Spanish Succession War WI: Bavaria isn't restored?

OK so this is something I've recently came across and it appears that no one has ever mentioned/explored the idea before. So during the Spanish succession war Emperor Josef I (1705-1711) sequestered a number of states whose Princes had sided with the French. These included Mantua, Montferrat, Mirandola, Cologne and Bavaria. At the end of the war the Italian fiefs were annexed directly to Austria while the German states saw their Princes restored. Here is the part I found interesting: after Bavaria was sequestered Emperor Josef gave Upper Bavaria to his uncle the Elector Palatine, keeping lower Bavaria under imperial occupation.

Now I have no real proof of this but it appears to me that the Emperor intended to permanently partition Bavaria between Austria and the Palatinate, eliminating a major threat to the Habsburgs from within the Empire. So my question is this: what if this potential plan had gone through and the Wittelsbachs never returned to Munich? This would give the Habsburgs effective control over southern Germany while eliminating their (at the time) greatest German rival. So what are the long-term effects, assuming the Habsburgs hold onto Bavaria? No Austrian Succession war or one with a Prussian defeat? The possibility of a Habsburg-unified Germany? A new weapon in the French arsenal against the Austrians (remember that the Bavarian Electors were Bourbon allies)? A rejection of the annexation by the other Prince-Electors and a threat to the Habsburg Emperorship? Other possibilities that I'm not thinking of? Really I find the whole thing fascinating as its basically an early success of Josef II's plan so please discuss!
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Well, the Austrians (under Charles VI at that point) were against the idea of keeping Bavaria. It was a French proposal at Utrecht. They made it assuming (probably correctly) that Austria annexing Bavaria would drive a wedge between the German princes and an Emperor seen as expansionist and threatening their privileges. If Prussia, Hanover and Saxony begin to contemplate and anti-Habsburg alliance it will mean trouble for Austria. Mantua was easier because it's Duke was childless so the line died out anyways. Theoretically it should have passed to the Duke of Lorraine but Charles bought him off with Teschen.

I could see a partial partition where the Elector Palatine keeps the Upper Palatinate, since it was historically theirs anyways and maybe even Marlborough keeping Mindelheim but Bavaria proper being annexed is tougher. Plus it necessitates giving them something in Italy in compensation. The French wanted Max Emmanuel to get Sicily but the British vetoed that since they'd promised Sicily to Savoy. The British suggested Sardinia, since I don't think they cared too much about Bavaria anyways, but Sardinia, while providing a Royal crown, is poor compensation for the loss of their ancestral lands and so IIRC the French only entertained that idea as compensation for loosing parts of Bavaria, like the UP, not the whole thing.

If somehow it did happen the geopolitical situation in the immediate aftermath of the War would be highly unstable. It would change not only Germany but Italy as the the nascent Austrian hegemony in Italy would be lost in favor of a struggle to solidify control of Germany. Italy might fall back under Spanish control as Max Emmanuel, be he in Sardinia or Naples, would probably cooperate with Spain during the War of the Quadruple alliance. Who knows what Germany and Italy would look like by he time Charles IV dies.
 
Assuming the Habsburgs hold on to Bavaria, quite a fair bit. Still one can't escape the fact that even without Bavaria, if Josef I (who at this point probably wouldn't have any more children) or his brother Karl VI does not sire any male heirs, then there is still the Austrian succession to deal with. Of course now I don't even have the slightest idea who would play this game, but I could potentially see it being a massive clusterfuck.
 
Well, the Austrians (under Charles VI at that point) were against the idea of keeping Bavaria. It was a French proposal at Utrecht. They made it assuming (probably correctly) that Austria annexing Bavaria would drive a wedge between the German princes and an Emperor seen as expansionist and threatening their privileges. If Prussia, Hanover and Saxony begin to contemplate and anti-Habsburg alliance it will mean trouble for Austria. Mantua was easier because it's Duke was childless so the line died out anyways. Theoretically it should have passed to the Duke of Lorraine but Charles bought him off with Teschen.

I could see a partial partition where the Elector Palatine keeps the Upper Palatinate, since it was historically theirs anyways and maybe even Marlborough keeping Mindelheim but Bavaria proper being annexed is tougher. Plus it necessitates giving them something in Italy in compensation. The French wanted Max Emmanuel to get Sicily but the British vetoed that since they'd promised Sicily to Savoy. The British suggested Sardinia, since I don't think they cared too much about Bavaria anyways, but Sardinia, while providing a Royal crown, is poor compensation for the loss of their ancestral lands and so IIRC the French only entertained that idea as compensation for loosing parts of Bavaria, like the UP, not the whole thing.

