't it?French and Flemish will probably decline as languages, while English, German, and especially Dutch move southward.
Wait a second; is Dutch and Flemish technically the same language, isn't it?
Wait a second; is Dutch and Flemish technically the same language, isn't it?
In my opinion the religious difference between Belgium and the Netherlands are greatly exaggerated. A large part of the Netherlands was (and is) Catholic. Dutch Brabant was and it never joined the Belgian revolution. The Flemish and the Dutch are pretty similar. Noone can convince me that the difference between the people from Limburg, Friesland and Amsterdam are smaller than the differences between the people from Belgian Limburg and Dutch Limburg or Dutch Brabant and Antwerp. If, for some reason just Flanders would have become part of the Netherlands, noone would see any differences between someone from Antwerp or Breda. Or even Nieuwpoort and Groningen. Actualy I would say that splitting Belgium at the Vianne congress between the Netherlands and France would have been better for the Dutch, the French and the Flemish (although i am certain the Belgians would disagree with me).(1)
Anyway, that was not the question. The question was how to avoid an independent Belgium. As I said, splitting between France and the Netherlands is a good way, although I don't think Vienna would be a good time for it, or the Belgian revolution, since we are just before the age that people would look at linguistic barriers. Well I guess a modyfied Tallyrand plan could work, I guess (some parts of the plan would not work, in my opinion). Another one would be to divide Belgium just after the end of the Dutch Revolt. The Netherlands and France had a plan to give the Netherlands Ostend, Ghent, Bruges and everything north of it (including Antwerp), while France would gain everything south of it. (2)
If you do not want a Belgium that remains part of the Netherlands after the Napoleonic wars, that's not that impoosible either. A smarter house of Orange (especialy future Willem II) would work. Someone better able to deal with the Belgian situation. Or else no French intervention, since the Netherlands was pretty good in beating the Belgians during the 10 day campaign. Or involvement of the Dutch allies of Prussia and Russia (who were distracted by Poland OTL). (3)
Maybe a larger part of Belgium in Dutch hands during the Republican days. For example the Dutch conquer Antwerp during the 80-year revolt. Antwerp becomes a large important port and the Dutch decide to strengthen it by basicly gaining several protective towns (for exaple Bruge, Ostend and Ghent) in the wars later. When (ok if) the French revolution happens, afterwards those cities remain as loyal to the Dutch as Brabant, meaning the Dutch have a stronger base to reconquer Belgium and the Belgian revoltnfails.(4)
I agree. Growing up in Belgium, the way I was thought in history class was: For 200 years Flanders was a part of the Austrian empire, what is now Walonia and Luxembourg were a coalition of duchies in the Holy Roman Empire. Then came the revolution in France and with it a spirit of revolution going all over the country. The Prince-bishopric of Liege revolted against their prince-bishop who thought himself too much of an Italian style petty princeling and too little of a bishop. In Flanders, the Habsburg queen Maria Theresia died and was replaced by Joseph II nicknamed 'emperor deakon' because as an absolute monarch he spent his time micromanaging the churches in Flanders. Eventually he got kicked out by a revolution too. The next year Flanders, Liege and several other states either willingly or under threatmerged with revolutionary France or simply were invaded and annexed. Then came 20 years of Napoleontic rule and then afterwards at the congress in Vienna, the victors took all regions between France and Germany that neither alligned with any of the two and lumped them together with freshly liberated Netherlands into a buffer state, on the idea that just being a buffer between two superpowers would be enough to keep them all together.
Unfortunately they found no-one better to lead the new coalition country then Dutch king William, who within 15 years managed to bring everyone west of Amsterdam up against him. The Walloons for promoting Dutch on all levels, the Flemish elites by turning back on the progressive ideas they had been adhering to for the Las 30 years, the Flemish Catholics -like 95% of the population- by promoting protestant faith and values...and so on. So in 1830 there was another 'European Spring' of revolutions sweeping the continent. William made his final mistake by calling back his son, who actually did a decent job of holding the peace, from Brussels and replacing him with a hardliner military commander. May be he was right because just months ago the French revolution of 1930 happened and the following installation of king Louis Phillipe, the ' citizen king' also drove lots of disappointed French professional revolutionaries across the border, especially into Brussels. Some just wanted to lay low for a while and see how the situation in France evolved, but many more just wanted to continue the revolution and wouldn't mind starting it in Brussels before carrying it back home.
Anyway, in the summer of 1830, the situation got tense and when a group of party goers went to see a new Italian opera play that had very nationalist undertones, the city commander mistook them for rebels and ordered his troops out. It is still unclear whether there was actual protest going on, fueled by the opera play or whether he just mistook a group of unruly revelers for revolutionaries. Anyhow, wrong choice. By the end of the night, Brussels had its revolutionary army and it was giving the Dutch forces a good clobbering.
