Best Case for Spain

How about Spain does better in he war of Spanish succession? France is still defeated, but neither Gibraltar or Minroca fall, so Britain gains more territory at the expense of France instead.

As far I know Gibraltar and possibly Minorca simply surrendered to the Austrian candidate, but then Britain stabbed the Austrians in the back signing the Treaty of Utrecht and used her troops deployed there to back her "conquests".

A partition of New France, around 40 years earlier may be likely. In exchange for their gains at France's expense, Spain surrenders its claim to Andorra.

There isn't and never has been a Spanish claim to Andorra. It just happens that one of Andorra's princes is (usually) of Spanish nationality.
 
Originally posted by Tocomocho
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor_of_Rockingham
How about Spain does better in he war of Spanish succession? France is still defeated, but neither Gibraltar or Minroca fall, so Britain gains more territory at the expense of France instead.

As far I know Gibraltar and possibly Minorca simply surrendered to the Austrian candidate, but then Britain stabbed the Austrians in the back signing the Treaty of Utrecht and used her troops deployed there to back her "conquests".

Quote:
A partition of New France, around 40 years earlier may be likely. In exchange for their gains at France's expense, Spain surrenders its claim to Andorra.
There isn't and never has been a Spanish claim to Andorra. It just happens that one of Andorra's princes is (usually) of Spanish nationality.

Yes, in fact Charles VI emperor of Austria and pretendant to the spanish throne was a man that loved a lot Spain and had a great loyalty to their followers while at Utrecht the majority of the allies of Austria decided to made the peace, Charles try to follow the war in defense of his pretentions and his followers in Spain, it would be until that it was clear that Austria could not gain any, that it was isolated and with great economic problems to continue the war and that Catalonia was practically lost when Charles agree to sign the peace of Rastadt in march of 1714 with the borbons.

The english not only stabbed in the back the austrians in Utrecht, also occupied Minorca and not made any movement when the last stronghold of the habsburgs in Spain: Ibiza, Formentera and Mallorca was conquested by a borbon spanish expedition in june 1715 (in the peninsular Spain the last strongholds were Barcelona and Cardona that were taken in september 1714).

Tocomocho is totally correct about Andorra, in fact the spanish coprince of Andorra is the bishop of Urgel (in 1933 when Andorra suffered one of his worse crisis with republican agitation and a french occupation to restablish the order, briefly a dutch adventurer proclaimed the kingdom of Andorra using the name of Boris I, he was overthrown by andorrans little after of declaring the war ... to the bishop of Urgel, coprince of Andorra)
 
3)Venice isn't in a position to complain.

It is if France backs it, which it most likely will.

4)The formal concession would allow the Spaniards to wipe out the Barbary Pirates without retaliation though. Secondly, Algiers, I suggested, would be allowed to retain its formal indepdnace as per some treaty or another, in exchange for aiding Spain to conquer Morroco, their ultimate goal. That would likel offset any embarrasment.

It's a horrible deal. They better hope Naples doesn't revolt when they find out about it. But first you have to decide what it is you want them to conquer: Algiers or Morocco? Because if it's Morocco, the situation's even worse. Algiers isn't gonna help them conquer Morocco just because the sultan told them to, they're smart enough to see that they'll be the next target in any campaign against the Barbary pirates. The Spanish would lose territory and reputation in exchange for a promise from the Ottomans that they'll order the people who they can't control to set up their own noose.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I guess my point about Spain being largely uninvaded

leads me to the idea that essentially the survival of the Spanish Empire intact basically depends on their being no Neapoleon, or no equivalently bold and successful continental conqueror (in all likelihood, a French one).
 

Rockingham

Banned
1)As far I know Gibraltar and possibly Minorca simply surrendered to the Austrian candidate, but then Britain stabbed the Austrians in the back signing the Treaty of Utrecht and used her troops deployed there to back her "conquests".



2)There isn't and never has been a Spanish claim to Andorra. It just happens that one of Andorra's princes is (usually) of Spanish nationality.
1)Well then, you have to either prevent the British from doing this, have them fail or have the Bourbons take the territory first.