If somehow it did happen the geopolitical situation in the immediate aftermath of the War would be highly unstable. It would change not only Germany but Italy as the the nascent Austrian hegemony in Italy would be lost in favor of a struggle to solidify control of Germany. Italy might fall back under Spanish control as Max Emmanuel, be he in Sardinia or Naples, would probably cooperate with Spain during the War of the Quadruple alliance. Who knows what Germany and Italy would look like by he time Charles IV dies.

That's literally the most idiotic thing I've heard of, though considering it came from Karl VI not surprised. Objections aside, I doubt anyone's going to form an anti-Habsburg alliance over Pro-French Bavaria. In any interpretation the Bavarians had committed treason against the Emperor and should be punished for it. Considering Hanover's position at that time they'd be OK with it and Saxony's energies are focused on Poland, so no real chances there. The only one who could be a threat is Prussia but that would be later down the road.

Secondly, there is very much precedence in this possibility. The Electoral Palatinate was sequestered and given to Bavaria in its entirety during the Thirty Years war and it wasn't until 1648 that the Palatine Wittelsbachs received any kind of compensation. The law is on the Emperor's side.

Finally and this ties in to my second point, why would the Emperor compensate Max Emmanuel? He sided with the French and lost; if the French care so much then they can find some of their own territory to give the deposed Elector. Oh and Max wouldn't be able to do much for the Quardruple alliance: unless Britain sides with Spain, the whole war was dead on arrival.

So lets explore the idea of Austria keeping Bavaria please. Maybe in conjunction with Josef I surviving, as it seemed to be his intention to do so OTL.
 
Well, the Austrians (under Charles VI at that point) were against the idea of keeping Bavaria. It was a French proposal at Utrecht. They made it assuming (probably correctly) that Austria annexing Bavaria would drive a wedge between the German princes and an Emperor seen as expansionist and threatening their privileges. If Prussia, Hanover and Saxony begin to contemplate and anti-Habsburg alliance it will mean trouble for Austria. Mantua was easier because it's Duke was childless so the line died out anyways. Theoretically it should have passed to the Duke of Lorraine but Charles bought him off with Teschen.

What if the Emperor didn't annexe Bavaria but gave it to some non-Wittlesbach nobleman (someone from one of the minor branches of the House of Hapsburg, perhaps)?
 
What if the Emperor didn't annexe Bavaria but gave it to some non-Wittlesbach nobleman (someone from one of the minor branches of the House of Hapsburg, perhaps)?

The House of Habsburg had no minor branches in the early 1700s, those came from Maria Theresa. It made more sense to annex Bavaria directly to the Habsburg patrimony. It would also establish precedent in regards to German states siding with France; they would rather run the risk of the imperial ban and sequestration.
 
Last edited:
The House of Habsburg had no minor branches in the early 1700s, those came from Maria Theresa. It mad more sense to annex Bavaria directly to the Habsburg patrimony. It would also establish precedent in regards to German states siding with France; they would rather run the risk of the imperial ban and sequestration.

I was thinking that, if the Emperor wanted to avoid looking too power-hungry by annexing an Imperial state, but still wanted to discourage people from siding with the French, kicking out the Wittelsbachs and replacing them with a more loyal candidate would seem a good way of achieving both those ends.
 
I was thinking that, if the Emperor wanted to avoid looking too power-hungry by annexing an Imperial state, but still wanted to discourage people from siding with the French, kicking out the Wittelsbachs and replacing them with a more loyal candidate would seem a good way of achieving both those ends.

That depends on the Emperor. Josef I was quite willing to do anything and everything to advance his dynasty, even threatening war with the Pope. Karl VI, on the other hand, was a pretty weak sovereign OTL. So if it's Josef on the throne, the annexation of Bavaria is quite likely. Karl didn't have the b$lls to do so.
 
It really sounds like you have little respect (albeit justified) for Karl VI. But at the end of the day, whether or not Austria keeps Bavaria will depend on Karl VI actually having male children. After all Josef at the time already has a STD, and has given it to his wife, which means no matter how it's swung, either Karl becomes Emperor, or a non-Habsburg inherits everything.
 
It really sounds like you have little respect (albeit justified) for Karl VI. But at the end of the day, whether or not Austria keeps Bavaria will depend on Karl VI actually having male children. After all Josef at the time already has a STD, and has given it to his wife, which means no matter how it's swung, either Karl becomes Emperor, or a non-Habsburg inherits everything.

