Thank you!
I will continue as soon as I can. Further suggestions, of course, are always welcome.Catalonia becomes independent in 1714
- Thread starter tnowacki
- Start date
Thank you!
I will continue as soon as I can. Further suggestions, of course, are always welcome.The story goes on... I struggled whether to let France annex all of Catalonia or not. In the end, I decided against it but the further story is developed already. This timeline will slowly deviate from OTL...
____
Basically the whole war was about trade. Great Britain greatly benefited from the transatlantic trade between its Northern American colonies and Great Britain. France and Britain, the two main participants in the war, also fought about their influence in India and the Bengals whereas Austria, Prussia and Russia limited their ambitions to Europe. Broadly speaking, France and the UK fought at sea whilst the other participants decided the outcome in Europe.
Initially, the British made good progress and advanced quickly into the French colonies in North America, although many Native Indian tribes supported the latter. The French however, who did not really appreciate these territories, did not have many settlers in it and thus many areas were only lightly defended. The Bourbon Alliance (France and Spain), did make up for the lost ground in Europe, however. After a first defeat in Liege, France’s main army advanced deep into Prussia and captured Magdeburg and Stendal in 1747. Prussia was heavily attacked from three sides: From the French in the West, from the Russians in the East and from the Austrians in the South. The Spanish, meanwhile, were busy defending themselves against the Portuguese and Catalans, although French troops came to help in 1748. After initial battles that resulted in a tie, the Bourbon army won decisively in Girona and advanced towards Barcelona.
“The Prussian collapse in 1750, resulting from the annihilation of their entire army, led to a de facto victory of the Franco-Austrian led Alliance in continental Europe. Britain threatened to withdraw its subsidies to Prussia and French armies were besieging Berlin. The promising emergence of Prussia as a Great Power, in the middle of a hostile surrounding, was thus delayed for at least a century. Prussia’s ambitions for Silesia and other territories were demolished with their defeat” The History of Modern Europe (2004), A. Miller
“Prussia’s army is formidable, I have no doubts about this matter of fact. But even the strongest and most feared army cannot hold out when, with His blessing, the united armies of the rest of Europe occupied her territory.”
King Louis XV of France after visiting the siege of Berlin
Great Britain, although victorious in overseas, now faced a dominant amalgamation of hegemonial power across the Channel. Luckily, for them and the Prussians, in late 1750, Sweden decided to join on the British side as they feared Russian hegemony in the Baltic Sea. They landed in Pomerania and joined forces with what was left of Prussia’s troops in order to drive the French away from Berlin. Later this year, the United Provinces also joined in prospect of acquiring the rest of the Southern Netherlands (Wallonia) from France. Meanwhile, any French attempts to cross the Channel were cancelled after several humiliating defeats which led to the destruction of the French Navy. In turn, the British landed troops in Portugal and launched a major offensive in Spain which forced them to withdraw some of their troops from Catalonia. The offensive, however, quickly stalled and left just another stalemate in this hitherto so dynamic war.
In the winter of 1751, secret talks between the French and the British started and involved the drawing of spheres of interest. With the current alliance design, it was almost impossible for Great Britain to maintain the balance of power in Continental Europe. For France, in turn, it was impossible to maintain her colonies due to British naval supremacy. What had looked as a decisive victory for France, Austria and Russia in 1750, turned into an ugly tie following the entry of Sweden and the invasion in Portugal – at least in Europe. London was also willing to give up Catalonia, which was difficult to defend even with British help. Just a few months later, the representatives of the war factions came together in Avignon and drafted a peace treaty that they intended to last for quite a while. Britain acquired the French territories in North America and India, while France would gain the German Palatinate, Corsica and Sardinia. Some parts of the French territory of Louisiana were transferred to the Spanish as an compensation for not receiving Catalonia.
“The Treaty of Avignon redrew the map of Europe again. In principle, the main agreement was between France, which significally strengthened its position on the continent at the expense of Prussia, and Britain, which controlled the seas, to mind each one’s own business. Somehow surprisingly, Britain gave up the Kingdom of Catalonia demands for protection which were a condition for joining them into the war. Nevertheless, Catalonia was very lucky indeed, as without the British offensive in Portugal and their deployment of troops in Catalonia and the Baleares, Catalonia would probably be entirely lost. France, however, had to suffer as well by giving up valuable territories in North America and India. One of the biggest losers in this war certainly was Prussia whose ambitions were buried. Despite the short-lived alliance with Sweden, Prussia was surrounded by hostile rivals who would carefully prevent Prussia’s rise in the near future.” Textbook excerpt about the Franco-British War
“Despite the paper victory and the assurances of clear spheres of interest after the Treaty of Avignon, almost all participants were left worse off. The war demanded an incredible amount of lives, some estimates put the number somewhere near 900.000. Britain, with its obligation to pay subsidies to Prussia, was on the verge of bankruptcy but had strengthened its profitable colonial Empire. At the same time, this war was the first step towards American independence since the colonialists mainly fought for themselves and enjoyed military autonomy during the war in America. Prussia had to rebuild her entire army and was, for a while, out of the game. But fiscal strains also burdened France which would eventually lead to yet another major conflict in Europe. The Treaty of Avignon, designed to ensure long-lasting peace in Europe, already contained the seeds for the next war.” The History of Modern Europe (2004), A. Miller
____
III.
The Franco-British War
The Franco-British War
Basically the whole war was about trade. Great Britain greatly benefited from the transatlantic trade between its Northern American colonies and Great Britain. France and Britain, the two main participants in the war, also fought about their influence in India and the Bengals whereas Austria, Prussia and Russia limited their ambitions to Europe. Broadly speaking, France and the UK fought at sea whilst the other participants decided the outcome in Europe.
