No Great Turkish War or Nine Years War

Austria doubled its size in the Great Turkish War while France did not gain anything significant in the Nine Years War. Assuming both Wars are avoided and Charles II of Spain still dies around 1700. How does the Spanish War of Succession develop?
 
Depends on which of them you want to butterfly away. The Nine Years' War was started by France -- triggered by Louis XIV's desire to attack Austria while the Habsburgs were occupied with a war against the Turks, and also as a response to Britain falling under the control of a hostile monarch.
A lot of stuff could happen, depending on if your PoD is James II's regime surviving, Koprulu Pasha capturing Vienna and ending the Great Turkish War there then, Louis XIV not revoking the Edict of Nantes (which sparked a lot of animosity between him and Europe's protestant countries), any combination of each, whatever have you.
 
Austria doubled its size in the Great Turkish War while France did not gain anything significant in the Nine Years War. Assuming both Wars are avoided and Charles II of Spain still dies around 1700. How does the Spanish War of Succession develop?

Just two aspects (I’m not even trying to cover everything):

France. Obviously, French finances and economy are in a much better shape and his armies do not suffer significant losses prior to the WoSS. Which means that by 1700 France may be capable of providing all of its infantry with the flintlocks and socket bayonets. The relevant question is if the Reunions are still happening (without triggering a war) giving France a better defensive position with enough time to construct all fortresses Vauban wanted. OTOH, it is an open question if, with a benefit of a hindsight, the whole idea of building these numerous fortresses along the border was a good one: their garrisons and artillery had been coming at the expense of the field armies and perhaps some of the money could be spent on the navy.

Empire/Ottomans. In an absense of the Great Ottoman War and 9YW Austrian finances probably still not very good (it seems that no matter what the Hapsburgs more often then not managed to be out of money:) ). Absence of these wars also means that Austria is out of army (again, it seems that in OTL only experience of the War of the Austrian Succession finally made it clear that a strong army is a necessity). What is at least equally important as a strategic factor is that Prince Eugene does not have a chance to advance his military career to the OTL level. To a significant degree in OTL the Hapsburg army was remaining a fighting force due to his prestige: the troops were not regularly paid and supply system was grossly inadequate. Hungary is not under Hapsburg control but, OTOH, there is no need to deal with Racozi Uprising. However, if the Ottomans chose to attack during the WoSS instead of the OTL schedule, raising an army to fight them off could be a difficult task and the OTL campaigns that resulted in conquest (liberation?) of Hungary look as a luxury the Hapsburg can ill afford.
 
Last edited:
Depends on which of them you want to butterfly away. The Nine Years' War was started by France -- triggered by Louis XIV's desire to attack Austria while the Habsburgs were occupied with a war against the Turks, and also as a response to Britain falling under the control of a hostile monarch.y
A lot of stuff could happen, depending on if your PoD is James II's regime surviving, Koprulu Pasha capturing Vienna and ending the Great Turkish War there then, Louis XIV not revoking the Edict of Nantes (which sparked a lot of animosity between and Europe's protestant countries), any combination of each, whatever have you.
my understanding is that the war started with a French invasion of a German electorate as part of the Reunion Policy, NOT a direct attack on Austria. Louis expected another capitulation from other powers, a massive miscalculation, when the rest of Europe said enough is enough.
Although the Glorious Revolution probably would have happened any way, as it was being planned before France's invasion, technically the GR started after France's invasion. One wonders what Europe's reaction would have been if the GR started and France hadn't invaded (and touching off the 9YW). France undoubtedly would have backed, to some extent, James. Would Austria and the German powers cheered on William, thus giving France solid proof that everyone stood arrayed against France?

No 9YW definitely puts France on much better footing for the WOSS. a lot of butterflies may ensue as folks who died may live, or careers may take an alternate path (Prince Leopold, architect of the efficient Prussian army, had some of his first action in 9YW, for example).
 
Depends on which of them you want to butterfly away. The Nine Years' War was started by France -- triggered by Louis XIV's desire to attack Austria while the Habsburgs were occupied with a war against the Turks, and also as a response to Britain falling under the control of a hostile monarch.
A lot of stuff could happen, depending on if your PoD is James II's regime surviving, Koprulu Pasha capturing Vienna and ending the Great Turkish War there then, Louis XIV not revoking the Edict of Nantes (which sparked a lot of animosity between him and Europe's protestant countries), any combination of each, whatever have you.

The first war probably butterflies away the other. Assuming Austria at peace may be dangerous to France so Louis XIV decides not to attack.
 
Just two aspects (I’m not even trying to cover everything):

France. Obviously, French finances and economy are in a much better shape and his armies do not suffer significant losses prior to the WoSS. Which means that by 1700 France may be capable of providing all of its infantry with the flintlocks and socket bayonets. The relevant question is if the Reunions are still happening (without triggering a war) giving France a better defensive position with enough time to construct all fortresses Vauban wanted. OTOH, it is an open question if, with a benefit of a hindsight, the whole idea of building these numerous fortresses along the border was a good one: their garrisons and artillery had been coming at the expense of the field armies and perhaps some of the money could be spent on the navy.

