WI Belgium was never created?

no scenic route for invading German armies? bwahahahaha......

Mwah before 1914 it usually were French armies; and regarding the absorption of Belgium or the Low Countries in general, it is not as if France didn't try, since certain parts of the Southern Netherlands were lost to France in conflicts between Spain, later Austria (their rulers also ruled the Southern Netherlands) and France ....
 

JJohnson

Banned
This is interesting conjecture, for sure. I've never heard of a 'no Belgium' timeline before. I'm curious to see if someone else on this board might create a timeline with this as one of the side features.
 
This is interesting conjecture, for sure. I've never heard of a 'no Belgium' timeline before. I'm curious to see if someone else on this board might create a timeline with this as one of the side features.

There are several no Belgium TL's on this forum;) Just none of them where the POD is no Belgium.
 
The scenario that interests me the most is the 1815 POD, in which France holds onto Walloonia post-Congress of Vienna. Assuming there is still a similar World War One, I can imagine this POD causing the British assistance to the French to be more lackluster early on, potentially allowing the Germans to make it all the way to Paris.
 
The scenario that interests me the most is the 1815 POD, in which France holds onto Walloonia post-Congress of Vienna. Assuming there is still a similar World War One, I can imagine this POD causing the British assistance to the French to be more lackluster early on, potentially allowing the Germans to make it all the way to Paris.
I always said that it would be better for France, the Netherlands, the Flemish and the Walloon if Belgium had been split between the Netherlands and France along the language boundry (although I am fairly certain that our Belgian members would disagree). It would mean that France suddenly has the Walloon coal fields, making the industrial revolution a lot more interesting for France, making it a lot stronger than OTL. It would also mean a larger border between France and Germany, making it less likely that Germany would attack through a neutral nation. For the Dutch it would mean a larger population, the port of Antwerp and the coalmines in Belgium Limburg. For the (Dutchspeaking lower class) Flemish it would mean not ending up second rate citizens in their own country. And for the Walloon, well if they were French now, it would mean a lot less linguistic problems. Also I think the whole of France would be easier to control the collapse of the Walloon industries in the 20th century.

Sadly, I doubt it would happen easily. Certainly around the congress of Vienna nobody would think of splitting the southern Netherlands and France keeping Wallonia is hard, as they wanted to reduce France to pre-revolutionairy borders. There must be a realy good reason for France to keep part of the southern Netherlands.
 
The scenario that interests me the most is the 1815 POD, in which France holds onto Walloonia post-Congress of Vienna.

Wasn't this Talleyrand proposition? And since he is the unofficial God of Diplomacy he would probably work his charms successfully enough only if Britain doesn't show such strong interest in the area.
 
if Belgium had been split between the Netherlands and France along the language boundary. It would mean that France suddenly has the Walloon coal fields, making the industrial revolution a lot more interesting for France, making it a lot stronger than OTL. For the (Dutchspeaking lower class) Flemish it would mean not ending up second rate citizens in their own country. And for the Walloon, well if they were French now, it would mean a lot less linguistic problems..

I find it strange of much anachronisms people use when talking about early 19th century Belgium. People divide Belgium following current day concepts that didn't exist at that time. The Flemish were the people who lived in East and West Flanders not in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Dividing Belgium along linguistic lines in the 19th century that would probably have been done by looking at those who have power, the upper class: they spoke French, no exception (after Belgian independence those who spoke Dutch had been raised in Dutch by the dutch speaking educational system the Dutch had set up during the United Kingdom of the Netherlands).
The common man didn't bother, the Flemish movement of the second half of the 19th Century certainly was no popular movement. The class-based society was a fact that remained unquestioned. The only problem was the Dutch speaking part of the upper and middle classes, who felt that they were pushed to the lower class and reacted against that.
As for the Walloons nothing would change: they spoke Walloon or another regional language, but not French. The Walloon movement only arose as a response to the Flemish movement, not because of linguistic, cultural or class-based interests, even though Wallonia produced it's fine artists and literature and there was an awareness.

Walloon coal fields, making the industrial revolution a lot more interesting for France
If it happened, the only reason it began was because of a certain degree of amicability between the Southern-Netherlands and England (or the UK) The railways were introduced by the King. The Walloon coalfields were not special take all other advantages out (the proximity of Antwerp for example) the post-Belgian independence British investments, the encouragements of King Leopold II, the Sociéte Générale and nothing special comes out. France would have had one field more, the only effect that would have was a faster introduction of the Industrial Revolution in France and probably another French region would have gained the lead. One closer to a port for example.
 
I find it strange of much anachronisms people use when talking about early 19th century Belgium. People divide Belgium following current day concepts that didn't exist at that time. The Flemish were the people who lived in East and West Flanders not in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Dividing Belgium along linguistic lines in the 19th century that would probably have been done by looking at those who have power, the upper class: they spoke French, no exception (after Belgian independence those who spoke Dutch had been raised in Dutch by the dutch speaking educational system the Dutch had set up during the United Kingdom of the Netherlands).

I think pompejus was only using the word "Flemish" - anachronistic and imprecise as it may be - as a convenient umbrella term to describe "the Southern Netherlands north of the language border". The "language border" already existed even with all the described social perception and linguistic differences from nowadays.

Of course almost no one cared about the language border in 1815 but a Congress of Vienna could have awarded to the Dutch only part of the Southern Netherlands contiguous to the Netherlands which would have roughly the same practical effect pompejus was looking for. This rump Southern Netherlands is less likely to rebel and secede from the Kingdom.
 