Initially, the British made good progress and advanced quickly into the French colonies in North America, although many Native Indian tribes supported the latter. The French however, who did not really appreciate these territories, did not have many settlers in it and thus many areas were only lightly defended. The Bourbon Alliance (France and Spain), did make up for the lost ground in Europe, however. After a first defeat in Liege, France’s main army advanced deep into Prussia and captured Magdeburg and Stendal in 1747. Prussia was heavily attacked from three sides: From the French in the West, from the Russians in the East and from the Austrians in the South. The Spanish, meanwhile, were busy defending themselves against the Portuguese and Catalans, although French troops came to help in 1748. After initial battles that resulted in a tie, the Bourbon army won decisively in Girona and advanced towards Barcelona.
“The Prussian collapse in 1750, resulting from the annihilation of their entire army, led to a de facto victory of the Franco-Austrian led Alliance in continental Europe. Britain threatened to withdraw its subsidies to Prussia and French armies were besieging Berlin. The promising emergence of Prussia as a Great Power, in the middle of a hostile surrounding, was thus delayed for at least a century. Prussia’s ambitions for Silesia and other territories were demolished with their defeat” The History of Modern Europe (2004), A. Miller
“Prussia’s army is formidable, I have no doubts about this matter of fact. But even the strongest and most feared army cannot hold out when, with His blessing, the united armies of the rest of Europe occupied her territory.”
King Louis XV of France after visiting the siege of Berlin
Great Britain, although victorious in overseas, now faced a dominant amalgamation of hegemonial power across the Channel. Luckily, for them and the Prussians, in late 1750, Sweden decided to join on the British side as they feared Russian hegemony in the Baltic Sea. They landed in Pomerania and joined forces with what was left of Prussia’s troops in order to drive the French away from Berlin. Later this year, the United Provinces also joined in prospect of acquiring the rest of the Southern Netherlands (Wallonia) from France. Meanwhile, any French attempts to cross the Channel were cancelled after several humiliating defeats which led to the destruction of the French Navy. In turn, the British landed troops in Portugal and launched a major offensive in Spain which forced them to withdraw some of their troops from Catalonia. The offensive, however, quickly stalled and left just another stalemate in this hitherto so dynamic war.
In the winter of 1751, secret talks between the French and the British started and involved the drawing of spheres of interest. With the current alliance design, it was almost impossible for Great Britain to maintain the balance of power in Continental Europe. For France, in turn, it was impossible to maintain her colonies due to British naval supremacy. What had looked as a decisive victory for France, Austria and Russia in 1750, turned into an ugly tie following the entry of Sweden and the invasion in Portugal – at least in Europe. London was also willing to give up Catalonia, which was difficult to defend even with British help. Just a few months later, the representatives of the war factions came together in Avignon and drafted a peace treaty that they intended to last for quite a while. Britain acquired the French territories in North America and India, while France would gain the German Palatinate, Corsica and Sardinia. Some parts of the French territory of Louisiana were transferred to the Spanish as an compensation for not receiving Catalonia.
“The Treaty of Avignon redrew the map of Europe again. In principle, the main agreement was between France, which significally strengthened its position on the continent at the expense of Prussia, and Britain, which controlled the seas, to mind each one’s own business. Somehow surprisingly, Britain gave up the Kingdom of Catalonia demands for protection which were a condition for joining them into the war. Nevertheless, Catalonia was very lucky indeed, as without the British offensive in Portugal and their deployment of troops in Catalonia and the Baleares, Catalonia would probably be entirely lost. France, however, had to suffer as well by giving up valuable territories in North America and India. One of the biggest losers in this war certainly was Prussia whose ambitions were buried. Despite the short-lived alliance with Sweden, Prussia was surrounded by hostile rivals who would carefully prevent Prussia’s rise in the near future.” Textbook excerpt about the Franco-British War
“Despite the paper victory and the assurances of clear spheres of interest after the Treaty of Avignon, almost all participants were left worse off. The war demanded an incredible amount of lives, some estimates put the number somewhere near 900.000. Britain, with its obligation to pay subsidies to Prussia, was on the verge of bankruptcy but had strengthened its profitable colonial Empire. At the same time, this war was the first step towards American independence since the colonialists mainly fought for themselves and enjoyed military autonomy during the war in America. Prussia had to rebuild her entire army and was, for a while, out of the game. But fiscal strains also burdened France which would eventually lead to yet another major conflict in Europe. The Treaty of Avignon, designed to ensure long-lasting peace in Europe, already contained the seeds for the next war.” The History of Modern Europe (2004), A. Miller
Last edited:
The beginning of this thread meant that I had to look up Charles II of Spain again. I now feel ill. Very, very ill.
I hope you enjoy the timeline nevertheless.
Special thanks to miguelj, by the way, who pointed out that the usage of "UK" would be an anachronism.You really should revise this point: back then, the loss of Perpinyá was rather recent and hurtful to the Catalans (see Treaty of the Pirineos, 1659). Catalonia would have insisted on getting back that part of its territory.
I actually agree on Catalonia getting the Balearic Islands, as they were, after reconquest, repopulated with Catalan people.
You're both right. The ties to what we call today Catalunya-Nord were much stronger back then, yet the War was the War of the Spanish Succession and was resolved with the European Balance of Power in mind. While giving Perpinyá to Catalonia would not tip that balance in favour of the Habsburgs, it would weaken the French and provide much antagonism between Catalonia and France. Or, in other words, a Catalan Perpinyá would probably see France trying to regain this territory and a less peaceful Catalonia. But mfarah, don't worry, they haven't forgot about Catalunya-Nord as the next Chapter will show... (Yes, I didn't bury the story yet.
)IV.
Revolutionary rumbles
Revolutionary rumbles
People thought that the Franco-British War would be last for their time being. They were utterly wrong. Throughout the second half of the XVIII century there were several minor conflicts and the appearance of enlightened absolutism in Prussia, Spain and elsewhere. Prussia’s prestige and reputation lost in the Franco-British War, however, had not recovered and thus they did not participate in the War of Polish Division (1785-1787) which saw Austria and Russia victorious against France and Poland and resulted in the gain of large parts of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Meanwhile, the politics of absolutism and the policies of mercantilism led to an ever-widening gap between the farmers, artisans and low-income citizens on the one hand and the royal courts on the other. France was heavily indebted and, to worsen the matter, her king Louis XVI died in 1788 without any children. Immediately Luis II of Spain , distantly related (Louis XVI and Luis II both descend from Louis XIV, the Sun king) claimed the French throne; Ferdinand from the House of Parma followed a few days later.
