WI: The Belgian Revolt put down?

[wwalter]

What if the 1830 Belgian Revolution was put down by the army of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, with or without the assistance of another Great Power? Assume we still have the Opera Riots in Brussels, followed by the takeover of that city by nationalist rebels in 1830.

Would non-intervention by the Great Powers be enough for the Dutch to maintain their control of the southern Netherlands? Or would it take the active intervention of a status-quo power for the Belgians to be put down?

Looking further ahead, how might a United Netherlands fare in the 19th Century? With a greater population, coal deposits and territory, could the 19th century be another "Golden Age" for the United Netherlands?

 

[pompejus]

What if the 1830 Belgian Revolution was put down by the army of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, with or without the assistance of another Great Power? Assume we still have the Opera Riots in Brussels, followed by the takeover of that city by nationalist rebels in 1830.

Would non-intervention by the Great Powers be enough for the Dutch to maintain their control of the southern Netherlands? Or would it take the active intervention of a status-quo power for the Belgians to be put down?

If the French wouldn't have been involved the Dutch could have easily won. The 10 days campaign was a big succees and won over the Belgians basicly everywhere. It was the intervention of the French that stopped it.

Looking further ahead, how might a United Netherlands fare in the 19th Century? With a greater population, coal deposits and territory, could the 19th century be another "Golden Age" for the United Netherlands?

A Netherlands with the industrial power of Belgium would be an extremely rich country, the combination of trade and industry will probably make it pretty wealthy.

The interesting question though will be will there be another Belgian revolt and what kind of revolt would it be. The Belgians hadsome legitimate grievances, as catholics weren't entirely equal to protestants and people from the north were treated better than people in the south. If in 1848, like OTL, a new constitution is introduced by Thorbecke, all complaints by the south will be adressed (although language issues will probably still be difficult) and the won't rebel. But if they still would, the people in the north had enough of the power of the king, so you probably have a nationwide liberal rebellion, instead of a localised southern one. So I think that if the Netherlands would be able to beat the Belgian rebellion in the 1830's Belgium would remain part of the Netherlands (although I can see a lot of trouble between Walloon and Dutch in the late 20th century, like in OTL Belgium).

 

[artha]

It will be interesting. Comment later got to go

 

[Xavier]

IMO, the smart thing to do after stomping out the revolt, would be to change the constitution to address the Southern grievances. (immediately, 1848 is a bit late) The main problem seems to be Willem I's enlightened despotism, a softer touch might lower the blood pressure of the Liberals and Catholics enough to keep them from going ballistic.

Basically the 1848 Dutch Constitution, or major parts of it, and proportional representation in the First Chamber of the Estates-General.
The major thing is to (mostly) satisfy the Liberals so they won't ally with the Catholics any longer.

The language issues will be a much smaller problem than in Belgium, for the simple fact that the minority will not impose it's language on the majority for almost a century. Also, said minority will be proportionally much smaller. I also assume that over the course of the 19th century the Flemish bourgeoisie will start to speak more and more Dutch instead of French.

It would be interesting to see how the Scramble for Africa would look, no Leopold II in Congo to start with.
Not sure how any Franco-German wars would look with a medium-sized power sitting right next to the arena instead of two small ones either.

 

[pompejus]

IMO, the smart thing to do after stomping out the revolt, would be to change the constitution to address the Southern grievances. (immediately, 1848 is a bit late) The main problem seems to be Willem I's enlightened despotism, a softer touch might lower the blood pressure of the Liberals and Catholics enough to keep them from going ballistic.

Basically the 1848 Dutch Constitution, or major parts of it, and proportional representation in the First Chamber of the Estates-General.
The major thing is to (mostly) satisfy the Liberals so they won't ally with the Catholics any longer.

Certainly true, the best way to stop the revolt is to prevent it. What I meant was that if the Belgian revolt is stoppen in the 1830's (because the Dutch king react earlier or the other powers, mainly France doesn't get involved, or the Prussians or Russians do get involved on the Dutch side, etc.), any grievances the Belgians have will mostly be solved by the new Dutch constitution of 1848. If that constitution is butterflied away, they will have the support of the Dutch liberals, so the revolt is not limited to Belgium.

