WI France invaded Austrian Netherlands in September 1776?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
WI Bourbon France saw British embroilment in the colonial rebellion less as a chance for direct revenge and more a chance to make unilateral gains of enduring importance for France? Specifically, from 1775 Britain's distraction gets the wheels of French Ministers spinning thinking of possible ways to wring a French advantage out of the situation. An additional bonus of the situation is Britain's lack of continental allies.

A party emerges advocating French expansion in Europe during Britain's embroilment. In terms of selecting the target, the formula that eventually emerges from the royal advisors is for a move to annex the Austrian Netherlands, as the course most likely to increase the real power of France and the revenues of the French treasury. More expansive or broader potential designs in Italy or Germany are rejected as being too likely to cause war with a coalition of continental powers. Likewise, France does not commit itself to overseas designs that would make war with Britain inevitable.

In accordance with these designs on southern Netherlands, limited military preparations are made in late 1775 to mid 1776 to ready the army for a campaign.

There is no full or irreversible commitment made however, until after the rebellious colonies declare independence and the British campaign against New York City begins in July 1776. That convinces some fence-sitting decisionmakers that Britain and its colonies are in for a protracted period of fighting.

Preparations are kicked into high gear for an autumn campaign, along with diplomatic preparations.

The French march in September. How quickly could the French military of the day occupy Belgium, and reduce any resisting forts to submission. Would towns, forts and Austrian garrisons resist.

This is a betrayal of the Austrian ally. But what position is Austria in to effectively oppose the move? Belgium is a distant possession of theirs. I would think that though this would be seen as a land-grab like as bold as Frederick's seizure of Silesia in 1740, this would not be enough to excite a pan-European coalition against France. France could also try to offer Austria suitable compensation to allow it to save face.

Is Prussia under the aging and tiring Frederick going to see Belgium as its problem? The Dutch Republic will see this as a problem and a long-term threat, but has no unilateral capacity to oppose French moves. What do the Russians think?

French annexation of Belgium (including Antwerp) is a nightmare for Britain, but how does Britain prioritize from autumn 1776 on?

Does Britain stay at peace with France while trying to hasten an end to the American rebellion by force?

Or does Britain declare war on France and intervene in the Austrian Netherlands, rerouting its Hessian recruits to fight there instead of America, while going into an immediate slowdown of operations in America and attempts to negotiate a settlement with the Americans? Does Britain seek to recruit continental allies, and how would that go?

In the latter situation, Austria as the attacked party seems to be the most natural partner for Britain in opposing France, but it also seems like an Austro-British coalition at this point would be a coalition of losers who could not help each other much and be checkmated by an opposing coalition of France, Prussia, Russia and the American colonists.

So, does France end up annexing Belgium and holding it thereafter?
Is American independence recognized early?
Both? Neither?

If France only wants to do the Belgium thing and not get overtly involved with the Americans, could Britain and France reach a tacit agreement to stay out of each other's wars, or would Britain veto this? In the latter case, how could the French most effectively allocate their resources among their continental and overseas fronts? Is their fleet able to protect their forces in Belgium and the channel, and slip out to American waters, or is the French fleet still not capable of achieving the breakout it achieved in OTL 1778?
 
OK WHY THE HELL would France invade the Austrian Netherlands!?!? France was allied with Austria at this point, so there is no reason for them to do that. By the time of the Revolutionary war the only friend Britain had on the continent was Portugal, and the only nation in a position to invade them would be Spain. So any French invasion of the Austrian Netherlands at this point would be ASB.

However, this was a great opportunity for France to reclaim its colonial empire, which is what they should have done. With pretty much all of Europe opposed to Britain, there would be little objections from the rest of the continent. Really the French got shafted by the revolutionary war. They bankrolled the whole thing and got jack shit for their troubles. Realistically France could have at least got Canada and parts of the Caribbean back, maybe even Louisiana (assuming Spain is strong armed into selling it back). I wonder how French gains in the Revolutionary war would affect the French Revolution?
 
Indeed, France was allied to Austria at this point. The Queen herself was Austrian. I can't see France betraying it's ally for such a blatant land grab.
 
This also requires a much earlier POD. France saw Britain as its main threat, and predicted that Britain's conquest of North America would lead to a global superpower with aspersions of universal empire. (The last two centuries of history suggest it was right). Partitioning the British Empire seemed much more valuable than seizing the Low Countries.
 
This also requires a much earlier POD. France saw Britain as its main threat, and predicted that Britain's conquest of North America would lead to a global superpower with aspersions of universal empire. (The last two centuries of history suggest it was right). Partitioning the British Empire seemed much more valuable than seizing the Low Countries.