2):eek:Fair enough... But the Spanish won't neccesarily recognize that formality...they can quite easily promise the French they wont intervene in any French attempt to conquer Andorra, and force the Bishop of Urgel to withdraw his claim.



1)It is if France backs it, which it most likely will.



2)It's a horrible deal. They better hope Naples doesn't revolt when they find out about it. But first you have to decide what it is you want them to conquer: Algiers or Morocco? Because if it's Morocco, the situation's even worse. Algiers isn't gonna help them conquer Morocco just because the sultan told them to, they're smart enough to see that they'll be the next target in any campaign against the Barbary pirates. The Spanish would lose territory and reputation in exchange for a promise from the Ottomans that they'll order the people who they can't control to set up their own noose.
1) Bare in mind, the French wouldn't though. They are acquiring Savoyard territory in exchange, Venice is in all likelihood being pushed into an alliance with France, and Austria was occupying modern day Alsace-Lorraine at the time the treaty was signed. France did pretty well in accepting the deal.

2)Yes...on second thoughts, your probably right.
 
No French Revolutionary or Napoleonic wars. Spain needed peace in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to allow more moderate reforms. Instead they got reforms being cancelled because of fears of the French Revolution, defeat by France, years of being dragged along as a reluctant ally, during which they lost most of their navy, and then invasion, occupation, conventional, guerrilla, and civil war, political upheaval, and loss of most of its overseas empire.

I wonder if a Spain that was given a long period of peace could gradually give its colonies in the Americas more independence and turn the whole vast area between Mexico and Tierra del Fuego into a sort of "Spanish Commonwealth" over time. Its probably not likely, but I don't think its impossible.
 
1)
2):eek:Fair enough... But the Spanish won't neccesarily recognize that formality...they can quite easily promise the French they wont intervene in any French attempt to conquer Andorra, and force the Bishop of Urgel to withdraw his claim.

Andorra is a tiny, tiny territory of several mountain valleys with no economical or strategic value whatsoever. Exchanging it for any concession anywhere else would be downright silly.
 

Susano

Banned
You are projecting the effects of the Congress of Vienna back in time. Prussia was hardly a power before getting Silesia and wasn't that great right after. Austria faced and was kicked repeately by the Spanish in Italy. And Russia's influence in European affairs was at best regional during most of the century.
It is true Vienna formalised the entire thing, with the pentarchy being able to give out mandates to restore "proper order" in countries (like with France in Spain 1822), but those five powers didnt become great powers due to the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars - they already were in the 18th century. Though, youre right in that Prussias ascension as fifth Great Power probably only came later, by the time of Frederick II (not that he is, contrary to popular cocneption responsible fo rthat, that would be his three precedessors, but he showed what they had built up on the international scene and hence Prussia became accepted as great power).

Spain, though, had few influence after its sucession war, or at leats thats the impression I get...
 

Rockingham

Banned
It is true Vienna formalised the entire thing, with the pentarchy being able to give out mandates to restore "proper order" in countries (like with France in Spain 1822), but those five powers didnt become great powers due to the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars - they already were in the 18th century. Though, youre right in that Prussias ascension as fifth Great Power probably only came later, by the time of Frederick II (not that he is, contrary to popular cocneption responsible fo rthat, that would be his three precedessors, but he showed what they had built up on the international scene and hence Prussia became accepted as great power).

Spain, though, had few influence after its sucession war, or at leats thats the impression I get...
Spain had about the same amount of influence as Prussia, but their power was navally and colonially based by and large. You also ignored the Ottomans.
 

Susano

Banned
Spain had about the same amount of influence as Prussia, but their power was navally and colonially based by and large. You also ignored the Ottomans.

True, so I did, but they were not an European great power - that is not indication of anti-turkism on my part as AHP would say ;) , but they generalyl were not accepetd as such at that time.
 

Rockingham

Banned
True, so I did, but they were not an European great power - that is not indication of anti-turkism on my part as AHP would say ;) , but they generalyl were not accepetd as such at that time.
Prussia wasn't(considered a great power) before the third Silesian war either, yet someone(I'm not sure if it was you) claimed they were a great power before it.

I don't remeber anyone specifying European great power either.
 
Top