Could France and Buddies won the War of the Spanish Succession?

Rhand

Banned
This is something I was wondering about. Sure, France and Buddies took on the Grand Alliance, which encompassed much of Europe, but it seems like the Grand Alliance frayed and disagreed on many things, and France and Buddies were never categorically outmatched.

Could they have won? If so, what happens next? Do Britain, Austria, and German states keep backing pretenders against France/Spain? Will France and Spain eventually unite under a single monarch? Will colonization and decolonization look different?
 
I think Britain would have kept the war up until they got the same conclusion as what happened IRL. They weren't about to let France to have a personal union over Spain, it would have thrown off the balance of power in Europe and in the world. The longer the war went the more sour things would have turned out for France, the only high point is that things turned sour for the Habsburgs as well
 

Rhand

Banned
I think Britain would have kept the war up until they got the same conclusion as what happened IRL. They weren't about to let France to have a personal union over Spain, it would have thrown off the balance of power in Europe and in the world. The longer the war went the more sour things would have turned out for France, the only high point is that things turned sour for the Habsburgs as well

Hmmm, I think you're right about England continuing to fight, but I'm not sure about the war's end. If, say, after a win at Blenheim (and then Vienna), France makes a separate peace with Austria and knocks it out of the war, then things look dicey for the Alliance.

Without Austria there to help matters, France will definitely eat Savoy, and it may end up eating the Spanish Netherlands as well (though Bavaria had designs on this). They may even make inroads into the HRE. Whether they maintain the conquests, or use them as bargaining chips to get Philip on the Spanish throne is different, though.

I think a possible alternative treaty could go something like this, if we accept that the Two Crowns Party and Grand Alliance stalemate and France fails in its main war aim of setting up a Spain that would eventually be inherited to France.

----------------------------------------------------

(1704-05) Austria leaves war. Charles III relinquishes claim to Spain. Vienna falls and Austria is forced to negotiate with Francis II of Hungary, who in ATL got to meet up with his Franco-Bavarian co-belligerents. Presumably Bavaria gets something. France may extract minor concessions elsewhere.

---------------------------------------------------

End of War:

Philip gives up claim to France when he takes over Spain (as an aside, perhaps the chain of royal deaths are butterflied away).

France extracts significant territorial concessions from Savoy-Piedmont, which is completely occupied by France at the war's end and is in no position to bargain. Direct annexation is unlikely, but possible.

France regains Lorraine and incorporates it into France.

Spanish Netherlands go to Maximilian of Bavaria (he had designs on them and had governed them in the past), or are partitioned.

Sardinia, Sicily, and Naples are anyone's guess. With the Hapsburgs out of contention, France (through the Grand Dauphin) has a claim to them, though England wouldn't want France to have them all. I think we might see France get Sicily, maybe Sardinia or Naples, but aside from that it's doubtful.

England (Great Britain now, I guess) receives significant colonial gains, mostly from France. Basically OTL.

England, as in OTL, obtains Gibraltar and Minorca, and maybe some other minor stuff.

-----------------------------------------------

I dunno, it would make for an interesting timeline, at the least.

France is stronger, though not craycray.

Austria is significantly weaker with Hungary going independent, though that independence may be short-lived.

Bavaria is much stronger than in OTL, and could become a big player in later German Unification.

Speaking of unification, France now assumes the role of OTL Austria as a de facto antagonist to the cause of Italian Unification.
 
Last edited:

Rhand

Banned
None of the sides had the resources to archieve complete victory on each other.

I agree. Even with Austria saying "peace brahs" after Blenheim, I think it would end in a stalemate at best, though on much better terms for France.

I've started on a mini-timeline/map for this. I think the part I'm having trouble with is what happens to the Americas after the war ends.
 
I disagree. Change the course of a couple of battles or maybe of but one battle (Schellenberg or Blennheim) and France and its allies can win a clear victoryin this war.
 

Rhand

Banned
I disagree. Change the course of a couple of battles or maybe of but one battle (Schellenberg or Blennheim) and France and its allies can win a clear victoryin this war.

France can throw Austria out of the war with a separate peace, but it can't really hit England in such a way. Furthermore, it's struggling with debts and famines.

I guess if France can win in both Austria and the Low Countries, then it can fulfill its original war aim. France becomes the global hyperpower, in that case.
 
