The Only Way To Prevent The War of Spanish Succession

If you know of the War of Spanish Succession, it went very bad for Spain. But what I'd Louis XIV agreed to not unite Spain and France yet allow his son to go on the throne?

That's the whole problem. The same monarch ruling both means a de facto union, and the reason why OTL's Phillip V of Spain was chosen was because he was the first surviving male of the line not in the direct descent (Louis XIV, BTW, and his line were incredibly bad at producing heirs. Of the three generations, Louis le petit dauphin and Phillip V were the only pair of brothers to actually reach adulthood and have children who reached adulthood of their own in something like 4 or 5 generations of the direct line.)
 
Get the retarded Spanish Hapsburg King to not renounce the treaty everybody spent so much time working on at his deathbed. Or just have him say it but no one could understand because of the overbite and the drooling. Archduke Charles Holy Roman Emperor becomes King and not Louis XIV's heir. Therefore France has to find something else to fight about after 1700.
 
Maybe Louis XIV could agree to make certain territorial consessions. Like the Spanish Netherlands to the Netherlands, you know, stuff like that.

The Republic was not interested. They preferred a strong buffer state without them having to pay for the garrison's upkeep.
 
Have the little Wittelsbach Prince survive. He was designated Prince of Asturias with it intended him to get the empire and Spain, while the Archduke Charles would get Milan and the Dauphin Naples, Presedi, and Finale.
 
Have the little Wittelsbach Prince survive. He was designated Prince of Asturias with it intended him to get the empire and Spain, while the Archduke Charles would get Milan and the Dauphin Naples, Presedi, and Finale.

The terms of this treaty make me suspect, that the Austrian Habsburgs weren't present at the negotiations. Though Milan was an important duchy, they seem to get the worst deal.
Furthermore other sources say that archduke Charles would get the Southern Netherlands, andn the duke of Lorraine (& Bar) would receive the duchy of Milan, but had to cede Lorraine (& Bar) to France. They appear to mix the partition treaties up, because in the second and third treaty, they did request this from Lorraine, OTOH Spain and the Spanish Netherlands in most propositions seem to remain together. (There probably were more options at the table before any agreement was reached.) However whether Milan or the Southern Netherlands, other parties seem to get more.
OTOH Spain wasn't present either, because they preferred to keep their empire intact, one of the reasons of the Wittelsbach compromise candidate.
 
Last edited:

Vitruvius

Donor
Even if Spain is not united with France in personal union the mere idea of member of the French royal house on the Spanish throne was anathema to the allies especially the maritime powers (Britain and the Netherlands) who feared Spain colluding with the French against their interests overseas. They only finally accepted Philip V after years of costly warfare that saw them fail in their attempts to dislodge him. And even then the Austrians fought on by themselves for another year because Charles VI refused to give in when the rest of the allies made peace with France and Spain. So it would be very hard to convince those powers at the outset to accept a Bourbon even with substantial concessions.

Complicating things was that the Spanish wanted their domains to pass to a single heir, hence Charles II's will left everything to Philip under the condition that he renounce the partition treaties. If the French didn't the Spanish would offer everything to the Austrians. To the Spanish preserving the integrity of the Spanish Empire in the Americas, Italy and the Netherlands and the autonomy vis a vis the other powers was paramount over whether the ruler would be a Habsburg or a Bourbon. So Charles II and the Spanish state will never support the pre-war Partition Treaties. Furthermore those partition treaties were strictly a bilateral deal between France and Britain (and the Netherlands also under William III) that had no input from Austria or any smaller powers let alone Spain.

As for the War I'd argue it wasn't the War itself that was bad for Spain. Spain was already in decline. And if one looks at the Spain of Philip V it actually recovered somewhat. Part of the reason that the allies were unable to remove him was that he was able to institute wartime reforms that dramatically improved the health of the Spanish state and gave him resources with which to defend the core of the kingdom. Obviously the Spanish Empire was partitioned and Spain lost most of its European possessions but that's not really a consequence of the war. Every attempt before and during the war to negotiate a settlement and avoid further fighting included some form of partition. There were simply too many claimants and Spain too weak to dictate the terms of its succession.
 
Even if Spain is not united with France in personal union the mere idea of member of the French royal house on the Spanish throne was anathema to the allies especially the maritime powers (Britain and the Netherlands) who feared Spain colluding with the French against their interests overseas. They only finally accepted Philip V after years of costly warfare that saw them fail in their attempts to dislodge him. And even then the Austrians fought on by themselves for another year because Charles VI refused to give in when the rest of the allies made peace with France and Spain. So it would be very hard to convince those powers at the outset to accept a Bourbon even with substantial concessions.

Complicating things was that the Spanish wanted their domains to pass to a single heir, hence Charles II's will left everything to Philip under the condition that he renounce the partition treaties. If the French didn't the Spanish would offer everything to the Austrians. To the Spanish preserving the integrity of the Spanish Empire in the Americas, Italy and the Netherlands and the autonomy vis a vis the other powers was paramount over whether the ruler would be a Habsburg or a Bourbon. So Charles II and the Spanish state will never support the pre-war Partition Treaties. Furthermore those partition treaties were strictly a bilateral deal between France and Britain (and the Netherlands also under William III) that had no input from Austria or any smaller powers let alone Spain.

As for the War I'd argue it wasn't the War itself that was bad for Spain. Spain was already in decline. And if one looks at the Spain of Philip V it actually recovered somewhat. Part of the reason that the allies were unable to remove him was that he was able to institute wartime reforms that dramatically improved the health of the Spanish state and gave him resources with which to defend the core of the kingdom. Obviously the Spanish Empire was partitioned and Spain lost most of its European possessions but that's not really a consequence of the war. Every attempt before and during the war to negotiate a settlement and avoid further fighting included some form of partition. There were simply too many claimants and Spain too weak to dictate the terms of its succession.

Maybe someone else should inherit the throne. My good candidates for that are Bavaria, Saxony, Venice, or Sardinia.
 
As I understand it, the Wittelsbach boy wasn't a compromise, he was just the obvious legal heir. Once he died, who was the heir was disputed between the Habsburgs and Bourbons, using different claims, but if he lives, there's no dispute.

He could then marry a Bourbon lady if there's any around.
 
As I understand it, the Wittelsbach boy wasn't a compromise, he was just the obvious legal heir. Once he died, who was the heir was disputed between the Habsburgs and Bourbons, using different claims, but if he lives, there's no dispute.

He could then marry a Bourbon lady if there's any around.

Or maybe if he had an heir, maybe that would do
 
Top