Empire/Ottomans. In an absense of the Great Ottoman War and 9YW Austrian finances probably still not very good (it seems that no matter what the Hapsburgs more often then not managed to be out of money:) ). Absence of these wars also means that Austria is out of army (again, it seems that in OTL only experience of the War of the Austrian Succession finally made it clear that a strong army is a necessity). What is at least equally important as a strategic factor is that Prince Eugene does not have a chance to advance his military career to the OTL level. To a significant degree in OTL the Hapsburg army was remaining a fighting force due to his prestige: the troops were not regularly paid and supply system was grossly inadequate. Hungary is not under Hapsburg control but, OTOH, there is no need to deal with Racozi Uprising. However, if the Ottomans chose to attack during the WoSS instead of the OTL schedule, raising an army to fight them off could be a difficult task and the OTL campaigns that resulted in conquest (liberation?) of Hungary look as a luxury the Hapsburg can ill afford.

Assuming Prince Eugene's career is not developing, France seems in a much better position to enforce their demands. So... a Spanish War of Succession with the Ottomans aiding France just against the Austrians is optional? No deposition of Mehmed IV whi could be succeeded by his son Mustafa rather than his ill brothers, no waste of manpower or resources, no execution of Kara Mustafa. Any chance the English/British join in a war against the Ottomans anyway?
 
my understanding is that the war started with a French invasion of a German electorate as part of the Reunion Policy, NOT a direct attack on Austria. Louis expected another capitulation from other powers, a massive miscalculation, when the rest of Europe said enough is enough.
Although the Glorious Revolution probably would have happened any way, as it was being planned before France's invasion, technically the GR started after France's invasion. One wonders what Europe's reaction would have been if the GR started and France hadn't invaded (and touching off the 9YW). France undoubtedly would have backed, to some extent, James. Would Austria and the German powers cheered on William, thus giving France solid proof that everyone stood arrayed against France?

No 9YW definitely puts France on much better footing for the WOSS. a lot of butterflies may ensue as folks who died may live, or careers may take an alternate path (Prince Leopold, architect of the efficient Prussian army, had some of his first action in 9YW, for example).

So... later efficient Prussian Army formed?

France has the best cards in this scenario. Much to gain, little to lose.
 
Assuming Prince Eugene's career is not developing, France seems in a much better position to enforce their demands. So... a Spanish War of Succession with the Ottomans aiding France just against the Austrians is optional? No deposition of Mehmed IV whi could be succeeded by his son Mustafa rather than his ill brothers, no waste of manpower or resources, no execution of Kara Mustafa. Any chance the English/British join in a war against the Ottomans anyway?

My 2c worth:
( a) France is still facing the OTL coalition but it is noticeably weaker on the top level. Plus, while Eugene maintained very good relations with Marlborough (both personal and as a military commander), IIRC none of them was doing well with Margrave of Baden (as I understand, he was more or less #2 in the Austrian military hierarchy). Which, if true, would make things much worse for the allies: most of their great victories had been won by a close cooperation. As a result, the French may quite well get an upper hand in Italy and Franco-Bavarian operation which in OTL ended with defeat at Blenheim could result in a realistic threat to Austria.
(b) As far as the Ottoman succession is involved, I com0letely defer to your expertise but, in general, if there is no prolonged disastrous war then the Ottoman Empire is in a much better shape economically and militarily. Plus, it still possesses a big chunk of Hungary and, as far as I can tell, the Hungarian Protestants were routinely ready to contribute to the anti-Hapsburg effort. With the Ottoman offensive happening in the early 1700s the PLC is out of picture because Sobieski is dead and August is busy being chased by Charles XII all across the PLC and Saxony. Troops of the German Principalities also not available due to the WoSS.
(c) Speculation area. In OTL Russian participation in the Great Ottoman War was minimal, two failed expeditions against the Khanate and two Azov campaigns, but it was politically important because failure against the Crimea weakened regency of Sophia and strengthened Naryshkin party. Absence of that war means that Tsardom has few more years of peace during which Sophia’s regime may strengthen enough to deal with the Naryshkin opposition (the problem is that neither Sophia nor Prince Golitsin were the bloodthirsty maniacs like Peter and had been reluctant to make the necessary “arrangements” even when they had an overwhelming military power on their side). So if this scenario works and, ideally, Peter has some accident while sailing a boat or boozing in the German Settlement, Tsardom most probably staying out of major military involvements and conducts some meaningful reforms. Even if Saxony and Denmark are going to war against Sweden, it is over relatively fast and Charles is ready to get involved in the WoSS. Probably (but not definitely) on the French side because this is more or less a tradition and because the Hapsburgs are also a part of that tradition as the enemies (it seems that Charles was sincerely religious). I’m not sure that 40 - 50,000 Swedes would make a critical difference but they could keep Brandenburg-Prussia busy with its own problems instead of actively fighting on Hapsburg side.
 
Top