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

F
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.

I don't see where they took the whole panhandle. All I see is they took Pensacola.
 
I don't see where they took the whole panhandle. All I see is they took Pensacola.
Technically, you are correct. As Philip said, that's pretty much it for the panhandle. Without it, there's no real port to anchor (pun intended) a settlement.

The Panhandle itself isn't much value, certainly not at the time. It's main use is to keep the French as west as possible, or the Spanish as east as possible, to wrestle for lands (and indian allies) northward. and to keep the French as far away from St Augustine.
 
How defensible would Gipuzkoa be, south of the Pyrenees?

Why was it that Gipuzkoa was one of the territories offered to France?
This would be my question as well. Why was this province included in the treaty in the first place? It wasn't even a part of the Kingdom of Navarre (well not since 1200 when the Basque districts were lost to Castille) on which the French Kings had a theoritical claim (King of France and of Navarre since Henri IV)?
 
It was not a lack of settlers per session that was a problem, it was more that the French model of settlement actively discouraged settlement. What did you need large agricultural settlements for, say, if your economy was based on the export of goods gathered by native populations that would be disturbed by said? A largely French Italy will not change much, at least not in the early 18th century.
 
Here's another knock-on: How does no War of Spanish Succession impact the Great Northern War?

Brandenburg-Prussia may join the war on the Swedish side if they aren't involved in the War of the Spanish Succession.
 
This would be my question as well. Why was this province included in the treaty in the first place? It wasn't even a part of the Kingdom of Navarre (well not since 1200 when the Basque districts were lost to Castille) on which the French Kings had a theoritical claim (King of France and of Navarre since Henri IV)?

I have no idea why Gipuzkoa would go to France. Perhaps it is because it is coastal and separate from Navarre?


Also, I seem to have misread the treaty. Not only was France to exchange Milan for Lorraine, but was also to exchange Naples and Sicily for Nice and Savoy. I'm a bit confused by this, as this would leave Piedmont landlocked. There's Oneglia, which Piedmont owned at the time, but Genoa stands between Oneglia and Piedmont.

Maybe France annexes Piedmont, Aosta, Nice, and Savoy for Naples and Sicily?



EDIT:

Looking at Wikipedia's entry for the Kingdom of Sicily under Savoy, it seems cession of Piedmont was a debated subject. Victor Amadeus was only willing to cede Savoy and Nice, but not Piedmont. Later in 1710, however, it was proposed by the Savoyard ambassador that the Savoyard State be exchanged for the combination of Sicily, Naples, and Presidi.

I think Piedmont, Aosta, Nice, and Savoy for Naples, Sicily, and Presidi is a fair swap.
 
Last edited:
Even Aosta, Nice and Savoy without Piedmont in echange for Naples and Sicily would be a great win for the French. It secures the Alpine borders quite nicely with a small but defensible outpost in Aosta on the other side.
And Victor Amadeus gets what he wanted most: become King. And the Kingdom of Siciles-Piedmont is a lot more prestigious than the Kingdom of Sardina (imho of course).
 
Even Aosta, Nice and Savoy without Piedmont in echange for Naples and Sicily would be a great win for the French. It secures the Alpine borders quite nicely with a small but defensible outpost in Aosta on the other side.
And Victor Amadeus gets what he wanted most: become King. And the Kingdom of Siciles-Piedmont is a lot more prestigious than the Kingdom of Sardina (imho of course).
At that point Piedmont also will go to someone else together with Genoa, and maybe Milan...
 
Even Aosta, Nice and Savoy without Piedmont in echange for Naples and Sicily would be a great win for the French. It secures the Alpine borders quite nicely with a small but defensible outpost in Aosta on the other side.
And Victor Amadeus gets what he wanted most: become King. And the Kingdom of Siciles-Piedmont is a lot more prestigious than the Kingdom of Sardina (imho of course).

At that point Piedmont also will go to someone else together with Genoa, and maybe Milan...

Milan was to go to France, who would proceed to exchange it for Lorraine.

The issue is, Piedmont is going to be landlocked. What now?


Would it be Sicilies-Piedmont or Three Sicilies?
 
Milan was to go to France, who would proceed to exchange it for Lorraine.

The issue is, Piedmont is going to be landlocked. What now?


Would it be Sicilies-Piedmont or Three Sicilies?
Piedmont could be compensated by the region "Riviera di Ponente" from Genoa. It was a French client state at the time I think? Piedmont in 1700 included Saluzzo, Asti, Cuneo, Montferrato,... at the time if I remember correctly.

https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca8...322j-ac2aabc6-9ffb-4f6b-9e28-1029a5272783.png
Then Piedmont and Genoa can very well be united to Milan and given to the Duke of Lorraine...
 
