Inverse Alliances in Seven Years' War

Considering France and Austria were enemies and Prussia and France were allies prior to the Seven Years' War, would the war be much different at all if, France sided with Prussia and Britain sided with Austria?
 
For this, you would need Louis XV not to sign the most stupid peace treaty â french king ever signed at the end of the war of austrian succession.

If France had retained the austrian Netherlands, as Britain thought it would, then the switch of alliances would be much harder.

But such a peace in 1748 would probably have Britain hesitate much more before starting a new war. It did so in 1754/56 because the stupid peace had made it tempting to have a new war against France.
 
The Austrians were behind the alliance switch, having realised the British were a shitty ally. They formed an agreement with France, and then Britain was left searching for an ally.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
It did so in 1754/56 because the stupid peace had made it tempting to have a new war against France.

Explain the rationale for the British motive here. Was it that they wanted to make territorial gains against France though the eighteenth century, and that the lenient French peace convinced them the British they could attack France again and again at little risk. Whereas, if France had kept its gains in Belgium, you're thinking the British would have thought it was too risky to tangle with France again.
 
Yes because France would have been much stronger if it had retained the austrian Netherlands. This had been the main strategic goal of France for a century.

And in 1748, the british government considered it could not help France retaining those territoires.

Because of Louis XV, Britain knew France was weakened (it had the debts and the losses of the war, not the expected gains) and badly governed by someone who did not understand his own political interests nor the goals of his enemies.
 
For this, you would need Louis XV not to sign the most stupid peace treaty â french king ever signed at the end of the war of austrian succession.

If France had retained the austrian Netherlands, as Britain thought it would, then the switch of alliances would be much harder.

Giving up the Austrian Netherlands was the right thing to do for France. Otherwise, it likely would have faced a coalition like Louis XV's predecessor had to face. France feared the growing power of Russia after the War of Austrian Succession and needed allies to check Russian ambitions. Keeping the Austrian Netherlands would have made it harder for it to attract allies.

But such a peace in 1748 would probably have Britain hesitate much more before starting a new war. It did so in 1754/56 because the stupid peace had made it tempting to have a new war against France.

Britain was aggressive and helped start the SYW but it was not alone. It was started because of the Austria/Prussia dynastic struggle and France did not do itself any favours by taking Austria's side. Louis XV should have taken advantage of the goodwill he generated as a result of giving up the Austrian Netherlands in order to push Austria and Prussia into a peace settlement. Instead, he took Austria's side over a petty reason (his mistress was apparently angry at being insulted by Frederick of Prussia) which led to a general European war happening. A war in which Louis XV knew that France was not prepared for. No surprise that France consequently lost disastrously.

France was weakened not by giving up the Austrian Netherlands but because Louis XV was incapable of reforming the inefficient financial structure and the navy which performed poorly in the last war. France's weaknesses was apparent by the end of the last war. Britain, on the other hand, learned from its navy's mediocre performance in the last war against Spain and made the necessary reforms (by Anson) to make it a more efficient war machine and which left Britain in fantastic shape to fight France for overseas empires.
 
Giving up the Austrian Netherlands was the right thing to do for France. Otherwise, it likely would have faced a coalition like Louis XV's predecessor had to face.
And despite the claim sometimes made that France got nothing out of that peace treaty, there was a quid pro quo: Austria withdrew its troops from some French allies in northern Italy...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Giving up the Austrian Netherlands was the right thing to do for France.

I'm skeptical, any peace that leaves the territory in French hands for at least a couple years seems to me to increase the likelihood of keeping it for good.


Otherwise, it likely would have faced a coalition like Louis XV's predecessor had to face.

---How big a coalition, who would be in it, and when would they form up with an ultimatum to cede Austrian Netherlands?

ISTM Spain won't be in the coalition. The Dutch will have to think hard about joining it, Austro-Prussian reconciliation isn't so likely. An Austro-Prussian-British coalition doesn't seem like a steamroller that would necessarilly feel ready to resume war all by itself in less than 5 years.



France feared the growing power of Russia after the War of Austrian Succession and needed allies to check Russian ambitions.

Maybe this was a thing, but Russia was four tranches of countries away, so doesn't seem like a logical priority for France. Also Alex or Alex Milman a big Russo-knowledgeable poster here, doesn't rate Russian power projection as of 1748 very highly.
 
