WI: Alternate War of the Austrian Succession and Post-War

Alternate Austrian Succession War
Okay, its been a looooooong time since I actually posted something other than replies, and I hope this will open the floor to discussion. Maybe someone will even tackle this as an alternate timeline-assuming it hasn't already been done. With all that said, here's the 'What If'.....and the opening setup:

According to what I recently read in the book The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648-1815 by Tim Blanning. In the run-up to the War of the Austrian Succession, Charles VI-Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor, had failed to sire a male successor. As a means of maintaining the unity of the Hapsburg Monarchy, he drafted a edict called the Pragmatic Sanction which in essence guaranteed that should he die without a male heir, his dominions would pass undivided to his eldest daughter, Maria Theresa, effectively bypassing the heirs of his close relative and predecessor Joseph I. Charles VI had to practically promise the moon and some stars in order to get the Austrian estates, the Hungarian diet, the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, and finally the courts of Europe to accept the Sanction and recognize Maria Theresa as his heir*. Within days of his death, Austria's neighbors began to repudiate the Sanction and attack the Monarchy, starting with Prussia's invasion and conquest of Silesia. Frederick the Great later admitted he had done it to pre-empt the Saxons, who were also looking to claim Silesia to bridge the gulf between the Electorate and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where the Saxon elector was also king. France backed the candidacy of Charles Albert, Elector of Bavaria for Holy Roman Emperor against Duke Frances Stephen of Lorraine, whose territory was almost wholly surrounded by France. Charles Albert even made a claim on Bohemia and Upper Austria as a means of securing his claim to the Imperial title. Spain hoped to make gains in the Italian peninsula at Austria's expense and potentially restore the position they had lost as a result of the War of the Spanish Succession (1700-1716). Comte de Vergennes, France's minister, even had a plan for the partition of the Hapsburg Monarchy would would've created three new power-blocs in the HRE, awarded Spain and Sardinia-Piedmont some territory in Italy, and awarded the Austrian Netherlands (i.e Belgium) to France along with the right of succession to the Duchy of Lorraine.

* Spain had already won Parma and Piacenza in central Italy, both as part of the terms of the treaty ending the Polish Succession War and as a pre-condition of their acceptance of the Pragmatic Sanction. France also had already secured the acquisition of the Duchy of Lorraine, which would've allowed Francis Stephen to become Duke of Tuscany in exchange and as a pre-condition of their adherence to the Pragmatic Sanction.


What if the War of the Austrian Succession gone the way de Vergennes had planned it (more or less), and the Vergennes Plan been fulfilled as a result of victory? What would an alternate Europe look like as a result? Would there be a Seven Years War? American War of Independence? French Revolution? Now here are some things to consider when discussing this What If:

- France would be more focused on the continental campaigns and initially only defend her colonial empire from Britain, until their objectives were fulfilled and Austria were brought to her knees. Then and only then would they switch to a "blue water" strategy, both repelling British attacks and even going on the offense themselves with Spanish assistance.

-The United Provinces (Holland or The Netherlands) would be overrun quickly by the French, forcing them out of the war. What the terms of surrender would be can be left open, but most likely they would lose some territory overseas and pay a large indemnity. They could even be forced to join the French side and go to war with Britain. Again, this can be left open to discussion.

-Frederick the Great would still gain Silesia much as IOTL (except maybe a small portion in the south of the province, which Saxony would seize and thus link their Electorate-however small-with their Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth lands. Saxony could potentially, and as a means of compensation, divide the Swabian territories of the Hapsburgs with Bavaria.

-Bavaria would not only be able to seize and hold Bohemia (possibly with Saxon and Prussian assistance) and Upper Austria, but they could even invade and occupy Lower Austria or the Tyrol (or both) and make restoring one of those territories the condition of peace with Austria. As new Holy Roman Emperors they could even forbid any future ambitions for the Imperial Crown from the Hapsburg dynasty. This can be left open to discussion.

-Hungary could use the distractions and invasions of the Monarchy to assert their independence, and receive recognition of such from Prussia, France, Spain, Bavaria and possibly even the Ottoman Empire. While they may or may not become involved in the war, any opportunity to cripple the Hapsburgs would be welcomed by the Ottoman Empire as it would mean one less rival in the Balkans to have to contend with.

-The role of Russia, Sweden and Portugal would be open to discussion as its unknown how big or small a role these nations played in the Austrian Succession War. Perhaps Russia gets involved as a belated ally of Austria to try and prevent Bavaria and Prussia from tearing the Monarchy apart. Perhaps Russia becomes a neutral. Perhaps Russia joins in the partition. The same could be said of Sweden, as they still held German territory along the Baltic. They could join in Austria's partition not so much for territory as for guarantees from the new, Bavarian Emperor for commerce and security.


Let me be clear, I dont have exact figures on military strength, finance so I won't even venture to make a guess on those. Also there may have been a few things I left out...I'm only Human. Lastly I don't intend this to go into ASB territory, which is why the source information I provided in Italics was written, so no one thinks I'm doing an ASB. If there already exists an alternate timeline coming off the war which I am not aware of, please provide a link so I may check it out.

Aside from that, the floor is now open to discuss, debate, strategize and create ;)
 
Russia and Sweden were at war with each other '41-'43, so probably aren't available to intervene. Both, especially Russia, are going to be alarmed at a major restructure of the Habsburg empire.
Portugal is more or less a gnat that can be easily swatted, and has no interest/nothing to gain in joining. They probably only join if goaded at gunpoint by Britain.
Spain is going to want to make some gains, too. How much of Italy do they get?
I would assume this involves Franco-Bavarian success instead of the OTL failure. Bavaria is going to get some decent land gains, and will be aiming to be a major player in the region. This would involve French support, and I believe just about everyone is going to be opposed to a massive extension of French into the German political sphere. This will make for a lot of unease in the following peace.
All this disruption makes for a lot of powder kegs that can explode into a followup war.
What is the status of Britain? Does Bonnie Prince Charlie get installed as King in a Stuart restoration? That would make for a whole lot of potential for civil war/unrest in the British Empire. If you leave Britain more or less at status quo in the peace, they are likely going to be very interested in how the re-organization of the Continent plays out. They may be forced to get involved in the followup war, and not be free to concentrate on North America. If things are too tense in Europe, and if France has emerged in a strong state (instead of the OTL weak state), Britain may not be so bellicose in starting the French and Indian War.
 
Russia and Sweden were at war with each other '41-'43, so probably aren't available to intervene. Both, especially Russia, are going to be alarmed at a major restructure of the Habsburg empire.
Actually, in OTL Russia was involved even if not directly. In 1741-43, as you correctly noticed, the direct participation was averted by the war with Sweden and during that period Russian political affiliation was not yet decided upon: the pro-French and pro-Austrian parties had been intriguing against each other. Only by the time of the 2nd Silesia War the pro-Austrian party got an upper hand. In 1745 Russian government decided to help Saxony by sending troops in 1746, which presumably prompted Frederick II to make peace with Austria and Saxony (peace of Dresden signed in December 1745). In 1747 Russia signed a treaty with Britain: Russia would have to maintain an army of 30,000 in the Baltic provinces for £100,000 to prevent Frederick from re-entering the war. Later in the same year a new convention had been signed: besides troops in the Baltic provinces Russia was going to send for the next two years 30,000 troops on the Rhine and Mosel (price tag £300,000). These troops were on the march across the PLC and Bohemia when France signed a peace (there are speculations on how influential was that march).