Am I the only one who thinks that the fear of an Franco-Spanish alliance was ridiculous? The entire Succession war was fought on a "what if" scenario! Carlos II's will expressly forbid a union of the Two crowns, stating that if Felipe V inherited France he'd have to abdicate Spain to his brother the Duc de Berri. The Habsburgs had already proven that a massive Empire was unworkable with Charles V. At worst the union would last a generation, with one son getting France and the other Spain.

As for winning the war, its simple really; either keep England out (have Louis XIV pay the Tories to oppose the war publicly and violently) or knock out Austria early. Without a candidate for Spain's throne, England and the Netherlands will back down/ make peace soon after. Or have the war never break out in the first place. Felipe V inherited Spain in November 1700; the war didn't begin in earnest until 1702. Initially Europe, with the exception of Austria, was going to accept Carlos II's will as is, it was only Louis XIV's aggressive actions that convinced England and the Netherlands to declare war.

Have Louis XIV let the Dutch keep control of the barrier fortresses for the time being, quietly acknowledge Felipe V's French rights (after all, he hadn't been required to renounce his rights by the Spanish will, so there was no need to proclaim his succession rights as they weren't in doubt under the fundamental laws of France) and don't try to muscle out English and Dutch trades from the Spanish empire.

No overly aggressive French, no new Grand alliance and no massive succession war. Austria might still try to grab Milan, but France and Spain could repel the Austrians/ reconquer the Duchy. As long as they make/force peace with Austria without trying to annex more territory.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
A left turn at Blenheim is one way to -possibly- change the outcome. But if Louis had acted differently at the outset there's a chance he could have prevented the coalition from forming against him. He made a series of decisions in 1701 that really inflamed anti-French sentiment in Britain and ultimately made it hard to end the war in say 1711.

1. He broke the Partition Treaty with Britain in favor of adhering to the Will of Charles II. He kind of has to here if he's to get all of Spain for Philip. War with Austria was inevitable treaty or no treaty so why not go for broke.

2. He disregarded the clauses of the will that dictated a separation of the crowns by having Parlement register and act that confirmed Philip's continued rights to the French throne. Thus Louis really helped to create the spectre of personal union that so drove the allied coalition against him. Just don't do that. Stay silent on the issue while publicly but ambiguously proclaiming adherence to the Will.

3. He invaded/moved into the Spanish Netherlands with French troops. Not really an invasion since the Spanish Viceroy was the Elector of Bavaria and a French ally and essentially opened the gates for the French. But Louis' decision to have the French troops force the removal of the Dutch garrison overturned the Treaty of Ryswick by removing the Dutch barrier. This played into the perfidy of the French (yet another Treaty broken in the face of rapacious French aggrandizement). Louis had the Spanish Netherlands in his pocket with Max Emmanuel as Viceroy and with only the Austrians openly hostile at that point and the rest of Spain secure there really wasn't an absolute imperative to militarily occupy the Spanish Netherlands unless Louis planned an immediate invasion of the Netherlands and a start to the greater war in 1701 which was something he was not prepared to do.

4. Philip granted the Asiento to the French. This directly upset British and Dutch commercial interests and reinforced fears of a Franco-Spanish union. Philip should have held off and avoided upsetting the applecart until the succession was completely settled by international agreement.

5. Louis recognized the Jacobite Succession after the death of James II. Another violation of Ryswick and a direct threat to William's rule in England. This was just stupid. It gave no benefit to Louis and really ensured that Britain would join an anti-French coalition. Some of the other moves could be perhaps justified strategically but this was just a terrible move.

So if Louis acted with a little less arrogance and was more conciliatory he could prevent or forestall a coalition. Louis chose not to attack and start the war in 1701, mainly because of the perceived weakness of Spain and Philip's position on the Spanish throne, but he also made not moves towards a permanent peace. Instead he simply made preparations for an eventual war while doing his best to inflame international opinion against him. If he had avoided 2 and 4 and especially 5 he might have been able to broker a a deal that would respect the general terms of Ryswick but with Philip on the Spanish throne. He'd probably have to give Milan the the Archduke Charles to buy off the Austrians or at least show good faith to the British. At the very least this could prevent Britain's immediate entry into the war. If the Austrians are perceived as starting the War and a Franco-Bavarian attack knocks them out or at least weakens them while the Hungarian uprising starts then Britain may see it better to simply negotiate a peace that gets what it wants, Austria be damned. Certainly if Louis shows more respect to Ryswick and does less to overtly infuriate the British he stands a better chance of securing Peace. As it was he's moves created such distrust that the allies never really took his later peace overtures seriously and continued the war in hopes of dictating a peace to a defeated and prostrated France. That was, in the minds of the allies, the only way to secure a lasting just peace since Louis could not be trusted nor French ambitions contained.