Was there an actual Frenchman who said something like that? Because that sounds like one of those disturbingly prophetic Bismarck quotes.

It's weird, I always thought of France's intervention in the ARW as a petty revenge against Britain. But it makes a lot more sense that the goal was to stop Britain from getting too powerful. Can you imagine if Britain had held on to the US? You'd get a hyperpower 200 years earlier than OTL.
 
Was there an actual Frenchman who said something like that? Because that sounds like one of those disturbingly prophetic Bismarck quotes.

It's weird, I always thought of France's intervention in the ARW as a petty revenge against Britain. But it makes a lot more sense that the goal was to stop Britain from getting too powerful. Can you imagine if Britain had held on to the US? You'd get a hyperpower 200 years earlier than OTL.

I believe Napoleon (or Talleyrand?) said something along those lines after selling Louisiana to the United States.
 
I believe Napoleon (or Talleyrand?) said something along those lines after selling Louisiana to the United States.

Alexis De Tocqueville?

He said something in the 1830s about the preeminence of the United States and Russia as the two main global powers in the future.
 
Realistically France could have at least got Canada and parts of the Caribbean back, maybe even Louisiana (assuming Spain is strong armed into selling it back). I wonder how French gains in the Revolutionary war would affect the French Revolution?

France did get back Tobago and Senegal. While small, Tobago was extremely productive - the expression "rich as a Tobago planter" was in use at this time.

France probably could have gotten Louisiana back from Spain as well (since it had been ceded to them as compensation for the loss of Florida, which Spain regained in 1783), but just don't seem to have been interested at the time. Canada and Louisiana hadn't been very profitable for France in the 18th century, whereas its Caribbean colonies were extremely successful.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
OK WHY THE HELL would France invade the Austrian Netherlands!?!?

It's not polite TO YELL, you know.

France was allied with Austria at this point, so there is no reason for them to do that. So any French invasion of the Austrian Netherlands at this point would be ASB.

Indeed, France was allied to Austria at this point. The Queen herself was Austrian. I can't see France betraying it's ally for such a blatant land grab.

France was allied with Austria but it was an unpopular, unproductive alliance. French interest in Belgium is clearly demonstrated by the numerous historic invasions of the territory and the abortive deal in 1756 to trade it with Austria for Parma. The premise behind this what if is that if instead of just thinking, "What can we do to get back at Great Britain", which France certainly did do, the French also consider, "What can we do to ensure a permanent material gain for ourselves now that we have a window of opportunity?" Acquiring Belgium would be popular domestically, and show the French people that Louis XVI and not the unpopular Marie-Antoinette, wore the pants in the family.

To help the Austrians swallow the bitter pill, they could offer them face-saving compensation in Italy or Poland. Similarly, the claim to the Austrian Netherlands could be claimed as France's right to "compensation" for the gains of Russia, Prussia and Austria in the first partition of Poland a couple years before.

But this part has me intrigued:

However, this was a great opportunity for France to reclaim its colonial empire, which is what they should have done. With pretty much all of Europe opposed to Britain, there would be little objections from the rest of the continent. Really the French got shafted by the revolutionary war. They bankrolled the whole thing and got jack shit for their troubles. Realistically France could have at least got Canada and parts of the Caribbean back, maybe even Louisiana (assuming Spain is strong armed into selling it back). I wonder how French gains in the Revolutionary war would affect the French Revolution?

So we are both in agreement that France did not make tangible gains commensurate with its level of effort in the American Revolutionary War. We just disagree on where they should have sought those gains. I argue for Europe, and you suggest the colonial realm, North America in particular.

In the Caribbean, they did get Tobago (and maybe Dominica?) back in OTL. What more was a realistic prospect there?

Could they have gotten anything additional back in India or the Indies?

If spectacular enough, gains in the tropics could be a financial help.

Reclamation of North American territory however, wouldn't help the budget, and would be a long-term recipe for conflict with the Americans that either ultimately sacrifices the territory or requires an expensive containment effort. This would be especially so if the French re-acquire any territory south of the Great Lakes. If anything, maximum expansion in North America accelerates the revolutionary situation a bit.

France saw Britain as its main threat, and predicted that Britain's conquest of North America would lead to a global superpower with aspersions of universal empire. (The last two centuries of history suggest it was right). Partitioning the British Empire seemed much more valuable than seizing the Low Countries.

This is an interesting point on French strategic reasoning. I think I remember reading the Spanish came round to a similar point of view. The Bourbon powers anticipated that on forcing the colonies to submit, the beefed up British military presence would encourage London to just keep on expanding at French and Spanish expense in the Caribbean and Americas, because of momentum, and as a way to reunite with the colonials. Funny how often countries read suppression of a rebellion and restoration of the status quo by a rival as merely a springboard for later aggression.
 