Russian main concern was not as much a weakening of Austria as strengthening of Prussia with a potential impact on the PLC (the main reason for the future Russian involvement in the 7YW).
 
Actually, in OTL Russia was involved even if not directly. In 1741-43, as you correctly noticed, the direct participation was averted by the war with Sweden and during that period Russian political affiliation was not yet decided upon: the pro-French and pro-Austrian parties had been intriguing against each other. Only by the time of the 2nd Silesia War the pro-Austrian party got an upper hand. In 1745 Russian government decided to help Saxony by sending troops in 1746, which presumably prompted Frederick II to make peace with Austria and Saxony (peace of Dresden signed in December 1745). In 1747 Russia signed a treaty with Britain: Russia would have to maintain an army of 30,000 in the Baltic provinces for £100,000 to prevent Frederick from re-entering the war. Later in the same year a new convention had been signed: besides troops in the Baltic provinces Russia was going to send for the next two years 30,000 troops on the Rhine and Mosel (price tag £300,000). These troops were on the march across the PLC and Bohemia when France signed a peace (there are speculations on how influential was that march).

Russian main concern was not as much a weakening of Austria as strengthening of Prussia with a potential impact on the PLC (the main reason for the future Russian involvement in the 7YW).
Correct. I was thinking that Austria crumbles and the war is a short one. If Hungary doesn't support Maria Theresa and goes their own way, combined with ATL early French/French backed successes, the war could be over before Russia can extract themselves from their own war. Of course, with such massive changes happening, Russia might find a way to end their war earlier (not really familiar with that war) to get involved.
 
Correct. I was thinking that Austria crumbles and the war is a short one. If Hungary doesn't support Maria Theresa and goes their own way, combined with ATL early French/French backed successes, the war could be over before Russia can extract themselves from their own war. Of course, with such massive changes happening, Russia might find a way to end their war earlier (not really familiar with that war) to get involved.
The Russo-Swedish war was a nonsense caused by unrealistic idea of the Hats party to return the lands lost in the GNW. The whole charade could be over within a year because it became abundantly clear that with the Russian numeric superiority and a better leadership (Russian army had been commanded by Fieldmarshal Peter Lacy) the goal could not be achieved. The Swedes started losing territory in Finland almost immediately and in 3 years practically all of it had been lost and Lacy was preparing to the landing in Sweden proper. If the clearer heads prevailed earlier, the same conditions as per Treaty of Abo could be achieved after the 1st year: Sweden ceded a small strip of a border territory near St-Petersburg and agreed that Adolf Frederick of Holstein-Gottorp is going to be appointed a heir of the Swedish throne (earlier he had been offered the crown of Finland by the local lantdag after Finland was occupied). Anyway, this war, AFAIK, is considered to be a part of the WoAS.

But it is an open question if, providing war with Sweden is over within a year, Russia would necessarily immediately joined fighting on Austrian side. As I said earlier, a definite pro-Austrian stance was achieved by 1745 and even then it was more pro-Saxony due to the Russian interest in the PLC. Prussia was yet to became a major military power with a potential to endanger the Russian interests in the PLC, France (for a while) remained a friendly country that helped Elizabeth to get the throne while close relations with Austria belonged to the reign of Empress Anne and political course of Andrey Osterman who at that time was having a quality time in Berezov. As you can see from the time tables, Russo-Swedish war was over before the 2nd Silesian War (1744 - 45) started but Russia was not rushing to the Austrian defense until Saxony was occupied by Prussia and even then the reaction time was too long.

Realistically, Russia (providing there are considerable subsidies) could get into the WoAS in parallel with the Swedish War in which it committed probably under 30,000. The only country which at that time could provide such subsidies was Britain so we are talking about joining on Austrian side. Would the Brits be willing to provide the big enough subsidies in 1742 if the Austrian situation kept worsening?

What could it do realistically? It had the same issues as during the 7YW but a better commander than any of those it had during the 7YW. What it did not yet had was “unicorn” field howitzer. OTOH, the Prussian army did not yet have was a cavalry reformed thanks to Seydlitz. As was demonstrated during the 7YW Russian tactics was slow and cumbersome and it had numerous problems with supply system but it was extremely difficult to beat so if it manages to get to the theater of war because fighting is over it may become a very serious factor.
 
Russia and Sweden were at war with each other '41-'43, so probably aren't available to intervene. Both, especially Russia, are going to be alarmed at a major restructure of the Habsburg empire.
Portugal is more or less a gnat that can be easily swatted, and has no interest/nothing to gain in joining. They probably only join if goaded at gunpoint by Britain.
Spain is going to want to make some gains, too. How much of Italy do they get?
I would assume this involves Franco-Bavarian success instead of the OTL failure. Bavaria is going to get some decent land gains, and will be aiming to be a major player in the region. This would involve French support, and I believe just about everyone is going to be opposed to a massive extension of French into the German political sphere. This will make for a lot of unease in the following peace.
All this disruption makes for a lot of powder kegs that can explode into a followup war.
What is the status of Britain? Does Bonnie Prince Charlie get installed as King in a Stuart restoration? That would make for a whole lot of potential for civil war/unrest in the British Empire. If you leave Britain more or less at status quo in the peace, they are likely going to be very interested in how the re-organization of the Continent plays out. They may be forced to get involved in the followup war, and not be free to concentrate on North America. If things are too tense in Europe, and if France has emerged in a strong state (instead of the OTL weak state), Britain may not be so bellicose in starting the French and Indian War.
Spain would almost certainly gain Sicily, Naples, and potentially Sardinia as well, assuming that Savoy doesn't rush in to claim that island first. Even if they dont get Sardinia though, Spain will have almost certainly restored their position pre-Utrecht within Italy.

On the matter of Bonnie Prince Charlie, I didnt take into account the Jacobite situation in Britain (thanks for pointing that out, too. Appreciate it 👍). Assuming France would wish to keep Britain distracted so they would be better able to concentrate on their continental commitments, its likely they would send more military assistance and money than IOTL and even stage a distraction in the form of an invasion of Ireland or Wales, and link up with the Jacobite forces coming from Scotland. Even if in the end Bonnie Prince Charlie is defeated, the time in which he's running amuck in England would allow France and Spain enough time to grab some British colonies, and if he actually managed to win the civil war, he'd be inclined to align England with France, which would be an additional headache for Maria Theresa.

I do agree that a French-backed Bavarian emperorship would leave everyone extremely uneasy, especially Austria-as they would be greatly reduced and vulnerable to future invasion, and Prussia-which despite the acquisition of Silesia would fear for the future security of their realm within an empire now ruled by a non-Hapsburg. In the matter of an independent Hungary, I suspect it might not take long for the Ottomans to reinvade the kingdom once it cut ties with the Hapsburgs, which would only further enhance the danger to the rump Austrian state.
 