Sure a better idea would be a new 1848-like constitution in the 1830's or even earlier (1815 for example).

 

[wwalter]

If the French wouldn't have been involved the Dutch could have easily won. The 10 days campaign was a big succees and won over the Belgians basicly everywhere. It was the intervention of the French that stopped it.

Was Belgian independance a foregone conclusion once the French intervened? What if the Dutch had refused to retreat, and forced the July Monarchy's troops to fight them?

Could that have forced the British, or the Prussians to actually intervene on behalf of the Dutch? From the 18th century to present there has been a venerable precedent of the British going to war with any other country that campaigns in the Low Countries. Knowing this, might it have been prudent for King William to force the French to give battle before ordering a withdrawal?

 

[pompejus]

Was Belgian independance a foregone conclusion once the French intervened? What if the Dutch had refused to retreat, and forced the July Monarchy's troops to fight them?

Could that have forced the British, or the Prussians to actually intervene on behalf of the Dutch? From the 18th century to present there has been a venerable precedent of the British going to war with any other country that campaigns in the Low Countries. Knowing this, might it have been prudent for King William to force the French to give battle before ordering a withdrawal?

Well, the Netherlands on his own can't defeat the French. Prussia and Russia were willing to help the Dutch, in theory, but were busy with the Polish revolt. So without that distraction, they might have intervened and helped the Dutch, but I don't think the French would have risked a war with them for (an independent) Belgium. So if Prussia and Russia would be free to help the Dutch, the French won't get involved.

The only goal of the British would be to avoid the Flemish coast becoming French and they would support the best way of that to happen. If the French go into a full scale war against Prussia and Russia over Belgium, I think they would probably turn away from France, fearing the French might try to annex as much of Belgium (and the Netherlands and Luxemburg) as possible. Else they support the best way to avoid a French Flanders. An independent Belgium OTL, but they could take a different position this timeline.

 

[Jape]

In 1830 the Concert of Europe was fraying but still in place - France threatening to invade the Low Countries would have made ears prick up - I say have King Willem call France's bluff, the new July Monarchy would be keen to impress Europe it wasn't some populist Bonparte-lite and aware four major powers would be willing to lend support - monetary or military - to quash her efforts. Have France back down in a crisis and you'll see British and possibly Prussian support for the Dutch turn up as a reaction, to scare off future French 'aggression'- probably not actual troops but the guarantee the French wouldn't cross the border, loans and munitions (remember Prussia in 1830 is not Prussia in 1870, Berlin is scared of a strong France and needs a powerful buffer like a United Netherlands) will see Amsterdam act more decisively.

After that is the hard bit - Willem needs to give the Belgians something - hopefully 1848 style reforms - I'm predicting half-way compromise that satisfies few and leads to revolts if a *Spring of Nations takes place however with France busy overthrowing its own monarchy the Dutch will probably smash such a revolt which then leads to better reform.

Belgium's industry and population will certainly lead to a far stronger Dutch Empire, be interesting to see if the UKN gets involved in Africa. What happens to the Congo will be very interesting.

 

[Valdemar II]

A interesting aspect are what will happen to Wallonia, when industríalisation hit with Dutch as official language and it needing a sourcw of labour, will we see Dutch and Germans move in making some of the urban area Dutch speaking, will the Wallonian country side be labour source enough or will it just assimilate the immigrants. If the first are the case we could see Dutch versions of Brussel in Wallonia.

 

[pompejus]

A interesting aspect are what will happen to Wallonia, when industríalisation hit with Dutch as official language and it needing a sourcw of labour, will we see Dutch and Germans move in making some of the urban area Dutch speaking, will the Wallonian country side be labour source enough or will it just assimilate the immigrants. If the first are the case we could see Dutch versions of Brussel in Wallonia.

I suspect that Dutch would do a lot better than in Belgium, it would probably be the dominant language of the country. Various parts of Belgium that now speak French, would probably still speak Dutch. I expect a Dutch speaking Brussels and Waterloo.

