A Bavarian succession in Spain??

Ok..I read in a book called "The Emergence of the Great Powers 1696-1789' that at the time that the last Hapsburg King of Spain, Carlos III, was a sickly monarch who often stayed sick more than he was healthy. Just before his death he willed the throne of Spain to his cousin (?) Phillippe duc d'Anjou, grandson of Louis XIV king of France. The Austrian Hapsburg relation, Archduke Charles (soon to be Charles IV Holy Roman Emperor) was dead set against this as it would deprive the Hapsburgs of a wealthy crownland (Spain), the loss of an overseas empire, and the enlargement of their Bourbon enemy. The Dutch and British were concerned about the colonial trade with the Spanish colonies which could be endangered if the crown of Spain were united to the French crown. All Europe feared the unification of the French and Spanish crowns as the main objective of the Bourbons was to acquire the German (HRE) crown. If all three crowns were united, a Bourbon version of Charles V's empire would be born.

After negotiations were started between French, English and Dutch representatives..a treaty (name unknown) was drawn up which would give Spain, the Spanish Netherlands and the Colonies to France...Austria would get Milan, Naples and Sicily. The Spanish hated this treaty cuz it would partition their empire, and they preferred that it go wholly to either Bourbon or Hapsburg. The Spanish loved the Turkish War hero Maximillian of Bavaria (Wittelsbach), so a second treaty was drawn up which would grant Milan to France, Naples and Sicily to Austria and left the remaining Spanish territories to Maximillian. It was revised at the insistence of the Spanish so that the entire Spanish inheritance would go to Maximillian. Everyone supported this treaty as the Bavarian Wittelsbachs had no ambitions to assume that 'universal monarchy' threatened by both Hapsburg and Bourbon. Unfortunately, Maximillian died before the treaty could be implemented.

SO, back to the negotiating table they went. The final partition treaty, which would be implemented at Utrecht in 1714 called for the cession of the Spanish Netherlands (Belgium), Milan, Naples and Sicily to Austria and forbade the union of the Spanish and French crowns under one dynasty. Obviously as the later Spanish Succession War drew in otherwise neutral nations with the promise of territory, the Utrecht Treaty seen many revisions. For example, the Duke of Savoy, formerly a French ally, abandoned them when he was promised Sicily and Piedmont. Brandenburg-Prussia was promised part of Pomerania and recognition as KinginPrussia. The Dutch were guaranteed trade rights in the Spanish empire and were allowed to close the Scheldt to traffic (which would damage Antwerp's commerce for years to come). At Utrecht, Savoy got the lands promised, but in a later deal made with the Hapsburgs were able to trade Sicily for Sardinia (the Hapsburgs apparently did not trust the House of Savoy to not simply switch allegiance again, and most likely did see them becoming a great power later on......BOY WERE THEY WRONG!)Once Archduke Charles became Holy Roman Emperor as Charles IV, the idea of restoring a Hapsburg to Spain became unpalatable to all save the Hapsburgs (it was rumored they kept the 'King of Spain' title among their many titles until well after the Napoleonic War). Thus a junior branch of the Bourbon line established itself in Spain which still rules to this day (though not without interruptions...i.e Franco)

Now that the OTL situation has been established (and I got to show off my knowledge of history), this is the scenario I pose....what if Maximillian of Bavaria had not died, and assumed the throne of Spain? Would there have still been a French revolution? How would the Spanish American colonies achieve independence?.....more into the future, what about the Spanish-American War?
 
Well, surely there would still be some kind of war, as the French would want some pieces of Habsburg territory, while the Spanish believed the Josepf Ferdinand's inheritance consisted of the entire Spanish Empire. There were some earlier threads discussing this subject that might help you with some ideas ;):

Wittelsbach Spain

The Spanish Wittelsbachs

WI: Joseph Ferdinand survives; different final partition?

WI Joseph Ferdinand of Wittelsbach doesn't die?

My thanks to you for being the first to open this discussion wide. Hopefully others will take up the call :)
 
A few points:
1. Assume that if you're posing as question, the majority of people who are going to answer will have at least a basic knowledge of the situation if not extensive. Honestly you're wasting your time right off the bat establishing an extensive background, if someone needs clarification later on they'll ask (if they can't find it elsewhere).

2. You've confused a lot of personages. Carlos III was a later Bourbon King of Spain, Carlos II (aka Charles the Bewitched) was the last (recognized) Habsburg King of Spain. Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor was from the House of Luxembourg, reigned during the 14th century, and actually sought to limit the emerging power of the natal House of Habsburg. Charles VI, was the Habsburg claimant to the Spanish Throne (as Charles III, as I have noted he was not recognized by history hence why a Bourbon bares the title), who was an acceptable candidate for the Dutch and British until his elder brother Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, die and he succeeded to the Imperial Throne. Finally Maximilian II, the Bavaria Elector you say was the compromise candidate for the throne, was the father of the actual candidate Joseph Ferdinand, and therefore likely his regent, however the young Wittelsbach preceded his great-Uncle, Charles II in death.