But the public mood in Paris was not really fond of either. When Luis II came to Paris on 29 August 1788, the masses protested and gathered in front of the Tuileries. They formed the National Assembly and declared France a republic without decadent monarchs. Luis who just came to Paris, had no grip of the states’ power and had to watch the drama evolve. On 6 August, he fled from revolutionary Paris and safely crossed the border to Spain.
The civil unrest that spread out from the workers’ districts in Paris slowly crawled through much of the city and led to barricades, heavy shooting and fighting with the police and many, many dead. As late as December the sans-culottes, workers and citizens could claim the city as their own. The royal guards and aristocrats were driven out of the city. As a result, the throne contenters agreed to cooperate and throw the rebels out of Paris again. Although France’s by far largest city and capital was now firmly in the revolutionary’s hands, most of the rural areas and virtually all of Southern France still were administered by the royal court or the Spanish.
“With the death of Louis XVI the French authority, carefully grown through the decades of absolutism, suddenly vanished. Anarchy broke out and peasants, foreign powers and royal factions competed for power in what used to be Europe’s most influential country. It was as if one decapitates a human body, and yet the corpus walks a few steps on its own before it collapses and winds and flutters on the floor.”
- Albert Commain, French 19th century historian
Indeed, even though the peasants and sans-culottes achieved their goal of driving the royal loyalists out of Paris, the city remained without any authority. It was not uncommon to get robbed on the bright day, and in the night, no one in the city was safe from assaults and break-ins. It was a former worker who could be best described as a moderate radical, Pierre Sarvette, who proposed and announced the gathering of the French Assembly. Sarvette was strongly influenced by Locke and Montesquieu and was a firm believer in the prototype of democracy. Not all agreed with his proposal, though. Radical revolutionaries sought the banishing of all Frenchmen above a certain level of wealth and approved of their slaughter. Others still remained convinced by the principle of monarchy and were appalled by the outbreak of anarchy and terror. Sarvette convinced many to support the idea of a common platform where they could try to settle their issues. Most of the factions which formed in late 1788 agreed, albeit reluctantly. Notably, the Radicals around Avent Chesnay declined to take partake in the assembly. On 2 January 1789, the first elections were held. The city of Paris was divided into 105 electoral districts, each of which returned one candidate. All men over 25 were eligible and were able to vote, although those who owned a house or an estate above a limit set by the electoral commission were barred from the election. These first parliamentary elections were all but organised. Ballots went missing, candidates who never intended to run were elected and a peak of violence in the nights before deterred many from voting for their candidate.
While the election results were still sorted out and the lack of authority continued in many parts of France, the revolution reached the international stage. Spain, Great Britain and Austria all agreed on the necessity to intervene and end the power vacuum in France. Prussia and many German minor states were equally concerned but did not fear the seeds of the revolution within their borders. The Catalan nobility administered a period of continuous growth from 1770 on and made Barcelona flourish. The surplus of wealth also came down to the poorest, and so civil unrest was rather unlikely. Furthermore, Catalonia, similar to Great Britain, had a very strong Parliament (albeit not an elected one), the Corts Generals, which effectively limited the king’s powers. Although there was no strong sympathy for the revolutionaries in Paris and elsewhere, and all were in favour of secure and stable neighbours, the Corts were also concerned about a possible restoration of absolutism and therefore decided not to join the European coalition against France. Proper coordination amongst the newly found allies, furthermore, was virtually impossible. And the question whom they would support as the contender for the French throne, remained widely open. With the advent of February 1789, it was clear that Europe would not come to a rest but face a long period of revolution, unrest and war.
Last edited:
I think you mean Louis XIV, the Sun King?
Interesting. Very interesting. I'm curious that Luis II of Spain is claiming the throne. In the 60 years since TTL started, haven't the French monarchy produced any second sons and such, living in palaces outside the city where they can flee in peace or granted titles and estates in other parts of the country, thus leaving them with a better candidate than the current Spanish King? I mean, we may be entering TTL's equivalent of the Napoleonic Wars, but only 60 years ago, Europe did descend into a 15-year war specifically to prevent Spain and France from uniting thrones. I would've thought that Luis would've been sensible enough to not attempt to start that argument all over again...
Still, interesting to see.
Curious at the complete lack of harmony in France. My knowledge of the French Revolution isn't Grade A standard but I'm pretty sure that it never went through a period like this where Paris had literally no self-government - the National Assembly was there from the start. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Since the rest of France hasn't fallen to the Revolution yet, I'm surprised some enterprising noble in a high military position hasn't stepped back in with the rest of the army to restore control.
I wonder if this period of lawlessness will actually serve for the greater good in Paris. With the memory of a several month period where most were too scared to leave their own homes in day or night, will this actually prevent some of the worst excesses of the early Revolution from taking place? Most of the nobles seem to have been driven off, not killed, for example. Will we avoid The Terror entirely?
I wonder if some change in the American Revolution is responsible for these changes or if it's just coincidence? Did the ARW happen in a much more disorganised way, for example? Did the 13 Colonies fail to unite after winning their war, or all argue about how to organise their government?
Hi and thanks for your thoughts and comments!
Yeah, of course I meant the Sun King. Thanks, I somehow swapped the numerals without noticing.
