AHC: Greater Belgium/Northern Brabant joins the Belgian revolt.

[Basileus_Komnenos]

The region of Northern Brabant, once known as the Generality lands is a largely Catholic land once part of the old Duchy of Brabant that stayed with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Part of the reasons Belgium rebelled against the King was because of his Protestantism whereas Belgium was overall more Francophone (in the case of the elites of Flanders) and Catholic.

What would it take for the Belgian Revolution to spill over into Brabant, leading to it joining its fellow Catholic realms in proclaiming its independence?

 

[Janprimus]

The region of Northern Brabant, once known as the Generality lands is a largely Catholic land once part of the old Duchy of Brabant that stayed with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Part of the reasons Belgium rebelled against the King was because of his Protestantism whereas Belgium was overall more Francophone (in the case of the elites of Flanders) and Catholic.

What would it take for the Belgian Revolution to spill over into Brabant, leading to it joining its fellow Catholic realms in proclaiming its independence?

First of all it's the alliance between the Liberals and the Catholics, which made the revolt viable. There were more reasons, Willem I was an autocrat or more accurate a micro-manager. The more populous former Southern (Spanish later Austrian) Netherlands were also underrepresented in the Estates General, in part to deal with fears of Protestant north. However by this point the First Chamber (Senate) was appointed by the King. Improving said representation in the Second Chamber (house of Commons) should probably need to be countered by reforming the First Chamber, were there probably should be such a parity that neither would be able to dominate the other.
In that regard the flaw was that for the Northern Netherlands it was too much seen as expansion of their country and not a fresh new start for all XVII Netherlands.

I'd also argue that the elites in the north were by that point also still Francophone, but given the time, they were much more bilingual than even their Flemish counterparts. North Brabant was also forcibly separated from the rest of the duchy of Brabant, and for worse had drifted apart a bit. A purely Catholic revolt could have been appealing, but the Francophone part was not so popular here. And that's were the problem starts, North Brabant, like some parts of the Flemish region were not so much against Dutch in education as Francophone Southern Netherlands. Seeing how a crappy deal our Dutch speaking Belgian brethren got, it would have been to use a Dutchism: the choice to be bitten by a dog or a cat. Perhaps if the Beligian Revolt wasn't so dominated by Francophones hell bend on turning back many improvements for their Dutch speaking countrymen, joining would have been much more appealing.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

. A purely Catholic revolt could have been appealing, but the Francophone part was not so popular here. And that's were the problem starts, North Brabant, like some parts of the Flemish region were not so much against Dutch in education as Francophone Southern Netherlands. Seeing how a crappy deal our Dutch speaking Belgian brethren got, it would have been to use a Dutchism: the choice to be bitten by a dog or a cat. Perhaps if the Beligian Revolt wasn't so dominated by Francophones hell bend on turning back many improvements for their Dutch speaking countrymen, joining would have been much more appealing.

First off, thanks for answering my question @Janprimus.

As for your point about the differences between the more francophone "Belgians" and the more Dutch-speaking/Flemish north, I was unaware that the differences were so bad. From how I learned of the revolt in school it seemed more of an issue of the divides between Catholicism and Protestantism tearing people into different camps based on confessional lines with that being a backdrop for economic concerns, namely resentment from the more populous and wealthy southern Netherlands for being bossed around by the poorer Protestant Dutch.

Historically speaking the Belgians were quite loyal to the Netherlands, and in some circles there were people lobbying to return under Austrian rule. I think there was even a proposal back during the Congress of Vienna wanting to spin it into an independent Kingdom for Archduke Charles, the brother who Kaiser Franz somewhat was jealous of and feared was plotting to usurp his throne.

What do you think would have triggered this revolt to have erupted based on Confessional lines in ttl?

 

[Parma]

rom how I learned of the revolt in school it seemed more of an issue of the divides between Catholicism and Protestantism tearing people into different camps based on confessional lines with that being a backdrop for economic concerns, namely resentment from the more populous and wealthy southern Netherlands for being bossed around by the poorer Protestant Dutch.

That is the flaw of School History in the North Netherlands, nearly, every thing is pushed to the reliogius cause while in reality religion was a secondary point or at least most of it a minor factor. See the 80 years war or civil war as it is someimes called in the South (belgium) since it was in essence a civil war.
Back to the revolt of 1830, Janprimus summed it up very well.