I
So we are both in agreement that France did not make tangible gains commensurate with its level of effort in the American Revolutionary War. We just disagree on where they should have sought those gains. I argue for Europe, and you suggest the colonial realm, North America in particular.

Britain lost several million subjects and the Eastern half of North America.

That's a pretty devastating blow and was perceived as such at the time.
 
Alexis De Tocqueville?

He said something in the 1830s about the preeminence of the United States and Russia as the two main global powers in the future.

I vaguely recall reading that Napoleon (I think) said something along the lines of "In selling this territory to the Americans we may be planting the seeds of a new power," but added that it would be a long time still before it could achieve this status.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
France saw Britain as its main threat, and predicted that Britain's conquest of North America would lead to a global superpower with aspersions of universal empire.

True that the Bourbon powers saw Britain in this way, although that may have been a convenient strategic rationalization for putting the priority on a war of revenge. One thing I do recall hearing the Spanish (and their French allies) thinking was that momentum from a successful reconquest of North America was likely to continue on in British campaign to seize Spanish North America. Interesting case of how when its convenient, its easy to conflate forceful maintenance of the status quo with an offensive design.

Maybe to get this to happen the strategic instincts and biases of Louis XV and especially Choiseul need to be reoriented by 1770.


But one thing this leads back to is, if we take an alternate French strategic orientation for granted, would Britain be a cooperative enemy, plugging away trying to crush the rebellion and failing or barely trying to get a coalition started with the other powers on the continent?

Or, would seeing French aggression on the continent make the British come to a quick settlement in America, even if a loss, in order to free its resources for countering France (in the world as well as Europe) by seizing the remaining French colonies as "hostages" for the Belgium?
 
Would they have to invade it? I thought Austria could care less about it and would happily take something closer to home as compensation. Parma? The right to annex Venice?

It wouldn't work anyway. As mentioned already, Britain would apply pressure in the Caribbean to stop it.
 
This also requires a much earlier POD. France saw Britain as its main threat, and predicted that Britain's conquest of North America would lead to a global superpower with aspersions of universal empire. (The last two centuries of history suggest it was right). Partitioning the British Empire seemed much more valuable than seizing the Low Countries.

There are not enough timelines that go in this direction. <_<
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Vanity 6
"Would they have to invade it? I thought Austria could care less about it and would happily take something closer to home as compensation. Parma? The right to annex Venice?"

You would think they would care less, and the 2nd treaty of Versailles in 1757 did exchange Parma to Austria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles_(1757)) in return for the cadet Bourbon Duke getting rulership over
the southern Netherlands, guaranteed by French troops. But as part of that deal the Austrians also wanted French diplomatic and monetary support to reclaim Silesia from Prussia.
In the end, Austria did not win in Silesia and the trade was never made. And even before that time, with the 3rd Treaty of Versailles of 1758 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Treaty_of_Versailles), the territorial exchange was called off,
even though Austria was still fighting over Silesia for several more years. That struck me as strange that the deal was rescinded, or that the allies never just did a voluntary bilateral.
exchange, but there you have it.

A peaceful trade of Habsburg and Bourbon territories, taking place at any time over the life of the Franco-Austrian alliance (1756-1778 de facto) is an interesting potential scenario, but entirely different from the one in the OP.
From a 20th or 21st century point of view, it would seem no one could rightfully interfere in an exchange of territories granting southern Netherlands to France. You'd think it would be easier and less controversial than obtaining them by naked French aggression. But, depending on when it happened, any power(s) who were strongly enough opposed
to a trade could have made up some argument (probably based on territorial laws of succession) to justify war to prevent the Franco-Austrians from carrying out the trade.


In the late 1770s the Austrians were thinking of trading away the southern Netherlands once again. But they wouldn't have wanted to voluntarily trade it
for just Parma at that time. By that time, they were hoping to trade parts of it to the Wittelsbachs for parts of Bavaria. Wittelsbach Belgium does not
do anything for France, and a French occupation of Belgium actually just helps spoil that proposed trade.

It wouldn't work anyway. As mentioned already, Britain would apply pressure in the Caribbean to stop it.

Britain could be positioned to apply pressure in the Caribbean, but would probably have to pull their fleet and halt operations in North America to do it successfully.
While an all-out effort could probably seize islands, and this would injure some French interests, it would be up to France to decide whether or not to do a trade, or just regard Belgium as more valuable
and just support a peace based on the new status quo, uti possedetis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis )
 
Top