True, Spain's claim for France should not have been enforced by Luis II, but 60 years can be a very long time and Luis was perhaps not the brightest; and of course there may be French pretenders. They just did not appear yet Stay tuned... The anarchy is precisely what I wanted to create and to become another major divergence from the real timeline. Things will, after this power vacuum, proceed much more smoothly and less radical than they did in OTL. But I will not spoil whether a stable French Republic will emerge or not... The American Revolution has not happened yet. I was planning on turning around the order of events, with the French Revolution coming first and the Americans inspired by it. My initial thought (there will be a Chapter on America, don't worry) is that Britain gave America representants in the Commons (one per each colony) which appeased them but will have to raise taxes again due to the Coalition Wars.
V.
In search for liberty
In search for liberty
The polls for the first Parisian election with (almost) universal suffrage closed 3 days after they opened. Some votes went missing, others were rigged. Secret ballots did not exist at that time and by today’s standards this election would have been considered no fairer than one in Uganda or North Korea in today's OTL. For the year 1789, however, it marked a revolutionary milestone in the very young history of democracy. Of the 105 constituencies which often did not comprise more than a few house blocks, around 40 returned members which were moderate, “constitutional” Democrats who sought a functional republic. Around 10, mostly in the noble Faubourgs of Paris, returned monarchist or restorationist members. Interestingly, one constituency in the Faubourg St Germain returned no member at all, for all inhabitants were excluded from voting due to their wealth. The remaining constituencies were split between radical Democrats, radical Anti-Monarchists and members in between. It is important to bear in mind that at that time, political parties were not established yet. It is not always possible to assign all members to political factions which would share common beliefs. Most of the factions, however, met in their favourite locations and were called after them. Accordingly, the radical democrats became known as the Marseillists, for they met in the Hotel de Marseille.
All in all, however, the election proved disappointing due to the very low turnout. With safety in the streets not guaranteed, many did not dare to go to the polls, others, more radical, principally refused the representative system. For that reason, the radicals were underrepresented in the first Assembly. Thus the Assembly could not claim full legitimacy and its supporters feared it could not establish itself as the peoples’ voice and gain authority.
Despite the abyss that divided the different members’ ideologies, a majority of the gathered voted in favour of proclaiming the French Republic and confiscating all royal estates, as the Assembly adjourned for the first time on 12 February 1789. The motion passed with 84 of the 104 members in support. The news of this decision were quickly spread amongst the public and later this day, a large crowd gathered in front of the abandoned Versailles Palace and managed to seize control. For reasons unknown until today, the palace burnt down the next day which, as you can imagine, did not really cause sadness amongst Parisian peasants.
For months, foreign powers observed the breakdown of public order in Paris with abhorrence and paralysis. Eventually, they decided to act. The Spanish and British signed an Alliance in January 1789 (Treaty of La Rochelle) and marched towards Paris in March. The status of the rest of France was still unclear; some parts have seen uprisings as well whilst others, for example the Gironde region, remained under firm pro-royalist control. This dynamic that slowly evolved for once strengthened the legitimacy of the Parisian Assembly as people understood that at least some degree of safety and self-defence was necessary. As a result of quick, perhaps not perfect but sufficient legislation and thousands of volunteers, the Assembly which worked remarkably well together, established basic provisions for public order in Paris.
The Coalition armies faced many smaller skirmishes on their way to Paris. Especially in the North and in the Provence, the revolution reached the cities and many volunteered to join militias and free armies which would try to fight the British and Spanish. In April, however, the Coalition forces reached the outskirts of Paris and besieged the “city of liberty”. Peasants from all parts of the city gathered in the centre, willing to help defending their newly gained freedom. It was the pragmatism that led to the co-operation of virtually all assembly members, for they knew if Paris would fall, they had no choice but to accept the restoration and severe punishment. The few royalists resigned in protest eventually, decreasing the Assembly’s size to 94 members.
“Essentially, the Coalition powers were strengthening the democratic process in Paris with their assault on the French capital. They were forcing the Parisian citizens to unite and, for the time being, lay aside any ideological differences. The months before they had learnt what it meant to suffer in anarchy and civil unrest. Now they wanted to defend their new order which they were about to establish. And you simply cannot succeed in controlling one of Europe’s the biggest cities when you do not have the consent of the population. As soon as the English and Spanish tried to seize control, barricades appeared, fires were lit and the whole city was defending itself. The only difference – not against each other, but against a common enemy.” - The History of Modern Europe, A. Miller (2004)
The Parisians also received help from other parts of the world. Their call for liberty has not remained unheard. In order to bear the costs of the invasion army, the British had to raise taxes again. Their profitable colonies suffered under the tax regime and former revolts had only been averted by giving the 13 Colonies in North America representation in the House of Commons. Since they returned only one MP per colony, a further tax increase that would hurt the colonies was easily passed. As a result, inspired by the events in Paris, a group of separatists came together in Philadelphia and officially protested. By early 1792, all colonies bar New Hampshire established their own parliaments which they considered superior in competence and legitimacy to Westminster.
The revolutionary events also woke up Poland-Lithuania which barely escaped its eradication after the War of Polish Division. It seized large parts of its territory to the belligerents and was now in administration of core Poland (Cracow, Warsaw, Poznan and Gdansk) and core Lithuania. The former great power found itself in steady decline throughout the 18th century and was paralysed in terms of politics. Political processes were blocked by the liberum veto and the very large nobility could not agree on common politics. In view of the foreign threats, and with support from Prussia which preferred a stronger Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to a stronger Austria, the szlachta convened in a constitutional congress in 1792, carefully observed by the Austrians and Russians.
You wanted some criticism and though I am no expert on this time period, but I have some questions. In update number 2 you say that Archduke Charles took on the styling a of Charles III because he claims the Kingdom of Aragon, but really he only rules Catalonia. Still wouldn't that country be called Aragon and not Catalonia especially if he's tacking on the Balearics and Sardinia.
Then you say he has a male heir named Johanne, this is a big change. That means all the Hapsburg realms now have a perfectly direct male heir, so no War of Austrian succession. No Empress Marie Theresa and no Pragmatic Sanction,
the Hapsburg realm is going to be much stronger. In Aragon Johanne would be known as John III but he would also be the only male heir for the entire Hapsburg empire. Thats not to say that Catalonia couldn't still be ruled by the Cortes because the Hapsburgs were always fond of decentralization.