That obvious? Yeah Karl VI is my least favorite Habsburg ruler and I've long said that the only good thing to come from him was Maria Theresa. That said, I disagree with your statement on male children. There are several scenarios that would allow the Austrians to keep Bavaria, with or without male heirs. The first would be to have Josef annex Lower Bavaria in 1707, the same time he awarded Upper Bavaria to his uncle the Elector Palatine. Karl VI is unlikely to de-annex Bavaria after its been added to the Monarchy. After that the succession could still pass to Maria Theresa like OTL. The second idea would be to have Empress Wilhelmine die in 1711 instead of Josef I, giving him the chance to re-marry and father male heirs.

Now I'm well aware of the STD controversy, but personally I question whether or not that's what made Wilhelmine sterile. Here's the TL: Josef and Wilhelmine married in early 1699, having children in late '99, 1700 and 1701. Then Wilhelmine gets the STD from Josef in 1704. That doesn't account for 1702 and 1703. Before the Empress had a pregnancy a year but there's no stillbirths or miscarriages between '01 and '04, so its just as likely that some kind of complications from Maria Amalia's birth could have left Wilhelmine unable to have further children; the STD would just be terrible icing on the awful cake. As there's no way to prove which theory is right, either could be what happened. So even with whatever STD Josef had, he could still father children with a second wife and not infect her/render her sterile.

Back to the discussion though, annexing Bavaria would be a huge boost to Austria's status as a Great power. The Bavarians had one of the largest armies in the Empire, so that's added to the Habsburg Monarchy. The Duchy's wealth, fortresses, influence and resources are all added to the Habsburgs. It also sets the precedent for further deposition of Princes and annexation of Imperial states that side against the Emperor. It would be highly controversial and unpopular but, at least initially, there would be no one around to fully oppose it in 1707/1714. All the players are either exhausted or caught up in the Great Northern war/Spanish Succession war and would have no troops to spare. Plus as I said above, no one's going to go to war to protect Bavaria at this point in time. The ones who would object, like Saxony, Hanover and Prussia, would be opposed to the precedent set, not the annexation itself.

Ignoring the Josef angle for the time being, it would be fascinating to see what the Austrian succession war would look like down the road or hell just Karl VI's reign in general. Who does Maria Amalia marry if the Bavarians are gone? Perhaps her great-uncle Elector Karl III Phillip of the Palatinate? Its not like the Habsburgs hadn't married uncles to nieces before, this would simply add another generation between them. Assuming that Maria Josefa still marries Friedrich Augustus of Saxony, would the Wettins make a play for the Habsburg inheritance, playing Bavaria's role? Personally I can't see that happening if the Saxons still hold the Polish throne. The very idea of a Polish-Saxon-Austro-Bohemian union would be downright terrifying to the Great powers (though it does sound pretty epic to me!). I suppose we could see Maria Josefa try to secure parts of the inheritance for her second and third sons, but that would be it. On the flip side, if they don't hold Poland, its equally likely that a Habsburg ally is ruling in Warsaw, potentially bringing Polish support to the Austrians in the Succession war.

Something else to consider: the Wittelsbachs go from having three electoral votes to one as they're losing Bavaria and Cologne (not sure how an Ecclesiastical Prince is deposed exactly but be sure that Josef Clemens won't remain Archbishop). This weakens the family alliance against the Habsburgs that developed during Karl VI's reign. If the Habsburg-Palatinate marriage happens it would be further weakened, especially if Amalia gives her husband male heirs, saving the senior Wittelsbach line. Without the Bavarians to dispute the Habsburg inheritance or the Imperial throne, Maria Theresa would be in a much stronger position in the war. Francois Stephan's likely elected much earlier, either in 1742 (same time as OTL Karl VII) or perhaps 1741 of the OTL extended interregnum can be avoided here.

In all, Prussia's in a bad spot here. With no Bavarian troops to distract her, Maria Theresa is free to focus her army to reclaiming Silesia. If the French still invade then they're backing Friedrich's land grab, not one candidate in a disputed succession. They also have a harder time getting to the Habsburg lands sense they have no ally on the Franco-Imperial border, forcing them to fight in Bavaria as well as Austria and Bohemia. Hell the French might focus their energies on the Austrian Netherlands much earlier and send only token forces to aid the Prussians. Prussia still has one of the best armies on the continent, but if Austria is able to harness the eastern allies that developed during the later Seven years' war, then we could see the Prussians completely collapse like the TTL Bavarians. Really this could make a fantastic TL if anyone's interested!
 
