Combining the French and Spanish thrones
- Thread starter jczak97
- Start date
First, The war finished in a draw, so Britain failed to win the war...and it was more important Austria (the legendary Prinz Eugen) than Britain. But remember, Was finished in a draw, no victory for any side. Bourbon won in Spain and Habsburg in Europe. The union of the two crowns had set up a Bourbon Superpower in the West, a kind of "Western Russia"..I can see Italy split between Bourbon and Habsburg. (The Spanish Dominions in Italy and Low Countries would have been annexed to the Two Crowns). But. Where´s the Capital? Paris? Madrid? I imagine the Two Crowns would have conquered Portugal.
It's gonna be hell to keep together when the nationalist movements starts rolling, if they ever do in such a timeline. Maybe France would be better off grabbing just some bits of spanish territory, colonies, maybe parts of the Basque areas, and installing a vassal of some kind on the spanish throne, securing French hegemony in the western parts of Europe.
Eventually, yeah, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a rival European government for the next century and a half.
Well they might be able to create some sort of united Latin/Romance identity and try to gobble up Portugal+Italy.
Delvestius
Banned
I had a timeline in which the Spanish conquer France during a religious civil war, becoming the new Holy Roman Empire. Germany was split between the kingdoms of Bavaria, Westphalia and Pomerania.
Conquer ? No way ! France was several times as crowded as Castile and Aragon. And Spin could not even keep Portugal that was culturally much closer to Castile than France was.
You can have a dynastic union. But you need to have it happen in the early 16th century at the latest. After, the 2 kingdoms become arch-rivals for close to 2 centuries.
You can have a dynastic union. But you need to have it happen in the early 16th century at the latest. After, the 2 kingdoms become arch-rivals for close to 2 centuries.
Grey Wolf
Donor
The obvious way is to defeat Britain - victory is never pre-ordained, advantages only work in retrospect because people so often fail to make good use of them, disadvantages ditto because often they are overcome so when they are not, that is when they are noticed.
Sans Marlborough, sans Eugene, what would have happened?
But we do not need to handwaive away births, promotions or even appointments - all these battles had precursors we forget, battles where things could have gone far worse for those who won the main clash a day or week later.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Sans Marlborough, sans Eugene, what would have happened?
But we do not need to handwaive away births, promotions or even appointments - all these battles had precursors we forget, battles where things could have gone far worse for those who won the main clash a day or week later.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Three times more people than Spain... but Spain crushed frenchmen in many wars and battles.
Spain could keep Portugal.. what Spain couldn´t keep Portugal when was fighting against Dutchmen, Englishmen, Danish, Swedish, German, Frenchmen, Ottoman, Berbers at the same time!!!
Won battles yes but I doubt they would be able to conquer France or they will fight for decades.
Come on. This is modern Europe, not neolithic precolombian America.
You are talking about a 20 million people kingdom, in an age when manoeuvering armies numbered 20 to 30,000 soldiers at max.
The military technics did not allowing such a conquest.
Winning battles does not mean conquering countries.
And you are ignoring the french salic law. A french husband could become king of a foreign country. No foreign husband could become king of France. This law was unbreakable even in the worst moment of the religious wars. The catholic league (catholic extremists to put It quickly) prefered to have a priest of the royal family on the male line (the cardinal of Bourbon) on the throne than a foreigner.
To unite kingdoms in those ages, the right solution was marriage, not war. Just consider the marriages between Tudors and Stuarts, or better what the Habsburgs did with Castile-Aragon and with Bohemia-Hungary.
You can Tix such a combination for Spain and France. But if you want It to be realistic, it needs to happen at the latest in the early 16th century. And it must happen either with french males or to happen at the latest in the early 14th century.
This is possible. France and Castile were long standing allies, before beginning clashing in the last years of the 15th century. Aragon and France were several times in conflict and sometimes allied, and It was their rivalries in italian affairs that brought the long-lasting conflict between Spain and France.
Well, France had 20 million and Spain 8 million.
Italy had more people than Spain and Spain conquer the country...till the Pope had to see the Spanish - Imperial Power in Rome...The Spanish Power in Italy came from Sicily to Genoa or Lombardy... and you forgett Ottomans... conquered Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, Egypt etc etc...
But in France, Spanish Armies were in North, South, East and West... from Paris (The Spanish Tercios were in Paris from 1590 to 1592)...to Normandy...
And Wars, my friend.. and wars...
But if you conquer the country, you can break the Salic Law, I think.
You are right, the famous phrase Alii bella gerunt, tu felix Austria nube. Both Austria - Hungary Empire and Spanish Low Countries came from marriages (and the union between Castilla and Aragon.. but not Navarre, conquered by the Catholic King to the Frenchmen). And not Italy.. The Spanish Dominions in Italy came from War. (Aragon/Spain).
Yes about XVI Century. but not the rest of your phrase
Why French? Because are better than Spaniards? They didn´t show that in Pavia...or in Genoa...or in Saint Quentin...or in Garegliano or in Sicily or in Bicocca or in Landriano...No French.. or Spanish or nobody.. if The Spanish infantry beat the French Heavy Cavalry in Cerignola, the German Black strip mercenaries or the famous Swiss... Why a French? Not French. A Spanish Blodd Habsburg, of course!
Exactly, the French-Spanish rivalry came from a Aragonese and Burgundian heritage. The wars between Spain and French begun in XV century and finished in 1814.
Last edited:
Well Joseph (I) died in 1711 - that made Leopold the Habsburg contender for the Spanish throne quasi automatic also Emperor of teh HRE and gaining the Austrian lands too. That made him too powerful for England, which asked for peace (Churchill was ousted too). So a war that already ran AGAINST the French turned into a draw and the Ferench got Spain without being allowed to Merge the two kingdoms.
Can't see how France got more in the deal.
Can't see how France got more in the deal.
Nationalism was not guaranteed to become as popular as it did at that time; while the existence of nationalism is probably a fait accompli by this point, it doesn't have to become the dominant philosophy of the masses.
Extremely questionable. Nationalism was not just a product of the French Revolution and its aftermath across Europe.
More likely, it was the cause. Nationalism well predated early modern history.
I'm not saying that nationalism was a recent invention, I'd say that you can see traces of it going back even before 0 AD. But just because something is old doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be widely popular; look at Mohism for example.