Sardinia in the Seven Years War?

This is a question somewhat related to my current timeline.

If France does not intercede on Charles III's behalf to convince Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia to back down from his Italian claims in exchange for financial compensation, how likely is it Sardinia would have warred with Spain?

The Sevens Years War is going on at this time, in what ways might this affect it?
 
What would be their goals? Conquering the duchies of Milan, Parma and Mantua?

This would basically lead to Sardinia-Savoy being at war with all the other regional great powers (France, Austria, Spain (and the Spanish Bourbon cadets)).

Alternatively Sardinia-Savoy could join them? However I assume any territorial compensation may need to have to come from Austria. The only scenario I can think of, that Austria may begrudgingly willing to do so, is when Austria regains Silesia.
OTOH why would Sardinia-Savoy be compensated; and more importantly would France, Austria, Spain, Sicily-Naples and Parma like a new regional north Italian power?
 
This would basically lead to Sardinia-Savoy being at war with all the other regional great powers (France, Austria, Spain (and the Spanish Bourbon cadets)).

This is my understanding of why Savoy was neutral. Almost every other state in Italy was rule by a Bourbon or a Habsburg (the exceptions being the Republics, the Papal States and Modena). With almost the entire peninsula in the Franco-Austrian camp there was no fighting there OTL.

Of course Savoy would still harbor desires on Austrian Milan but that means going up against a coalition of the cadet Habsburg and Bourbon states backed up France, Spain and Austria. They would be literally surrounded by enemies. So without a serious commitment of support from Britain beyond just subsidies it doesn't make much sense to jump into a war with so many adversaries and so few allies.
 
This is my understanding of why Savoy was neutral. Almost every other state in Italy was rule by a Bourbon or a Habsburg (the exceptions being the Republics, the Papal States and Modena). With almost the entire peninsula in the Franco-Austrian camp there was no fighting there OTL.

Of course Savoy would still harbor desires on Austrian Milan but that means going up against a coalition of the cadet Habsburg and Bourbon states backed up France, Spain and Austria. They would be literally surrounded by enemies. So without a serious commitment of support from Britain beyond just subsidies it doesn't make much sense to jump into a war with so many adversaries and so few allies.

Yeah, sound quite the ultimate suicidal move, unless it looks like all their enemies are collapsing. Which hardly seems where the TL in question is heading.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Would Sardinia have had a more active 18th century without the Bourbon-Habsburg rapproachment? Hrm.
 
Would Sardinia have had a more active 18th century without the Bourbon-Habsburg rapproachment? Hrm.

Probably, although they'd still be in somewhat awkward situation (wanting to grab stuff at the Habsburgs' expense, while needing to stay on their good side because big scary France on the other side). They might, with some luck and the good alliances, manage to snatch Parma or at least some parts of its duchy (the desired Piacenza particularly badly IIRC, and there had been a couple of treaties where they came quite close to get it).
 
I think they'd absolutely be in a stronger position if the Habsburgs and Bourbons kept at each other for the rest of the century. Go with Austria and target Parma or Sicily (with British naval support). Go with France and target Milan or Tuscany. Its also worth considering that Savoy was on the Austrian side during the War of Austrian Succession and they gained Austrian territory at the end of the war not Bourbon territory. Britain all but forced Austria to cede to them a slice of Milanese territory to compensate Savoy and keep them on the anti-French side. For some reason, perhaps lack of a better ally in Italy or interest in a balance of power favorable to British influence, Britain had a soft spot for Savoy. It was British demands that they be amply compensated at Utrecht in 1713 that led to them gaining something as big as Sicily with the title of King. So ideally they stick with Austria and stay in Britain's good graces and they come out of the War with something, or at the very least they aren't likely to loose anything even if France wins.
 
I think they'd absolutely be in a stronger position if the Habsburgs and Bourbons kept at each other for the rest of the century. Go with Austria and target Parma or Sicily (with British naval support). Go with France and target Milan or Tuscany. Its also worth considering that Savoy was on the Austrian side during the War of Austrian Succession and they gained Austrian territory at the end of the war not Bourbon territory. Britain all but forced Austria to cede to them a slice of Milanese territory to compensate Savoy and keep them on the anti-French side. For some reason, perhaps lack of a better ally in Italy or interest in a balance of power favorable to British influence, Britain had a soft spot for Savoy. It was British demands that they be amply compensated at Utrecht in 1713 that led to them gaining something as big as Sicily with the title of King. So ideally they stick with Austria and stay in Britain's good graces and they come out of the War with something, or at the very least they aren't likely to loose anything even if France wins.

