PC: Bavaria Swapped for the Austrian Netherlands, 1740-1745

Firstly about the name. The area had been known as the southern, Austrian, Spanish Netherlands for ages. I think it is likely it simply will continue to be known as the Netherlands. it is kind of a discriptive term, for low lying land. And noone would care, I think. There were plenty of other areas that shared part of a name. There were (at least) two Brunswicks, several Nassaus, etc. I don't think anyone cares there are two Netherlands. They would simply be differentiated somehow, either through the rulers (Wittelsbach-Netherlands), through it form of governement (kingdom of the Netherlands), or something more geographical, like Southern Netherlands. Belgium could be used, but probably in the same way as the Netherlands, as it was simply used as a Latin name for Netherlands. The Dutch Republic also called itself Belgium in Latin tekst.

Speaking about kingdom of the Netherlands. I am not so sure about that. I can imagine unifying all the different titles into one title, or at least one overarching title. But would kingdom work? It would still be part of the HRE and besides Bohemia, how many kingdoms were actualy part of the HRE at that time? I think the rulers of Prussia got away with being kings, since Prussia itself was not actualy part of the HRE. That said, the overarching title must be higher than duke (since Brabant and other parts were duchies), but lower than king. Not sure how much whiggleroom there is. Archduchy? Grandduchy? Aren't those a bit anachronistic?
 
Firstly about the name. The area had been known as the southern, Austrian, Spanish Netherlands for ages. I think it is likely it simply will continue to be known as the Netherlands. it is kind of a discriptive term, for low lying land. And noone would care, I think. There were plenty of other areas that shared part of a name. There were (at least) two Brunswicks, several Nassaus, etc. I don't think anyone cares there are two Netherlands. They would simply be differentiated somehow, either through the rulers (Wittelsbach-Netherlands), through it form of governement (kingdom of the Netherlands), or something more geographical, like Southern Netherlands. Belgium could be used, but probably in the same way as the Netherlands, as it was simply used as a Latin name for Netherlands. The Dutch Republic also called itself Belgium in Latin tekst.

Speaking about kingdom of the Netherlands. I am not so sure about that. I can imagine unifying all the different titles into one title, or at least one overarching title. But would kingdom work? It would still be part of the HRE and besides Bohemia, how many kingdoms were actualy part of the HRE at that time? I think the rulers of Prussia got away with being kings, since Prussia itself was not actualy part of the HRE. That said, the overarching title must be higher than duke (since Brabant and other parts were duchies), but lower than king. Not sure how much whiggleroom there is. Archduchy? Grandduchy? Aren't those a bit anachronistic?
Either Kingdom of the Netherlands (if out of the HRE like the Dutch) or Grand Duchy of Brabant and Flanders...
 
Speaking about kingdom of the Netherlands. I am not so sure about that. I can imagine unifying all the different titles into one title, or at least one overarching title. But would kingdom work? It would still be part of the HRE and besides Bohemia, how many kingdoms were actualy part of the HRE at that time? I think the rulers of Prussia got away with being kings, since Prussia itself was not actualy part of the HRE. That said, the overarching title must be higher than duke (since Brabant and other parts were duchies), but lower than king. Not sure how much whiggleroom there is. Archduchy? Grandduchy? Aren't those a bit anachronistic?
Not quite anachronistic but the Habsburgs used Archduke in reaction to not getting an Electorate out of the 1356 Golden Bull so it has Austrian and Habsburg connotations/associations.
Grand Duke of the West was occasionally used by the Burgundians when they had rule over the Netherlands.
(And as you already know Lord or Overlord of the Netherlands was the general title of the region.)
If King is off the table then really we only have about 3: Grand Prince, Grand Duke, Arch Duke.
 
Not quite anachronistic but the Habsburgs used Archduke in reaction to not getting an Electorate out of the 1356 Golden Bull so it has Austrian and Habsburg connotations/associations.
Grand Duke of the West was occasionally used by the Burgundians when they had rule over the Netherlands.
(And as you already know Lord or Overlord of the Netherlands was the general title of the region.)
If King is off the table then really we only have about 3: Grand Prince, Grand Duke, Arch Duke.
Arch Duke is out of question... Grand Duke with Grand Prince as heir (like Tuscany) is the most logical choice... As title for the Grand Duchy either Flanders and Brabant (or Brabant and Flanders) or Netherlands...
 