Actually, in OTL Russia was involved even if not directly. In 1741-43, as you correctly noticed, the direct participation was averted by the war with Sweden and during that period Russian political affiliation was not yet decided upon: the pro-French and pro-Austrian parties had been intriguing against each other. Only by the time of the 2nd Silesia War the pro-Austrian party got an upper hand. In 1745 Russian government decided to help Saxony by sending troops in 1746, which presumably prompted Frederick II to make peace with Austria and Saxony (peace of Dresden signed in December 1745). In 1747 Russia signed a treaty with Britain: Russia would have to maintain an army of 30,000 in the Baltic provinces for £100,000 to prevent Frederick from re-entering the war. Later in the same year a new convention had been signed: besides troops in the Baltic provinces Russia was going to send for the next two years 30,000 troops on the Rhine and Mosel (price tag £300,000). These troops were on the march across the PLC and Bohemia when France signed a peace (there are speculations on how influential was that march).

Russian main concern was not as much a weakening of Austria as strengthening of Prussia with a potential impact on the PLC (the main reason for the future Russian involvement in the 7YW).
I agree. Russia would become more alarmed by the growth of Prussia and the increase in power of Poland-Lithuania should that tiny piece of Silesia be taken by Saxony. They would also worry that a greatly reduced Austria would invite a new Turkish invasion. I almost feel like they would make amends with Sweden, forge an alliance with either rump Austria or Hungary, then potentially reach out to France, assuming Britain was back under Stuart rule and joined at the hip to France.

Would make for an interesting alternate timeline
 
Any TL that mucks with the British ability to win an alt French and Indian War/7YW makes for an interesting ATL.
Dunno about France being able to grab much by way of British colonies. I think the path to Franco wank in WoAS is a short war. That doesn't leave time for colony grabbing. I'm not sure how you get to the fast crumble of the Austro-Hungarian empire. What changes from OTL? Are we just hand wavium saying France wins? What makes Hungary not decide to back MT? Does MT flub? Does she die (there's always a handy banana peel on the top step of the stairs), leaving even more confusion?

Another ALT scenario: Spain and Britain were already at war (Jenkins Ear) and Britain was taking major losses (Spain was aided a LOT by their ally tropical disease). France abandoned Spain (they were supposedly allies, and Britain was the aggressor), other than acting as a potential ally threat, thereby limiting Britain to the colonial sphere. What if France correctly read the tea leaves and saw this as a good time to eliminate Britain as a threat for the foreseeable future, and joined with Spain to knock Britain out before assaulting Austria? Maybe imbue them with a little faith in the Jacobites and move up the Stuart invasion a couple years. Then amp up the aggression in Europe, or work on grabbing British colonial sphere. This hangs Prussia out to dry, but seeing as they acted in their own self interest, no tears from me. They could be forced into staying in the fight longer, and would require French money to do so, but if that whole front stalemates, Austria could get worn down, and Russia might not get so worried with Prussia not running wild. France could then work on breaking up Austria. If Hungary goes independent, and Bavaria makes some gains, Austria might sue for peace before she totally disintegrates.
 
I agree. Russia would become more alarmed by the growth of Prussia and the increase in power of Poland-Lithuania should that tiny piece of Silesia be taken by Saxony. They would also worry that a greatly reduced Austria would invite a new Turkish invasion. I almost feel like they would make amends with Sweden, forge an alliance with either rump Austria or Hungary, then potentially reach out to France, assuming Britain was back under Stuart rule and joined at the hip to France.

Would make for an interesting alternate timeline
I’m not sure that Saxony having connection with the PLC would worry Elizabeth’s government too much: at that time Saxon dynasty in the PLC a was OK from the Russian perspective. Prussian growing strength was a different story because strong Prussia would exercise influence among the PLC Protestants, especially the Germans, at the expense of the overall Russian influence.

Now, as far as the “amends” to Sweden are involved, this was an impossibility. The war was started by Sweden and continued strictly due to the Swedish stubbornness. The OTL Russian territorial gains were minuscule (Finland was returned to Sweden) but giving territory to Sweden would make St. Petersburg a border town. The war continued just as long as the Swedes had been willing to keep being beaten. Endangering your own capital just to save Austrian ass would be unrealistic.

As for the Ottomans, starting from the reign of Empress Anne Russia was on the offensive: the Ottomans did not look for any acquisitions at the Russian expense and the next Russian-Ottoman War happened only when policies of CII “disbalanced” situation in the PLC, which was everybody’s neighbor and which everybody wanted to keep weak (*). The Ottoman‘s possible advance against Austria would be most probably on the Balkans so why would Russia care?

Who was going to rule Britain was not material: Britain needed materials for its navy and Russia was a major supplier so the relations would remain almost no matter what. In OTL Britain even swallowed the 1st League of the Armed Neutrality.


_______
(*) At that point of her reign CII did not yet figure out what exactly does she want and kept pushing the reforms in the PLC. Later, she finally figured things out and started a war with the PLC to prevent the reforms from happening.
 
That seems quite odd that Blanning said that as Vergennes was not one of France's top ministers at the time, indeed, he was far from being one at the time. When the war began, Vergennes was an assistant to his relative, Chavigny, the ambassador to Portugal, which was not involved in the War of the Austrian Succession. Later Vergennes and Chavigny were given a post with Holy Roman Emperor Charles VII but that was only in 1743, around the same time that Bavaria was being overrun by the Austrians and the French armies were retreating from Germany. The very next year, the Austrians would invade Alsace-Lorraine, so by the time Chavigny got close to the action, things were looking dire rather than like Austria was on the verge of collapse. Even then Vergennes was still more than two steps away from power as the assistant to an ambassador behind the likes of Fleury, Belle-Isle, Maurepas, and Argenson. So for there to have been a tangible Vergennes Plan seems unlikely and for that plan to ever be considered by the French government even less likely.

Also, the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza had been ceded by Charles of Bourbon to Austria to compensate Emperor Charles VI for ceding Naples and Sicily to Charles of Bourbon after the conclusion of the War of the Austrian Succession. Regaining Parma and Piacenza as well as conquering Milan, were among the war goals of Spain in the War of the Austrian Succession. But you are right that France already had the right of succession to Lorraine, which casts further doubt on Blanning's familiarity with this topic. However, for Blanning to be unacquainted and consequently wrong on the subjects regarding the War of the Austrian Succession would make sense since it's one of the criminally understudied conflicts in the Anglosphere due to the fact that Britain's involvement was inglorious and limited.

Regarding an alternate War of the Austrian Succession there are certainly a million PODs for this war with any number of consequences. The Vergennes plan you describe is similar to the plan the actual French leaders conjured up ahead of the Moravian Campaign, which consisted of Bavaria gaining most of Bohemia, Austria, and Tyrol; Saxony gaining parts of Moravia and a Silesian land bridge to Poland, and Prussia being left with most of Silesia, as far as I can recall. At the time, France did not plan on conquering the Austrian Netherlands mainly because Britain and France were not technically legally involved in the war yet and any invasion of the Austrian Netherlands immediately changes that. In Italy, France was in talks with Sardinia to gain their support against the Austrians meanwhile the Spanish were eager to conquer some of the Austrian lands in northern Italy. Surprisingly, Tuscany was not discussed very much. Although the negotiations continued for a while, its unlikely that the Sardinians would have ever accepted a deal with the Bourbons mainly because their interests did not line up all that well (both the Spanish and Sardinians wanted Milan and Mantua) and because the Sardinians had less trust in the Bourbons than the Austrians. Historically, French campaigning failed in Moravia due to massive miscoordination. Afterward, Saxony changed sides, Prussia made a separate peace, and Bavaria was overrun. By 1743, the French had evacuated Bavaria, Prussia was only just starting to think about rejoining the war, and Austria had signed the Treaty of Worms with Britain, Sardinia, and the Netherlands to secure significant support from each of them.

