WI British Calais after the Napoleonic Wars

Assuming that Britain is on a little more punitive mood towards France, let's envision they take back the historic Pale of Calais (while allotting Dunkirk to the Dutch so that the Netherlands would border the Pale on its east).

Would such an asset be of any use to Britain at this point?
 
I don't think so. It would give them a land border that they'd have to defend which would probably be lost anyway in the first stages of a large war.
 
I don't think so. It would give them a land border that they'd have to defend which would probably be lost anyway in the first stages of a large war.

Yes, I imagined that the Pale's plain hinterland doesn't exactly make it a fortress.

But I forgot to add that this isn't a question purely for a military POV. For instance, wouldn't the British somehow commercially profit with an outlet in the Continent?
 
Yes, I imagined that the Pale's plain hinterland doesn't exactly make it a fortress.

But I forgot to add that this isn't a question purely for a military POV. For instance, wouldn't the British somehow commercially profit with an outlet in the Continent?
An outlet completly surrounded by one country...France....so no, not paticulary
 
Calais and Dunkirk aren't all that close to each other (about 40-50 km apart, I believe). If you take both away from France, you're eliminating France's entire North Sea coastline. There will be calls for revenge in France if that happens.

Keeping France's pre-Revolution territory intact was considered important to maintaining Louis XVIII's credibility as king. Taking this much away would make his job that much tougher.
 
Last edited:
Calais isn't on the border - it's about 55 km west of it. If you'd have Britain control the whole area from Calais to the Belgian/Southern Netherlands border, you'd be taking a sizable chunk of territory from France and it will not be happy.

On the OP I specified that the Dutch border is extended all the way to Dunkirk...
 
Yeah, I misread your original post. I went back and edited mine. Regardless, France isn't going to be happy.
 
Calais and Dunkirk aren't all that close to each other (about 40-50 km apart, I believe).
The city centers, yes. But I believe the historic Pale of Calais and the French Flanders (that is to be awarded to the Netherlands along with the Austrian Flanders) roughly border each other.

If you take both away from France, you're eliminating France's entire North Sea coastline.
That's the point. The farthest from England the merrier.

There will be calls for revenge in France if that happens.
France won't be happy, no.
Albeit my believe is that the geographic psyche of it not being surrounded by France will not exactly make it a Gibraltar situation.

Keeping France's pre-Revolution territory intact was considered important to maintaining Louis XVIII's credibility as king. Taking this much away would make his job that much tougher.

But if Napoleon wins Waterloo and carries on doing damage, chances are the Allies will feel much more punitive...
 
Last edited:
It is far too late for this at this point.

Any France worth its salt will feel the need to take back such valuable and historically significant territory and Britain is not at its best if it has to commit forces to a ground war in the continent for a sustained periods.

It sometimes found it necessary to do so but that has a rather mixed record and policy makers would be horrified at the idea of needing a permament standing army in the continent to defend a land that it has not held for centuries and will inevitably lead to an expensive war.

Also more French speakers in the Netherlands will be asking for a worse revolt and OTL that almost ended in the French annexing Flanders but didn't as a means of placating the British, in this scenario the French will probably accept.
 
It is far too late for this at this point.

Any France worth its salt will feel the need to take back such valuable and historically significant territory and Britain is not at its best if it has to commit forces to a ground war in the continent for a sustained periods.

It sometimes found it necessary to do so but that has a rather mixed record and policy makers would be horrified at the idea of needing a permament standing army in the continent to defend a land that it has not held for centuries and will inevitably lead to an expensive war.
I see.

Also more French speakers in the Netherlands will be asking for a worse revolt and OTL that almost ended in the French annexing Flanders but didn't as a means of placating the British, in this scenario the French will probably accept.

French Flanders was very much Dutch speaking, I believe.
 
I don't think so. It would give them a land border that they'd have to defend which would probably be lost anyway in the first stages of a large war.
Though its not like Britian is at war 24/7 (despite British tendency during the time period to stick their dick into everything). Important question is what commercial gains can Britain get from Calais in peacetime (and form cutting off France's north eastern coast).

But even then im not sure. The economics of the world has changed quite a lot from since the last time the English held Calais.
 
Top