Sure. Problem is, Austria did make territorial concession to Savoy at Utrecht and Aachen with considerable (and understandable) bad grace. Another cession of that kind would probably involve Milan, which is just not going to be accepted by the Austrians.
Antagonizing the Bourbons could bring Parma but is risky.
 
Sure. Problem is, Austria did make territorial concession to Savoy at Utrecht and Aachen with considerable (and understandable) bad grace. Another cession of that kind would probably involve Milan, which is just not going to be accepted by the Austrians.

Why not? If Savoy were aligned to the British coalition, but [somehow] only against Austria, and Austria loses in exceptional fashion, I can see another slice of Milan (and perhaps cession of influence over Tuscany?) being handed to Savoy.

Antagonizing the Bourbons could bring Parma but is risky.

I keep forgetting that Italy was still so heavily contested, and by whom. When did Austria get control over Parma? After 1815?
 
Why not? If Savoy were aligned to the British coalition, but [somehow] only against Austria, and Austria loses in exceptional fashion, I can see another slice of Milan (and perhaps cession of influence over Tuscany?) being handed to Savoy.

Why would France miss the opportunity? If Savoy is British-aligned, they will be up against both France and Austria in the SYW.
If France and Austria are still hostile, France is by default the biggest threat to Savoy, which means that Savoy likely aligns with Austria (and probably, again, Britain). Austria is very unlikely to ever be in the mood do give more stuff to the Savoyards as countervalue to their alliance, especially since that stuff would probably have to be Milan.
 
Why would France miss the opportunity? If Savoy is British-aligned, they will be up against both France and Austria in the SYW.
If France and Austria are still hostile, France is by default the biggest threat to Savoy, which means that Savoy likely aligns with Austria (and probably, again, Britain). Austria is very unlikely to ever be in the mood do give more stuff to the Savoyards as countervalue to their alliance, especially since that stuff would probably have to be Milan.

I'm missing something. How could Savoy be aligned -with- the British -and- Austria when they were on opposing sides of the war?

EDIT: obviously, siding with France+Austria is the better choice, so as far as any territorial gains, perhaps something colonial or otherwise inconsequential (Europe or otherwise?).
 
Last edited:
Why would France miss the opportunity? If Savoy is British-aligned, they will be up against both France and Austria in the SYW.
If France and Austria are still hostile, France is by default the biggest threat to Savoy, which means that Savoy likely aligns with Austria (and probably, again, Britain). Austria is very unlikely to ever be in the mood do give more stuff to the Savoyards as countervalue to their alliance, especially since that stuff would probably have to be Milan.

Perhaps if Austria manages to regain Silesia, then they might need to cede some territories in return. That could be Milan, which would be a very steep price and given the proximity to core territories of the Austrian Habsburgs, it also wouldn't be a strategic one.
Besides Savoy needs to be either have been extremely helpful as an ally or as an enemy managed to emulate the OTL success of Prussia in Silesia.

Since most likely more powerful allies will get a reward, before Savoy.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps if Austria manages to regain Silesia, then they might need to cede some territories in return. That could be Milan, which would be a very steep price and given the proximity to core territories of the Austrian Habsburgs, it also wouldn't be a strategic one.

I fail to see the logic in this. The only way I see Milan going to Savoy is via Savoyard military success, which leads me to:

Besides Savoy needs to be either have been extremely helpful as an ally or as an enemy managed to emulate the OTL success of Prussia in Silesia.

Since most likely more powerful allies will get a reward, before Savoy.

Savoy gets Milan if it can manage to capture it in some kind of exceptional manner. Anything short of a Prussian-style feat of genius, though, will not be enough of an achievement to merit this cession in the final treaty.
 
I'm missing something. How could Savoy be aligned -with- the British -and- Austria when they were on opposing sides of the war?

EDIT: obviously, siding with France+Austria is the better choice, so as far as any territorial gains, perhaps something colonial or otherwise inconsequential (Europe or otherwise?).

Sorry, I was considering (as previously suggested) the scenario of no Austro-French rapprochement where therefore, presumably, the old system of Britain and Austria vs. France operates. That won't be anywhere close to OTL's war.
 