Then you kind of jump to the British-Franco War, which mysteriously has Austria aligned with France. It kind of left me
I think that it would interesting if Catalonia could introduce some Parliamentarianism to the Austrian Hapsburgs. Especially if Johanne really likes the way the way Barcelona seems to be more loyal thanks to the Cortes it would be interesting if it was introduced throughout the Hapsburg empire. Also without the Pragmatic sanction you would get a surviving Ostend Company our of Antwerp and maybe could open up in Barcelona as well.
Also it would have interesting impacts in the New World, if Philip has only claim to 3/4 of the Spain and is trying to implement many centralizing reforms I wonder if there were any fiercely Pro-Hapsburgs in the New World that would declare for Aragon and Charles III.
Then you say he has a male heir named Johanne, this is a big change. That means all the Hapsburg realms now have a perfectly direct male heir, so no War of Austrian succession. No Empress Marie Theresa and no Pragmatic Sanction,
the Hapsburg realm is going to be much stronger. In Aragon Johanne would be known as John III but he would also be the only male heir for the entire Hapsburg empire. Thats not to say that Catalonia couldn't still be ruled by the Cortes because the Hapsburgs were always fond of decentralization.
Then you kind of jump to the British-Franco War, which mysteriously has Austria aligned with France. It kind of left me
I think that it would interesting if Catalonia could introduce some Parliamentarianism to the Austrian Hapsburgs. Especially if Johanne really likes the way the way Barcelona seems to be more loyal thanks to the Cortes it would be interesting if it was introduced throughout the Hapsburg empire. Also without the Pragmatic sanction you would get a surviving Ostend Company our of Antwerp and maybe could open up in Barcelona as well.
Also it would have interesting impacts in the New World, if Philip has only claim to 3/4 of the Spain and is trying to implement many centralizing reforms I wonder if there were any fiercely Pro-Hapsburgs in the New World that would declare for Aragon and Charles III.
Last edited:
Gràcies to Gian, Metacomet and Tobit for your interest, the timeline slowed down, partly because it appeared to me as if nobody had any further interest, partly because I had some very stressful weeks.
I am particularly grateful for Tobit's feedback. The Kingdom of Catalonia would, by then, certainly be considered to be a neologism for no such entity existed beforehand. I decided, however, not to name it Aragon since the constituent, geographical part of Aragón is not included. The Crown of Aragon, back then, consisted of the Principality of Catalonia, the Valencian part, Aragon, and the Baleares. Given that Catalonia would be the strongest and most visible part in the set-up of this timeline, I assumed it would be sensible to name this state the Kingdom of Catalonia.
The actual point of divergence, and the event that bears an even greater impact, is the birth of Leopold Joseph in 1700. Thus the Emperor Joseph I succeeded in establishing a Habsburg line on his own, whereas in OTL his only son died at the age of 1. Only then Charles (III of Catalonia ITTL) would have become Emperor as well. Since that doesn't happen, but Joseph's successor is his son, the two Habsburg lines diverge from each other: One Catalan and one Austrian. You are absolutely right, however in that there will be no pragmatic sanction and thus a stronger Habsburg Austria.
Perhaps you could elaborate a little more about the Oostende company? I don't know anything about it and would find this aspect very interesting!
My rough plans for the near future (I hope to bring out another update before Christmas) are to describe the further evolution of both the French and the induced American revolution. The bonds between the newly emerged USA and France are likely to be much closer, and Catalonia will become a part of France for a brief time during the revolutionary wars. Armed with this first kind of democratic experience, I hope to manage to steer Catalonia to a kind of constitutional monarchy similar to the British one, with regular elections etc.
As initially said, I never intended the pre-1800 history to be full of details and glamour since I do not know all to much about this period of time. I want to make Catalan independence in 1714 (very ironic, I know) plausible and then proceed to a more liberal age where I want to focus on politics.
Again, thank you for your very valuable input!
I am particularly grateful for Tobit's feedback.
The Kingdom of Catalonia would, by then, certainly be considered to be a neologism for no such entity existed beforehand. I decided, however, not to name it Aragon since the constituent, geographical part of Aragón is not included. The Crown of Aragon, back then, consisted of the Principality of Catalonia, the Valencian part, Aragon, and the Baleares. Given that Catalonia would be the strongest and most visible part in the set-up of this timeline, I assumed it would be sensible to name this state the Kingdom of Catalonia.The actual point of divergence, and the event that bears an even greater impact, is the birth of Leopold Joseph in 1700. Thus the Emperor Joseph I succeeded in establishing a Habsburg line on his own, whereas in OTL his only son died at the age of 1. Only then Charles (III of Catalonia ITTL) would have become Emperor as well. Since that doesn't happen, but Joseph's successor is his son, the two Habsburg lines diverge from each other: One Catalan and one Austrian. You are absolutely right, however in that there will be no pragmatic sanction and thus a stronger Habsburg Austria.
I stated thusly in part II, although I regret that I haven't elaborated on this more. Bottom line is that a diplomatic revolution similar to the one in OTL happened. Austria aligned itself with France soon after the new conflict trench between France and the UK emerged.
Perhaps you could elaborate a little more about the Oostende company? I don't know anything about it and would find this aspect very interesting!
My rough plans for the near future (I hope to bring out another update before Christmas) are to describe the further evolution of both the French and the induced American revolution. The bonds between the newly emerged USA and France are likely to be much closer, and Catalonia will become a part of France for a brief time during the revolutionary wars. Armed with this first kind of democratic experience, I hope to manage to steer Catalonia to a kind of constitutional monarchy similar to the British one, with regular elections etc.
As initially said, I never intended the pre-1800 history to be full of details and glamour since I do not know all to much about this period of time. I want to make Catalan independence in 1714 (very ironic, I know
) plausible and then proceed to a more liberal age where I want to focus on politics.Again, thank you for your very valuable input!