Given how OTL Milan alone was supposed to be enough to exchange for Lorraine, why would the Duke of Lorraine get Lombardy and Piedmont (and potentially Genoa)?


I also don't understand why Genoa is being passed around willy-nilly. It was an independent Republic.
 
That was not the only option, if the duke of Savoy was not willing to exchange his lands, so including Piedmont, for Naples and Sicily, there were other options. One would be the duke of Lorraine & Bar, not sure if under that Scenario, it would just be Naples. Savoy, like Austria, was much more interested in the duchy of Milan. IOTL Savoy ultimately gained the kingdom of Sicily and bits of the duchy of Milan (most of the duchy of Milan went to Austria), after a few years they were forced to trade Sicily for Sardinia.

A real issue with these treaties, was that they, France and England-Scotland were making proposals to redraw the map, without the other parties, most notably Spain and Austria present. Spain did not like, that foreigners were carving up their empire. Austria is a bit more tricky, yes under this second treaty archduke Charles would inherit Spain and the colonies, but the French presence in Italy was matter of concern for Austria.
The interests of Savoy or Lorraine were far from the main concern either; IMHO in theory, an ATL provision in an ATL proposal, which would have transferred the Riviera di Ponente* from Genoa to Piedmont or Milan-Piedmont, seems entirely in line with the OTL treaties. (*= not the entire Republic of Genoa)
 
The Treaty overall seems largely too generous to the French in regards to the tenability of Hapsburg positions in the future. The Spanish lose Naples and Milan, cutting off the Spanish Road to the Spanish Netherlands making their governance far more prone to instability and increasing the chance that France would be able to capture it in the occurrence of a war. Exchanging Milan for Lorraine falls under the same problems as Lorraine is vulnerable to French incursion, is distant, and can only be maintained by traveling through French territories or through Savoy. Spain is made more vulnerable by creating a French outpost past the Pyrenees in Gipuzkoa. It seems like the French gain far too much for what they offer in return to the Hapsburgs: a weakened Spanish state that was already crumbling at the edges with the possibility that the French have a stronger position in future wars.

French domination of Two Sicilies and Milan seem likely, at least until the Hapsburgs attempt to kick them out. But, again, they are now in a weakened position in Spain, making their western lands vulnerable while the French remain consolidated. I foresee a French retaking of Lorraine and taking of Belgium, the overrunning of Savoy-Piedmont and Genoa to consolidate lands between Milan and Provence, and the continued presence of French in Gipuzkoa and Naples to dominate part of the Western Mediterranean. Not a good position for the Hapsburgs at all.
 
The Treaty overall seems largely too generous to the French in regards to the tenability of Hapsburg positions in the future. The Spanish lose Naples and Milan, cutting off the Spanish Road to the Spanish Netherlands making their governance far more prone to instability and increasing the chance that France would be able to capture it in the occurrence of a war. Exchanging Milan for Lorraine falls under the same problems as Lorraine is vulnerable to French incursion, is distant, and can only be maintained by traveling through French territories or through Savoy. Spain is made more vulnerable by creating a French outpost past the Pyrenees in Gipuzkoa. It seems like the French gain far too much for what they offer in return to the Hapsburgs: a weakened Spanish state that was already crumbling at the edges with the possibility that the French have a stronger position in future wars.

French domination of Two Sicilies and Milan seem likely, at least until the Hapsburgs attempt to kick them out. But, again, they are now in a weakened position in Spain, making their western lands vulnerable while the French remain consolidated. I foresee a French retaking of Lorraine and taking of Belgium, the overrunning of Savoy-Piedmont and Genoa to consolidate lands between Milan and Provence, and the continued presence of French in Gipuzkoa and Naples to dominate part of the Western Mediterranean. Not a good position for the Hapsburgs at all.

Considering that the King of Spain bequeathed his realm to the grandson of the King of France, the starting point is "France/Bourbons control the Spanish realm, so let's negotiate that down a bit in exchange for not going to war". It's hard to not have a treaty that significantly bolsters the French position.



It seems that Victor Emmanuel wasn't very keen on giving up any territory. Why not just have Spain retain Naples and Sicily but France gain Hainaut, Namur, and Luxembourg? The Netherlands meanwhile gains Brabant and Flanders.

France is kept out of Italy but gains desirable territory.




Otherwise, if Austria was opposed to France having Milan (or being in Italy at all), I suppose Lorraine for Naples with France perhaps keeping Sicily could work.
 
The descendants of the French Kings with Claims to Milan are the Piedmontese, aside from Milan going to Savoys, a cadet line of the Savoyards can also be given Brittany as they are the senior descendants of Anne of Brittany.
 
Last edited:
Top