Within days the revolution spread through Flanders and Walonia and a ragtag independence army was raised to defend the new country against the Dutch reinforcements being mobilized in Holland. The first clashes were a pretty easy victory for the Dutch but even as the first battlefield was cleared, French king Louis Philippe declared he supported the rebel's cause and readied his army to allign with the rebels and meet the Dutch on full strength. Given the treaty of a new war in Europe a new congress was called together, this time in London and there it was agreed to split the former mega-bufferstate in two and give the rebels one independent state provided it would be a constitutional monarchy. They even agreed on a name: Belgium after the Gallic tribe of 'Belgae' that occupied the region in Caesar's time.
So how to prevent an independent Belgium?
The first possibility would be a different congress of Vienna. Either it would return to the situation before 1789 and keep the region an association of petty states instead of giving it to the Dutch. Otherwise, it could give the region to the Austrians.
Obviously not, considering that the Austrians did not want them (too far away, and too expensive to protect against France: stupid, I know, but what can you do?) and if the had kept them they would have been treated as a cash cow, same as it happened with Lombardy-Venetia.Wait, what? Giving it to the Hapsburgs would have worked? Is it that simple?
How can we avoid having an independent Belgium?
(1) I agree with this. For the matter of fact to this day the Netherlands has over 500 different dialects who might sound simular but still are different enough to call a different dialect. Flemish would have that statis as well.
(2) Maybe compesate for not getting the walloon provinces by granting Calais (who to this day have a dutch dialect) and some off the Dutch-German provinces. Both Prussia and France wanted Luxembourg. So it can not helped if a single Walloon province ends up in Dutch controle to connect the province. Even if that province revolts its way to small and would be over run by any force.
(3) Maybe have the States General have more power then the king? They control the army with advice from the king.
(4) If Antwerp stays part off the Netherlands it would have become the capital off the Nation. Meaning the chance that the Flemmish would leave becomes even smaller in the future
My favorite PoD, assuming pre-Congress of Vienna PoDs are allowed, is simply for France to annex the Austrian Netherlands after the War of the Austrian Succession.
This thread just reminds me just how much Louis XV had a good deck and managed to blow it all.
Wrong, he had to give it back to get Quebec back
In my opinion the religious difference between Belgium and the Netherlands are greatly exaggerated. A large part of the Netherlands was (and is) Catholic. Dutch Brabant was and it never joined the Belgian revolution. The Flemish and the Dutch are pretty similar. Noone can convince me that the difference between the people from Limburg, Friesland and Amsterdam are smaller than the differences between the people from Belgian Limburg and Dutch Limburg or Dutch Brabant and Antwerp. If, for some reason just Flanders would have become part of the Netherlands, noone would see any differences between someone from Antwerp or Breda. Or even Nieuwpoort and Groningen. Actualy I would say that splitting Belgium at the Vianne congress between the Netherlands and France would have been better for the Dutch, the French and the Flemish (although i am certain the Belgians would disagree with me).
Anyway, that was not the question. The question was how to avoid an independent Belgium. As I said, splitting between France and the Netherlands is a good way, although I don't think Vienna would be a good time for it, or the Belgian revolution, since we are just before the age that people would look at linguistic barriers. Well I guess a modyfied Tallyrand plan could work, I guess (some parts of the plan would not work, in my opinion). Another one would be to divide Belgium just after the end of the Dutch Revolt. The Netherlands and France had a plan to give the Netherlands Ostend, Ghent, Bruges and everything north of it (including Antwerp), while France would gain everything south of it.
If you do not want a Belgium that remains part of the Netherlands after the Napoleonic wars, that's not that impoosible either. A smarter house of Orange (especialy future Willem II) would work. Someone better able to deal with the Belgian situation. Or else no French intervention, since the Netherlands was pretty good in beating the Belgians during the 10 day campaign. Or involvement of the Dutch allies of Prussia and Russia (who were distracted by Poland OTL).
Maybe a larger part of Belgium in Dutch hands during the Republican days. For example the Dutch conquer Antwerp during the 80-year revolt. Antwerp becomes a large important port and the Dutch decide to strengthen it by basicly gaining several protective towns (for exaple Bruge, Ostend and Ghent) in the wars later. When (ok if) the French revolution happens, afterwards those cities remain as loyal to the Dutch as Brabant, meaning the Dutch have a stronger base to reconquer Belgium and the Belgian revoltnfails.