Can France win the War of Spanish Succession?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

As the title says. Is it possible at any point for France to win the War of Spanish Succession and establish a personal union with Spain? If so, what would be the effects?
 
Yes.

With the spring of 1703, the French prepared to utilise the path to Vienna thrown open to them by Bavaria's action. In March Villars secured Kehl, and, pushing across the Black Forest by Villingen, joined the Bavarian Elector near Ulm (May 9), unimpeded by Lewis of Baden, who lay inactive in his celebrated lines of Stolhofen, watched by another French corps under Marshal Tallard. The Elector would not have been there for Villars to join, had but Styrum, who commanded the troops of the Franconian Circle, cooperated with the 19,000 Austrians under Schlick on the Inn. Their failure to unite had allowed the Elector to capture Ratisbon, and to inflict on Schlick's isolated corps a sharp reverse at Scharding (March 11).

Vienna was now in dire peril. Had Villars and the Bavarian Elector pushed on down the Danube, it is difficult to see how the city could have been saved. Lewis of Baden was helpless, Marlborough fully occupied in the distant Netherlands, Hungary actually in insurrection ; and not even Eugene could prevent the army of Italy from being pressed back through Tyrol by Vendôme's superior forces. But, like his son Charles Albert thirty-eight years later, Maximilian Emanuel missed his chance. Intent on securing communication with much-coveted Milan, he turned aside into Tyrol, leaving Villars, much to the French commander's chagrin, to cover his operations against Lewis of Baden, who had come up from Stolhofen with most of his corps and joined Styrum (June). But the conquest of Tyrol did not prove so easy as the Elector anticipated. Though opposed by the peasantry, he reached Innsbruck (July 2) and even pushed a detachment forward to the Brenner Pass, only to find that Vendôme had not arrived. The latter, indeed, never started for Trent till July 20 ; and, by the time he reached it (September 2), the Bavarians, harassed by the Tyrolese mountaineers, who cut off their detachments and threatened their communications, had given up hope of his coming and had beaten a costly retreat to Bavaria (August). During this time Lewis of Baden and

Styrum had let slip the chance of combining their forces against Villars, who, profiting by their separation, parried the Margrave's attack on Augsburg by falling on Styrum's weaker force at Höchstädt (September 20) and completely defeating him. This checked Lewis, who had to abandon Augsburg and retire into winter-quarters, just north of the Lake of Constance. Even at this late point in the campaigning season Villars was anxious to try a dash at Vienna, now seriously menaced by the Hungarian insurgents ; but the Elector's refusal to contemplate the project led to violent quarrels between him and Villars, and to the recall of the latter before the next campaign.

Have Villars convince Elector Maximilian to march on Vienna and presto.
 
As the title says. Is it possible at any point for France to win the War of Spanish Succession and establish a personal union with Spain? If so, what would be the effects?

France did win the war. Louis XIV was not fighting for a personal union. If he did, he would have fought to have Louis Grand Dauphin, or his elder son, Louis Duke of Burgundy, to be king of Spain. Not Philip of Anjou, the younger son of the Duke of Burgundy. And the will of Charles II specifically precluded any union by making Charles Duke of Berry, younger brother of Anjou, if Anjou succeeded to the French throne.

Louis XIV knew in 1700 that in the normal course of events, Louis Duke of Burgundy would produce sons and succeed in France, as he indeed did. Louis could not have predicted the decimation of his family in 1711-1712.

Rather, he fought to put a Bourbon on the throne of Spain, and forever break the Habsburg encirclement of France that happened when Charles V became emperor and King of Spain.

And he succeeded in that goal.

Now what if there were no clause barring the personal union of France and Spain in the Treaty of Utrecht? Well, Louis Duke of Burgundy would be king of France, or his son Louis (OTL Louis XV), and Philip V would be king of Spain.

There would be a family alliance, a family compact.

So essentially, OTL. The only possible difference is that Austrian Netherlands would remain the Spanish Netherlands.
 

