But Prussia still has the "right of inheritance" to Julich-Berg whether they have the power to do anything about it or not
But Prussia still has the "right of inheritance" to Julich-Berg whether they have the power to do anything about it or notNot sure I follow your point. Prussia is an ex-power in this scenario.
Piedmont *could* be a British ally, but they would never go against both France and Austria. Denmark could also be tempted (but they are not traditionally too friendly to the British). Besides, when Austria got Silesia in the sixties, then France probably already got a part of the southern Netherlands as a reward for its help (say Wallonia minus Liège archbishopric).POD is no Miracle of Brandenburg meaning Prussia is dismantled and Austria regains Silesia. France still loses in the West so French resentment of Britain is the same. French fear of Britain and Austrian fear of Russia cements the Bourbon-Habsburg alliance. Butterflies mean the American Revolution is averted.
This all means when Joseph II goes hungering for Bavaria, Prussia is too broken to stop him. France is uncomfortable but willing to do it in exchange for the Southern Netherlands. The Elector Palatinate gets Tuscany, and his offspring get the various minor French and Austrian exclaves scattered in Western Germany.
Britain is obviously very unhappy about all this, but what can they actually do about it? They don't have much of a land army and few prospective allies. Hannover will be in the British camp, but who else?
- Russia isn't that amenable to an alliance and too far away from France anyway. Would they really want to go to war over this?
- Spain is allied to France and seems to want that to continue.
- Portugal has been willing to stand by Britain before against Spain, but also lacks a land army beyond her own defense.
- The Dutch Republic is clearly horrified at mega-France grabbing the border forts, but they are at France's mercy now they've been handed over. Would they want to risk war given loss may mean annihilation?
- Saxony was on Austria's side in the last war and faces little to gain from upsetting the two major powers it is now sandwiched between.
- Naples is an interesting one. Nationally a Bourbon ally, but keen to get out from under Spanish domination.
So what do you reckon, could Britain string together a viable alliance? If not, does she accept the fait accompli? Or does she go naval war alone in an effort to get more colonies? What would be the outcome?
I can understand that. Still, as the minor player in this scenario, I'm not sure how much he can resist a stitch-up between France and Austria. If his options are Tuscany plus a bunch of minor lands he can distribute among his 7-9 bastards vs an attempt to take Bavaria with no major allies, I think he goes along with the former, even if he has a rightful claim.no. He was born in Brussels (Droogenbosch), held the title of marquis of Bergen-op-Zoom via his mom, and he wanted to go back.
I have read he wanted more than the title, and wanted to resurrect the Burgundian Empire.How is it delusional.
Yes, I agree Joseph wants rid of the AN, as long as he gets something suitable for it.Joseph gets rid of a state that doesn't bring him anything really (he never visited it, even when he travelled to France AFAIK), and leaves Karl Theodor to deal with the mess. He didn't plan to resurrect Burgundy, he simply considered using the title. He can create a centralized state there far better than the Habsburgs could. Plus, it has the added benefit of removing Maria Christine/Albrecht (neither of whom Joseph liked for what they got out of Maria Theresia, and who constantly spited his attempts to reform*) from that picture.
Karl Theodor has seven legimated bastards and two more he was considering legitimizing. He wanted territories for a lot of them, whereas this only satisfies one of them.Karl Theodor getting Burgundy clears up what happens to his bastards, since his bastard son will get it when he dies (this was in the treaty), along with Julich-Berg.
I don't want to derail the thread with an explanation, but the American Revolution is averted for good reasons. It's actually the "no second Miracle" thing that is the butterfly that I'm trying to work through. I'm not aiming to do a European fight, but I'm thinking it's a likely outcome without an ARW. France is going to want to get back at Britain and if they don't have the ARW opportunity, they will look for it elsewhere. Also an arrangement to annex the Southern Netherlands helps strengthen them for the next war. What I'm trying to figure out is if Britain will have any allies in order to precipitate a war. Either they get the allies, they go for the fight and probably lose, or they realize the writing on the wall and let both Austria and France expand without a fight. Either way the government in Britain collapses and the other party gets in.Why is American Revolution butterflied? Is this a butterfly of convenience so that Britain is available for a European fight?
