Treaty of London (1700) - French Sicily, Naples, Lorraine, and Gipuzkoa

In the Treaty of London of 1700, the Spanish realm was to be divided.

France was to gain Sicily, Naples, Gipuzkoa, and Milan (which would be exchanged for Lorraine).
Spain would retain Sardinia and the Netherlands.


Ultimately we got the War of Spanish Succession instead. What if The Treaty of London had been successful? Would France have been able to retain its Italian holdings in the long-run?
 
In the Treaty of London of 1700, the Spanish realm was to be divided.

France was to gain Sicily, Naples, Gipuzkoa, and Milan (which would be exchanged for Lorraine).
Spain would retain Sardinia and the Netherlands.


Ultimately we got the War of Spanish Succession instead. What if The Treaty of London had been successful? Would France have been able to retain its Italian holdings in the long-run?

Didn't Austria reject the treaty because it locked them out of Italy? Or was that the earlier Treaty of the Hague
 

Philip

Donor
Didn't Austria reject the treaty because it locked them out of Italy? Or was that the earlier Treaty of the Hague
Yes. Austria considered French control of Milan a direct threat to their security. If Milan remained in Habsburg hands, the treaty as a better (still not great) chance.
 
Wouldn't France prefer having the Spanish Netherlands over Naples and Sicily ? Like Lorraine over Milan, you directly improve the french power and don't create separate entities far away your center of power. It's the traditional way France expanded, because French army just has to walk to reach the new territory.

But neither the British nor the Netherlands would accept France taking the Spanish Netherlands.
 
The French would love the Spanish Netherlands and would value it far more than Milan or Sicily which is precisely why the Allies didn't want to give it to them.
 
Wouldn't France prefer having the Spanish Netherlands over Naples and Sicily ? Like Lorraine over Milan, you directly improve the french power and don't create separate entities far away your center of power. It's the traditional way France expanded, because French army just has to walk to reach the new territory.

But neither the British nor the Netherlands would accept France taking the Spanish Netherlands.
Asked and answered in the same post.

Perhaps lust for the Spanish Netherlands is what lead France to go hell bent for leather in provoking the war? France knew the only way to get the region would be to go up against England/Netherlands. They already suspected that war was a good possibility anyway, so desire for SN pushed them into going for it all.
 
If the French are insistent about getting part of the Spanish Netherlands, I imagine there could be a division - French Luxembourg and Spanish Flanders.
 
Wikipedia lists populations from the year 1700.

France - 21.47 million
Naples - 2.5 million
Sicily - 0.7 million
Spanish Netherlands - 3.1 million
Spain - 7 million


Today Luxembourg and Hainaut are 20% of the combined Belgium-Luxembourg population, so let's say the French bits of Spanish Netherlands would be 0.63 million here.
Gipuzkoa has a population today that's 1.6% of the Spanish Population, so let's 0.112 million in 1700.
Lorraine isn't included in the population of France in 1700. Today Lorraine is 3.5% of France's population so let's use a figure like that and say France gains 0.752 million there.

France + Naples + Sicily + Hainaut + Luxembourg + Gipuzkoa + Lorraine has a population of ~26.164 million people. That's about a 22% increase relative to OTL. And France has partially dealt with the issue of Hapsburg encirclement as the Southern Netherlands are no longer Spanish.

The downside is the Hapsburgs still control Spain.
 
Another knock-on: colonial settlement.

OTL the Spanish deliberately kept non-Castillians (Aragonese, Italians, etc) from emigrating to the New World. France, meanwhile, was never a big exporting nation population-wise.

France holding on to Sicily and Naples may mean that France has a sizable pool of potential settlers for the New World.
 
France + Naples + Sicily + Hainaut + Luxembourg + Gipuzkoa + Lorraine has a population of ~26.164 million people. That's about a 22% increase relative to OTL. And France has partially dealt with the issue of Hapsburg encirclement as the Southern Netherlands are no longer Spanish.

The downside is the Hapsburgs still control Spain.

Spain remaining Habsburg arguably is to France's benefit, as it offers an excuse for France to continue capturing Spanish territory as it did progressively from 1648-97. Not only the Spanish Netherlands but potentially Catalonia and some possessions in the Americas may be targeted. When they became allies IOTL that ended all that.
 
Spain remaining Habsburg arguably is to France's benefit, as it offers an excuse for France to continue capturing Spanish territory as it did progressively from 1648-97. Not only the Spanish Netherlands but potentially Catalonia and some possessions in the Americas may be targeted. When they became allies IOTL that ended all that.

What territories do you think would be high on France's list? Majorca and Sardinia perhaps?

There would not be an abolition of the Crown of Aragon or a suppression of the Catalan language TTL, which might have some implications for Spain.
 
Last edited:
What territories do you think would be number one of France's list?

Navarre and Catalonia? Sardinia?