I'm skeptical, any peace that leaves the territory in French hands for at least a couple years seems to me to increase the likelihood of keeping it for good.




---How big a coalition, who would be in it, and when would they form up with an ultimatum to cede Austrian Netherlands?

ISTM Spain won't be in the coalition. The Dutch will have to think hard about joining it, Austro-Prussian reconciliation isn't so likely. An Austro-Prussian-British coalition doesn't seem like a steamroller that would necessarilly feel ready to resume war all by itself in less than 5 years.





Maybe this was a thing, but Russia was four tranches of countries away, so doesn't seem like a logical priority for France. Also Alex or Alex Milman a big Russo-knowledgeable poster here, doesn't rate Russian power projection as of 1748 very highly.
to ad to this the Austrian Netherlands would have been worth it. Just think, when industrialisation comes around in the 19th century and the Belgian coal fields are discovered how much of a powerhouse france will become.
 
Also the two finisterre battles mean the RN has superierority in the eastern Atlantic, and can blockade the incredibly valuable sugar trade and boscowen is inIndia so a madras will be retaken and Pondicherry will fall without a treaty.

Prussia has been as much a maritime powers ally,and HRE loyalist as a french ally to date.

The basic reason is Prussia and the North german States cover Hanover which keeps king George happy and a french alliance neutralises Italy which allows Austria to concentrate on Prussia and the only Englishman who believed dominion of the seas could be won on the banks of the Danube was Marlborough, and he's dead.
 
Prior to the war, France had been vacillating between an alliance with Prussia vs one with Austria. The King's mistress, the Marquise de Pompadour pushed for an alliance with Austria. The Prince of Conti tried to find Louis XV another mistress in 1756. As late as 1756, King Louis XV sent an envoy to Potsdam to meet with Frederick II to see if he could be won over.

If Prussia allies itself with France, than Austria is going to remain a British ally. Meanwhile, Russia and Austria had entered into an agreement by 1756, so it seems likely that these two countries would fight as British allies.

As for the other powers, the United Provinces preferred to remain neutral unless attacked. They were bound by treaty to an alliance with Great Britain, but did not enter the war in OTL. If the Austrian Netherlands are invaded, the Dutch may join the war against France. However, their army was not in the greatest shape by this period.

Sweden too is up for grabs, but it was a declining power by the Seven Years War. It certainly did not seem to be at the top of France's priorities in 1756, so they may just choose to remain neutral. The court seemed to be split about the war, however if things go well for the French, they may seize the opportunity to enter the war late in the game to regain some of Russia's conquests earlier in the century.

Spain had been able to rebuild its navy somewhat by this period, but was not as strong as they would be in during the American Revolution. In a war against Britain, their primary objectives will be retaking Gibraltar and Minorca. Early enough in the war, this could be accomplished, as the British Mediterranean was not well defended. The Spanish preferred neutrality, but with the Austrians on the other side, I can definitely see them assisting Bourbons in Italy by attacking Milan and Tuscany. They may also attempt to retake Sardinia, if the Savoys join the war.

Sardinia had a decent army and they were considered the "Prussia of the South", however like Prussia their army would be reliant on subsidies. In OTL they remained neutral as they were war weary from previous wars. They may be bought by the British to secure Italy against the Bourbons. However, they will rely on the Royal Navy to protect Sardinia.

Denmark remained neutral during the war, but they were in conflict with Russia over the Duchy of Holstein. In OTL this remained an obstacle as France was allied with Russia. In this TL, they may just join the French in return for a handsome subsidy. Denmark had the largest Baltic Navy, and would be valuable in cutting supplies of naval stores to the British.

The Ottomans are another power that is past its prime, but I can see them attacking Russia if the war goes in favour of the Franco-Prussians.

Below is a list of definite alliances in 1756 when war breaks out.

BRITISH
Great Britain
Austria
Russia
Hannover, Brunswick, Hesse, other minor German states

FRENCH
France
Prussia
Saxony

Below is a brief outline of what I can see unfolding if the Franco-Prussian alliance endures.

On the sea, the British navy has the advantage. However, this would most likely make the French press the Spanish and Danish to join their cause. On land, the French and Prussian armies are the two largest and best equipped forces in Europe.

