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

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.
There were several negotiations for this during the 17th century, basicly a border was proposed around the line of Ostend, Bruges, Ghent, Mechelen, Maastricht, with these cities and everyting north of it becoming (or in the case of Maastricht remaining) Dutch, while south of the line, including Brussels and several other Dutch speaking towns becoming French.

The problem though was that, first of all the Dutch republic and especialy the Holland (and mainly the Amsterdam) regents did not care about the Southern Netherlands. Actualy Amsterdam considered Antwerp a threat and prefered it to remain outside the Netherlands, so the Dutch would continue the blocade of the Antwerp port. If Antwerp would become Dutch, they would open the port and Antwerp would become a rival of Amsterdam again.

Secondly, The Dutch prefered a buffer state between the Dutch Republic and France, since that would mean that when France attacked the Netherlands, a major part of the initial fighting wouldn't happened on Dutch territory and it would drag in a second country.

Thirdly, Dranco-Dutch relations went sour after the end of the eighty year war. Partly because of incompetent diplomacy from the Dutch part (the Dutch merchants didn't gve a fuck about anything other than their money). Partly because Louis XIV realy dislike the Dutch republic, especialy the Republic part, partly because France claimed everything up to the Rhine border, which included part of the Netherlands. So in the 18th century the Dutch and French didn't trust each other enough to divide the Sothern Netherlands.

That said with a different 17th century I could still see it happen (a Franco-Dutch alliance at this age is an timeline idea I am toying with) and maybe if we can avoid the French revolution Franco-Dutch relations change enough for such a proposal to be accepted. The Netherlands already dumped Britain as an ally when they realised Britain was a terrible ally and they were becoming more friendly towards France. So I could see it possibly happen. Not teribly likely though.
 
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.

Precision : the point was about having Louis XIV's dynasty expand, not a single member of his dynasty. From the start, the chosen heir of Charles II was Philip of Anjou, second grandson of Louis XIV, not Louis the Grand Dauphin, only son of Louis XIV and Maria Theresa of Spain.
 
The low countries were not partitioned because nobody wanted to : neither Charles II of Spain, nor Britain, nor France, not the United Provinces that did not want France as a direct neighbour.

Concerning France, it had its opportunity to have the annexion of the low countries accepted : at the and of the war of austrian succession. But it did not seize it because of a stupid mix of
- hubris (Louis XV basically wanting to appelé as a noble and disinterested king, which means not serving the strategic interests of his kingdom),
- unability to understand that dynasty politics had become obsolete (Louis XV prefering to have Bourbon princes at the head of small italian principalities than strengthening his kingdom of France),
- and miscalculation (Louis thinking that not annexing the low countries would permit him to avoid permanent casus belli for Britain while Britain just wanted to weaken France because France, even without the low countries, was still a too strong neighbour and a too dangerous commercial and colonial competitor).
 
There were several negotiations for this during the 17th century, basicly a border was proposed around the line of Ostend, Bruges, Ghent, Mechelen, Maastricht, with these cities and everyting north of it becoming (or in the case of Maastricht remaining) Dutch, while south of the line, including Brussels and several other Dutch speaking towns becoming French.

The problem though was that, first of all the Dutch republic and especialy the Holland (and mainly the Amsterdam) regents did not care about the Southern Netherlands. Actualy Amsterdam considered Antwerp a threat and prefered it to remain outside the Netherlands, so the Dutch would continue the blocade of the Antwerp port. If Antwerp would become Dutch, they would open the port and Antwerp would become a rival of Amsterdam again.

Secondly, The Dutch prefered a buffer state between the Dutch Republic and France, since that would mean that when France attacked the Netherlands, a major part of the initial fighting wouldn't happened on Dutch territory and it would drag in a second country.

Thirdly, Dranco-Dutch relations went sour after the end of the eighty year war. Partly because of incompetent diplomacy from the Dutch part (the Dutch merchants didn't gve a fuck about anything other than their money). Partly because Louis XIV realy dislike the Dutch republic, especialy the Republic part, partly because France claimed everything up to the Rhine border, which included part of the Netherlands. So in the 18th century the Dutch and French didn't trust each other enough to divide the Sothern Netherlands.

That said with a different 17th century I could still see it happen (a Franco-Dutch alliance at this age is an timeline idea I am toying with) and maybe if we can avoid the French revolution Franco-Dutch relations change enough for such a proposal to be accepted. The Netherlands already dumped Britain as an ally when they realised Britain was a terrible ally and they were becoming more friendly towards France. So I could see it possibly happen. Not teribly likely though.