I'd argue that even at this point, there was still a possibility of the Hapsburgs being partitioned. However, if you want a German partition as suggested by this so-called Vergennes plan, you probably want the anti-Hapsburg forces to win the Moravian and Bohemian campaigns of 1742. This would require the Prussians, Saxons, and Bavarians actually coordinating during 1742 and decisively defeating the Austrians in 1742 ahead of taking Vienna possibly in 1743. However, in this case, don't expect the Hungarians to end up a kingdom free of the Hapsburgs. the Hungarians had already decided to side with the Hapsburgs in 1740 and never wavered. Additionally, don't expect the Hapsburgs to lose the Austrian Netherlands, the French armies haven't taken it and the French had not planned on doing so yet, mainly because doing so would have brought an actual war with Britain rather than the limited conflict that the two countries had been fighting. In Italy, maybe if the Hapsburgs look like they are on the verge of faltering then the Sardinians will begrudgingly join the Bourbons and conquer the Hapsburg positions there. The Sardinians will certainly get Milan and the Bourbons will get Parma and Piacenza. However, Mantua is a big question mark. The Sardinians certainly want it but so do the Spanish. Unlike in the War of the Polish Succession, even if there Sardinians sabotage the campaign, Mantua will fall due to the pressure the Germans will be putting on Vienna. Maybe, the Spanish violate Tuscany's neutrality and conquer it and in return agree to let the Sardinians get Mantua.

France put no effort into American campaigns during the war. The reason their continental campaigns were lackluster before 1744 was because the French weren't actually at war and as a consequence were not putting forth their best effort. The French can and should have taken opportunities to challenge the British navy during the War of the Austrian Succession like Toulon. Any naval victory over the British will really open up the military options available to the French.

The Dutch won't join the French. The Dutch might agree to neutrality with the French as they did in the War of the Polish Succession but the pressure from the British might push them toward war. Either way, the Dutch are not a military power at this point and likely get defeated if they end up in direct confrontation with the French. They would not be overrun, but certainly defeated. However, as mentioned above, the French aren't even officially at war with anyone let alone the Dutch. So they might not fight each other at all.

The Saxons did not have any plans to annex the Swabian lands of the Hapsburgs. I can check the details later, but as I recall their plans included the land bridge and parts of Bohemia and Moravia.

At the beginning of the war, Maria Theresa appealed to the Hungarians for troops and they were so enthusiastic that they promised her 100,000 men. They did not end up actually providing 100,000 men but the fact that they even suggested they would is indicative about the mood in Hungary. The Hungarians were supportive of the Hapsburgs and were not going to rebel.

Sweden and Russia had their own war to fight, which could be butterflied away fairly easily. Even then, Russia can be kept out of the war by any number of PODs. Portugal had no intention of involving itself in the war. In fact, Vergennes' actual job during the war was to make sure that Portugal stayed out, which proved fairly easy.

What is the status of Britain? Does Bonnie Prince Charlie get installed as King in a Stuart restoration? That would make for a whole lot of potential for civil war/unrest in the British Empire. If you leave Britain more or less at status quo in the peace, they are likely going to be very interested in how the re-organization of the Continent plays out. They may be forced to get involved in the followup war, and not be free to concentrate on North America. If things are too tense in Europe, and if France has emerged in a strong state (instead of the OTL weak state), Britain may not be so bellicose in starting the French and Indian War.

I've seen decent arguments made that the British would have accepted Bonnie Prince Charles if he had ejected the Hanoverians. The Tories were still anti-Hanoverian in a way and George II didn't endear the common folk. But the army stood by the government during the 45 rising. If the French send an army and defeat the British army then maybe the Stuarts are restored.

Actually, in OTL Russia was involved even if not directly. In 1741-43, as you correctly noticed, the direct participation was averted by the war with Sweden and during that period Russian political affiliation was not yet decided upon: the pro-French and pro-Austrian parties had been intriguing against each other. Only by the time of the 2nd Silesia War the pro-Austrian party got an upper hand. In 1745 Russian government decided to help Saxony by sending troops in 1746, which presumably prompted Frederick II to make peace with Austria and Saxony (peace of Dresden signed in December 1745). In 1747 Russia signed a treaty with Britain: Russia would have to maintain an army of 30,000 in the Baltic provinces for £100,000 to prevent Frederick from re-entering the war. Later in the same year a new convention had been signed: besides troops in the Baltic provinces Russia was going to send for the next two years 30,000 troops on the Rhine and Mosel (price tag £300,000). These troops were on the march across the PLC and Bohemia when France signed a peace (there are speculations on how influential was that march).

Russian main concern was not as much a weakening of Austria as strengthening of Prussia with a potential impact on the PLC (the main reason for the future Russian involvement in the 7YW).

The Russian march did actually frighten the French and push them toward peace. Not necessarily because the French believed that the Russians would roll back all their gains but because the Russians made the cost of any further conflict too high to be worth it.

Spain would almost certainly gain Sicily, Naples, and potentially Sardinia as well, assuming that Savoy doesn't rush in to claim that island first. Even if they dont get Sardinia though, Spain will have almost certainly restored their position pre-Utrecht within Italy.

On the matter of Bonnie Prince Charlie, I didnt take into account the Jacobite situation in Britain (thanks for pointing that out, too. Appreciate it 👍). Assuming France would wish to keep Britain distracted so they would be better able to concentrate on their continental commitments, its likely they would send more military assistance and money than IOTL and even stage a distraction in the form of an invasion of Ireland or Wales, and link up with the Jacobite forces coming from Scotland. Even if in the end Bonnie Prince Charlie is defeated, the time in which he's running amuck in England would allow France and Spain enough time to grab some British colonies, and if he actually managed to win the civil war, he'd be inclined to align England with France, which would be an additional headache for Maria Theresa.

I do agree that a French-backed Bavarian emperorship would leave everyone extremely uneasy, especially Austria-as they would be greatly reduced and vulnerable to future invasion, and Prussia-which despite the acquisition of Silesia would fear for the future security of their realm within an empire now ruled by a non-Hapsburg. In the matter of an independent Hungary, I suspect it might not take long for the Ottomans to reinvade the kingdom once it cut ties with the Hapsburgs, which would only further enhance the danger to the rump Austrian state.

Spain already had Sicily and Naples after the War of the Austrian Succession. And Savoy already owned Sardinia after the War of the Quadruple Alliance.

Without French troops, the Jacobites are not much of a distraction and the French understood that. That's why when the French were actually considering supporting a Jacobite uprising they were going to give the Stuarts a French army and Maurice of Saxony to get it done. However, a storm ruined the invasion preparations and the French called it off. Anyways, if the French and Spanish can someone grab British colonies then they would be much better served actually supporting the Jacobites with troops and materials.

The Prussians were much more favorable to a Bavarian emperorship than a Hapsburg emperorship. The Ottomans also are in little shape to reconquer Hungary, they barely defeated the Austrians in the 1737 war and they have more pressing concerns in the east.