Arch Duke is out of question... Grand Duke with Grand Prince as heir (like Tuscany) is the most logical choice... As title for the Grand Duchy either Flanders and Brabant (or Brabant and Flanders) or Netherlands...
Grand Prince was used for the heir? But GP should be equal or higher than Grand Duke.
Unless that's a translation thing? Like how Prinz was the generic HRE term for heir apparent as opposed to Furst.
 
y
Grand Prince was used for the heir? But GP should be equal or higher than Grand Duke.
Unless that's a translation thing? Like how Prinz was the generic HRE term for heir apparent as opposed to Furst.
In Tuscany worked like that (unlike modern Luxembourg where the title for the heir is hereditary Grand Duke) and is surely a translation thing as Tuscan titles were in Italian (and the German equivalent is Prinz not Furst)
 
Last edited:
Arch Duke is out of question... Grand Duke with Grand Prince as heir (like Tuscany) is the most logical choice... As title for the Grand Duchy either Flanders and Brabant (or Brabant and Flanders) or Netherlands...
In that case Grand Duchy of the Netherlands seems to me the most logical choice, partly because it is more than just Brabant and Flanders (it also includes Namur, Hainaut, Luxemburg and Limburg and smalls things like the lordship of Mechelen or the Marquisate of Antwerp). So calling it just Flanders and Brabant seems incorrect.

I suspect that the Grandduke of the Netherlands would also be duke of Brabant, Limburg and Luxemburg, count of Flanders, Hainaut and Namur, etc.
 
In Tuscany worked like that (unlike modern Luxembourg where the title for the heir is hereditary Grand Duke) and is surely a translation thing as Tuscan titles were in Italian (and the German equivalent is Prinz not Furst)

For clarity, Sovereign Prince (like Monaco or Liechtenstein) would be Fürst. A member of the royal family or the son of a king is Prinz
 
Any thoughts on what would happen to Bavaria here? How would the Bavarians take to Maria Theresia? ISTR that Bavaria by the 1770s (in comparison to Austria, Prussia, the Palatinate and Saxony) was positively BACKWARDS with the Catholic Church having more power than in even Austria, and that the Illuminati were originally founded as a reaction to this.
 
Any thoughts on what would happen to Bavaria here? How would the Bavarians take to Maria Theresia? ISTR that Bavaria by the 1770s (in comparison to Austria, Prussia, the Palatinate and Saxony) was positively BACKWARDS with the Catholic Church having more power than in even Austria, and that the Illuminati were originally founded as a reaction to this.

I suspect that the Bavarians wouldn’t rise up in peace time, MT’s reforms would in general benefit the Bavarians, bringing wealth into the duchy this would likely make them treasure MT. Bavarian surplus population could also settled the Austrian military frontier just as the Austrian subjects in Swabia did. Economic the greater integration of the Swabian and Franconian Imperial Circles[1] with the Austrian-Bavarian economy would also boost Austria and Bavaria. It’s also likely that Austria will push for the removal of internal trade barrier inside the two imperial circles. The long reign of MT means that two generation will grow up under her rule. Under her rule Bavaria is unlikely to see new invasions, this will pretty much give Bavaria it’s longest period without foreign armies on their ground since before the 30YW. Austria will also be in a much stronger position in the Seven Year War. Of course a major question will be what happens to the imperial crown?

[1] both was relative well integrated with the Austrian economy, but the position Bavaria between them was something of a barrier.
 
Austria will also be in a much stronger position in the Seven Year War. Of course a major question will be what happens to the imperial crown?

It would stay on François Étienne's head, no? Maybe Max's "swap" is made conditional for his support of François as Maria Theresia attempted with the original negotations with Karl Albrecht, and as she stipulated in the Treaty of Füssen
 
Linguistically, could this lead to the consolidation of the Bavarian language, if communication and migration between Austria and Bavaria increases relative to that between Bavaria and the rest of Germany, it makes it that little bit more likely that Bavarian speakers slightly widen and further lean into the difference between Bavarian and Standard German. If Napoleon is butterflied away, it could have major consequences in an alt German nationalism.
 
A very interesting possibility that I had no idea about! I mean I knew of the plans of Emperor Josef I to partition Bavaria with the Palatinate and annex the Duchy proper, but I had no idea that Maria Theresa also made a play for the Electorate as well, considering her relative disinterest in her son's attempt to claim it in the War of the Bavarian succession.