A greater Belgium which will include North brabant, Zeeuws Vlaanderen and likely Zuid Limburg will nothing to do with the revolt or coup of the rattachist.

Rattachism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A Greater Belgium will be part of a next phase of the Belgian revolt and a even more agressive interference by France than in OTL. Not only military support of France but specially diplomatic support.
At the negotiating table the North Netherlands would be completely abandonned by the other Great Powers and would be forced to cede nearly all the lands South of the river Maas to the new nation Belgium.
TanPis for the Hollanders....

 

[Parma]

If a Greater Belgium will appear at the negotiating table in lets say a treaty in 1839 in London, it would have a greater population which is common to use Dutch as the administrative language and would be hostile to a Francophone administration.
Further there will be a larger Calvinistic minory in this Greater Belgium.
And the Orangist movement was relative large in Belgium, mostly Aristrocrats and Entrepeneurs, until the violent persecusion of some of its leading figures. A Greater Belgium could posibly have a larger Orangist movement and a movement which is this time not only limited to the upperclass but would also have a large popularity in Zeeuw Vlaanderen and the regions close to the river Maas who have large Calvinist population.

 

[Janprimus]

First off, thanks for answering my question @Janprimus.

As for your point about the differences between the more francophone "Belgians" and the more Dutch-speaking/Flemish north, I was unaware that the differences were so bad. From how I learned of the revolt in school it seemed more of an issue of the divides between Catholicism and Protestantism tearing people into different camps based on confessional lines with that being a backdrop for economic concerns, namely resentment from the more populous and wealthy southern Netherlands for being bossed around by the poorer Protestant Dutch.

Oh, there were some religious issues, Willem I did want to have influence on Catholic church appointments, that wasn't always popular with Catholic kings, let alone a Calvinist one, maybe if he'd coverted back to the Church of Rome, but that would have inflamed the North.
Willem I pushed for the education of Dutch in the entire kingdom, also the Francophone parts, some people there felt this was beneath them, while these hypocrites felt it was perfectly normal people learned their language, yet they refused to learn the majority language of their (past and in some cases also their current) kingdom.

Historically speaking the Belgians were quite loyal to the Netherlands, and in some circles there were people lobbying to return under Austrian rule. I think there was even a proposal back during the Congress of Vienna wanting to spin it into an independent Kingdom for Archduke Charles, the brother who Kaiser Franz somewhat was jealous of and feared was plotting to usurp his throne.

Especially in Flanders, towns, most prominently Gent, were Orangist, they profited from the synergy between the Walloon mines and industry and the Northern Dutch colonies. A synergy also seen by the "King-Merchant" Willem I, in part he mismanaged, but at the same time some of the Belgian revolt leaders, where blatant French rattachists, so no luck pleasing them.
I also have had discussions with Flemish regarding the Revolt of 1830-1839. They lament the fact, that this event pushed back the emancipation of Dutch in their lands. While true, I tend to counter that their revolt pushed back the emancipation of Dutch Catholics by some decades. IMHO by staying together we would have helped each other and ended stronger. Yes, the over-representation in the Estates General of the North was absurd and couldn't last, like I suggested some safeguards should be build in the First Chamber to prevent total southern domination of the North.

What do you think would have triggered this revolt to have erupted based on Confessional lines in ttl?

Hard to see due to good things of the French and Napoleonic Wars, religions weren't oppressed anymore, though some were favoured. TBH Calvinist Willem I wanting control on the Catholic Church in the Netherlands was laughable, he couldn't even control his own Calvinists, so until he could do that, he ought to have been more modest...

 

[Parma]

There is one aspect often forgotten of the Belgian Revolt. The revolt was not a stand alone event. The restauration regimes post Napoleon were very, very repressive. The censor ship and secret police repression in the whole of Europe was very severe. Every slightest liberal or remotly revolutionairy idea repressed.
This resulted in the French/Paris revolt of JUly 1830 which triggred the Spetember revolt in Brussles and Liege. But in whole Europe there was a reaction against regressive restauration regimes. This revolts had liberal or nationalistic motives, like in Poland or both.
In 1830 most revolts failed or didn't bring what the revolutionairs desired. In 1848 there was a second revolutionairy round.

And I forgot the climate, in the years 1828 - 1829 the harvest failed leading to raising food prices, combined with a economic decline increasing unemplyment and presure on the price of labor. The same happened in the years before 1848, agian failed crops, so severe that is even resulted in famine in large parts of Europe.