If Austria has lost the Southern Netherlands to France then the Oostende Company wouldn't exist in this TL. Actually with the great port of Antwerp in France's control Britain might not turn out to be the super dominant naval power it was in OTL.
I know that the Oostende Company was seen as a potential threat to the British so they asked for it to be dismantled for them to agree to the Pragmatic Sanction. I would imagine if Austria had a chance at focusing on economic and internal developments (which it very much needed) then expanding their trade would help with that.
I know that the Oostende Company was seen as a potential threat to the British so they asked for it to be dismantled for them to agree to the Pragmatic Sanction. I would imagine if Austria had a chance at focusing on economic and internal developments (which it very much needed) then expanding their trade would help with that.
In this update I mainly focussed on the United States and their Revolutionary War. I will also try to add a map soon which will depict the current situation in this timeline. I'm not really happy with this update since I wrote it at different times and it thus may lack coherence - judge yourself. Any comment is appreciated, even calls to end this awful timeline.
When the British had to bear the costs of the Franco-British War which, although ending with a paper victory for the British, proved to result in costs that would by far outweigh any territorial gains, they exchanged further taxes and tariffs for the American colonists for a rudimental right for political participation. From 1755 on, each American colony returned one MP to Westminister. As you probably can imagine, the demand for representation was not entirely satisfied with only one MP for areas almost as big as England. Yet, careful policies and electoral victories for the Liberals (Whigs) contained the situation until the events in France shook the whole European World at its core. As a reaction to the radical happenings in France, the Tories, or however else you might want to call the loose faction of protectionists and royalists, gained a majority in 1790 and swiftly raised both taxes and tariffs on the settlers. Amongst others, it levied a tax on tea in the American colonies which triggered great protests and eventually culminated in the Boston Tea Party (1791). Meanwhile, settlers in all 13 colonies gathered together and declared the sovereignty of their own parliaments. The first state to so was New York, on the 21st February 1791, the last one New Hampshire on the 6th July 1793. Any attempts to mediate between the American colonists and the British government failed, and as a result, Westminster further restricted the rights of the settlers and even diverted some of its valuable troops from its French campaign towards America.
On the other side of the Atlantic, very intense discussions about how they should work together and whether they should form a union were persisting. In contrast to the political development of Europe in the 17th century, the so-called American Enlightenment turned most of the settlers into supporters of republicanism and liberalism. The French Revolution only fuelled their thoughts and efforts. Initially it was agreed to form the “American Assembly” with delegates from each colony. It gathered in New York for the first time on 27th August 1793 and discussed principal questions of future collaboration, taxation and representation. Following the very harsh response by the British, the moderates who still hoped for reconciliation with Great Britain found themselves to be in a minority and so, only weeks later, the American Assembly passed their Declaration of Independence. On the same day, it passed the “Articles of Representation” which provided for an Assembly comprising 60 delegates to be elected from the states’ assemblies and highlighted its provisional character. The day after, the British Parliament declared those in support of the Articles to be traitors. Obviously, the British followed by mobilising their few troops in America and attempted to take strategic positions in the thirteen colonies. Despite initial victories and the capture of Boston, they could not win against a mostly republicanist and anti-British population. The settlers, however, faced extreme difficulties in raising an army and equipping it appropriately. The Royal Navy seized New York City for a brief period in spring 1795 but had to retreat after the local population blocked any supply routes except by sea. It is estimated that only around 10% of the colonies’ population at that time remained loyal to Great Britain. In August, two smaller French Republican divisions arrived in America and helped the settlers in fighting the last safe areas of British Loyalists. An invasion in early 1796 from Canada failed after some initial successes in the Battle of Albany and is considered to be the decisive point of no return which established the American victory one year later. In response, the rather inexperienced American troops who won in Albany advanced further north and attempted to occupy Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
In the meantime, the French could also defend Paris from the joint British and Spanish forces which were partly regrouped and sent to America, so that they lacked the decisive force to capture Paris. Also, with every month that passed, French organisation skills and experience grew. More and more people across the entire country were enlisted and volunteered to defend the Revolution. What started as a urban unrest in the French capital quickly spread across not only France herself, but the whole continent. Smaller attempts to abolish the monarchy were made in Barcelona as well but failed to make a greater impact. The Polish-Lithuanian Congress clearly was inspired by the events in France when it passed a codified, rather liberal constitution in 1794 which, however, was noted with hostility in Russia, Austria and Prussia. It guaranteed universal suffrage to all men, freedom of religion and recognised both Lithuanian and Polish as official languages and abolished the liberum veto. Russia responded by invading the Eastern provinces of the Commonwealth and hoped to force the Congress to rewrite some of the articles. The Polish, however, were aided by a French general who soon should play an even greater role in world politics: General André Ramoneaux managed to turn around a battle already considered lost and drove the Russians back behind the border. He was helped, of course, by Prussian and Austrian influence who feared that the Russian attempt to strengthen their position would put them into disadvantage.
In 1795, the city of Paris was not directly threatened anymore. The French Republic consolidated its rule and even managed to defeat the Spanish Army at Tours. The General Assembly in Paris passed a decree on 4 May 1795 which provided for the election of a new constitutional body which should represent all citizens in France. The National Assembly was elected throughout August and September of the same year, despite organisational difficulties and the failure of the election in many parts of France which were still raided by British or Spanish troops. The election returned a broad majority in favour of the republic, with the moderates just short of an overall majority. Pierre Sarvette, an established figure from the first days of the Parisian Revolution, soon emerged as their informal leader and faced different groups of radicals, royalists and others.
The National Assembly gained more legitimacy by appointing generals to the French armies and was praised for its food and crisis management across the country. In late 1795, they even managed to occupy parts of the royalist Gironde region but had also to suffer a humiliating defeat against Britain’s main army which, again, was advancing towards Paris.