Any TL that mucks with the British ability to win an alt French and Indian War/7YW makes for an interesting ATL.
Dunno about France being able to grab much by way of British colonies. I think the path to Franco wank in WoAS is a short war. That doesn't leave time for colony grabbing. I'm not sure how you get to the fast crumble of the Austro-Hungarian empire. What changes from OTL? Are we just hand wavium saying France wins? What makes Hungary not decide to back MT? Does MT flub? Does she die (there's always a handy banana peel on the top step of the stairs), leaving even more confusion?

Another ALT scenario: Spain and Britain were already at war (Jenkins Ear) and Britain was taking major losses (Spain was aided a LOT by their ally tropical disease). France abandoned Spain (they were supposedly allies, and Britain was the aggressor), other than acting as a potential ally threat, thereby limiting Britain to the colonial sphere. What if France correctly read the tea leaves and saw this as a good time to eliminate Britain as a threat for the foreseeable future, and joined with Spain to knock Britain out before assaulting Austria? Maybe imbue them with a little faith in the Jacobites and move up the Stuart invasion a couple years. Then amp up the aggression in Europe, or work on grabbing British colonial sphere. This hangs Prussia out to dry, but seeing as they acted in their own self interest, no tears from me. They could be forced into staying in the fight longer, and would require French money to do so, but if that whole front stalemates, Austria could get worn down, and Russia might not get so worried with Prussia not running wild. France could then work on breaking up Austria. If Hungary goes independent, and Bavaria makes some gains, Austria might sue for peace before she totally disintegrates.

I'm not sure the tea leaves were all that favorable. But anyways the thing holding the French back was that Fleury was still in charge.

-----

If you want a total partition of the Hapsburg empire that reduces them to just Hungary (because Hungary is not rebelling and Bavaria has no interest in Hungary) then you need Fleury to die ahead of the war so that more bellicose minds like Belle-Isle or Maurepas and Argenson can design an actually competent war effort rather than the haphazard tomfoolery that Fleury oversaw during the beginning of the war. With Belle-Isle in charge, French armies pushing for Vienna, French armies overrunning the Southern Netherlands, and French subsidies buying half of Europe's powers in the very first year of the war are entirely possible.
 
I do agree that a French-backed Bavarian emperorship would leave everyone extremely uneasy, especially Austria-as they would be greatly reduced and vulnerable to future invasion, and Prussia-which despite the acquisition of Silesia would fear for the future security of their realm within an empire now ruled by a non-Hapsburg. In the matter of an independent Hungary, I suspect it might not take long for the Ottomans to reinvade the kingdom once it cut ties with the Hapsburgs, which would only further enhance the danger to the rump Austrian state.

Except that assuming Bavaria is the main victor in Germany, would imply that Austria proper goes to Bavaria. The whole matter was the various powers repudiating the Pragmatic Sanction, which means that by that logic, Maria Theresa would no longer be recognized as heir to any of the Habsburg lands within the HRE (which ran under a rule that females cannot directly inherit). If Hungary chooses to cut ties with the Habsburgs as a whole on top of that, then Maria Theresa would effectively be reduced to being just Grand Duchess-consort of Tuscany and little else otherwise (as the GD of Tuscany was by this point independent of the Holy Roman Empire).
 
Any TL that mucks with the British ability to win an alt French and Indian War/7YW makes for an interesting ATL.
Dunno about France being able to grab much by way of British colonies. I think the path to Franco wank in WoAS is a short war. That doesn't leave time for colony grabbing. I'm not sure how you get to the fast crumble of the Austro-Hungarian empire. What changes from OTL? Are we just hand wavium saying France wins? What makes Hungary not decide to back MT? Does MT flub? Does she die (there's always a handy banana peel on the top step of the stairs), leaving even more confusion?

Another ALT scenario: Spain and Britain were already at war (Jenkins Ear) and Britain was taking major losses (Spain was aided a LOT by their ally tropical disease). France abandoned Spain (they were supposedly allies, and Britain was the aggressor), other than acting as a potential ally threat, thereby limiting Britain to the colonial sphere. What if France correctly read the tea leaves and saw this as a good time to eliminate Britain as a threat for the foreseeable future, and joined with Spain to knock Britain out before assaulting Austria? Maybe imbue them with a little faith in the Jacobites and move up the Stuart invasion a couple years. Then amp up the aggression in Europe, or work on grabbing British colonial sphere. This hangs Prussia out to dry, but seeing as they acted in their own self interest, no tears from me. They could be forced into staying in the fight longer, and would require French money to do so, but if that whole front stalemates, Austria could get worn down, and Russia might not get so worried with Prussia not running wild. France could then work on breaking up Austria. If Hungary goes independent, and Bavaria makes some gains, Austria might sue for peace before she totally disintegrates.
Austria would have no choice, with an independent Hungary on one side, possibly threatening their eastern flank, Bavaria with their French auxiliaries descending from the north and sweeping from the west.

I could see a situation where Britain, already at war with Spain (and thank you for pointing out the War of Jenkins Ear, something I didnt take into account in doing this ALT WoAS 👍 ), could then be pounced on by France. I would still argue that they'd need to also have armies to support Bavaria and Saxony against Austria, but perhaps not a full military force until after they knock Britain out of the war. It would serve three purposes: 1) Keep the Austrians pinned down by the three German states 2) Assure Bavaria and Saxony that France was still committed to the partition of the Hapsburg Monarchy, and 3) Keep an eye on Frederick the Great. Even IOTL France wasn't fully sure they could trust Frederick to not simply turn the Prussian armies on the Saxons or even attack France after gaining what he wanted from Austria.

If I didnt have the stresses of my job and other considerations, not to mention my own alternate history series based off gameplay on Europa Universalis IV to work on, I'd love to devote some time and effort into churning out a timeline in which the WoAS results in the partition of the Hapsburg Monarchy and a French-puppet dynasty as Holy Roman Emperors. The butterflies that would result from this would be interesting to chart, and I could always use the imput of others to guide me.

I would like to thank everyone who's posted on this What If, as I enjoy the discourse and the different ideas on how this alt-WoAS would play out. I hope to continue to discuss this and maybe at some point down the road I might turn all these discussion points into a credible alternate timeline.
 
Except that assuming Bavaria is the main victor in Germany, would imply that Austria proper goes to Bavaria. The whole matter was the various powers repudiating the Pragmatic Sanction, which means that by that logic, Maria Theresa would no longer be recognized as heir to any of the Habsburg lands within the HRE (which ran under a rule that females cannot directly inherit). If Hungary chooses to cut ties with the Habsburgs as a whole on top of that, then Maria Theresa would effectively be reduced to being just Grand Duchess-consort of Tuscany and little else otherwise (as the GD of Tuscany was by this point independent of the Holy Roman Empire).
Well...Bavaria only really wanted to claim Bohemia and Upper Austria as a means of enlarging their own powerbase because they believed that it was the large powerbase that enabled the Hapsburgs to secure the title in the first place. Considering how long the Hapsburgs held the title IOTL (with the brief exception of 1742-45), its not that farfetched a notion. Lower Austria, Carinthia, Carniola and Styria would be left to Maria Theresa, assuming Bavaria doesn't also seize Tyrol, and Hungary goes independent. But then, with her husband as Grand Duke of Tuscany, that would open the door to a sort of revival of Hapsburg fortunes because Francis Stephen could essentially make Tuscany an integral part of the Hapsburg Inheritance, much as previous Archduke/Emperors had made Bohemia and Hungary integral parts. Should such a thing happen, down the road it could lead to an surprising array to face Napoleon
 