First off, the best bet would be in 1745, as realistically there's no reason for a winning Charles-Albrecht to countenance trading his homeland for the Austrian Netherlands. Actually, I think the best bet would be a POD in late 1744, when in OTL a combined Franco-Bavarian army, assisted by the Prussians, drove the Austrians out of Bavaria and enabled to Charles VII to return to Munich. That way, Charles VII instead dies exiled in Frankfurt, and Bavaria remains under Austrian control. Combine it with a TTL Battle of Pfaffenhofen that destroys what remained of the Bavarian army, and you have a desperate Maximilian III willing to try anything to salvage something from his father's mess.

Second, the question becomes which state Max would get, the Austrian Netherlands or Tuscany. Considering that MT wanted to keep everything she inherited, I imagine she'd prefer swapping Tuscany and making her husband Duke of Bavaria instead, but that might not be wise as the AN were under French occupation by this point and Louis XV would likely resist returning them if he loses his Bavarian valve to turn against Vienna. I suppose it will depend on whether or not MT thinks she can liberate the Netherlands or if she has to acquiesce to the loss. However, for the sake of the question I'll assume MT acquiesces and trades the Netherlands for Bavaria (which would have to be ruled by her husband, as legally Bavaria didn't have any kind of pragmatic succession).

Third, France. the Austrian Netherlands themselves. By making the trade, Louis XV is in a bad position. After three years of blood, sweat and tears France had at last taken full control of the southern Netherlands and seemed poised to finally annex them, only for the provinces to be sold out from under them, to their own ally no less. If he ties to hold onto the provinces in spite of their transference to the Elector, then French duplicity is exposed to Europe and Versailles becomes an untrustworthy ally that steals territory from her friends. yet if he acquiesces then France has wasted tens of thousands of lives, millions of livres and three years for nothing. However, on the other hand, he's still in a better position than OTL. Instead of returning the Netherlands to Austria for 'honor', the King instead hands it over to a trusted ally. And the French people are likely to blame that perfidious Queen of Hungary for her duplicity rather than their beloved King, whose honoring his trusted fallen ally. Plus it means that, for the first time in nearly two and a half-centuries, the southern Netherlands are permanently in the hands of a trusted ally of France. Not the best case scenario, but still pretty good.

Finally, the Austrian Netherlands themselves. In all honesty, its a sucky trade for the poor Elector. While the Austrian Netherlands were nominally very rich, strategically important and a major crossroads in European trade, in practice none of that was still true. Instead of a central legislature, a central tax collection agency and a unified law code the Netherlands were a personal union of ten provinces, each jealously guarding their rights, privileges and powers. Getting money out of the various estates was like getting blood from a stone. Then there's the fact that the lifeblood of the Flemish traders, the Scheldt river, had long been closed by the Dutch, who controlled its mouth. The great port of Antwerp withered on the vine, as did most of the customs duties for the provinces. Finally, they even lacked control of their major fortresses, as the strategic fortresses of Veurne, Knokke, Ypres, Menen, Dendermonde, Tournai, Mons and Namur were all garrisoned by the Dutch. So the Elector would have a very uphill battle to create a centralized modern state out of his new realm. As for his title, it would be Duke of Brabant, like the last independent rulers in Brussels, the Archdukes. The provinces were still part of the Empire, so no royal title would be allowed, and each were in a personal union, so the Elector couldn't really annex them into a new state.

Hope this helps.
 
Maybe it would be better if the Franco-Bavarian army wins a victory but due to strategic complications such as logistical issues or a threat from the Netherlands, the Franco-Bavarian army doesn’t actually get to liberate Bavaria. As a consequence, Max III is still desperate but Maria Theresa is also not in a completely commanding position.

Regarding Max III and Succession. The fact that there is no Bavaria to swap probably just makes the OTL succession much less convoluted assuming that no one pops out any kids. The Palatinate gets unified with the Southern Netherlands without fuss.
 
A very interesting possibility that I had no idea about! I mean I knew of the plans of Emperor Josef I to partition Bavaria with the Palatinate and annex the Duchy proper, but I had no idea that Maria Theresa also made a play for the Electorate as well, considering her relative disinterest in her son's attempt to claim it in the War of the Bavarian succession.

First off, the best bet would be in 1745, as realistically there's no reason for a winning Charles-Albrecht to countenance trading his homeland for the Austrian Netherlands. Actually, I think the best bet would be a POD in late 1744, when in OTL a combined Franco-Bavarian army, assisted by the Prussians, drove the Austrians out of Bavaria and enabled to Charles VII to return to Munich. That way, Charles VII instead dies exiled in Frankfurt, and Bavaria remains under Austrian control. Combine it with a TTL Battle of Pfaffenhofen that destroys what remained of the Bavarian army, and you have a desperate Maximilian III willing to try anything to salvage something from his father's mess.