I do not expect French to do as bad as Dutch/Flemish in OTL Belgium. French was the language of the upper class in the 19th century, including the Dutch upperclass. This will of course change and Dutch will replace French for the Dutch upperclass. Still the French language will remain prestegious and will be respected within the Netherlands. The Walloon upper class will be allowed to speak French (although I expect most will be able to speak Dutch). The Walloon dialects on the other hand will be considered peasant languages and be treated badly.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

If Belgium stays with the Netherlands Luxemburg might not split.

 

[pompejus]

If Belgium stays with the Netherlands Luxemburg might not split.

Not might not split. Will not split. There is no reason for Luxemburg to split if Belgium doesn't become independent and take half of it with him. The same is true about Limburg, which will also remain whole (and will not become part of the German Confederation).

 

[artha]

Belgium's industry and population will certainly lead to a far stronger Dutch Empire, be interesting to see if the UKN gets involved in Africa. What happens to the Congo will be very interesting.

I think it's unlikely that the Netherlands will gain Congo (like Belgium in OTL), they already hadsome colonies, so why would they lauch a very expensive expedition for some backwater colony.
They may however get (a part of) South Africa, if the Boers are (kinda) willing to join the Netherlands.

 

[Xavier]

I think it's unlikely that the Netherlands will gain Congo (like Belgium in OTL), they already hadsome colonies, so why would they lauch a very expensive expedition for some backwater colony.
They may however get (a part of) South Africa, if the Boers are (kinda) willing to join the Netherlands.

Not Congo, but they might end up with Ghana if they don't sell their Gold Coast settlements.
The Boer republics would get them into trouble with Britain. And would have to happen before the Brits annex Natalia.

 

[pompejus]

Not Congo, but they might end up with Ghana if they don't sell their Gold Coast settlements.
The Boer republics would get them into trouble with Britain. And would have to happen before the Brits annex Natalia.

I agree. Ghana (at least part of it) would be a more logical African colony for the Netherlands (either with or without Belgium). With a larger population and likely a wealthier Netherlands, I think the Dutch might keep it, as there would be more people willing to invest in it.

Congo will probably end up in Portuguese hands. A minor inoffensive nation, that nobody realy cared about and with a history in that part of Africa.

Also I think the Dutch will leave the Boers alone, like OTL. The Boers didn't want to be part of the Netherlands. They just wanted to start their own independent nations.

 

[The Grin Without a Cat]

I do like the idea of a more united Netherlands

HOLY SHIT, MY WILD PET GECKO JUST FELL DOWN FROM THE TOP (OUTSIDE PART THOUGH) OF MY WINDOW BUT LUCKILY COUGHT ITSELF ON THE BOTTOM PART OF IT! I KNOW HIM, HE'S THE ONE THAT'S COMING OUT AND EATING ALL THE MOTHS EVERY NIGHT! POOR LITTLE GUY!

Now... where was I? Aahh, yes, I do like the idea of a more united Netherlands, but I don't think that gaining OTL Belgium in the 1830s would result in such a stronger "Dutch Empire". The Lowlands are surrounded by Prussia, France and Great Britain at this point, there's really nothing they can do.

Now if Holland gained the Southern Netherlands during the Revolt, we might be looking at a nice Dutch-wank.

 

[pompejus]

Now... where was I? Aahh, yes, I do like the idea of a more united Netherlands, but I don't think that gaining OTL Belgium in the 1830s would result in such a stronger "Dutch Empire". The Lowlands are surrounded by Prussia, France and Great Britain at this point, there's really nothing they can do.

When I thnk of a stronger Netherlands, I think of a wealthier, a more industrialised Netherlands. A Netherlands with more influence on a diplomatic scale, not a Netherlands that can compete with France, Prussia or Britain. I certainly don't expect this Netherlands to greatly expend its borders* and conquer parts of Germany or France. I am just thinking of maybe the strongest of the little nations.