What is left of the Spanish Netherlands would be first, continuing the desire to push the northern frontier farther away from Paris. Then probably Catalonia as French kings had an ancient claim to be counts of Barcelona, and had tried to capture it 50 years earlier. Sardinia probably isn't too important unless Corsica is also acquired.

In the Americas, the eastern half of Hispaniola would be the most obvious target.
 
What is left of the Spanish Netherlands would be first, continuing the desire to push the northern frontier farther away from Paris. Then probably Catalonia as French kings had an ancient claim to be counts of Barcelona, and had tried to capture it 50 years earlier. Sardinia probably isn't too important unless Corsica is also acquired.

In the Americas, the eastern half of Hispaniola would be the most obvious target.


I guess the definition of France's "Natural Boundaries" would be extended to the Ebro.

France controls Sicily and Naples (which I think would include Presidi) here as part of the Treaty of London and I think it's likely that in the treaty the Spanish Netherlands would be partitioned (French Hainaut and Luxembourg, Dutch Flanders, Brabant, and whatever else). If France controls Naples and Sicily, would there not be an advantage to controlling Sardinia?

I don't see why France wouldn't gain Corsica TTL. The underlying circumstances that caused the Corsicans to revolt against Genoa starting in the 1720s wouldn't be that different and the most likely outcomes would be an independent Corsica under British protection or a French Corsica I would think.
 
Last edited:
In the Americas, the eastern half of Hispaniola would be the most obvious target.

If France has a large pool of potential settlers in Naples and Sicily, how would that impact colonial policy?

The 1721-1731 settlement surge in Louisiana (specifically the southermost bit south of Baton Rouge, but also the areas around Biloxi and Mobile) would likely be larger.

Would there be more in Acadiana and Canada (Lower Canada) as well?
 
France's colonial settlement was seriously impacted by financial woes. It's not like France didn't realize North America needed population. Wars kept getting in the way. If you butterfly WoSS, France has the financial means to encourage migration. And, perhaps you moderate (or avoid) John Law and his Mississippi Bubble, which killed any momentum in Louisiana and basically bankrupted France.

It's not simply a change the map. Avoiding a massive war has a lot of butterfly effects. Does it affect the British act of Union?

IF colonial Spain is a target for acquisition, a seemingly minor change is that the Florida Panhandle (which OTL was taken by France, but returned in War of Quadruple Alliance) may be taken and kept in some Franco-Spanish squabble. And the War of Quadruple Alliance caused Spain to fortify Texas. TTL, with France settling Louisiana, France may push and expand the disputed Texas border. relatively minor, but it may impact French ability to settle the southern part of New France.
 
France's colonial settlement was seriously impacted by financial woes. It's not like France didn't realize North America needed population. Wars kept getting in the way. If you butterfly WoSS, France has the financial means to encourage migration. And, perhaps you moderate (or avoid) John Law and his Mississippi Bubble, which killed any momentum in Louisiana and basically bankrupted France.

It's not simply a change the map. Avoiding a massive war has a lot of butterfly effects. Does it affect the British act of Union?

IF colonial Spain is a target for acquisition, a seemingly minor change is that the Florida Panhandle (which OTL was taken by France, but returned in War of Quadruple Alliance) may be taken and kept in some Franco-Spanish squabble. And the War of Quadruple Alliance caused Spain to fortify Texas. TTL, with France settling Louisiana, France may push and expand the disputed Texas border. relatively minor, but it may impact French ability to settle the southern part of New France.


Looking it up, it seems that the French took Pensacola during the War of Quadruple Alliance.

I think the furthest west the French would push in Texas would be east of San Antonio, as San Antonio was established in 1691. France could plausibly make claims to the lands east of San Antonio via the brief Matagorda Bay colony. A Guadeloupe River - Colorado River line could function as a border.

Something like the below could work.

upload_2019-1-12_23-10-32.png
 
If France has a large pool of potential settlers in Naples and Sicily, how would that impact colonial policy?

The 1721-1731 settlement surge in Louisiana (specifically the southermost bit south of Baton Rouge, but also the areas around Biloxi and Mobile) would likely be larger.

Would there be more in Acadiana and Canada (Lower Canada) as well?

Those could certainly help strengthen the New France colonies, but at the same time, France had plenty of poor people in its own territory that probably could have been persuaded to go. It just was not a high priority for the government to send a lot of colonists over, other than at a few brief moments like the 1660s.
 
F
Looking it up, it seems that the French took Pensacola during the War of Quadruple Alliance.

I think the furthest west the French would push in Texas would be east of San Antonio, as San Antonio was established in 1691. France could plausibly make claims to the lands east of San Antonio via the brief Matagorda Bay colony. A Guadeloupe River - Colorado River line could function as a border.

Something like the below could work.

View attachment 432195
i

France returned the panhandle in return for trade concessions with Spain. Although French regent d'Orleans was angling pro Britain/anti Spain, he couldn't go too anti Spain. Here France and Spain are rabid foes, so France is not likely to be so generous.

France had vague claims on the Rio Grande as the border, with more realistic border claims of the northeastern half of Texas.
 
Top