London had a very difficult choice to make: Even with Spain as ally, it could not maintain its efforts on both continents. Either it would have to give in to the French Revolution and allowing a source of civil unrest and uncertainty in Europe, or it would have to let go off its precious colonies. After the failed invasion of New England and a series of lost battles in New Brunswick, Britain’s government accepted the loss of its American colonies and recognised their independence on 26 April 1797 under the condition that they would not interfere in Europe. Spain also unwillingly ceded East Florida to the emergent nation. The American Assembly passed the peace treaty on 6 May 1797 and could now turn to the important issue of the future of the American colonies. Shortly after the peace, Florida, Vermont and Nova Scotia were recognised as further colonies or “states” and signed the Articles of Representation. They were thus allowed to send their own representatives to the American Assembly and enjoyed the same rights as the 13 initial colonies. Those 16 “states” now had to find a common constitution and agree on a future set of rules to play by. The possibility of failure was rather large, and in that case the American continent would not see one united nation but 16 small ones…
Any comment is appreciated, even calls to end this awful timeline. VI.
American Revolution
American Revolution
When the British had to bear the costs of the Franco-British War which, although ending with a paper victory for the British, proved to result in costs that would by far outweigh any territorial gains, they exchanged further taxes and tariffs for the American colonists for a rudimental right for political participation. From 1755 on, each American colony returned one MP to Westminister. As you probably can imagine, the demand for representation was not entirely satisfied with only one MP for areas almost as big as England. Yet, careful policies and electoral victories for the Liberals (Whigs) contained the situation until the events in France shook the whole European World at its core. As a reaction to the radical happenings in France, the Tories, or however else you might want to call the loose faction of protectionists and royalists, gained a majority in 1790 and swiftly raised both taxes and tariffs on the settlers. Amongst others, it levied a tax on tea in the American colonies which triggered great protests and eventually culminated in the Boston Tea Party (1791). Meanwhile, settlers in all 13 colonies gathered together and declared the sovereignty of their own parliaments. The first state to so was New York, on the 21st February 1791, the last one New Hampshire on the 6th July 1793. Any attempts to mediate between the American colonists and the British government failed, and as a result, Westminster further restricted the rights of the settlers and even diverted some of its valuable troops from its French campaign towards America.
On the other side of the Atlantic, very intense discussions about how they should work together and whether they should form a union were persisting. In contrast to the political development of Europe in the 17th century, the so-called American Enlightenment turned most of the settlers into supporters of republicanism and liberalism. The French Revolution only fuelled their thoughts and efforts. Initially it was agreed to form the “American Assembly” with delegates from each colony. It gathered in New York for the first time on 27th August 1793 and discussed principal questions of future collaboration, taxation and representation. Following the very harsh response by the British, the moderates who still hoped for reconciliation with Great Britain found themselves to be in a minority and so, only weeks later, the American Assembly passed their Declaration of Independence. On the same day, it passed the “Articles of Representation” which provided for an Assembly comprising 60 delegates to be elected from the states’ assemblies and highlighted its provisional character. The day after, the British Parliament declared those in support of the Articles to be traitors. Obviously, the British followed by mobilising their few troops in America and attempted to take strategic positions in the thirteen colonies. Despite initial victories and the capture of Boston, they could not win against a mostly republicanist and anti-British population. The settlers, however, faced extreme difficulties in raising an army and equipping it appropriately. The Royal Navy seized New York City for a brief period in spring 1795 but had to retreat after the local population blocked any supply routes except by sea. It is estimated that only around 10% of the colonies’ population at that time remained loyal to Great Britain. In August, two smaller French Republican divisions arrived in America and helped the settlers in fighting the last safe areas of British Loyalists. An invasion in early 1796 from Canada failed after some initial successes in the Battle of Albany and is considered to be the decisive point of no return which established the American victory one year later. In response, the rather inexperienced American troops who won in Albany advanced further north and attempted to occupy Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
In the meantime, the French could also defend Paris from the joint British and Spanish forces which were partly regrouped and sent to America, so that they lacked the decisive force to capture Paris. Also, with every month that passed, French organisation skills and experience grew. More and more people across the entire country were enlisted and volunteered to defend the Revolution. What started as a urban unrest in the French capital quickly spread across not only France herself, but the whole continent. Smaller attempts to abolish the monarchy were made in Barcelona as well but failed to make a greater impact. The Polish-Lithuanian Congress clearly was inspired by the events in France when it passed a codified, rather liberal constitution in 1794 which, however, was noted with hostility in Russia, Austria and Prussia. It guaranteed universal suffrage to all men, freedom of religion and recognised both Lithuanian and Polish as official languages and abolished the liberum veto. Russia responded by invading the Eastern provinces of the Commonwealth and hoped to force the Congress to rewrite some of the articles. The Polish, however, were aided by a French general who soon should play an even greater role in world politics: General André Ramoneaux managed to turn around a battle already considered lost and drove the Russians back behind the border. He was helped, of course, by Prussian and Austrian influence who feared that the Russian attempt to strengthen their position would put them into disadvantage.
In 1795, the city of Paris was not directly threatened anymore. The French Republic consolidated its rule and even managed to defeat the Spanish Army at Tours. The General Assembly in Paris passed a decree on 4 May 1795 which provided for the election of a new constitutional body which should represent all citizens in France. The National Assembly was elected throughout August and September of the same year, despite organisational difficulties and the failure of the election in many parts of France which were still raided by British or Spanish troops. The election returned a broad majority in favour of the republic, with the moderates just short of an overall majority. Pierre Sarvette, an established figure from the first days of the Parisian Revolution, soon emerged as their informal leader and faced different groups of radicals, royalists and others.
The National Assembly gained more legitimacy by appointing generals to the French armies and was praised for its food and crisis management across the country. In late 1795, they even managed to occupy parts of the royalist Gironde region but had also to suffer a humiliating defeat against Britain’s main army which, again, was advancing towards Paris.