But Louis would have to respect some limitations, like a continuation of the Dutch garrisons in the Spanish Netherlands and a loss of some territory in Italy to Austria. If he played his cards right he could possibly transfer the Dutch garrisons to pro-French Bavaria. At least they wouldn't be French. There is some indication that Louis promised Max Emmanuel some kind of hereditary Viceroy-ship in the Spanish Netherlands when Max took up the French cause. So some kind of clientalization of the Spanish Netherlands that limited direct French influence or occupation is a must. But it would still be much better than the OTL settlement which saw Philip get only half the Spanish inheritance and France actually lose territory in the Netherlands, namely Tournai.
 
Mayhaps you need a strong Jacobite rising somewhere in 1708? There was a plan proposed but weather messed it all up.

Nevertheless, in order to be a real threat to England, Jacobites have to have a more charismatic Pretender.

That would make it harder for Britain to invade the Lowlands and, thus, France will have better chance of overwhelming victory over HRE and Dutch.
 
You mean like OTL?

Didn't France and Spain WIN the Spanish Succession War?

I mean the goal of France is to put Philip V on the Spanish throne.

The goal of the Alliance is to put Charles of Habsburg as the King of Spain.

A Franco Spanish Union is just a chimera, since Philip is the younger son of Louis Grand Dauphin. It was his older brother Louis Duke of Burgundy who is the one in line for the French throne, who has three sons, one of which became Louis XV.

Franco Spanish Union only happens if Louis XV dies without sons. If Louis XV has sons, then there would be a family Bourbon alliance. Like OTL.
 
That was a limited victory, Louis XIV plan was for Philip to inheriet the entire Spanish crown, in the end he lost the Netherlands and the Italian realms.
 
France can throw Austria out of the war with a separate peace, but it can't really hit England in such a way. Furthermore, it's struggling with debts and famines.

I guess if France can win in both Austria and the Low Countries, then it can fulfill its original war aim. France becomes the global hyperpower, in that case.

I think you are missing the point that Britain and Europe in 1700 were very different from Britain and Europe in 1800. Prussia and Russia were completely different players.

So if Austria is knocked out of the war, Britain will just continue fighting as long as its finances allow it to. Britain can feel forced to accept France control ont the low countries, even if its acceptance is just temporary until better conditions enable it to start a new war.
 
I agree, there is likely a compromise in the end, though France and Spain being united under Philip of Anjou (younger brother of the childless Prince Louis of France who died in 1712) was always a strong possibility, albeit with a negotiated settlement.


Peace could always be made with the Netherlands whom never wanted to be in this war in the first place.

Only Britain would try to keep up the war and they couldn't fight on land alone.

A additional early and quick victory or two against Austria would end the land war and France-Spain would end up the victors.

Some of the Spanish possessions in Italy may go to Austria (Naples, Milan, Parma? I forget which were part of the SPanish crown) or Bavaria assuming the Duke lives longer, in order to "MAINTAIN THE BALANCE OF POWER". Austria wouldn't care about the balance of power in the new world. That is Britain's concern.

Britain could try to pick off some French/Spanish colonies but the sheer distance at the time would often make colonial wars expensive and futile. Britain was always willing to compromise as they could only affect the war on land to the extend that they subsidized others.

Maybe Great Britain and the Netherlands (Dutch Republic) could be bought off with a few Franco-Spanish Caribbean islands and maybe Canada (or more likely Louisiana and Florida). They could claim some sort of victory but really have lost the primary fight. The Franco-Spanish Empire would be united and pose a very powerful threat.

Once the two crowns are united, the Spanish Netherlands would be governed directly by France effectively pushing the Dutch Republic into a premature and permanent neutrality for fear of this enormous land power now adjacent their country..

This is actually an interesting POD.

The key matter is how a sole monarch would/could govern two such diverse countries. Would Spain's local corts put up with a ruler from Paris?

How could they be governed?