Well, Russia knew the return of Silesia was part of the deal for them getting East Prussia. You're right that France won't be happy about the "abandonment", though if the Austrians are smart they can softball the lack of effort so it isn't an obvious betrayal.I would think an Austria re-united with Silesia now poses a challenge to the other powers. Russia isn't going to be too happy. A France that was abandoned by Austria after having been sucked into a European War through poor diplomacy (the diplomatic revolution alliance treaties between Austria and France pretty much guaranteed French involvement no matter who started the war) isn't going to be too happy. The only reason France would have to back Austria is if it presents them the opportunity to go at it with Britain.
France can accept Austria growing if she gets the Austrian Netherlands. Austria has pros and cons to continue the alliance, but she wants Bavaria and France is a greater threat to stopping that than the Russians. Peter III was not that friendly towards Austria also. Also, the status quo of an existing alliance has staying power vs trying to resurrect one with Britain (who they felt betrayed by in a previous war).France has no interest in seeing Austria grow. Austria and Russia will be opposed in western Europe/Poland. This is the only reason Austria would need France as an ally. If Austria is on friendly terms with Russia, France is not needed and may only drag Austria into France's next foray against Britain. So the alliance may not hold.
They are technically already in an alliance. I agree they do it halfheartedly and to their own interest. They would be interested in gaining land from Portugal too. I think France can give them some army support because they don't have to fight either Prussia or Austria in central Europe, Russia is too far away to threaten France.Spain will not be joining an alliance. They'll be attacking Britain with hopes of regaining Gibraltar and Florida. They have nothing to gain by supporting France, or Austria, in a European war. So, while they may join the war, they'll be fighting in limited theaters based on their own interest.
I wonder whether Joseph can offer something to Peter III. Perhaps some uncontested annexations from Poland.I would guess that a Britain unencumbered by the ARW would join with Russia in opposing any additional Austrian enlargement. France would be tepid, and Austria would back down.
I still can't decide if Russia wants to go in. But lets say they do. Can't they really win a land war against Austria and France together? If they don't, does Britain press on with war if they only have Portugal, Hannover, Saxony and rump Brandenburg to back them up?But, if it's a war you want, I would say it would be France/Austria opposing Britain/Russia, with a lot of the minor powers joining in on either side.
I think France will be focused on opposing Britain anyway. The Armada of 79 could be a united Franco-Spanish fleet.Spain will only join if France can promise them support in regaining Gibraltar, which France may not be willing to do IF France is too occupied in Europe. No French support means no Spain involvement. France supporting Spain means French attention is going to be firmly diverted to opposing Britain. Could the Armada of '79 have real conflict?
I think Spain will use the opportunity to attack Portugal, forcing Portugal into the war. And this could be a time when Spain genuinely occupies Portugal, given how stretched Britain would be. Perhaps they annex the Algarve.Portugal is not going to get involved unless forced to. They are trying to be friendly with Spain. I'm reminded, though, of the dust up Spain and Portugal had in '76-77. Portugal was rather pissed Britain didn't give them a hand. Britain claimed they were too occupied with the ARW. If no ARW, does Britain back their little buddy? I think not. Nothing in it for Britain, and they had a history of ignoring the alliance unless it was in their favor. Portugal would then return the favor, as they did in ARW, and stay out of it in the Bavarian War. IF Britain does get involved, does France side with Spain, or abandon them as they did in the Falklands crisis? Could we see a major war erupt predating, or in addition to, the Bavarian War?
Mostly I can accept your rebuttal. Thank you.I don't want to derail the thread with an explanation, but the American Revolution is averted for good reasons. It's actually the "no second Miracle" thing that is the butterfly that I'm trying to work through. I'm not aiming to do a European fight, but I'm thinking it's a likely outcome without an ARW. France is going to want to get back at Britain and if they don't have the ARW opportunity, they will look for it elsewhere. Also an arrangement to annex the Southern Netherlands helps strengthen them for the next war. What I'm trying to figure out is if Britain will have any allies in order to precipitate a war. Either they get the allies, they go for the fight and probably lose, or they realize the writing on the wall and let both Austria and France expand without a fight. Either way the government in Britain collapses and the other party gets in.
Well, Russia knew the return of Silesia was part of the deal for them getting East Prussia. You're right that France won't be happy about the "abandonment", though if the Austrians are smart they can softball the lack of effort so it isn't an obvious betrayal.