Deleted member 67076

Yes.

Have Villars convince Elector Maximilian to march on Vienna and presto.
Well, that's simpler than I expected. :D

France did win the war. Louis XIV was not fighting for a personal union. If he did, he would have fought to have Louis Grand Dauphin, or his elder son, Louis Duke of Burgundy, to be king of Spain. Not Philip of Anjou, the younger son of the Duke of Burgundy. And the will of Charles II specifically precluded any union by making Charles Duke of Berry, younger brother of Anjou, if Anjou succeeded to the French throne.

Louis XIV knew in 1700 that in the normal course of events, Louis Duke of Burgundy would produce sons and succeed in France, as he indeed did. Louis could not have predicted the decimation of his family in 1711-1712.

Rather, he fought to put a Bourbon on the throne of Spain, and forever break the Habsburg encirclement of France that happened when Charles V became emperor and King of Spain.

And he succeeded in that goal.

Now what if there were no clause barring the personal union of France and Spain in the Treaty of Utrecht? Well, Louis Duke of Burgundy would be king of France, or his son Louis (OTL Louis XV), and Philip V would be king of Spain.

There would be a family alliance, a family compact.

So essentially, OTL. The only possible difference is that Austrian Netherlands would remain the Spanish Netherlands.
Huh, I didn't know that. That's very interesting.

Would the outcome retention of the Spanish Netherlands have any noticeable impact?
 
As the title says. Is it possible at any point for France to win the War of Spanish Succession and establish a personal union with Spain? If so, what would be the effects?

Wait, France didn't win? But why is its royal family a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon?
 

Vitruvius

Donor
This was discussed here. I wouldn't say the France 'won' the War, however. If they truly won then Spain would still control Naples, Sicily, Milan and the Southern Netherlands, ie the entire Spanish inheritance, which were all actually held by the Bourbons at the outset of the war. Nor would France itself have been forced to concede territory, as it was forced to do in at Utrecht to strengthen the Dutch garrisons. They gave up Tournai and agreed to surrender Landau (but managed to hold it when the Austrians didn't agree to the Treaty and kept fighting) and very nearly gave up Conde and Mauberge. Nor would France have been forced to demolish the fortifications at Dunkerque nor Spain be forced to concede the Assiento to the British rather than to their French allies.

All of these concessions were part of what was truly a compromise settlement. Neither side got everything it wanted. I think its fair to say that France came out alright in many ways but so did Britain and proportionally some of the lesser powers like Prussia and Savoy. The real losers were Austria and Spain, and in the long run the Netherlands. So France could definitely have done better, and, at least IMHO, would have to have done better for it to be considered a French victory.
 
This was discussed here. I wouldn't say the France 'won' the War, however. If they truly won then Spain would still control Naples, Sicily, Milan and the Southern Netherlands, ie the entire Spanish inheritance, which were all actually held by the Bourbons at the outset of the war. Nor would France itself have been forced to concede territory, as it was forced to do in at Utrecht to strengthen the Dutch garrisons. They gave up Tournai and agreed to surrender Landau (but managed to hold it when the Austrians didn't agree to the Treaty and kept fighting) and very nearly gave up Conde and Mauberge. Nor would France have been forced to demolish the fortifications at Dunkerque nor Spain be forced to concede the Assiento to the British rather than to their French allies.

All of these concessions were part of what was truly a compromise settlement. Neither side got everything it wanted. I think its fair to say that France came out alright in many ways but so did Britain and proportionally some of the lesser powers like Prussia and Savoy. The real losers were Austria and Spain, and in the long run the Netherlands. So France could definitely have done better, and, at least IMHO, would have to have done better for it to be considered a French victory.

Let's see.

Goal of Grand Alliance, put Charles as king of Spain and head of the entire Spanish Empire, from the Americas, the Philippines, to Europe.