Perhaps if Austria manages to regain Silesia, then they might need to cede some territories in return. That could be Milan, which would be a very steep price and given the proximity to core territories of the Austrian Habsburgs, it also wouldn't be a strategic one.
Besides Savoy needs to be either have been extremely helpful as an ally or as an enemy managed to emulate the OTL success of Prussia in Silesia.

Since most likely more powerful allies will get a reward, before Savoy.

In OTL's war, Austria is already giving the Low Countries away for Silesia. Letting Milan go too would be problematic I believe, unless we are back to a scenario where the Austro-French alliance does not take.
These scenarios however are irrelevant to the OP, since it assumes a TL where France and Austrie are indeed allied.
And it that setting, I don't see either Savoy siding with Britain and Prussia, or Austria willing to give anything more to Savoy to get it onboard.
 
AFAIK France and the other Bourbon states would support Austria in regaining Silesia. In return Austria will exchange the Southern Netherlands with the house of Bourbon-Parma for Parma.

So I agree, that I can't see Austria be willing to give anything more to get support of Savoy. And I seriously doubt Savoy stands a chance against the combined forces of France, Austria, Spain, Sicily-Naples, Parma etc.

IMHO Savoy would have had a better chance getting Milan during the war of the Spanish Succession, but that's a different matter.
 
AFAIK France and the other Bourbon states would support Austria in regaining Silesia. In return Austria will exchange the Southern Netherlands with the house of Bourbon-Parma for Parma.

So I agree, that I can't see Austria be willing to give anything more to get support of Savoy. And I seriously doubt Savoy stands a chance against the combined forces of France, Austria, Spain, Sicily-Naples, Parma etc.

IMHO Savoy would have had a better chance getting Milan during the war of the Spanish Succession, but that's a different matter.

Implying that Southern Netherlands for Parma+Silesia is even close to an even trade.

Back on topic, Sardinia (their formal title at this time; we really ought to stop referring to them as 'Savoy') stands a better chance allying with France+Austria (OTL 7 Years War) and hoping, as I said before, for other concessions. Perhaps earlier acquisition of Genoa? Perhaps something small colonially?

EDIT - I agree that they're probably not going to get anything from France or Austria even if they fight like hell for them. Also I just looked up the war again and saw a color-coded map of the belligerents. How the hell did Britain and Prussia win, again?
 
Implying that Southern Netherlands for Parma+Silesia is even close to an even trade.

Back on topic, Sardinia (their formal title at this time; we really ought to stop referring to them as 'Savoy') stands a better chance allying with France+Austria (OTL 7 Years War) and hoping, as I said before, for other concessions. Perhaps earlier acquisition of Genoa? Perhaps something small colonially?

EDIT - I agree that they're probably not going to get anything from France or Austria even if they fight like hell for them. Also I just looked up the war again and saw a color-coded map of the belligerents. How the hell did Britain and Prussia win, again?

Basically because Elizabeth of Russia died and Frederick was a very good commander and very very lucky. Moreover, technically for Prussia the "win" amounted to "not getting partitioned".
Britain had mostly to fight only at seas (except defending Hannover, which was tricky) where she was stronger than France. The other French allies had little to challenge the RN (and weren't particularly interested in doing so anyway).
 
Basically because Elizabeth of Russia died and Frederick was a very good commander and very very lucky. Moreover, technically for Prussia the "win" amounted to "not getting partitioned".
Britain had mostly to fight only at seas (except defending Hannover, which was tricky) where she was stronger than France. The other French allies had little to challenge the RN (and weren't particularly interested in doing so anyway).

Well, let's not forget the North American Theater. That was some pretty hairy stuff.

What of a combined French and Spanish (plus Austrian, Sardinian, and other cannon fodder) naval force? I think this is the stuff of the OP's timeline, no?

I just can't stand the narrative that the British were unmatched at sea throughout all of history. From the early/mid-19th century onwards, yes, undoubtedly, but before that? The British were far from invincible---the death of Nelson and almost-defeat for the Brits at Trafalgar is testament to that---and it's insulting to say they 'ruled the waves' (except, perhaps, in the collective imagination of Europe).

I think it's more accurate to say that maintaining a navy is freaking expensive, and the Brits were the only ones who could afford to do so during peacetime (since the decline of Spain, anyway).
 
Top