Would Spain eventually get tired of this similar akin to the Portuguese revolt against Spain's rule (I think around 1640???)?

Would France try to pilfer the Spanish gold shipments? Would Britain and the Netherlands find their trade, banking, etc with Spain siphoned off to France?
 
Last edited:
Would the Spaniards really like being governed from Paris? Even the Portuguese eventually rejected being ruled from a foreign country (Spain).
 
That was a limited victory, Louis XIV plan was for Philip to inheriet the entire Spanish crown, in the end he lost the Netherlands and the Italian realms.

The Austrian Habsburgs originally wanted their candidate to get the entire Spanish inheritance too.

IOTL France ended ''first'' and was rewarded with the best chunk, Austria ended ''second'' and got some valuable territories as a consolation price and Savoy ended ''third'' and got much fewer rewards.

All in all I'd call OTL a slight French victory.

And IMHO even in an ATL greater French victory Austria wouldn't just collapse. Sure Austria will get fewer rewards and it will be from their OTL share, where the compensation for Lorraine will come from (most likely the Southern Netherlands or Milan, maybe even Naples).
 
Last edited:
I agree, there is likely a compromise in the end, though France and Spain being united under Philip of Anjou (younger brother of the childless Prince Louis of France who died in 1712) was always a strong possibility, albeit with a negotiated settlement.

I don't know if I'd call it a strong possibility. At the war's outset, Philippe d'Anjou was only third in line for the throne behind his 40-year-old father and 19-year-old brother. There was no particular reason to believe he was likely to become the heir to throne. In fact, by 1710 he was only fifth in line. What happened the next two years - his father, brother and nephew all predeceasing Louis XIV - was very fluky.

(Incidentally, a timeline in which the Petit Dauphin becomes king of France - with his brother also king of Spain - could be pretty interesting. Talk about sibling rivalry!)
 
Last edited:
More decisive : neither Charles II of Spain nor Louis XIV of France wanted the 2 crowns on one same head.

They knew it would be a horrible unmanageable mess.

Their point was just a dynastical one. They both considered that the "legal" of the spanish Habsburgs were the french Bourbons because the were descendants of the elder daughter of the previous spanish king Philip IV.
 
Peace could always be made with the Netherlands whom never wanted to be in this war in the first place.
The problem is that the Netherlands in the wars with France was fighting for its own survival. With that ridiculous Rhine border idea France was claiming the southern part of the Dutch republic and Loeuis XIV had already made clear that it despised the Dutch Republic and wanted to destroy it. The Dutch Republic could not accept a French Southern Netherlands since that would be a knife at its throat. They needed some sort of buffer area, prefereably under another nation, so they would be dragged along in any war France started.

Peace with the Netherlands might be bought with some colonies, but Dutch security would be more important. Sugar isn't important if there are French troops at the gates of Amsterdam. The Dutch regents were incredibly short-sighted, but I doubt they would be so short-sighted.

If you want peace with the Netherlands France must either completely defeat the Netherlands (which was still pretty hard in these days) or somehow offer the Dutch some security, for example giving the Dutch a ring of fortified barrier towns at the border of France. Which, obviously, means ginving up part of the Southern Netherlands, including some prime property like Antwerp, Bruges and Ostend.
 
I agree, there is likely a compromise in the end, though France and Spain being united under Philip of Anjou (younger brother of the childless Prince Louis of France who died in 1712) was always a strong possibility, albeit with a negotiated settlement.


Peace could always be made with the Netherlands whom never wanted to be in this war in the first place.

Only Britain would try to keep up the war and they couldn't fight on land alone.

A additional early and quick victory or two against Austria would end the land war and France-Spain would end up the victors.

I've always wondered why France in the 18th Century never just tried to partition the Habsburg Netherlands with the UP? Collusion in partitioning them would settle the problem decisively, would buy France a secure Northern border that they could ignore for the rest of the war and all subsequent ones (if not creating an Ally out of the United Provinces), and so long as Anwterp ended up on the Dutch and not French side of the border, the British would give up waging war with unceasing fanaticism since much of the strategic risk in the Low Countries would be neutralised if Holland gets the lion's share of important ports. Quatorze should've seen that this was the smart play.

However I still find it hard to believe the end result would be much different. Dividing the Habsburg crown lands in particular seems really improbable; the most I see the Emperor losing is some small cessions to Bavaria.
 
Top