One Man's Greed


I am going to repost this because I recieved some valuable feedback. Thank you, please let this thread die :p.
 
Last edited:
Let me explain this as this is quite complicated. The only POD for this timeline is that Jean-Baptiste Colbert dies in 1701, much earlier than he did OTL. OTL the King and the majority of the nobles wanted to accept the Treaty of London (yep that's OTL), however Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the French foreign minister was able to convince him otherwise. With France accepting the treaty of London Archduke Charles is now the King of Spain and France has some nice Italian territories, but make no mistake, war is coming.
 
The IOTL partage was made along these lines :
- Archiduke would have Spain, Netherland and American holdings
- Louis de France (and not directly France) would gain Naples, Sicily, Tuscany, Lorraine and part of Basque Country.
- Leopold of Lorraine would recieve as compensation Milan.

Why did it change so radically ITTL?
 
The IOTL partage was made along these lines :
- Archiduke would have Spain, Netherland and American holdings
- Louis de France (and not directly France) would gain Naples, Sicily, Tuscany, Lorraine and part of Basque Country.
- Leopold of Lorraine would recieve as compensation Milan.

Why did it change so radically ITTL?

Archduke still has Spain, the Netherlands, and the American Holdings.
Milan was given to Austria to prevent a potential war (OTL Jean-Baptiste was able to convince Louis XIV by saying a war was inevitable no matter which option he chose, may as well be bold)
As for your middle comment, Louis de France receiving the territory = France receiving the territory. Also on another note... where did it say they would receive Lorraine and part of the Basque county, I cannot find anything that supports that, but I might be wrong.
 
As for your middle comment, Louis de France receiving the territory = France receiving the territory.
No. Louis wasn't king of France (and given the PoD, wouldn't be soon as he died in 1701).
As he wasn't associated with his father rule at all, at the point of forming a quasi-counter government in his estates, if he inherited Tuscany, Lorraine, Sicily and Naples; you can be sure it would be, while largely influenced by French politics, clearly separate.

Also on another note... where did it say they would receive Lorraine and part of the Basque county, I cannot find anything that supports that, but I might be wrong.

It's the terms of the Second Partition Treaty of 1700. (Which are by exemple, present in the accounts of the royal conseil, particularly in Beauvilliers speech)
 
No. Louis wasn't king of France (and given the PoD, wouldn't be soon as he died in 1701).
As he wasn't associated with his father rule at all, at the point of forming a quasi-counter government in his estates, if he inherited Tuscany, Lorraine, Sicily and Naples; you can be sure it would be, while largely influenced by French politics, clearly separate.



It's the terms of the Second Partition Treaty of 1700. (Which are by exemple, present in the accounts of the royal conseil, particularly in Beauvilliers speech)

If he died in 1701, his possessions would go surely go to his father. Also we can assume Lorraine remain independent because the duke of Lorraine cannot get Milan. Also there no reference to the basque region. Thank you for the help!
 
If he died in 1701, his possessions would go surely go to his father.
Or to his son more probably, as it would be far more logical when it comes to inheritence.

Also we can assume Lorraine remain independent because the duke of Lorraine cannot get Milan. Also there no reference to the basque region. Thank you for the help!
1) If Lorraine is to remain independent, I'm not sure the treaty would have been enforced. Remember that the partition treaty were the result of really REALLY harsh negociations, and that respecting the terms of these negociation would be a sine qua non condition to make the deal work.

2) I did send you a reference, to be found in Bueavilliers speech. Didn't you read it?
 
Or to his son more probably, as it would be far more logical when it comes to inheritence.


1) If Lorraine is to remain independent, I'm not sure the treaty would have been enforced. Remember that the partition treaty were the result of really REALLY harsh negociations, and that respecting the terms of these negociation would be a sine qua non condition to make the deal work.

2) I did send you a reference, to be found in Bueavilliers speech. Didn't you read it?

Regardless if it goes to his son or anyone else within the French monarchy, it is going to be de facto French territory.

Also I did read it... and when it mentioned the territories:
"Archduke Charles took the place of Joseph of Bavaria and Milan was added to the Dauphin's part, but exchanged for Lorraine. In other words: Archduke Charles got Spain, the Indies and the Spanish Netherlands, the Dauphin got Naples, Sicily and Lorraine, and the Duke of Lorraine got Milan."

it didn't mention the basque county... maybe I missed it.
 
Regardless if it goes to his son or anyone else within the French monarchy, it is going to be de jure French territory.
De jure means "officially" : and officially, it would go to Louis de France and his sons, not to French Crown.
And for aformentioned reason, while de facto (that means unofficialy) influenced by French politics, it would still keep a large autonomy up to its de jure absorbation by France when the holder of Naples/Sicily/Lorraine/Guipuzcoa would inherit the throne.

it didn't mention the basque county... maybe I missed it.
Not the website, the speech.
(Even if it IS mentioned in the website)

Qu‘il n’y avait point de comparaison entre l’accroissement de la puissance et d‘États unis à la couronne aussi nécessaire que la Lorraine, aussi importants que le Guipuzcoa pour être un chef de l’Espagne aussi utiles en commerce que les places de Toscane, Naples et Sicile et la grandeur particulière d’un fils de France, dont tout au plus la première postérité devenue espagnole par son intérêt se montrerait aussi jalouse de la puissance de la France que les rois d’Espagne, autrichiens ; qu’en acceptant le testament il fallait compter tout une longue et sanglante guerre par l’injure de la rupture du traité de partage et par l’intérêt de toute l’Europe à s’opposer à un colosse tel qu’allait devenir la France pour un temps.
 
De jure means "officially" : and officially, it would go to Louis de France and his sons, not to French Crown.
And for aformentioned reason, while de facto (that means unofficialy) influenced by French politics, it would still keep a large autonomy up to its de jure absorbation by France when the holder of Naples/Sicily/Lorraine/Guipuzcoa would inherit the throne.


Not the website, the speech.
(Even if it IS mentioned in the website)

I am probably going to have to restart the TL (hey it is only day one :p), but I think it is worth the effort to fix. Thank you for your help, I cannot stress that enough. Also I actually fixed the de jure, de facto thing within around two minutes of posting (you respond quickly :O). Thank you so much.
 
Top