Well...Bavaria only really wanted to claim Bohemia and Upper Austria as a means of enlarging their own powerbase because they believed that it was the large powerbase that enabled the Hapsburgs to secure the title in the first place. Considering how long the Hapsburgs held the title IOTL (with the brief exception of 1742-45), its not that farfetched a notion. Lower Austria, Carinthia, Carniola and Styria would be left to Maria Theresa, assuming Bavaria doesn't also seize Tyrol, and Hungary goes independent. But then, with her husband as Grand Duke of Tuscany, that would open the door to a sort of revival of Hapsburg fortunes because Francis Stephen could essentially make Tuscany an integral part of the Hapsburg Inheritance, much as previous Archduke/Emperors had made Bohemia and Hungary integral parts. Should such a thing happen, down the road it could lead to an surprising array to face Napoleon
Honestly, I would've thought, and assumed, they would've wanted the whole thing (at least within the Empire of course) rather just Bohemia and Upper Austria (and Lower Austria, mind you. Karl VII did want to conquer Vienna, which was right in the center of Lower Austria) so assuming that it happens as stated, then yeah, it would be reduced to just Carinthia, Carniola and Styria (which title would be the primary one though would be the big question though)
 
That seems quite odd that Blanning said that as Vergennes was not one of France's top ministers at the time, indeed, he was far from being one at the time. When the war began, Vergennes was an assistant to his relative, Chavigny, the ambassador to Portugal, which was not involved in the War of the Austrian Succession. Later Vergennes and Chavigny were given a post with Holy Roman Emperor Charles VII but that was only in 1743, around the same time that Bavaria was being overrun by the Austrians and the French armies were retreating from Germany. The very next year, the Austrians would invade Alsace-Lorraine, so by the time Chavigny got close to the action, things were looking dire rather than like Austria was on the verge of collapse. Even then Vergennes was still more than two steps away from power as the assistant to an ambassador behind the likes of Fleury, Belle-Isle, Maurepas, and Argenson. So for there to have been a tangible Vergennes Plan seems unlikely and for that plan to ever be considered by the French government even less likely.

Also, the Duchy of Parma and Piacenza had been ceded by Charles of Bourbon to Austria to compensate Emperor Charles VI for ceding Naples and Sicily to Charles of Bourbon after the conclusion of the War of the Austrian Succession. Regaining Parma and Piacenza as well as conquering Milan, were among the war goals of Spain in the War of the Austrian Succession. But you are right that France already had the right of succession to Lorraine, which casts further doubt on Blanning's familiarity with this topic. However, for Blanning to be unacquainted and consequently wrong on the subjects regarding the War of the Austrian Succession would make sense since it's one of the criminally understudied conflicts in the Anglosphere due to the fact that Britain's involvement was inglorious and limited.

Regarding an alternate War of the Austrian Succession there are certainly a million PODs for this war with any number of consequences. The Vergennes plan you describe is similar to the plan the actual French leaders conjured up ahead of the Moravian Campaign, which consisted of Bavaria gaining most of Bohemia, Austria, and Tyrol; Saxony gaining parts of Moravia and a Silesian land bridge to Poland, and Prussia being left with most of Silesia, as far as I can recall. At the time, France did not plan on conquering the Austrian Netherlands mainly because Britain and France were not technically legally involved in the war yet and any invasion of the Austrian Netherlands immediately changes that. In Italy, France was in talks with Sardinia to gain their support against the Austrians meanwhile the Spanish were eager to conquer some of the Austrian lands in northern Italy. Surprisingly, Tuscany was not discussed very much. Although the negotiations continued for a while, its unlikely that the Sardinians would have ever accepted a deal with the Bourbons mainly because their interests did not line up all that well (both the Spanish and Sardinians wanted Milan and Mantua) and because the Sardinians had less trust in the Bourbons than the Austrians. Historically, French campaigning failed in Moravia due to massive miscoordination. Afterward, Saxony changed sides, Prussia made a separate peace, and Bavaria was overrun. By 1743, the French had evacuated Bavaria, Prussia was only just starting to think about rejoining the war, and Austria had signed the Treaty of Worms with Britain, Sardinia, and the Netherlands to secure significant support from each of them.

I'd argue that even at this point, there was still a possibility of the Hapsburgs being partitioned. However, if you want a German partition as suggested by this so-called Vergennes plan, you probably want the anti-Hapsburg forces to win the Moravian and Bohemian campaigns of 1742. This would require the Prussians, Saxons, and Bavarians actually coordinating during 1742 and decisively defeating the Austrians in 1742 ahead of taking Vienna possibly in 1743. However, in this case, don't expect the Hungarians to end up a kingdom free of the Hapsburgs. the Hungarians had already decided to side with the Hapsburgs in 1740 and never wavered. Additionally, don't expect the Hapsburgs to lose the Austrian Netherlands, the French armies haven't taken it and the French had not planned on doing so yet, mainly because doing so would have brought an actual war with Britain rather than the limited conflict that the two countries had been fighting. In Italy, maybe if the Hapsburgs look like they are on the verge of faltering then the Sardinians will begrudgingly join the Bourbons and conquer the Hapsburg positions there. The Sardinians will certainly get Milan and the Bourbons will get Parma and Piacenza. However, Mantua is a big question mark. The Sardinians certainly want it but so do the Spanish. Unlike in the War of the Polish Succession, even if there Sardinians sabotage the campaign, Mantua will fall due to the pressure the Germans will be putting on Vienna. Maybe, the Spanish violate Tuscany's neutrality and conquer it and in return agree to let the Sardinians get Mantua.

France put no effort into American campaigns during the war. The reason their continental campaigns were lackluster before 1744 was because the French weren't actually at war and as a consequence were not putting forth their best effort. The French can and should have taken opportunities to challenge the British navy during the War of the Austrian Succession like Toulon. Any naval victory over the British will really open up the military options available to the French.

The Dutch won't join the French. The Dutch might agree to neutrality with the French as they did in the War of the Polish Succession but the pressure from the British might push them toward war. Either way, the Dutch are not a military power at this point and likely get defeated if they end up in direct confrontation with the French. They would not be overrun, but certainly defeated. However, as mentioned above, the French aren't even officially at war with anyone let alone the Dutch. So they might not fight each other at all.

The Saxons did not have any plans to annex the Swabian lands of the Hapsburgs. I can check the details later, but as I recall their plans included the land bridge and parts of Bohemia and Moravia.

At the beginning of the war, Maria Theresa appealed to the Hungarians for troops and they were so enthusiastic that they promised her 100,000 men. They did not end up actually providing 100,000 men but the fact that they even suggested they would is indicative about the mood in Hungary. The Hungarians were supportive of the Hapsburgs and were not going to rebel.

Sweden and Russia had their own war to fight, which could be butterflied away fairly easily. Even then, Russia can be kept out of the war by any number of PODs. Portugal had no intention of involving itself in the war. In fact, Vergennes' actual job during the war was to make sure that Portugal stayed out, which proved fairly easy.



I've seen decent arguments made that the British would have accepted Bonnie Prince Charles if he had ejected the Hanoverians. The Tories were still anti-Hanoverian in a way and George II didn't endear the common folk. But the army stood by the government during the 45 rising. If the French send an army and defeat the British army then maybe the Stuarts are restored.