Goal of France, put Philip of Anjou on the throne of Spain, break the Habsburg encirclement of France, and give the Bourbons the Entire Spanish Empire.

France won. Not absolutely, but it got most of what it wanted in the first place. Sure it made concessions, but still, it got Spain itself, thus breaking the Habsburg encirclement of France.

It was a succession war between the Habsburg and the Bourbons, and France backed the Bourbons, the Grand Alliance the Habsburgs.

Guess who go the main price? Sure, the Grand Alliance got the Habsburgs Naples, Southern Netherlands, and other concessions, but they fought hard for Spain, they occupied Barcelona, even occupied Madrid, and at one time, controlled the four chief cities of Spain.

Guess who prevailed in Spain, the main war goal? Charles believed very much that he is the rightful heir of all the Spanish Empire as did Philip. In the front the counted, Spain, the Allies lost, lost hard. And that was what counted in this war.

So did France gain an absolute victory? No. But it was a victory nonetheless.

Louis XIV gained the foreign policy goal that has eluded every French king since Francis I - break the Habsburg encirclement by putting a Bourbon on the throne of Spain.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I can see the argument for a French strategic victory but from my perception that was not why the war was fought. Louis XIV specifically and consciously chose to pursue war in 1701 rather than a negotiated settlement in hopes of preserving the entire Spanish inheritance for Philippe d'Anjou. He had a Partition Treaty in place with Britain and an the opportunity to forestall the formation of a coalition against him with deft diplomacy but he opted for war in the hopes of greater gains. Before hostilities broke out the Bourbons had essentially secured the entire Spanish inheritance. Philippe had firm control of Spanish Italy at the outset of the war and Max Emmanuel surrendered the Netherlands to the French. France replaced the Dutch garrison with French ones and planned to install Max Emmanuel as some kind of hereditary governor (records vary on what the French had negotiated with him) essentially clientalizing the Spanish Netherlands which would remain Spanish in name only. France was granted the Assiento very early in the war a sign of how Louis perceived the future relationship of the countries (to the benefit of France). It's unlikely if not impossible that this position could have been preserved except in the event of a victorious war and so rather than negotiate and concede to appease the British and/or the Austrians Louis chose war. So the French strategic goals at the outset of the War were pretty clearly securing the entire Spanish inheritance for Philippe and linking Spain and the Spanish empire strategically and economically to France.

Instead both sides fought to exhaustion and France fell short of its goals. At one point Louis was willing to consider surrendering several towns in the Netherlands as well as Strasbourg and Landau and forfeiting the entire Spanish inheritance. That he was able to rebound from that was only thanks to the waffling of the new government in Britain. Had Marlborough and Eugene pursued the war into northern France the Franco-Spanish successes in Spain would have counted for little. France was only able to get peace at the terms they received by conceding to every demand the British had aside from removing Philippe from Spain. The war nearly bankrupted the French state and France was forced to make territorial concessions, it gained no territory of its own and actually lost some. It had to accept a partition of the Spanish inheritance, it lost its economic preeminence in Spain and traded a week Spain for a strong Austria backed by a coalition of hostile states on its northern borders. France had to give up on the Stuart pretenders and weaken its northern defenses on land (Netherlands) and sea (Dunkerque). When you consider the history of French aggrandizement of the late 17th century they essentially lost of all their momentum and in some respects were contained, gaining only Lorraine through the rest of the 18th century until the Revolution.

That's a costly price to pay to gain Spain. Meanwhile Spain, rather than become a satellite of France, would actually end up at war with France within five years of the Treaty of Utrecht. Spain repelled the allies as much by her own strength as by the French thanks to Philippe's reforms so the country was hardly dependent on France after the war and was able, however unsuccessfully, to pursue an independent foreign policy. So given what I believe to be the French objectives in going to war I don't think the outcome could be rated a French victory. France did not dictate the terms and in fact was in a weaker position than it was at the outbreak of hostilities. In all likelihood it gained not much more or less than what could have been acquired through a negotiated settlement with Britain and a limited war against Austria, without so nearly great an expenditure of men and material.