France can accept Austria growing if she gets the Austrian Netherlands. Austria has pros and cons to continue the alliance, but she wants Bavaria and France is a greater threat to stopping that than the Russians. Peter III was not that friendly towards Austria also. Also, the status quo of an existing alliance has staying power vs trying to resurrect one with Britain (who they felt betrayed by in a previous war).
They are technically already in an alliance. I agree they do it halfheartedly and to their own interest. They would be interested in gaining land from Portugal too. I think France can give them some army support because they don't have to fight either Prussia or Austria in central Europe, Russia is too far away to threaten France.
I wonder whether Joseph can offer something to Peter III. Perhaps some uncontested annexations from Poland.
I still can't decide if Russia wants to go in. But lets say they do. Can't they really win a land war against Austria and France together? If they don't, does Britain press on with war if they only have Portugal, Hannover, Saxony and rump Brandenburg to back them up?
I think France will be focused on opposing Britain anyway. The Armada of 79 could be a united Franco-Spanish fleet.
I think Spain will use the opportunity to attack Portugal, forcing Portugal into the war. And this could be a time when Spain genuinely occupies Portugal, given how stretched Britain would be. Perhaps they annex the Algarve.
I don't know where you're getting seven to nine from, since most sources I've found only mention five. And of those, the only ones - according to his agreement with Joseph - who mattered were the ones by Maria Josepha Seyffert (so that cuts it down to four). He doesn't need minor lands to distribute, because fortunately for him, among all his bastards, there's only one son (Karl August, b.1768, who was already a Reichsfurst von Bretzenheim). The girls wouldn't have inheritance rights, so could be dowered and married off to shore up alliances.If his options are Tuscany plus a bunch of minor lands he can distribute among his 7-9 bastards vs an attempt to take Bavaria with no major allies, I think he goes along with the former, even if he has a rightful claim.
Again, the number doesn't matter. Felipe IV had several bastards, but the only one he provided for was Juan José. Louis XIV had a rough dozen, but du Maine was the only one any historian can say he cared about, same for Henri IV (who singled out the duc de Vendome) or Louis XV (who only ever acknowledged Demi-Louis, even though he had about thirty). Charles II basically treated all of them the same, but that was different. If the agreement Karl Theodor makes with Joseph II stipulates that Karl August is his heir, then none of the others have a claim. Joseph isn't going to allow Karl Thoedor to get lands for all of them, since Joseph personally loathed bastard children (proving he was his mother's son): he cut off his uncle (Charles of Lorraine)'s three bastards and possible morganatic wife from their inheritance by saying that his uncle hadn't sought the permission of the head of house before he made his testament (not that different to how Maria Theresia cut off the Princess Neipperg despite François Étienne's will leaving several bequests to his bastards). He chided Leopold II in a letter for the latter's (unrecognized bastard) by the Countess Cowper (who got passed off as her husband's kid, later the 5th Earl Cowper) because Joseph had had to create the 3e Earl as Prince de Auverquerque in order to get the earl to acknowledge paternity and thus avoid a scandal. He even remarked to Antoinette in a letter that, at least the king wasn't parading pregnant mistresses in front of her as his brother-in-law Ferdinando did in Parma. In a letter to his brother, Ferdinand, in Milan he demands to know if there's any truth that one of Maria Beatrice's ladies-in-waiting is pregnant with his child with basically the threat of "if she is, it's coming out of your allowance"Karl Theodor has seven legimated bastards and two more he was considering legitimizing. He wanted territories for a lot of them, whereas this only satisfies one of them.
Mostly I can accept your rebuttal. Thank you.
That said....
Russia: IF France is so far away, and IF France is primarily focused on Britain, it becomes Russia vs Austria and France vs Britain, not Russia vs Austria/France.
This is fair. It was of course Catherine the Great's threatened intervention that scared Austria off in our timeline. Joseph II was willing to go toe to to with Prussia (with France neutral), but knew he couldn't face Russia too. It is worth pointing out, however, that Catherine didn't want a full scale war after Russia was still financially recovering from the Seven Year's War, so it was a partially empty threat. And Peter is not as diplomatically talented as Catherine.Portugal: IMO, while Spain could invade again, realistically, I don't think they would. They just settled a war with Portugal. I suppose it could linger on and turn into a larger war. It does give Britain a staging ground, though, for their ground troops. I just don't think Spain wants to go aggressive for minimal gains/risks.