An interesting summation, thank you. Yes, it seems that if the Dutch were persuaded into perpetual alliance with the French, maybe starting a little before Charles II's death, then things could have been different. The Dutch were always in a precarious position since gaining independence but as you pointed out their solution to their situation (permanent alliance with England after late 17th C) was a bad move. They realised all too late that they hitched their wagon to a rival trading power and suffered a precipitous decline for the next 100+ years. Finding a way to coexist with France against the British may have produced a better outcome for them. But as long as Southern Netherlands is in the hands of a third party that is too far away to adequately defend it, it will always be a source of conflict and tension.
 
An interesting summation, thank you. Yes, it seems that if the Dutch were persuaded into perpetual alliance with the French, maybe starting a little before Charles II's death, then things could have been different.

That would be too late; by then, William of Orange was the king of England, so there was no turning back.

The missed opportunity was in the 1660s. There were negotiations then between France and the Dutch Republic (then still allies) to partition the Spanish Netherlands, but they broke down, frustrating Louis XIV. He went to war with Spain anyway, only to have the Dutch actually ally against him (with England and Sweden), which forced him to cut the war short. Enraged, he vowed then to destroy the Republic.
 
That would be too late; by then, William of Orange was the king of England, so there was no turning back.

The missed opportunity was in the 1660s. There were negotiations then between France and the Dutch Republic (then still allies) to partition the Spanish Netherlands, but they broke down, frustrating Louis XIV. He went to war with Spain anyway, only to have the Dutch actually ally against him (with England and Sweden), which forced him to cut the war short. Enraged, he vowed then to destroy the Republic.

The prelude to the disaster year of 1672, when France, England, Cologne, Münster and later Sweden attacked the Republic. It also was the downfall of the regents and Grand Pensionary Johan de Witt, and it allowed Willem III to assume the role of Stadtholder again.
This in turn ensured the Republic reacted by becoming much more anti-French. In part Willem III taking the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland can also be seen in this light, who's policy was to contain French expansionism.
 
This was just one possibility among several. If Louis XIV had accepted the Dutch offer of 1672 to gain all dutch territories South of the Rhine, things would have been settled in a way incredibly favourable to french interests.
 
The low countries were not partitioned because nobody wanted to : neither Charles II of Spain, nor Britain, nor France, not the United Provinces that did not want France as a direct neighbour.

Concerning France, it had its opportunity to have the annexion of the low countries accepted : at the and of the war of austrian succession. But it did not seize it because of a stupid mix of
- hubris (Louis XV basically wanting to appelé as a noble
and disinterested king, which means not serving the strategic interests of his kingdom),
- unability to understand that dynasty politics had become obsolete (Louis XV prefering to have Bourbon princes at the head of small italian principalities than strengthening his kingdom of France),
- and miscalculation (Louis thinking that not annexing the low countries would permit him to avoid permanent casus belli for Britain while Britain just wanted to weaken France because France, even without the low countries, was still a too strong neighbour and a too dangerous commercial and colonial competitor).

He thought too small. Going after Italy would have been better. Bourbon ruled Spain, France, AND Italy? That's a scary alliance.

Considering they ended up with Naples, they already had a great springboard.

With an earlier and enlarged Bourbon Family compact, France can go back to more or less dictating things on the Continent.
 
This was just one possibility among several. If Louis XIV had accepted the Dutch offer of 1672 to gain all dutch territories South of the Rhine, things would have been settled in a way incredibly favourable to french interests.

Nah not really, the internal politics in the Dutch Republic were very turbulent during this period.
Also are you sure, since Zeeland, one of the Seven United Netherlands was south of the Rhine...

France and England may have attacked the 'Regent' Dutch Republic, but once the Orangists used this to replace the Regents, by the Stadtholder Willem III of Orange-Nassau; the 'Orangist' Dutch Republic turned out to be just as fiercely against the belligerent French and English.
 
Nah not really, the internal politics in the Dutch Republic were very turbulent during this period.
Also are you sure, since Zeeland, one of the Seven United Netherlands was south of the Rhine...

France and England may have attacked the 'Regent' Dutch Republic, but once the Orangists used this to replace the Regents, by the Stadtholder Willem III of Orange-Nassau; the 'Orangist' Dutch Republic turned out to be just as fiercely against the belligerent French and English.
I think the offer was the Generality lands South of the Rhine, which means North Brabant, North Flanders and Limburg (including Maastricht) at this point.
 
Top