3. Finally for a good TL on this exact PoD, see Susano's It's a Royal Knockout (http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/it_s_a_royal_knockout/timeline_part_1)

EDIT: Also all of Gonzaga's WI links are good too, I just didn't have the patience to find them.
 
A few points:
1. Assume that if you're posing as question, the majority of people who are going to answer will have at least a basic knowledge of the situation if not extensive. Honestly you're wasting your time right off the bat establishing an extensive background, if someone needs clarification later on they'll ask (if they can't find it elsewhere).

2. You've confused a lot of personages. Carlos III was a later Bourbon King of Spain, Carlos II (aka Charles the Bewitched) was the last (recognized) Habsburg King of Spain. Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor was from the House of Luxembourg, reigned during the 14th century, and actually sought to limit the emerging power of the natal House of Habsburg. Charles VI, was the Habsburg claimant to the Spanish Throne (as Charles III, as I have noted he was not recognized by history hence why a Bourbon bares the title), who was an acceptable candidate for the Dutch and British until his elder brother Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, die and he succeeded to the Imperial Throne. Finally Maximilian II, the Bavaria Elector you say was the compromise candidate for the throne, was the father of the actual candidate Joseph Ferdinand, and therefore likely his regent, however the young Wittelsbach preceded his great-Uncle, Charles II in death.

3. Finally for a good TL on this exact PoD, see Susano's It's a Royal Knockout (http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/it_s_a_royal_knockout/timeline_part_1)

EDIT: Also all of Gonzaga's WI links are good too, I just didn't have the patience to find them.

Er, Leopold I was Charles VI's father, his elder brother Joseph I was Charles VI's predecessor, and although the Habsburgs were winning during Leopold's reign, the war began to turn at Joseph I's accession. Other than that you're right.
 
A few points:
1. Assume that if you're posing as question, the majority of people who are going to answer will have at least a basic knowledge of the situation if not extensive. Honestly you're wasting your time right off the bat establishing an extensive background, if someone needs clarification later on they'll ask (if they can't find it elsewhere).

2. You've confused a lot of personages. Carlos III was a later Bourbon King of Spain, Carlos II (aka Charles the Bewitched) was the last (recognized) Habsburg King of Spain. Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor was from the House of Luxembourg, reigned during the 14th century, and actually sought to limit the emerging power of the natal House of Habsburg. Charles VI, was the Habsburg claimant to the Spanish Throne (as Charles III, as I have noted he was not recognized by history hence why a Bourbon bares the title), who was an acceptable candidate for the Dutch and British until his elder brother Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, die and he succeeded to the Imperial Throne. Finally Maximilian II, the Bavaria Elector you say was the compromise candidate for the throne, was the father of the actual candidate Joseph Ferdinand, and therefore likely his regent, however the young Wittelsbach preceded his great-Uncle, Charles II in death.

3. Finally for a good TL on this exact PoD, see Susano's It's a Royal Knockout (http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php/timelines/it_s_a_royal_knockout/timeline_part_1)

EDIT: Also all of Gonzaga's WI links are good too, I just didn't have the patience to find them.

Ok...while I do appreciate the constructive criticism...the whole 'wasting your time' part could've been left out. Its not a waste of time if one is posing a serious alternate outcome, even if they do get some facts confused.
 
Er, Leopold I was Charles VI's father, his elder brother Joseph I was Charles VI's predecessor, and although the Habsburgs were winning during Leopold's reign, the war began to turn at Joseph I's accession. Other than that you're right.
You are correct sir. I apologize, forgot about dear old Joseph I, and didn't bother to check with Jimmy Wales.

Ok...while I do appreciate the constructive criticism...the whole 'wasting your time' part could've been left out. Its not a waste of time if one is posing a serious alternate outcome, even if they do get some facts confused.
If you want to post an extended background by all means be my guest. I'm just stating that you can assume, like I said, most people will have some knowledge, and a post that long usually takes some time to write, so save yourself some time. And if someone fudges up, they'll get called out on it (see my post, then see Savoytruffle's).
 
You are correct sir. I apologize, forgot about dear old Joseph I, and didn't bother to check with Jimmy Wales.


If you want to post an extended background by all means be my guest. I'm just stating that you can assume, like I said, most people will have some knowledge, and a post that long usually takes some time to write, so save yourself some time. And if someone fudges up, they'll get called out on it (see my post, then see Savoytruffle's).

Thank you for the calm and rationalism with which you explained that. Wish there were more like you here.
 
Top