France wins the Nine Years War!

I feel that a lot of the roles in European politics would be reversed (in the long run) if France won the Nine Years war, and I'd quite like to write about that! What do you think could cause a French victory?
 
I feel that a lot of the roles in European politics would be reversed (in the long run) if France won the Nine Years war, and I'd quite like to write about that! What do you think could cause a French victory?

Given the list of powers who fought against France, I think that the French did well enough to get away with the Treaty of Ryswick. Louis XIV was always going to want more however. Tricky.
 
Given the list of powers who fought against France, I think that the French did well enough to get away with the Treaty of Ryswick. Louis XIV was always going to want more however. Tricky.

Perhaps Austria gets bogged down in the Balkans and is unable to commit as many troops? Or Britain and the Netherlands end up having a serious civil war? You probably need to remove one of the major powers... Perhaps if France can gain a toehold in Italy (Milan or Piedmont perhaps?) then they could alternatively outflank Austria?
 
Perhaps Austria gets bogged down in the Balkans and is unable to commit as many troops? Or Britain and the Netherlands end up having a serious civil war? You probably need to remove one of the major powers... Perhaps if France can gain a toehold in Italy (Milan or Piedmont perhaps?) then they could alternatively outflank Austria?

James II was inept enough as it was. His support in the UK vanished so fast that a serious civil war was never on the cards - the man made every mistake that it was possible for him to make. William III on the other hand was a remarkably canny man.
As for Austria and the Balkans - well, by this point the Ottomans are in serious trouble, being beaten by the Hapsburgs, the Venetians, the Russians and the Polish-Lithuanians. Austria shouldn't get bogged down anywhere and besides the French threat was too obvious.
Let's not forget that warfare outside of Eastern Europe at this time (the Polish hussars were still sweeping all before them) was still largely positional and formalised. Marlborough wasn't yet in charge of the British forces.
 
James II was inept enough as it was. His support in the UK vanished so fast that a serious civil war was never on the cards - the man made every mistake that it was possible for him to make. William III on the other hand was a remarkably canny man.
As for Austria and the Balkans - well, by this point the Ottomans are in serious trouble, being beaten by the Hapsburgs, the Venetians, the Russians and the Polish-Lithuanians. Austria shouldn't get bogged down anywhere and besides the French threat was too obvious.
Let's not forget that warfare outside of Eastern Europe at this time (the Polish hussars were still sweeping all before them) was still largely positional and formalised. Marlborough wasn't yet in charge of the British forces.

So perhaps the Ottomans don't break so easily at Mohács, with someone less competent than Savoy leading the actual charge that broke them? If the Ottomans were to regroup and pose a, not terribly serious but still serious enough, threat might the Emperor hold back troops?

I realised William failing was a long shot, but worth a try...
 
Top