 

[Nuraghe]

Oh, there were some religious issues, Willem I did want to have influence on Catholic church appointments, that wasn't always popular with Catholic kings, let alone a Calvinist one, maybe if he'd coverted back to the Church of Rome, but that would have inflamed the North.
Willem I pushed for the education of Dutch in the entire kingdom, also the Francophone parts, some people there felt this was beneath them, while these hypocrites felt it was perfectly normal people learned their language, yet they refused to learn the majority language of their (past and in some cases also their current) kingdom.

Especially in Flanders, towns, most prominently Gent, were Orangist, they profited from the synergy between the Walloon mines and industry and the Northern Dutch colonies. A synergy also seen by the "King-Merchant" Willem I, in part he mismanaged, but at the same time some of the Belgian revolt leaders, where blatant French rattachists, so no luck pleasing them.
I also have had discussions with Flemish regarding the Revolt of 1830-1839. They lament the fact, that this event pushed back the emancipation of Dutch in their lands. While true, I tend to counter that their revolt pushed back the emancipation of Dutch Catholics by some decades. IMHO by staying together we would have helped each other and ended stronger. Yes, the over-representation in the Estates General of the North was absurd and couldn't last, like I suggested some safeguards should be build in the First Chamber to prevent total southern domination of the North.

Hard to see due to good things of the French and Napoleonic Wars, religions weren't oppressed anymore, though some were favoured. TBH Calvinist Willem I wanting control on the Catholic Church in the Netherlands was laughable, he couldn't even control his own Calvinists, so until he could do that, he ought to have been more modest...

I agree with what @Janprimus said, regarding William I's slightly crazy ideas on royal control of the Catholic hierarchy in the Netherlands, it was an idea highly at risk of failure, given that both his Catholic subjects ( as well as the great Catholic powers, who for centuries had proposed to act as guardians of the papist minorities under the Protestant yoke, is that they might protest if Rome so easily ceded ecclesiastical control of the region to a Calvinist ) and the Papacy itself would have opposed a clear refusal to this ( certainly it can be objected that Rome subsequently made a concordat with the Netherlands in 1853, but compared to his predecessors, Pius IX in this field was very " liberal " and more open to compromise ( provided that Rome always took the initiative, so as to keep the public image of the Papacy intact, as an important political actor and clearly recovering after the Napoleonic period ), unlike a Leo XII or Gregory XVI, who would at most have aired this idea as a possible point of discussion, only and exclusively in the case of Great Britain, certainly not for the " less important " Netherlands ) also for the simple fact that accepting something of this kind would have created a dangerous precedent which would be seen as a further weakening of papal power, which would be equivalent to a big no in internal politics of the curia, given that it would favor the liberal cardinals and put at risk their government

 

[Parma]

Map made by HistoryDraft on devianart. According to the maker this is a result of an earlier and more violent split of the Netherlands.

I do like the map how ever to me it is more likely that the North Netherlands will include the river island Norh of Geertruidenberg. More plausible is that this town remains part of the North since at this time it was part of the province of Holland and not Brabant. Geertruidenberg and others like Heusden, Willemstad, Grave and s'Hertogenbosh were strongly fortyfied cities and ever since the 17th century part of a Southern defense line, protecting the North from an invasion fromt the South. There for I think it is more likely the North will not give this up at the negotiating table even confronted with a fait a compli.
Nice detail is the ducy of Luxembourg, a personel posession of the house of Orange Nassau is completly ceded to Belgium

 

[Parma]

As an adition of the map above.

A Greater Belgium like this, mean a far greater 'Dutch, in all her dialects, and Luxeburgisch speaking population.
Although the upper class would speak French, as in the North, I doubt if the new Begian regime would dare to force French as administrative langueage as it did in our time.
A Belgium like this would make even faster an end to the Ratashist ideal of annexation to France.
The Wester Schelde can not be closed to merchant shipping, and there for Antwerp and Gent will not suffer economicly as it did in our time.
North Brabant will possibly develop faster and have an earlier industralisation as when it remained part of the Netherlands.
Philips will be a Belgian electronic company. Unilever as well and will move probably to Antwerp instead of Rotterdam.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

A Belgium like this would make even faster an end to the Ratashist ideal of annexation to France.