Britain was at they apex of its own hyperbole at this point though. And in my timeline, they actually get a bigger win in the 7YW than they did in OTL. If they engage in the Tory thinking that they can just win colonies and trade them back for losses in Europe, they might be foolish enough to do it. Especially if they're rallied on by parliamentary politics and nationalism. It will obviously end very badly for them though, potentially losing Hannover.IF it is just Britain vs Austria, with the risk of France/Spain joining in, and no major power with an army looking to join Britain, I think Britain has to back down. I think they can get Russia on board, though.
It's in Joseph II and Bavaria: Two Eighteenth Century Attempts at German Unification by Paul Bernard. Mentions seven illegitimate children and two more her was considering legitimizing, though it doesn't name names. Says Charles Theodore wanted lands for them in the plural tense.I don't know where you're getting seven to nine from, since most sources I've found only mention five. And of those, the only ones - according to his agreement with Joseph - who mattered were the ones by Maria Josepha Seyffert (so that cuts it down to four). He doesn't need minor lands to distribute, because fortunately for him, among all his bastards, there's only one son (Karl August, b.1768, who was already a Reichsfurst von Bretzenheim). The girls wouldn't have inheritance rights, so could be dowered and married off to shore up alliances.
Again, the number doesn't matter. Felipe IV had several bastards, but the only one he provided for was Juan José. Louis XIV had a rough dozen, but du Maine was the only one any historian can say he cared about, same for Henri IV (who singled out the duc de Vendome) or Louis XV (who only ever acknowledged Demi-Louis, even though he had about thirty). Charles II basically treated all of them the same, but that was different. If the agreement Karl Theodor makes with Joseph II stipulates that Karl August is his heir, then none of the others have a claim. Joseph isn't going to allow Karl Thoedor to get lands for all of them, since Joseph personally loathed bastard children (proving he was his mother's son): he cut off his uncle (Charles of Lorraine)'s three bastards and possible morganatic wife from their inheritance by saying that his uncle hadn't sought the permission of the head of house before he made his testament (not that different to how Maria Theresia cut off the Princess Neipperg despite François Étienne's will leaving several bequests to his bastards). He chided Leopold II in a letter for the latter's (unrecognized bastard) by the Countess Cowper (who got passed off as her husband's kid, later the 5th Earl Cowper) because Joseph had had to create the 3e Earl as Prince de Auverquerque in order to get the earl to acknowledge paternity and thus avoid a scandal. He even remarked to Antoinette in a letter that, at least the king wasn't parading pregnant mistresses in front of her as his brother-in-law Ferdinando did in Parma. In a letter to his brother, Ferdinand, in Milan he demands to know if there's any truth that one of Maria Beatrice's ladies-in-waiting is pregnant with his child with basically the threat of "if she is, it's coming out of your allowance"
can you give a direct quote (or at least a page number) because I've scoured the book and all I've found of "lands for the" are these (land for them, lands for them brings up no matches):Says Charles Theodore wanted lands for them in the plural tense.
she was appalled at the thought that through it the income of the Monarchy might be reduced by as much as two millions yearly and did not want to lose "her good provinces in the Netherlands for the stupid Bavarians." (p.82)
Finally, did Lehrbach think that Karl Theodor and the Duke of Zweibrucken would agree, if Russia and France made no objections, to an exchange of the entirety of the Bavarian lands for the greater part of the Netherlands, including the royal dignity for the Elector? (p.153)
six of those seven would be:seven illegitimate children and two more her was considering legitimizing, though it doesn't name names.
Helpful input. I agree with the too much comment, which is why I think I throw in Salzburg and the extra electoral vote for the Austrians. It's also advantageous to Joseph's reforms to get more German speakers as he wanted German as the administrative language. Plus geographic contiguity is very valuable for centralizing states.I think people here make a major mistake in that they think France would be against replacing a Austrian neighbor with Wittelsbach. A lot of French foreign policy was about strengthening minor princes in the west Germany to weaken imperial authority. Here Austria will be weaken in the Rhineland and strengthened in the east and south Germany. It’s a free victory for France.
The idea that Austria would trade Tuscany and the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria is simply too much. Tuscany is a equal state to Bavaria and the Austrian Netherlands are worth more (on paper at least).