The Hapsburg monarchy acquires all of the territory of the spanish crown in Europe outside of Spain

Whether by a diffrent result of the war of Spanish succession or a treaty that averts the war the Austrian Hapsburg acquire all of there Spanish cousins territories in Europe outside of Spain. What is the most likely course for this to happen and how does it change the balence of power in Europe and Italy?
 
IOTL the war of the Spanish Succession ended rather close. The French Bourbon candidate, Philip of Anjou, got (most of) Spain and the Spanish colonies; the Austrian Habsburgs (Charles VI) got the Southern Netherlands, the kingdom of Naples (with the state of Presidi), the kingdom of Sardinia* and (most of) the duchy of Milan; the duke of Savoy gained bits of the duchy of Milan and the kingdom of Sicily*; and finally Britain acquired Gibraltar and Minorca. (*= Savoy was forced to trade Sicily for Sardinia after the War of the Quadruple Alliance)

This basically means that Austria would only need to get the Savoy gains, so the kingdom of Sicily/Sardinia and the final bits of the duchy of Milan. IMHO not impossible if Savoy performs worse and both sides didn't trust Savoy either, so they could also overplay their hand diplomatically. Both would make it even more certain.
The British gains IMHO weren't outside Spain.
 
The real gamechanger in the outcome of the SSW is one prince (Savoy, Bourbon, Habsburg whatever) getting Milan, Sicily and Naples and be allowed to marry Elizabeth Farnese, the latter be allowed to inherit both Parma and Tuscany. A generation later, their son could marry the Modena heir (assuming she is not butterflied away). You could get a kind of proto-Italy with only the Genovese and Venitian Republics and the Papal States left independent. Problem : no great power would ever want such a situation to occur.
 
the americas look good on a map, but at the time (circa 1700), they weren't much of a game changer. Hapsburg Austria got Italy and the Netherlands. France got Spain as a nominal ally, which alleviated a threat to one side. they took absolutely no advantage of it, and instead looked to keep Spain as minimal as possible. long term consequences were that when France needed Spain, the most, in 1760, Spain was useless.

So, anything seen as worthwhile was taken away from Spain. Britain didn't want it's own ally, Austria, to get more, and certainly didn't want the enemy France to get more. Everyone was happy to see Spain get knocked down to a minor power. and everyone was exhausted after a decade or so of war. hard to see things change much. but.....the idea is to change it.

Someone has to get the Americas. everything else was already taken away.

France, Austria, Britain are the contenders. No one wants any of the others to get the spoils, which is why Spain got to keep them, but someone else has to get them in this ATL. France is the nominal winner, so they're front runners for taking them. they have Canada and Louisiana. Getting the rest of the Americas might make them more willing to wheel and deal on the Ohio country. They have additional responsibilities now for maintaining a navy and an army. this is going to be too much to chew.

Austria as a colonial power. yeah, they're going to concentrate on the German lands and ignore the Americas. it's hard to see Austria doing what it takes to become a global power. that entails getting a Navy, which OTL, they ignored. I have a hard time picturing Austria finding a place, or inclination, to port a Navy capable of projecting power in the Atlantic/Pacific. They're bottled up in the Med.

the Brits. they're the only ones capable of making it work. but, this is before their time of world domination. Do they have what it takes to occupy and control all of the americas? It is fraught with danger, but this has the making of a Brit wank. they're likely to be occupied with colonies, and thus won't be quite as obstinate over Ohio. I see major butterflies with the 7 yr war whether France or Britain get the Americas.
 
The Spanish Succession War, as its name implies, was a war between two potentials rulers of Spain. Britain can not claim large territories, because it has no claim to any. OTL they annexed Gibraltar, which still upsets Spain 300 years later ! And, of course, effectively ruling a catholic empire with the protestant ascendancy would be tricky.
 
the competing powers took what they could get the other powers to agree to. legitimacy of claim had nothing to do with it. that's the way most wars are.
 
Ok my mistake I forgot to add one thing. The Hapsburg get to keep all this territory for at least 100 years.
The real gamechanger in the outcome of the SSW is one prince (Savoy, Bourbon, Habsburg whatever) getting Milan, Sicily and Naples and be allowed to marry Elizabeth Farnese, the latter be allowed to inherit both Parma and Tuscany. A generation later, their son could marry the Modena heir (assuming she is not butterflied away). You could get a kind of proto-Italy with only the Genovese and Venitian Republics and the Papal States left independent. Problem : no great power would ever want such a situation to occur.
why?
 
Ok my mistake I forgot to add one thing. The Hapsburg get to keep all this territory for at least 100 years.

As much as it pains me to say this, make sure Charles VI's son lives and Maria Theresia is not his heir. This would probably lead to no direct involvement in the War of Polish Succession that cost them Naples and of course avoid the War of Austrian Succession altogether.
 
the competing powers took what they could get the other powers to agree to. legitimacy of claim had nothing to do with it. that's the way most wars are

Please give me examples of early modern succession wars where non claimants ended up with large territories, on the scale of the Spanish colonies.
 

A united Italy means a new player in the game, with all the uncertainty. If he is a Bourbon, Austria would not like it, if he is a Habsburg, France would be displeased, everybody would frown upon a Savoy, Spain would want its former lands back, Britain be concerned with his position in the Med, especially with a Bourbon or Habsburg.
 
does it have to be a succession war?
Pretty much any war is 'to the victor go the spoils'
The Napoleon wars ended with the victors divvying up what they wanted, and could get the others to agree to. A lot of the minor countries were trodden over. Britain had no claim, or very tenuous claims on South Africa, for example. Portugal had a very good claim on French Guiana, but Britain made them cough it up.
in the Spanish Succession, Britain made France cough up Hudson's Bay.
in Austrian succession, Prussia made off with Silesia.
in Polish succession, Spain made off with Naples/Sicily.
Modern World wars are even worse.

These are all cases where the combatants simply used a war as an excuse to take what it could. the more they can take, the more they do take. As I pointed out, Spain wasn't stripped of more because it would be too problematic, not only for the new owner, but because no one was strong enough to take it. as long as you can come up with some excuse, no matter how far fetched, and you're enough of a victor, you can take what you want. I agree it was rather unlikely that the Americas would be taken over, but it had little to do with legitimacy of claim.
 
A united Italy means a new player in the game, with all the uncertainty. If he is a Bourbon, Austria would not like it, if he is a Habsburg, France would be displeased, everybody would frown upon a Savoy, Spain would want its former lands back, Britain be concerned with his position in the Med, especially with a Bourbon or Habsburg.
Would a United Italy even be that powerful? I thought it would just be a boost to Hapsburgs
 
Top