The Russian march did actually frighten the French and push them toward peace. Not necessarily because the French believed that the Russians would roll back all their gains but because the Russians made the cost of any further conflict too high to be worth it.



Spain already had Sicily and Naples after the War of the Austrian Succession. And Savoy already owned Sardinia after the War of the Quadruple Alliance.

Without French troops, the Jacobites are not much of a distraction and the French understood that. That's why when the French were actually considering supporting a Jacobite uprising they were going to give the Stuarts a French army and Maurice of Saxony to get it done. However, a storm ruined the invasion preparations and the French called it off. Anyways, if the French and Spanish can someone grab British colonies then they would be much better served actually supporting the Jacobites with troops and materials.

The Prussians were much more favorable to a Bavarian emperorship than a Hapsburg emperorship. The Ottomans also are in little shape to reconquer Hungary, they barely defeated the Austrians in the 1737 war and they have more pressing concerns in the east.



I'm not sure the tea leaves were all that favorable. But anyways the thing holding the French back was that Fleury was still in charge.

-----

If you want a total partition of the Hapsburg empire that reduces them to just Hungary (because Hungary is not rebelling and Bavaria has no interest in Hungary) then you need Fleury to die ahead of the war so that more bellicose minds like Belle-Isle or Maurepas and Argenson can design an actually competent war effort rather than the haphazard tomfoolery that Fleury oversaw during the beginning of the war. With Belle-Isle in charge, French armies pushing for Vienna, French armies overrunning the Southern Netherlands, and French subsidies buying half of Europe's powers in the very first year of the war are entirely possible.
With each author, new information is often revealed about a particular period in history, depending on what the author's particular area of expertise is. So its possible that at the time he wrote the book, Blanning may not have had all the information available, or it may have only been uncovered later.

I was not completely sure about all the personalities of the period, but I did research Fleury some. I will admit that you are correct in that he wanted to keep France from becoming too overambitious. It was the reason he managed to form a temporary alliance with Britain to oppose the attempts of Philip V and Farnese (Spain) to alter the terms of Utrecht.

As to the Saxon-Poland dynastic connection, it may have been true that Russia wouldnt be overly concerned about any bridge between the Electorate and the PLC at first. But if we surmise that Saxony also gets portions of Bohemia (possibly divided with Bavaria) and Moravia, then I could see Russia becoming more concerned. Because if the same dynasty ruling Saxony could enlarge their Electorate, then what's to stop them from eventually improving conditions in the PLC to such a degree that they can look at enlarging Poland's territory in the future. It would obviously require the abolition of the liberum veto, but as of yet only Russia would be alarmed by such an event. Austria and Prussia would possibly welcome such as it would provide them with a more solidly unified buffer against Russian expansion.
 
With each author, new information is often revealed about a particular period in history, depending on what the author's particular area of expertise is. So its possible that at the time he wrote the book, Blanning may not have had all the information available, or it may have only been uncovered later.

I was not completely sure about all the personalities of the period, but I did research Fleury some. I will admit that you are correct in that he wanted to keep France from becoming too overambitious. It was the reason he managed to form a temporary alliance with Britain to oppose the attempts of Philip V and Farnese (Spain) to alter the terms of Utrecht.

As to the Saxon-Poland dynastic connection, it may have been true that Russia wouldnt be overly concerned about any bridge between the Electorate and the PLC at first. But if we surmise that Saxony also gets portions of Bohemia (possibly divided with Bavaria) and Moravia, then I could see Russia becoming more concerned. Because if the same dynasty ruling Saxony could enlarge their Electorate, then what's to stop them from eventually improving conditions in the PLC to such a degree that they can look at enlarging Poland's territory in the future. It would obviously require the abolition of the liberum veto, but as of yet only Russia would be alarmed by such an event. Austria and Prussia would possibly welcome such as it would provide them with a more solidly unified buffer against Russian expansion.
What stands as the current definitive guide on the War of the Austrian Succession Reed Browning's War of the Austrian Succession was published in 1993 compared to Blanning's book being published in 2007. That alone would have informed Blanning that his assertion was faulty.

Fleury's goal was in a way to keep France from being overambitious but the main fault I have with Fleury is that he premised that goal on a complete miscalculation of France's relative strength. Fleury didn't want France to be overambitious because he thought France was too weak and broken to be ambitious. Fleury held this belief through numerous episodes that should have shaken it. Most notably even during the War of the Polish Succession, he stuck to this belief. If Fleury was ever useful or ever the right leader for France it was during the 1720s when the British tried to push France into a more serious continental war against the Hapsburgs, Spaniards, and Russians. France might have won that war, it might not have. More importantly, France had little to gain from that war and the unity of the Empire and the energy of the Spanish would have made any war too costly. But by 1731, Fleury had already shown he was out of date when despite his alliance with Spain he was beyond reluctant to back them up in fulfilling the terms of the Treaty of Seville, which promised Parma to Spain. Instead, Fleury stood back while the Austrians occupied Parma. Britain instead ended up being the one defending Spain's interests and coercing the Austrians into evacuating Parma. The War of the Polish Succession was a testament to how to mismanage a war that saw the French waste all their advantages and most of their victories. Even then the peace Fleury signed was laughable. Finally, Fleury blundered through the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession. Fleury effectively wasted a decade and a half of France's power and hamstrung it through two wars.

The main thing about Poland is that Russia has dominated the political scene since before 1710 and after Augustus the Strong, the Saxons only ever showed a weak interest in actually managing the Commonwealth. A stronger Saxony is by no means contrary to Russian interests as Saxony can act as a counterbalance to Prussia. Also, a larger electorate may keep Saxony more occupied with German affairs. Also, I think Bestuzhev wanted a Saxon wife for Peter III as a signal of Russian friendliness with Saxony. Meanwhile, the landbridge may actually be beneficial to the Russians as Poland being more accessible to the Saxons should make Saxony selling off chunks of Poland to Prussa as Augustus the Strong attempted to do less likely. Obviously, if the Saxons ever do demonstrate greater interest in governing Poland and in resisting Russian interests then this becomes a problem, but at the time, that didn't seem like an approaching prblem.
 
What stands as the current definitive guide on the War of the Austrian Succession Reed Browning's War of the Austrian Succession was published in 1993 compared to Blanning's book being published in 2007. That alone would have informed Blanning that his assertion was faulty.

Fleury's goal was in a way to keep France from being overambitious but the main fault I have with Fleury is that he premised that goal on a complete miscalculation of France's relative strength. Fleury didn't want France to be overambitious because he thought France was too weak and broken to be ambitious. Fleury held this belief through numerous episodes that should have shaken it. Most notably even during the War of the Polish Succession, he stuck to this belief. If Fleury was ever useful or ever the right leader for France it was during the 1720s when the British tried to push France into a more serious continental war against the Hapsburgs, Spaniards, and Russians. France might have won that war, it might not have. More importantly, France had little to gain from that war and the unity of the Empire and the energy of the Spanish would have made any war too costly. But by 1731, Fleury had already shown he was out of date when despite his alliance with Spain he was beyond reluctant to back them up in fulfilling the terms of the Treaty of Seville, which promised Parma to Spain. Instead, Fleury stood back while the Austrians occupied Parma. Britain instead ended up being the one defending Spain's interests and coercing the Austrians into evacuating Parma. The War of the Polish Succession was a testament to how to mismanage a war that saw the French waste all their advantages and most of their victories. Even then the peace Fleury signed was laughable. Finally, Fleury blundered through the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession. Fleury effectively wasted a decade and a half of France's power and hamstrung it through two wars.