My apologies for being a pedant but in order to get Karl VI not to renounce Bavaria we need either a) that he isn't emperor when Utrecht etc are signed or b) that he sees the reason in retaining Bavaria. Now b) requires him to have a little bit of a personality change which seems kind of unlikely. a) OTOH, Josef I died in a sort of fluke - I mean, the man was only in his 30s, when compared to his full-siblings who generally lasted until the 1740s/1750s. Josef also wanted Bavaria, and as one of his biographers pointed out, he was basically the Austrian Habsburg equivalent of Louis XIV (by which analogy Karl VI would be Louis XV? Strangely fitting).

But if Josef is still alive after 1711, it changes the whole dynamic. It's been pointed out that the Treaties of Utrecht were signed out of exhaustion (although the fact that they went to war again in 1718 seems to belie this argument), but it was also because the Maritime Powers (England and the Netherlands) weren't willing to back Karl VI anymore as candidate for the throne of Spain if he was also emperor (Karl V and all that). So, if Josef is still kicking, Karl can't be emperor, and thus England and the Dutch will either make a separate peace with France (which was how they brought the Habsburgs to the negotiating table OTL IIRC by threatening to do just that), or continue to war against France (the latter's actually pretty likely, especially considering Queen Anne's poor health and that the French are holding her half-brother (OTL the clause expelling Jamie the Rover from France was agreed to by the Régent (who favored peace with England over his personal feelings towards James III, something Louis XIV might not do in 1711).

The other alternative, Josef still dies, someone besides Karl gets elected emperor by dint of his marrying Maria Josefa (who's all of twelve in 1711). It's pretty iffy, and the only German candidate I can think of that would suit, at that moment, is none other than Karl Albrecht of Bavaria, which renders the whole discussion moot.

A cool possibility would be Empress Wilhelmine dying at some point in the early 1700s - maybe after Josef has seized Bavaria. Josef remarries (where? maybe Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick which leaves his brother in need of a wife though) and fathers a son. which blocks Karl VI from succeeding to the imperial throne.

PS: Sorry if this sounds confusing. I'm away from my PC and typing on my phone as the thoughts come into my head.
 
My apologies for being a pedant but in order to get Karl VI not to renounce Bavaria we need either a) that he isn't emperor when Utrecht etc are signed or b) that he sees the reason in retaining Bavaria. Now b) requires him to have a little bit of a personality change which seems kind of unlikely. a) OTOH, Josef I died in a sort of fluke - I mean, the man was only in his 30s, when compared to his full-siblings who generally lasted until the 1740s/1750s. Josef also wanted Bavaria, and as one of his biographers pointed out, he was basically the Austrian Habsburg equivalent of Louis XIV (by which analogy Karl VI would be Louis XV? Strangely fitting).

Again not necessarily. If Bavaria is already annexed into the Monarchy by the time Karl VI assumes the throne, it would be pretty difficult to detach it without losing prestige on the part of the Emperor. From what I can tell about Karl's personality, I don't think he'd want to take the hit; giving ground on his brother's legacy I mean. That or perhaps get his advisors to tell him he'd be an idiot to give Bavaria away for nothing. But yeah big Josef I fanboy right here!! He has all the potential of Josef II without the prickly personality and micromanaging madness. Josef was basically the Habsburg Sun King, so comparing Karl to Louis XV fits quite nicely.

But if Josef is still alive after 1711, it changes the whole dynamic. It's been pointed out that the Treaties of Utrecht were signed out of exhaustion (although the fact that they went to war again in 1718 seems to belie this argument), but it was also because the Maritime Powers (England and the Netherlands) weren't willing to back Karl VI anymore as candidate for the throne of Spain if he was also emperor (Karl V and all that). So, if Josef is still kicking, Karl can't be emperor, and thus England and the Dutch will either make a separate peace with France (which was how they brought the Habsburgs to the negotiating table OTL IIRC by threatening to do just that), or continue to war against France (the latter's actually pretty likely, especially considering Queen Anne's poor health and that the French are holding her half-brother (OTL the clause expelling Jamie the Rover from France was agreed to by the Régent (who favored peace with England over his personal feelings towards James III, something Louis XIV might not do in 1711).

