Post by Tipsyfish on Mar 24, 2016 0:59:38 GMT
This is what I'm currently writing a scenario on and I want to know what else I should add? This is getting a bit long as is for my videos since they just take a while for me to edit and I try to keep them simple, but this is slowly starting to expand into something different (I'm half tempted to make a whole separate video regarding the Congo) What are your thoughts?
The Netherlands since it's independence went from a major European power to a mere shell all within two hundred years. It once boasted a navy that threatened the English, and a land army that threatened France, with a colonial empire spanning the world. But as happens with all empires, they fall and new ones rise. However, after the Napoleonic wars, the Netherlands had a chance to stay a dominate power even until the modern day. This would have been done with present day Belgium, otherwise known as the southern Netherlands that were given to the Dutch crown in the congress of Venice. This new united Netherlands wouldn't last long however, the lands currently known as Belgium declared and won their independence during the revolutionary fever of 1830. But that sparks the question, what would happen if Belgium lost their revolution? And stayed an integral part of the united Netherlands? But before I can go into detail, we need some history.
The Belgian Revolution had many causes; the main causes were the domination of the Dutch over the economic, political, and social institutions of the kingdom (although at that time the Belgian population was larger than the Dutch). Catholic bishops in the south viewed the Protestant-majority north with suspicion, and had been forbidden from working in the new government. The more numerous Northern provinces represented a majority in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands Lower Assembly, and therefore the more populous Southerners felt significantly under-represented. Hearing of the revolution that occurred in France that July, a general uprising in Brussels took place on August the 25th, King William sent eight thousand men to re-take Brussels, and after that failed, the rest of the Southern Provinces joined the rebellion. Independence was soon proclaimed, and the London Conference of 1830 confirmed it. But King William wasn't satisfied with the outcome so he ordered the Dutch army to invade Belgium on August the second the following year, and over the course of the next few days defeated Belgian forces several times in battle and advanced deep into Belgian territory. However, on August the eighth, the Belgian government appealed to France for support. Faced with an advancing French army, the Dutch withdrew and no further attempts to re-take Belgium were made.
So what if the Belgium revolution failed? For this scenario I am going to go on the basis that the Dutch Army is able to quell the rioters in Brussels within just a few days, and a wider revolution doesn't occur. But the Kingdom would also be particularly vulnerable in the near future. The upheavals of 1848 would almost certainly affect them as would the resulting French 2nd Republic and 2nd Empire, both of whom were interested in the idea of France's "Natural Borders" which assumed an annexation of Belgium. Napoleon III might be especially interested given his constant homage to his famous namesake. Europe was hit with two main revolution waves in the 19th century. The first in 1830, and the second in 1848. In OTL, the Netherlands weren't hit with the revolution during 1848, but Belgium was, King William had altered the Dutch constitution to reform the elections and reduce the power that the monarchy held. Something that would need to occur in TTL during 1830, along with other social and political reforms, to give the southerners a greater voice within the assembly. Assuming that Belgium doesn't ever gain it's independence. Massive changes would occur. One major change would be how Germany would be formed. The most important factor a unified Netherlands would have on the unification process of Germany is Luxemburg. Luxemburg was part of the German confederation and had been garrisoned by thousands of Prussian troops since the Congress of Vienna that ended the Napoleonic Wars. When Napoleon the third tried to buy Luxemburg in 1867, Prussia threatened war. The Netherlands would have wanted to integrate Luxemburg fully into the Netherlands just like it did with Limburg since the Belgian markets would still be thriving within Luxembourg. If we assume equal rights for Walloons which would need to occur for a united Netherlands to prevail, I am certain the people of Luxemburg would want that as well and I don't see anyone objecting, they were relatively satisfied with the Dutch rule. The question is then arises, would Germany or Prussia accept such a act? When Denmark tried to do something similar with Schleswick, it did not, and Prussia was able to incorporate Schleswick and Holstein following a short war. The problem is that attacking the Netherlands would have certainly driving the Netherlands into the hands of the French, creating another obstacle in the path of unification. The Netherlands had always been friendly towards Prussia, and Prussia wouldn't want to anger the other nations that had good ties with the Dutch, such as the Russians and the English. The key to Unification was to have France be isolated in the diplomatic sense, which was achieved through careful diplomacy and Napoleon the third, being very aggressive with his foreign policy.
On a colonial note this would have a rather large effect, The Congo was only acquired by Leopold of Belgium because of his scheming. He convinced the various European powers that the Congo would be open to traders and missionaries from all countries, and played all of them off of each other. He also convinced missionaries, explorers, and human rights advocates that he would end the slave trade and bring "civilization" to the Congo. It was also used much like a buffer between British and French colonial zones. While this likely would have meant that the Congo as a whole would be heavily divided but the populace and land would have almost certainly been less abused. The lack of a neutral border could have easily created colonial skirmishes that would have soured relations back in Europe. During the Berlin Conference, the Congo region was given to the Belgians as a way to keep the area from becoming a point of contention, if you are to remove that then you would likely see the region carved up between the French, British, and Portuguese, with the French getting the provinces of Kasia, and Bandundu, The British gaining Katanga, while the remaining northern provinces would be split between France, Britain, and Portugal. Having a division like this would likely create more situations much like the Fashoda incident that occurred in 1898.