I also don't expect for this Netherlands to create a huge colonial empire, although I think it can get some oppertunities OTL Netherlands didn't take, like for example a Dutch Goldcoast (the Netherlands already had a colony there, but decided to sellit), Dutch northern Borneo and maybe Dutch easter New Guinea. There is also a possibility of some Dutch pacific island as they were already close. I do not expect a huge Dutch Africa, Dutch Indo-China, Dutch Japan, or whatever other wild ideas people may think of.


* I do consider a Dutch Luxemburg as possible, assuming Prussia/Germany won't mind. Luxemburg is an interesting case on its own. Now the Netherlands still has a land connection to it and Luxemburg is half Walloon, just like the southern part of the Netherlands. I think it could be possible for the Netherlands to integrate Luxemburg into the Netherlands at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century. Still far from a certainty.

 

[wwalter]

Not Congo, but they might end up with Ghana if they don't sell their Gold Coast settlements.

Why stop at present day Ghana? The Portuguese barely controlled more than the coast of present-day Angola and Mozambique, yet ended up with considerable inland territory once the "Scramble for Africa" began. Portugal and Belgium weren't even bit players during the 19th century, but emerged with vast colonial empires by 1900.

A United Netherlands would have had nearly half the population of Metropolitan France, as well as both the natural resources and capital to rapidly industrialize. In the 19th century, industrialized countries built global empires, not so much for profit (as the early Dutch Empire had been) as for pride. In short, colonies were acquired not because they were needed, but because they could be taken. And a United Netherlands would have the power to take many.

IMHO a United Netherlands would have established a sizable Gold Coast Colony, and much more thoroughly governed the Dutch East Indies, where the Dutch scarcely established more than nominal authority on most of the islands till the 20th century. As long as sectarian tensions could be kept to a minimum, and Britain remained their defender on the continent, the world could have been their oyster during the 19th century.

 

[The Grin Without a Cat]

When I thnk of a stronger Netherlands, I think of a wealthier, a more industrialised Netherlands. A Netherlands with more influence on a diplomatic scale, not a Netherlands that can compete with France, Prussia or Britain. I certainly don't expect this Netherlands to greatly expend its borders* and conquer parts of Germany or France. I am just thinking of maybe the strongest of the little nations.

I also don't expect for this Netherlands to create a huge colonial empire, although I think it can get some oppertunities OTL Netherlands didn't take, like for example a Dutch Goldcoast (the Netherlands already had a colony there, but decided to sellit), Dutch northern Borneo and maybe Dutch easter New Guinea. There is also a possibility of some Dutch pacific island as they were already close. I do not expect a huge Dutch Africa, Dutch Indo-China, Dutch Japan, or whatever other wild ideas people may think of.

True Pompejus, I was just trying to say that even though the Netherlands is now united, they have to watch out because they are literally surrounded by enemies, and war with any one of them would lead to the downfall of the Dutch.

The Dutch can always expand in the not claimed parts of Africa yet indeed.

 

[archaeogeek]

Why stop at present day Ghana? The Portuguese barely controlled more than the coast of present-day Angola and Mozambique, yet ended up with considerable inland territory once the "Scramble for Africa" began. Portugal and Belgium weren't even bit players during the 19th century, but emerged with vast colonial empires by 1900.

A United Netherlands would have had nearly half the population of Metropolitan France, as well as both the natural resources and capital to rapidly industrialize. In the 19th century, industrialized countries built global empires, not so much for profit (as the early Dutch Empire had been) as for pride. In short, colonies were acquired not because they were needed, but because they could be taken. And a United Netherlands would have the power to take many.

IMHO a United Netherlands would have established a sizable Gold Coast Colony, and much more thoroughly governed the Dutch East Indies, where the Dutch scarcely established more than nominal authority on most of the islands till the 20th century. As long as sectarian tensions could be kept to a minimum, and Britain remained their defender on the continent, the world could have been their oyster during the 19th century.

A United Netherlands would have, in 1901, less than a third of France's Metropolitan population, and would not reach 50% of it before the 1950s. Unless of course it's not just the metropolitan Netherlands, in which case ignoring the French colonies is rather cheating - but assuming the scramble goes as OTL they could probably have grabbed Togo and Dahomey.