The other alternative, Josef still dies, someone besides Karl gets elected emperor by dint of his marrying Maria Josefa (who's all of twelve in 1711). It's pretty iffy, and the only German candidate I can think of that would suit, at that moment, is none other than Karl Albrecht of Bavaria, which renders the whole discussion moot.

Maybe, maybe not. Josef I died in April 1711; the Tories had already won their electoral victory in November 1710, so Britain's on her way out by then. And if Britain goes then the Netherlands are likely to follow. From what I can tell Josef's death was just the excuse the Allies needed to push for peace without losing too much face. So even with a surviving Josef the war's winding down. The allies have more or less achieved their aims: Spain's lost her European empire and her King would soon lose succession rights in France. Don't think that the Allies really cared who sat on the Spanish throne by the end. Plus Felipe V's been the King for eleven years, the Spanish aren't going to dump him by 1711. You also forget that the Tory leadership had no love for the Hanovarians and in 1711 had hope that James would convert to succeed his half-sister. So the Jacobite element is likely to be rather low in terms of negotiations.

Finally, um where did you find anything that said the Duc d'Orleans LIKED the Stuarts? Philippe II HATED his English royal cousins, James III especially (ironic considering the rest the Bourbons, including his mother Liselotte, loved and admired the Stuarts). Don't remember why but it started over some petty court ceremonial: Philippe's father was allowed an armchair (I think) in the presence of Queen Mary Beatrice, but the Queen refused to offer that privilege to the new Duc after Philippe I died, as by ceremonial he didn't have the right to it. That's basically what supposedly started the ball rolling.

Hell, getting into the French and Jacobite dimensions, a POD in 1711 could mean the survival of the Bourgognes and Berry. Meaning no Regency, no loss of French support to the Jacobites and no expulsion. Oh, side note, the expulsion was agreed to by Louis XIV and James III as a public-relations exercise. The Kings hoped to separate James from the French in the minds of the English people and government, like what Charles II's expulsion did back in 1654. If for a second Louis XIV thought it wouldn't work James would have stayed. Remember that the King over the water was basically Louis XIV's adopted grandson and that Louis had blocked the expulsion of the Stuarts once before:the English tried to force the Stuarts into Italy in 1697 with the Treaty of Rijswijk but the Sun King wouldn't have it.

Even if someone else is elected Emperor (basically impossible) Bavaria would already be part of the Habsburg Monarchy under my 1707 scenario. It really wouldn't make a difference.

A cool possibility would be Empress Wilhelmine dying at some point in the early 1700s - maybe after Josef has seized Bavaria. Josef remarries (where? maybe Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick which leaves his brother in need of a wife though) and fathers a son. which blocks Karl VI from succeeding to the imperial throne.

PS: Sorry if this sounds confusing. I'm away from my PC and typing on my phone as the thoughts come into my head.

Actually, I explored such a scenario a few years back. Basically Empress Wilhelmine died, instead of her husband, in 1711. My idea had the Emperor marrying Elisabetta Farnese, AKA Queen Isabel of Spain. This consolidates the Austrian hold on Northern Italy and gives the Habsburgs Parma, Piacenza and (probably) Tuscany. I didn't get that far in it, but it had Karl VI becoming King of Naples and Sicily as compensation for Spain and aiming to revive the old Neapolitan-Angevin Empire in the Mediterranean.
 
@Emperor Constantine: I never said le Régent LIKED the Stuarts, I merely made mention of his feelings towards them. I'd never heard about the incident with Mary of Modena (although the late dauphine had etiquette issues with her too), but Versallian etiquette was a nightmare, so I can imagine his nose being put out of joint by such an incident.
 
OK after doing a bit of research I found some evidence to back my crazy idea: https://books.google.com/books?id=y...q=Austrian occupation of Bavaria 1705&f=false
and
https://books.google.com/books?id=h...q=Austrian occupation of Bavaria 1705&f=false

Both books are older sources on German history for the last few centuries of the Holy Roman Empire and both bring up my same ideas. Parts of Bavaria were partitioned off, including the Upper Palatinate, the immediacy of the Imperial Free city of Donauwörth was restored and other slices were given to the surrounding Ecclesiastical states. Not to mention Bavaria lost its Electorship with unilateral support from the other Prince-Electors. The fate of Bavaria itself was to be decided at a later date, most likely at the definitive peace conference. So really everything points to an eventual annexation of Bavaria by Emperor Josef once his brother was firmly enthroned in Madrid and the French beaten. He, and Austria, just had the bad luck to die before it could happen.
 
Top