The Netherlands since it's independence went from a major European power to a mere shell all within two hundred years. It once boasted a navy that threatened the English, and a land army that threatened France, with a colonial empire spanning the world. But as happens with all empires, they fall and new ones rise. However, after the Napoleonic wars, the Netherlands had a chance to stay a dominate power even until the modern day. This would have been done with present day Belgium, otherwise known as the southern Netherlands that were given to the Dutch crown in the congress of Venice. This new united Netherlands wouldn't last long however, the lands currently known as Belgium declared and won their independence during the revolutionary fever of 1830. But that sparks the question, what would happen if Belgium lost their revolution? And stayed an integral part of the united Netherlands? But before I can go into detail, we need some history.
The Belgian Revolution had many causes; the main causes were the domination of the Dutch over the economic, political, and social institutions of the kingdom (although at that time the Belgian population was larger than the Dutch). Catholic bishops in the south viewed the Protestant-majority north with suspicion, and had been forbidden from working in the new government. The more numerous Northern provinces represented a majority in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands Lower Assembly, and therefore the more populous Southerners felt significantly under-represented. Hearing of the revolution that occurred in France that July, a general uprising in Brussels took place on August the 25th, King William sent eight thousand men to re-take Brussels, and after that failed, the rest of the Southern Provinces joined the rebellion. Independence was soon proclaimed, and the London Conference of 1830 confirmed it. But King William wasn't satisfied with the outcome so he ordered the Dutch army to invade Belgium on August the second the following year, and over the course of the next few days defeated Belgian forces several times in battle and advanced deep into Belgian territory. However, on August the eighth, the Belgian government appealed to France for support. Faced with an advancing French army, the Dutch withdrew and no further attempts to re-take Belgium were made.
So what if the Belgium revolution failed? For this scenario I am going to go on the basis that the Dutch Army is able to quell the rioters in Brussels within just a few days, and a wider revolution doesn't occur. But the Kingdom would also be particularly vulnerable in the near future. The upheavals of 1848 would almost certainly affect them as would the resulting French 2nd Republic and 2nd Empire, both of whom were interested in the idea of France's "Natural Borders" which assumed an annexation of Belgium. Napoleon III might be especially interested given his constant homage to his famous namesake. Europe was hit with two main revolution waves in the 19th century. The first in 1830, and the second in 1848. In OTL, the Netherlands weren't hit with the revolution during 1848, but Belgium was, King William had altered the Dutch constitution to reform the elections and reduce the power that the monarchy held. Something that would need to occur in TTL during 1830, along with other social and political reforms, to give the southerners a greater voice within the assembly. Assuming that Belgium doesn't ever gain it's independence. Massive changes would occur. One major change would be how Germany would be formed. The most important factor a unified Netherlands would have on the unification process of Germany is Luxemburg. Luxemburg was part of the German confederation and had been garrisoned by thousands of Prussian troops since the Congress of Vienna that ended the Napoleonic Wars. When Napoleon the third tried to buy Luxemburg in 1867, Prussia threatened war. The Netherlands would have wanted to integrate Luxemburg fully into the Netherlands just like it did with Limburg since the Belgian markets would still be thriving within Luxembourg. If we assume equal rights for Walloons which would need to occur for a united Netherlands to prevail, I am certain the people of Luxemburg would want that as well and I don't see anyone objecting, they were relatively satisfied with the Dutch rule. The question is then arises, would Germany or Prussia accept such a act? When Denmark tried to do something similar with Schleswick, it did not, and Prussia was able to incorporate Schleswick and Holstein following a short war. The problem is that attacking the Netherlands would have certainly driving the Netherlands into the hands of the French, creating another obstacle in the path of unification. The Netherlands had always been friendly towards Prussia, and Prussia wouldn't want to anger the other nations that had good ties with the Dutch, such as the Russians and the English. The key to Unification was to have France be isolated in the diplomatic sense, which was achieved through careful diplomacy and Napoleon the third, being very aggressive with his foreign policy.
On a colonial note this would have a rather large effect, The Congo was only acquired by Leopold of Belgium because of his scheming. He convinced the various European powers that the Congo would be open to traders and missionaries from all countries, and played all of them off of each other. He also convinced missionaries, explorers, and human rights advocates that he would end the slave trade and bring "civilization" to the Congo. It was also used much like a buffer between British and French colonial zones. While this likely would have meant that the Congo as a whole would be heavily divided but the populace and land would have almost certainly been less abused. The lack of a neutral border could have easily created colonial skirmishes that would have soured relations back in Europe. During the Berlin Conference, the Congo region was given to the Belgians as a way to keep the area from becoming a point of contention, if you are to remove that then you would likely see the region carved up between the French, British, and Portuguese, with the French getting the provinces of Kasia, and Bandundu, The British gaining Katanga, while the remaining northern provinces would be split between France, Britain, and Portugal. Having a division like this would likely create more situations much like the Fashoda incident that occurred in 1898.