Last edited:
the Congo evolves as an idyllic self-governed communalistic land of independence and mutual respect.

Well, at least it isn't a crapsack like otl, or not as bad, I could hope.

maybe.
 
the Congo evolves as an idyllic self-governed communalistic land of independence and mutual respect.

Well, at least it isn't a crapsack like otl, or not as bad, I could hope.

maybe.

In the absence of Leopold, the Congo probably gets colonized by Portugal (they were interested in the region and had a long historical relationship with its native rulers). And Portugal was, bar Leopold's hell, probably the worst colonizer to live under if one was black-they were known for extensive use of native forced labor to squeeze maximum profit out of their colonies.
 
In the absence of Leopold, the Congo probably gets colonized by Portugal (they were interested in the region and had a long historical relationship with its native rulers). And Portugal was, bar Leopold's hell, probably the worst colonizer to live under if one was black-they were known for extensive use of native forced labor to squeeze maximum profit out of their colonies.


That's a sobering thought.

I wonder how many of the colonized would survive to be exported to Brazil


It seems like the most boldly adventurous explorers (Portugal, the Yongle Emperor early 15th century) were apparently the most likely to be breathtakingly defiant of human rights considerations. (I read about the Yongle Emperor's degree of human rights abuses kind of recently, he went from being (for me) the guy who was cool for supporting the Treasure Fleet to being the guy who killed over 2,800 women for suspicion of poisoning a favored concubine, etc.)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
In the absence of Leopold, the Congo probably gets colonized by Portugal (they were interested in the region and had a long historical relationship with its native rulers). And Portugal was, bar Leopold's hell, probably the worst colonizer to live under if one was black-they were known for extensive use of native forced labor to squeeze maximum profit out of their colonies.
It would probably means Portugal get some parts of it, but not all of the huge landmass we today call Congo.
 
It would probably means Portugal get some parts of it, but not all of the huge landmass we today call Congo.

Right-Portugal probably gets the west and south-the parts near their own colonies. The north is probably French, and the east likely goes to Germany and Britain.

Which would probably be better in its own way-Congo would be four or five midsized countries rather than a giant one that can't hold its territory together. Not to mention that French, British, and Germans all treated their colonies WAY better than Leopold did.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
18th century PoDs for this discussed over in SHWI

On Nov 10, 4:06 pm, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 8:51 pm, Rob <raharris1...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >http://rooksmoor.blogspot.com/2010/0...n-created.html
>
> > This guy gets into some detailed conjecture on lack of a Belgium. It
> > deals entirely with the post 1815 period. Below is some info ona
> > possible absorption of most of Belgium into France in the 18th
> > century.
>
> IIRC, as a result of the War for the Austrian Succession France ended
> up with a complete or almost complete occupation of the Austrian
> Netherlands. If Louis XV did not decide to give it all back he would
> end up with a posession of one of the most prosperous and developed
> parts of XVIII Europe (and an important port of Antewrp). His
> popularity in France does not suffer (as in OTL), he is more
> influential in his foreign policy and does not have to play "King's
> Secret", confusing his own ministers and eventually weakening French
> status in Europe.
>
> France gets noticeably stronger both economically and geographically.
> If Louis is not ending up being involved in the 7YW _in Europe_ (no
> immediate French interests had been involved beyond very vague
> 'Prussian danger'), then France is in a better position vs. the GB in
> Americas and India. Even with the outcome close to OTL, France is
> still better economically and chances are that the French Revolution
> is not happening.

Interestingly, what you brought up is an even earlier PoD than the ones I linked to from Wikipedia. In the links I provided, I highlighted a short-lived treaty where Austria pledged to voluntarily transfer Belgium to the Bourbons. In the war of Austrian succession scenario, the French took over the Austrian Netherlands by invasion. They faced Austrian, British Hanoverian and other German opposition on the continent, while being allied to Prussia and Bavaria. I think King George II led British troops in battle on the continent in this war.

I would think that, given its alliances, the French would have a decent shot militarily at occupying and holding the Austrian Netherlands to the end, but in the OTL treaty they may have traded occupied portions of that territory in exchange for recovering territories, like Louisbourg, lost to the British overseas. An attempt to hold Belgium could have been met by British overseas campaigns and more active engagement of the Russians, who were involved on the Rhine front by the end of the war.

Given the Austrian-French alliance of the 1750s, and their agreement to transfer the Austrian Netherlands to France, it is quite amazing the French did not walk away with the territory. Frederick the Great was winning crucial battles but he was too far away and too beleaguered to keep the French at bay in that territory.

Yes, the Austrians stipulated that France would in turn be obligated to turn over Parma to the Habsburgs and help them regain Silesia, but it appears that the Austrians decided against the territorial exchange even before they were sure the war was lost. ISTM to me that France could have kept the territories, following through on its obligation to give away Parma, telling the Austrians that it was fulfilling its obligation by simply trying to help them regain Silesia, whether that was going to work or not, and, when that campaign failed, possibly finding Austria other territory to compensate it with.

------How might this alternative work for a French Belgium, a few decades later than the one you brought up.

What if France restrains itself during the American Revolt and decides that when two groups of englishmen are digging their own grave, it is best not to interrupt them. Meanwhile, while the cat (Britain) is away, the mice (France and its continental allies) will play. In 1777, while remaining neutral vis-a-vis the American revolution, France makes a deal to absorb Belgium in exchange for supporting Austria's claims to the Bavarian throne. It would seem to me that a hostile coalition would have trouble stopping the Franco-Austrian coalition from working its will, especially in Belgium and northern Italy.
 
Top