Granted, it certainly was not an Austrian victory but then again the war was never really Austria vs France. It was very much Britain under William III vs France under Louis XIV. The pre-war Partition Treaties are demonstrative of this as the two powers agreed to a partition of the Spanish empire without consultation of any of the Habsburgs, Austrian or Spanish. Britain secured the Assiento, ensured the Spanish Netherlands stayed out of French control and strengthened Austria and the Netherlands vis a vis France, they ensured that the French could not interfere with the Protestant Succession and they gained important bases in the Mediterranean in Gibralter and Minorca from which they would project their power against France for the rest of the century. On balance France and Britain, I think, gained in equal measure. And in some respects in the long run Britain got the better of it. Imagine a reverse compromise where Spain remained Habsburg but France gained in the Netherlands and Italy and Britain never acquired its foot holds in the Med. In the long term it could have benefited greatly the French position on the continent which during the course of the 18th century was always their strength against British successes on the seas and in the colonies.
 
I can see the argument for a French strategic victory but from my perception that was not why the war was fought. Louis XIV specifically and consciously chose to pursue war in 1701 rather than a negotiated settlement in hopes of preserving the entire Spanish inheritance for Philippe d'Anjou. He had a Partition Treaty in place with Britain and an the opportunity to forestall the formation of a coalition against him with deft diplomacy but he opted for war in the hopes of greater gains. Before hostilities broke out the Bourbons had essentially secured the entire Spanish inheritance. Philippe had firm control of Spanish Italy at the outset of the war and Max Emmanuel surrendered the Netherlands to the French. France replaced the Dutch garrison with French ones and planned to install Max Emmanuel as some kind of hereditary governor (records vary on what the French had negotiated with him) essentially clientalizing the Spanish Netherlands which would remain Spanish in name only. France was granted the Assiento very early in the war a sign of how Louis perceived the future relationship of the countries (to the benefit of France). It's unlikely if not impossible that this position could have been preserved except in the event of a victorious war and so rather than negotiate and concede to appease the British and/or the Austrians Louis chose war. So the French strategic goals at the outset of the War were pretty clearly securing the entire Spanish inheritance for Philippe and linking Spain and the Spanish empire strategically and economically to France.

Instead both sides fought to exhaustion and France fell short of its goals. At one point Louis was willing to consider surrendering several towns in the Netherlands as well as Strasbourg and Landau and forfeiting the entire Spanish inheritance. That he was able to rebound from that was only thanks to the waffling of the new government in Britain. Had Marlborough and Eugene pursued the war into northern France the Franco-Spanish successes in Spain would have counted for little. France was only able to get peace at the terms they received by conceding to every demand the British had aside from removing Philippe from Spain. The war nearly bankrupted the French state and France was forced to make territorial concessions, it gained no territory of its own and actually lost some. It had to accept a partition of the Spanish inheritance, it lost its economic preeminence in Spain and traded a week Spain for a strong Austria backed by a coalition of hostile states on its northern borders. France had to give up on the Stuart pretenders and weaken its northern defenses on land (Netherlands) and sea (Dunkerque). When you consider the history of French aggrandizement of the late 17th century they essentially lost of all their momentum and in some respects were contained, gaining only Lorraine through the rest of the 18th century until the Revolution.

That's a costly price to pay to gain Spain. Meanwhile Spain, rather than become a satellite of France, would actually end up at war with France within five years of the Treaty of Utrecht. Spain repelled the allies as much by her own strength as by the French thanks to Philippe's reforms so the country was hardly dependent on France after the war and was able, however unsuccessfully, to pursue an independent foreign policy. So given what I believe to be the French objectives in going to war I don't think the outcome could be rated a French victory. France did not dictate the terms and in fact was in a weaker position than it was at the outbreak of hostilities. In all likelihood it gained not much more or less than what could have been acquired through a negotiated settlement with Britain and a limited war against Austria, without so nearly great an expenditure of men and material.