In OTL, the war went well for the French until 1758, and then turned against them. They were able to capture Minorca, most of Hanover and hold back the British in North America (along with their Indian allies) despite the numerical odds being against them. Austria's finances were in poor shape, and its armies were not prepared for war, and they were unable to destroy the Prussians, forcing France to send the bulk of its forces to Germany.

If Prussia is an ally, I can see the Austrian Netherlands and Hanover, Brunswick, and Hesse being overrun by 1757. Austria, had few troops there so it shouldn't be an issue. The question is if the United Provinces feel threatened enough to join the war. The British won't be able to provide further reinforcements as they are already stretched thin (just as in OTL), so this may just make the Dutch stadtholders decide upon neutrality.

With far fewer troops needed in Europe, the French are more than likely able to commit at least another 10,000 to 20,000 troops to French America, which will more than likely hold New France. Not feeling betrayed by France's alliance with Austria, the Spanish are going to join on the French side in 1756, along with Bourbon Italy. This will lead to Tuscany, Milan and Mantua being vulnerable. Gibraltar too may just fall before 1758 in such a scenario (before it is reinforced).

If Gibraltar falls just as Minorca did, then the Savoys will more than likely remain neutral as the British Navy can no longer assist them in the Mediterranean. On the other hand they may just make a play for Milan and Mantua themselves. Having them against Austria will further weaken the Habsburgs.

Russia will try to send troops to defend the United Provinces (at British behest), but this will draw Denmark into the war. With Franco-Prussian successes both Sweden and later the Ottomans are drawn into an alliance against the Russians.

I imagine the war would be over by 1758 or 1759. Prussia may just take Bohemia and Moravia (depending on their success), along with Hanover. France of course would want the Austrian Netherlands, Lorraine and the Habsburg possessions along the Rhine. Denmark could take definitive control of Schleswig and Holstein. Meanwhile Sweden retakes a portion of Ingria, if their successful enough (Livonia), perhaps with Danish naval assistance, they partition it.

In Italy, Tuscany falls to the Bourbons, and Milan and Mantua to either the Bourbons or The Kingdom of Sardinia (depending on if the latter enters the fray). The Ottomans perhaps claim Banat from Hungary and expell the Russian influence from Tauride and Crimea.

Britain may just make peace with France early on and leave the Habsburgs fighting. In OTL they almost did once Hanover fell, after Klosterzeven, but Prussia's victory at Rossbach in November 1757, encouraged the British to keep fighting. In this TL the British would be much worse off on the continent and France would have more troops along its coast to threaten an invasion, along with more troops available for America. This would leave Austria and Russia alone and they too would probably sue for peace.
 
ISTM Spain won't be in the coalition. The Dutch will have to think hard about joining it, Austro-Prussian reconciliation isn't so likely. An Austro-Prussian-British coalition doesn't seem like a steamroller that would necessarilly feel ready to resume war all by itself in less than 5 years.

This possible coalition may not be a steamroller but more than powerful enough. After all, that coalition would contain the greatest army and navy in Europe. And I disagree that the Dutch or Austria wouldn't join. The Dutch would join because of its natural alliance with Britain and because it wouldn't want a powerful Catholic country on its border. Austria wouldn't want a powerful neighbour either so a temporary reconciliation with Prussia wouldn't be impossible. So, add the Austria and the Dutch to the list then this coalition does become a steamroller.


Maybe this was a thing, but Russia was four tranches of countries away, so doesn't seem like a logical priority for France. Also Alex or Alex Milman a big Russo-knowledgeable poster here, doesn't rate Russian power projection as of 1748 very highly.

Whether 18th century Russian power is overstated or not doesn't matter. From what I understand of European politics after the War of Austrian Succession, the French perceived the Russians as a growing threat.
 
to ad to this the Austrian Netherlands would have been worth it. Just think, when industrialisation comes around in the 19th century and the Belgian coal fields are discovered how much of a powerhouse france will become.

France would need lots of luck to hold on to the Austrian Netherlands long enough to make it to the 19th century and to industrialization. The other European powers would have reacted long before to the upset balance-of-power that a France with the Austrian Netherlands would cause.
 
Top