Second, the question becomes which state Max would get, the Austrian Netherlands or Tuscany. Considering that MT wanted to keep everything she inherited, I imagine she'd prefer swapping Tuscany and making her husband Duke of Bavaria instead, but that might not be wise as the AN were under French occupation by this point and Louis XV would likely resist returning them if he loses his Bavarian valve to turn against Vienna. I suppose it will depend on whether or not MT thinks she can liberate the Netherlands or if she has to acquiesce to the loss. However, for the sake of the question I'll assume MT acquiesces and trades the Netherlands for Bavaria (which would have to be ruled by her husband, as legally Bavaria didn't have any kind of pragmatic succession).

Third, France. the Austrian Netherlands themselves. By making the trade, Louis XV is in a bad position. After three years of blood, sweat and tears France had at last taken full control of the southern Netherlands and seemed poised to finally annex them, only for the provinces to be sold out from under them, to their own ally no less. If he ties to hold onto the provinces in spite of their transference to the Elector, then French duplicity is exposed to Europe and Versailles becomes an untrustworthy ally that steals territory from her friends. yet if he acquiesces then France has wasted tens of thousands of lives, millions of livres and three years for nothing. However, on the other hand, he's still in a better position than OTL. Instead of returning the Netherlands to Austria for 'honor', the King instead hands it over to a trusted ally. And the French people are likely to blame that perfidious Queen of Hungary for her duplicity rather than their beloved King, whose honoring his trusted fallen ally. Plus it means that, for the first time in nearly two and a half-centuries, the southern Netherlands are permanently in the hands of a trusted ally of France. Not the best case scenario, but still pretty good.

Finally, the Austrian Netherlands themselves. In all honesty, its a sucky trade for the poor Elector. While the Austrian Netherlands were nominally very rich, strategically important and a major crossroads in European trade, in practice none of that was still true. Instead of a central legislature, a central tax collection agency and a unified law code the Netherlands were a personal union of ten provinces, each jealously guarding their rights, privileges and powers. Getting money out of the various estates was like getting blood from a stone. Then there's the fact that the lifeblood of the Flemish traders, the Scheldt river, had long been closed by the Dutch, who controlled its mouth. The great port of Antwerp withered on the vine, as did most of the customs duties for the provinces. Finally, they even lacked control of their major fortresses, as the strategic fortresses of Veurne, Knokke, Ypres, Menen, Dendermonde, Tournai, Mons and Namur were all garrisoned by the Dutch. So the Elector would have a very uphill battle to create a centralized modern state out of his new realm. As for his title, it would be Duke of Brabant, like the last independent rulers in Brussels, the Archdukes. The provinces were still part of the Empire, so no royal title would be allowed, and each were in a personal union, so the Elector couldn't really annex them into a new state.

Hope this helps.
About the POD you are right, about the new ruler of Bavaria, if Maria Theresia can not rule it of her own, I think is more likely seeing it going to Joseph instead of Francis Stephen. Louis XV can still go out as winner in Netherlands also giving them to the Elector, if he agree to swap under the condition who Max married one of his daughter and Max’s eldest sister (and now heiress presumptive) became the second wife of the widowed Dauphin (putting Netherlands firmly in the French sphere with a pretty good chance to annex it in the next generation)...
The title of Duke of Brabant is unlikely to be used as Isabella and Albert, while independent rulers, had still Spain as overlord so I believe Maximilian will use a new title
 
Maybe it would be better if the Franco-Bavarian army wins a victory but due to strategic complications such as logistical issues or a threat from the Netherlands, the Franco-Bavarian army doesn’t actually get to liberate Bavaria. As a consequence, Max III is still desperate but Maria Theresa is also not in a completely commanding position.

Regarding Max III and Succession. The fact that there is no Bavaria to swap probably just makes the OTL succession much less convoluted assuming that no one pops out any kids. The Palatinate gets unified with the Southern Netherlands without fuss.
Not really as Netherlands had NEVER followed Salic law so they will be inherited by Max III’s eldest sister (OTL Electress of Saxony, ATL most likely Dauphine of France) and not by his cousin of Palatinate ... Still the succession would be much easier...
 
Would they even remain as allies in such a scenario?
Absolutely yes. Max III would have no reason to complain or refute the double match. His lands were lost in the war started by his father‘s tentative to take possession of Austria and Bohemia and replace the Habsburgs as Emperors. Sure France pushes them to do it, but remained a trusted ally during the war and now they were renouncing to their war prize for compensating Bavarian‘s loss
 
Last edited:
Top