Granted, it certainly was not an Austrian victory but then again the war was never really Austria vs France. It was very much Britain under William III vs France under Louis XIV. The pre-war Partition Treaties are demonstrative of this as the two powers agreed to a partition of the Spanish empire without consultation of any of the Habsburgs, Austrian or Spanish. Britain secured the Assiento, ensured the Spanish Netherlands stayed out of French control and strengthened Austria and the Netherlands vis a vis France, they ensured that the French could not interfere with the Protestant Succession and they gained important bases in the Mediterranean in Gibralter and Minorca from which they would project their power against France for the rest of the century. On balance France and Britain, I think, gained in equal measure. And in some respects in the long run Britain got the better of it. Imagine a reverse compromise where Spain remained Habsburg but France gained in the Netherlands and Italy and Britain never acquired its foot holds in the Med. In the long term it could have benefited greatly the French position on the continent which during the course of the 18th century was always their strength against British successes on the seas and in the colonies.
Hence what I called it a limited victory. It did not gain everything what it wanted, but enough, and more than what his opponents gained, to claim victory. The Alliance did not gain their main objective at all, since once the war started, their stated and public goal is to secure the entire Spanish inheritance, including peninsular Spain, the American colonies, and the Philippines, for Charles.

No matter how much England gained, they still failed in their main goal of putting Archduke Charles on the Spanish throne. Hence the slogan, ‘NO PEACE WITHOUT SPAIN’ used by the Whigs. They failed in doing so before 1711 when the accession of Charles VI to the Imperial throne made that goal impossible to pursue. The rest of the gains were simply consolation prizes. Did they do good as a result of Utrecht, and gain strength from it? Yes. In fact, it was a very good war for them, though it exhausted them to an extent that it led to the Whigs falling from power (and with them Marlborough), and put the Tories in place who were much more amenable to peace without Spain.

The goal of the Grand Alliance is to give to Archduke Charles all of the Spanish Inheritance.

Why did the Alliance again in 1709 reject the peace terms offered in 1709, about France recognizing Charles as king of Spain, France offering money to the Alliance to help them expel Philip, Louis giving up all of the gains of France since 1648, if the goal is to simply to limit French power? That treaty alone would bring back France to square one, limit her to an extent beyond the wildest dreams of the most anti-French statesmen, and shorn her of all the acquisitions of Louis XIV. Louis was all too willing to give it to them, to abandon his grandson, as long as he won’t fight a war with Spain in the process.

Why did the allies insist on Louis using his army to expel Philip V? Because they wanted SPAIN and they cannot get it themselves. They wanted it badly. The slogan of the Allies was "NO PEACE WITHOUT SPAIN". They wanted Spain in the Peninsula. They wanted archduke Charles to become Charles III.

They gave terms that even a defeated Louis XIV could not have possibly accepted.

And thus, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by their intransigence, , discredited the pro war Whigs and led to the pro peace Tories to rise in power, giving Louis time to appoint Villars and defeat the Austrians and Dutch both in Spain and in the Southern Netherlands, and gave time for Joseph I to die without sons and give rise to the spectre of a reunited Habsburg Empire that the Grand Alliance waffled in its goals.

But before 1711? It was all about bringing the ENTIRE Spanish inheritance to Charles. They had nine years to accomplish their goal before that. And they failed.


The war was about Habsburg vs Bourbon for the control of Spain. Or rather, with France backing a Bourbon claimant to the Spanish throne, and the Alliance backing a Habsburg claimant. France later on was able to detach England from the Habsburg Alliance by offering separate and favorable peace terms, so it could help Spain deal with the main enemy, Austria.

So yeah, who achieved more of their goals? France or the Alliance? I’d say France. Did they get everything? Nope. But the Alliance even gained less.
 
Last edited:
Top