Eh I somewhat disagree. Depending on the circumstances, France might just be able to pull off an outright annexation. The main power that opposed French expansion in the 1830's was Britain. Russia, Prussia, and Austria also did too, but they were secondary compared to Britain who was just north of France and feared France getting Antwerp.

However Britain in the 1819-1830's wasn't exactly in the most stable position and just barely managed to avoid a revolution, a Republican one at that, by adroit politicking as well as a few lucky breaks. If you change a few things around like the Cato street Affair being successful, or even partially successful (Wellington escaping), the Great Reform act failing to pass, etc. you might get a more reactionary Britain (In otl at this time the July Monarchy was considered more liberal than the UK). If you have a few ill-timed deaths in the Royal family either to assassination (radicalization/polarization in politics), disease, or other circumstances then you'd get Ernest Augustus as King.

Ernest-Augustus would have opposed the more liberal ideas of the Chartists and other such liberal reformers which could have proved some sort of mass uprising in the 1830's if not an outright revolution in the 1840's.

As for Russia, the uprising in Poland made any talk of intervening to support Belgium merely a token gesture. Austria wouldn't have been too interested without any foreign backing, and Prussia would have been too scared to move against France, at this time still the premier continental power without Russian backing.

In this regard, a more violent Revolution which spills over into upper Brabant might just lead to the intervention of France which did send volunteers to Belgium in otl. Instead of Volunteers, it might just outright send in troops to "support the Belgian peoples' rights."

France could then eventually annex Belgium this way with the possibility of an independent Belgium having been dashed. Though like you said, a more Dutch Belgium might have some separatists movement or revolts take place potentially in 1848. Though as for its development, with France gaining its own industrial nexus/hub, its own little niche like Ruhr Valley, it would massively be investing in the region and would strongly resist any attempts and separation. Though being part of France the lands of otl Belgium would probably feel more integrated into France because of historic ties as well as prior economic ties going back to before the UK of the Netherlands was formed.

I agree with what @Janprimus said, regarding William I's slightly crazy ideas on royal control of the Catholic hierarchy in the Netherlands, it was an idea highly at risk of failure, given that both his Catholic subjects ( as well as the great Catholic powers, who for centuries had proposed to act as guardians of the papist minorities under the Protestant yoke, is that they might protest if Rome so easily ceded ecclesiastical control of the region to a Calvinist ) and the Papacy itself would have opposed a clear refusal to this ( certainly it can be objected that Rome subsequently made a concordat with the Netherlands in 1853, but compared to his predecessors, Pius IX in this field was very " liberal " and more open to compromise ( provided that Rome always took the initiative, so as to keep the public image of the Papacy intact, as an important political actor and clearly recovering after the Napoleonic period ), unlike a Leo XII or Gregory XVI, who would at most have aired this idea as a possible point of discussion, only and exclusively in the case of Great Britain, certainly not for the " less important " Netherlands ) also for the simple fact that accepting something of this kind would have created a dangerous precedent which would be seen as a further weakening of papal power, which would be equivalent to a big no in internal politics of the curia, given that it would favor the liberal cardinals and put at risk their government

I guess my question is here, how could Willem I, or even the Dutch government have escalated things or contributed to a more worse revolt that it spreads into North Brabant?

 

[Parma]

Eh I somewhat disagree. Depending on the circumstances, France might just be able to pull off an outright annexation. The main power that opposed French expansion in the 1830's was Britain. Russia, Prussia, and Austria also did too, but they were secondary compared to Britain who was just north of France and feared France getting Antwerp.

Completly disagree. The French intervention of 1831 was already on the edge. An outright annexation by France would not be accepted by the Great Powers. especially by a revolutionairy France as after1830. Despite the internal problems the other Great Power had.
Only possible if , as you mentioned, things turned different with the internal affairs the other Great Powers had.

I guess my question is here, how could Willem I, or even the Dutch government have escalated things or contributed to a more worse revolt that it spreads into North Brabant?

How much more escalating you want to have it? The British ambasador in the Netherlands, residing in Brussels, was appaled how the government and authorities handeled the riots. or better said not acted at all.
The only thing whihc could led to a larger confrontation was a direct battel between the Dutch troops and the French (revolutionairy) intervention army in August 1831. But if this will led to a large Belgium I doubt. More likely a European war with unknown outcome.