I agree, that's true, but Belgium can be traded for something else. What do you think of it being traded for Tuscany & Modena or some German duchies?
PC: Austrian Belgium
- Thread starter vn6
- Start date
Tuscany and Modena are already Austrian, there's no reason to trade your puppet duchies for a part of your territory and I doubt any of the bigger German states would be willing to give up on what they have in exchange for a distant and difficult to hold territory.
They're only held by other Habsburgs, they don't contribute to paying down Austrian gigantic debt or to financing its army. Direct control over these would be better, and Grand Duke of Tuscany would become a king so it's good for him too.
As for German states, rulers of small ones like Hesses could be tempted to be elevated to the rank of king too.
Anyways, IMO if Austrian Netherlands can be recovered without territorial sacrafices elsewhere, then it's better to have it than not to.
My not be the best deal but it's better than not having anything else than IOTL. It's closer than Netherlands and IIRC Hesse-Kassel could rise 20000 soldiers in 1866 so it's still something.
As for France, another option is selling it to France. That would help Austria pay down at least a part of its debt. There are many possibilities with Austrian Netherlands.
Edit: It was Hesse-Darmstadt not Kassel, sorry.
Last edited:
Why would Nap III get in debt to buy a territory when he can go to war getting the territory and a lot of glory?
The wars fought at that period weren't particularly indebting since they were very short and if the Austrians decide to gain the the Austrian Netherlands back they likely want to keep it.
They might get it and, instead of keeping it, immediately exchange it for Tuscany & Modena at the Congress of Vienna. Plus give part of their debt to the new Belgian state. I wonder if that would be acceptable for other powers though.
But then they don't get it and adding more Italians in your lands wouldn't really help the situation. And if Austria doesn't take the Austrian Netherlands it still will be given to the Dutch.
Even if they don't exchange it immediately for the Italian duchies, they can take it, hold it for a while, then load some of their debt on the new Belgian country and give/sell it to anyone who wants it except France. Reducing debt will help a lot as it was really colossal (IIRC over 1200 million florins in 1837 and payments of interest covered like 45 % of revenues). If they can give even 1/10 of it to new Belgian state it would be great.
Selling it to someone except France is unlikely since they probably don't have the money and if they have the Austrian Netherlands they would try to pay their debt by raising taxes there which historically always had negative effects.
So they give/exchange it instead of selling, the debt will be the problem of the new ruler and I think some German or Italian princes would exchange their duchies for Belgium just to get the title of king. So Austria spins off some of its debt (not necessairly the amount that would completely destroy the new kingdom's finances) and gets some little territory in Germany/Italy as bonus. Every such option is better than OTL.
certainly it would be a good idea, but if we put ourselves in the Habsburg shoes, what territories would they potentially want to obtain in Germany, the Rhineland would be complicated because despite being Catholic it is still too far from the Austrian core, as well as bordering France, the rest would have to be taken from Bavaria, Baden and Wurtemberg ( which with Napoleon's consent annexed the Habsburg possessions along the lower Rhine, also called Further Austria, but this would cause new diplomatic problems )
It might be territory that doesn't border Austria proper e.g. Hesse or Baden, depending on which prince would be interested in exchange. It won't make Austria more powerful but having it is better than not having it. Anyways, the main gain from getting Belgium is giving away some of the debt.
No, what was the Republic of Venice was the territorial compensation for giving up the Austrian Netherlands. Legitimizing Campo Formio was far more beneficial to Vienna than the Lowlands.
Not in a million years. The Krakow fortress was too strategic to the defense of Austria that giving it to Russia would never happen sans a renewed war. Prussia was willing to appease Russia because FWIII was not diplomatically savvy and intervened where he shouldn't have --basing his entire judgement of the goodwill of Alexander (which didn't amount to much). British policy orbited around the favor of Parliament, which had turned against Russian plans in Poland.
On the contrary, an ill-equipped frontier as the Austrian Netherlands was would be a gouging problem, and Vienna was not and would not be willing to expend their treasury for these territories. Prussia was more than capable because it theoretically had the backing of the rest of the Bund.
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think legitimacy was all that important at Congress of Vienna. If e.g. many German states were not reinstated, then why would anyone care about legal claims to the Austrian Netherlands. They cared about balance of power more IMO.
So Cracow was not an option, ok. How about Tarnopol which Russia returned to Austria IOTL? Could it stay with Russia in exchange for Russian support for Austria gaining Austrian Netherlands?
I know the Austrian Netherlands are hard to defend. That's why I propose that Austria should rather quickly give it to someone else along with part of the debt (which is the most important part as Austria barely handled it IOTL), maybe in exchange for some small duchy.
This is completely wrong, the entire Congress was surrounded by the topic of legitimacy. Since the abdication of Napoleon, the restoration of legitimacy was pushed via the restoration of the Bourbons -- even if they were not all that popular. The crisis over Saxony stemmed from the attempt by Prussia to deprive a monarch of their legitimate holdings. The topic if Naples regarding the legitimacy of Murat's rule. The accession treaties with German states such as Bavaria (Treaty of Ried), Wurrtemburg (Treaty of Fulda), etc. that maintained much of the 1813 status quo legitimized parts of the Napoleonic order. Legitimacy is everything, which is why unsanctioned land grabs are frowned upon. France itself proclaimed itself as the protector of legitimacy during the Congress to enable the Bourbon regime. The so called "many German states" that I believe you are talking about were legitimately deposed via the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss. There's certainly power-politics at play with territorial transfers and seizures at the Congress, but there was certainly a willingness to conduct it in good faith.
More Britain than anyone else.
The reason Russia returned Tarnopol was because Alexander falsely presumed Francis would be more present during the negotiations and appease Russia's desires for Poland. This didn't happen and Francis kept an off-hands approach to the Congress & left most things to Metternich sans a handful of instructions. Tarnopol was not that important so I don't see it influencing much of anything regardless if Russia kept it, especially in regards to the Austrian Netherlands.
Then what exactly is the point of this thread? Let Austria keep it...only to have them give it away just as otl. The logical conclusion here is that Austria is not getting back the Lowlands unless you have a completely different POD further back that alters the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars as we know it.
Ok, thanks for more information.
The point of the thread is that Austria can give away part of its debt by placing it upon newly created Kingdom of Belgium (and maybe get some minor duchy in exchange). That's not the same as OTL.