The main thing about Poland is that Russia has dominated the political scene since before 1710 and after Augustus the Strong, the Saxons only ever showed a weak interest in actually managing the Commonwealth. A stronger Saxony is by no means contrary to Russian interests as Saxony can act as a counterbalance to Prussia. Also, a larger electorate may keep Saxony more occupied with German affairs. Also, I think Bestuzhev wanted a Saxon wife for Peter III as a signal of Russian friendliness with Saxony. Meanwhile, the landbridge may actually be beneficial to the Russians as Poland being more accessible to the Saxons should make Saxony selling off chunks of Poland to Prussa as Augustus the Strong attempted to do less likely. Obviously, if the Saxons ever do demonstrate greater interest in governing Poland and in resisting Russian interests then this becomes a problem, but at the time, that didn't seem like an approaching prblem.
Well, in an alternate WoAS, it could be likely that while a stronger Saxony could potentially balance Prussia. The Saxons might want to have Poland-Lithuania strengthened so they have a manpower reservior should Prussia continue to make gains at Austria's expense. PLUS, they do manage to divide Bohemia with the Bavarians, they'd likely gain an easily defensible position in regard to both Prussia, Bavaria (because they may not fully trust the intentions of the new Bavarian Emperor), and Rump Austria (which would no doubt be seeking revenge and a chance to reclaim what had been seized). If they cultivated good relations with Russia and convinced them that a stronger Poland-Lithuania would also benefit Russia both in relation to Prussia and the Ottoman Empire, Russia might be more amenable to the idea. It would remain to be seen, however, if the Poles themselves would simply comply with their Saxon suzerains or use the increased army size and strength to attempt to assert themselves against both the Saxons and Russia.
 
Honestly, I would've thought, and assumed, they would've wanted the whole thing (at least within the Empire of course) rather just Bohemia and Upper Austria (and Lower Austria, mind you. Karl VII did want to conquer Vienna, which was right in the center of Lower Austria) so assuming that it happens as stated, then yeah, it would be reduced to just Carinthia, Carniola and Styria (which title would be the primary one though would be the big question though)
While the initial plan was for Bavaria to take Bohemia and Upper Austria, they could just as easily make a grab for Lower Austria for the main reason being the Austrian capital itself. For any Bavarian elector who had become emperor, Vienna-the seat of Hapsburg power-would be a major propaganda boom for them. There had been an off-and-on rivalry between Bavaria and Austria going back a century IOTL, so if the alt WoAS awoke that ancient rivalry, Bavaria would want to reduce the Hapsburg power base to such a point they no longer would factor in the HRE.
 
Okay....not changing the subject, as this ties into the main subject of the What If...
I'm putting this out there because everyone that's replied has been very respectful, helpful and insightful (the fact you've often presenting things I either didn't fully know or didn't take into account speaks to your knowledge and its appreciated). That said, my question is:

Given that the alternate WoAS happens, and taking into account everyone's input, still sticking for the moment with the idea that France and Prussia manages to partition the Hapsburg Monarchy with Bavaria, Saxony, Spain and Sardinia-Piedmont, what would the likely future of the Holy Roman Empire under the Bavarian Wittelsbachs (who AFAIK IOTL were never Holy Roman Emperors) look like? Main things to consider are:
- Austria could potentially try to reclaim the mantle of Holy Roman Emperor through any means, including war
- Prussia, fearing the increasing French domination of the Imperial Diet with a Wittelsbach emperor, could attempt to either seize the mantle for themselves or even begin a program of unification that later leads to a showdown between Bavaria and Prussia.
- France could, in stages, usurp the authority of the Bavarians to the point where the Wittelsbachs are emperors in name only, the real power being in the French Bourbon dynasty. This could lead to a continuation of the Ancien Regime, meaning no French Revolution on the scale that it happened IOTL

By no means am I ending the discussions overall, as I appreciate all the insights you guys bring. I'm curious as to how you'd see the future of the Holy Roman Empire post-WoAS
 
Well, in an alternate WoAS, it could be likely that while a stronger Saxony could potentially balance Prussia. The Saxons might want to have Poland-Lithuania strengthened so they have a manpower reservior should Prussia continue to make gains at Austria's expense. PLUS, they do manage to divide Bohemia with the Bavarians, they'd likely gain an easily defensible position in regard to both Prussia, Bavaria (because they may not fully trust the intentions of the new Bavarian Emperor), and Rump Austria (which would no doubt be seeking revenge and a chance to reclaim what had been seized). If they cultivated good relations with Russia and convinced them that a stronger Poland-Lithuania would also benefit Russia both in relation to Prussia and the Ottoman Empire, Russia might be more amenable to the idea. It would remain to be seen, however, if the Poles themselves would simply comply with their Saxon suzerains or use the increased army size and strength to attempt to assert themselves against both the Saxons and Russia.
AFAIK, in OTL the Electors of Saxony managed to strengthen their army to a degree making it a meaningful opponent to Prussia or Austria. Now, the part regarding the PLC and Russia is quite intriguing because the Russian policy regarding (and within) the PLC was seemingly mutually-contradictive. On one hand the PLC was considered a potentially useful in the case of conflict with the Ottomans (which seemingly would be an argument in favor of having it stronger) while on the other an idea was to exercise a maximum possible “influence” in it, which meant to keep it weak. As far as I can tell, after the WoPS these seemingly mutually-contradictive purposes merged into one: keep the PLC as weak as possible.

The PLC as a military factor after the WoPS had been looking upon with an extreme disdain and its potential usefulness was considered strictly along the lines of its territory being used as a supply base with an understanding that the Russian troops can march through it with an impunity and that any manifestation of the unhappiness would be crushed without a difficulty (*). Having few pet ...oops... pro-Russian magnates (pensions, some Russian state awards) pretty much guaranteed that the PLC would not be able to implement any anti-Russian policies.

Which means that in an unlikely case the Saxon rulers manage to improve the Electorate’s military capacity that extra capacity would not and could not be used to increase the royal power within the PLC. Both the Poles and the Russians would be against it.

_______
(*) As did happen during the 7YW and the Ottoman wars of CII. AFAIK, the Polish resistance to the Russian usage of the PLC a territory during the Russo Ottoman War of 1787 - 92 (protests against Russian marching through it, selling supplies to the Ottomans, refusal to sell food to the Russian troops) was one of the underlying motivations which led to the 2nd Partition: in the case of the next Ottoman war there would be no need to go through the PLC lands. Of course, the Polish attempt to create a meaningful state with a reasonably strong army was another factor and an answer to your idea regarding the PLC as a meaningful Russian ally against the Ottomans (I’m not sure whom at that point the Poles hated more, probably the Russians; at least the Bar confederates had been raiding from the Ottoman territory triggering war of 1768-74).

Edit: One possible effect of the crippled Austria is that MT is not in a position to start annexation of the Polish territory by taking Szepes County in 1769–1770. Prussia alone probably would not be enough to blackmail CII into an agreement to the 1st Partition. OTOH, if the Hapsburg “empire” disintegrates as a result of the WoAS than there is no 7YW and the whole partitioning thing does not happen (ditto for many other events).
 
Last edited:
Top