London had a very difficult choice to make: Even with Spain as ally, it could not maintain its efforts on both continents. Either it would have to give in to the French Revolution and allowing a source of civil unrest and uncertainty in Europe, or it would have to let go off its precious colonies. After the failed invasion of New England and a series of lost battles in New Brunswick, Britain’s government accepted the loss of its American colonies and recognised their independence on 26 April 1797 under the condition that they would not interfere in Europe. Spain also unwillingly ceded East Florida to the emergent nation. The American Assembly passed the peace treaty on 6 May 1797 and could now turn to the important issue of the future of the American colonies. Shortly after the peace, Florida, Vermont and Nova Scotia were recognised as further colonies or “states” and signed the Articles of Representation. They were thus allowed to send their own representatives to the American Assembly and enjoyed the same rights as the 13 initial colonies. Those 16 “states” now had to find a common constitution and agree on a future set of rules to play by. The possibility of failure was rather large, and in that case the American continent would not see one united nation but 16 small ones…
VII.
French Constitution
French Constitution
One of the most effective and also most popular decrees the emergent French National Assembly introduced in its short lifespan was the Military Act of 1795 which saw the general organisation of a united French Army and the introduction of conscription. Despite the revolutionary mayhem in her capital, the French Republic proved to stand on a stable, albeit very thin basis provided by the National Assembly. Yet, although the Spanish forces were almost driven out of the country and General Silvestre Picotin began the siege of San Sebastián, the British Army under the command of General James Young in Tours remained a constant threat for Paris and the republic. No part of the French forces was experienced or well-equipped enough to match what was referred to as the “red flood”. Due to the ongoing American Revolution, however, London was not able to maintain its large army on the continent and retreated from France in October 1795 in order to prepare the invasion of New England. Thus, the winter of 1795/96 was the first one since 1789 which the French citoyens could enjoy more or less in peace.
Having reached at last some progress in the struggle for freedom and independence, the French National Assembly could turn to the important matter of the constitution in the beginning of 1796. The delegates had to choose from hundreds of proposals, ranging from liberal model states to revolutionary utopias of equality and progress. Again, one of the key figures in the process was Pierre Sarvette, who maintained healthy relations with most of the factions and could, by and large, convince the Assembly of his vision of a republican state with a legitimate parliament and a directly elected president.
“Following the course of the First French Revolution from today’s perspective, it is a miracle that all factions and delegates were able to work together so well. True, occasional barricades in Paris and other cities still appeared, and the public was far from satisfied. But the experience of war and emergency forced all, be it royalists or radical revolutionaries, to come to terms in the National Assembly. They knew that if they would lose the military conflict with the foreign powers, none of them would have the power to decide about France’s future anymore. […]
The smooth working of the National Assembly, its fulfilling of basic needs and its patriotic appeal in times of war almost certainly were the main factors that contributed to a working parliamentary democracy in such unlikely and uncertain circumstances.”
Jacques Albert Catellier, French historian in an interview given in 2009
Factions in the French National Assembly 1795-1796
Royalists
Versaillists – support for the Ancién Regime, they want the old system reinstalled and demand a strong monarch with virtually unlimited powers.
Moderate Royalists – they see the need for change and are not particularly fond of absolutism. They agree with the republicans on establishing a parliament, but favour limited suffrage and the power of the monarch to name the head of government
Rochantists – named after Amalvis Rochant, this small faction adheres to monarchy but wants the monarch to be not more than a figurehead, submitting to Parliament’s decisions. They are inspired by the British Westminster system.
Democrats
Concordists – the group which first met on the Place de la Concorde and was able to boost its popularity throughout the wars. It is led by Pierre Sarvette and wants to establish a liberal, constitutional republic with clearly defined powers and a broad base of legitimacy. They are part of the revolution, though, as the Concordists believe that change cannot be introduced without it.
Redistributeurs – a smaller split-off of the Concordists which leans stronger towards the revolution and want to ban all aristocrats and plutocrats from France, confiscating their property. General André Ramoneux, who participated in the Polish-Russian War of 1794, endorsed this faction.
Revolutionaries / Republicans
Peripherists (Agrarians) – deriving their name from their support base in the French periphery, they demand huge subsidies for the farmers and a “regime of equality” in the countryside. They do not trust Paris to run the national affairs and want a stronger voice from the poor countryside.
Marseilleists – radical revolutionaries who want to take the revolution even further. They dismiss the principles of representative democracy as reactionary and seek to enforce the “regime of equality”. They are massively popular with the lower strata and especially amongst Parisians, although they did not contribute much to solve the problems France was struggling with.
Martinists – An even more radical split-off from the Marseilleists. They want to see heads rolling and to redistribute the entire country to the least well-off.
These were the main factions in the National Assembly. Naturally, the most radical ones, the Martinists and the Versaillists, were normally excluded from cooperation. Without any accurate records and given the low organisational level of the “parties”, it is hard to retrace the faction strengths in the constituent Assembly. We can, however, safely assume, that the Concordists and the Marseilleists were the biggest factions with 100-150 delegates each. The “working majority”, which Sarvette relied upon, was notable for its inclusion of parties from all three “camps”: The entire Democratic camp, the Rochantists and the Peripherists. With their support, as well as with single votes from the Marseilleist and moderate royalist benches, the Assembly passed a constitutional draft on 3rd March 1796. Despite some initial revolts from the sans-culottes and revolutionary workers, the draft was generally viewed positively in the population – even outside of Paris, as it gave regions some degree of autonomy and liberated the farmers from its debt and liabilities. The moderates won a big victory and appeared to be successful in steering the revolution so that further unrest could be avoided. With the legitimation coming from the National Assembly, the constitutional draft could not be overthrown by the radicals unless they would contest the legitimacy of the Assembly itself – in which they sat and debated.
[to be continued]
---
Alright, here's another update in case someone is still following. This one will be continued tonight and will explain the French Constitution in detail. And don't worry, the British will come back.
Further updates, which I hope I'll be able to publish soon, will deal with the constitutional set-up of other states, namely Poland-Lithuania and the US. Any feedback, suggestions and comments are welcome.