What if Louis XIV had handled England and the United Netherlands better in 1701?

In 1700, Louis XIV accepted the throne of Spain on behalf of his grandson, Philip V of Spain. Most of the countries of Europe recognized Philip as king of Spain with the notable exceptions of Emperor Leopold I, Savoy, England, and the United Netherlands. Eventually in 1701, the English and Dutch gave their recognition of Philip as king of Spain. For a period in 1701, Philip held Spain and its numerous possessions against only the opposition of Leopold I. It is not a stretch to say that Leopold I would have never been able to win a war against an alliance of Spain and France without the help of the United Netherlands. But Louis XIV bungled his foreign policy and provided a reason for the maritime powers to form the Grand Alliance with Leopold I.

Louis’s first mistake was to register in the Parlement of Paris a document recognizing Philip V’s place in the line of succession to the French throne. This document caused a flood of anger in the maritime powers, but in both England and the Netherlands there were strong parties determined to maintain the peace. The years following the peace of Ryswick in 1697 were prosperous for the maritime powers and many merchants did not wish to put an end to that prosperity. Many people felt that the will of Charles II of Spain leaving the whole Spanish empire to Philip V was preferable to any partition treaty, since France did not increase in territory with Philip as king of Spain, while any partition treaty would have greatly increased the size of France. William III (king of England, Ireland, and Scotland, Stadtholder of five of the provinces in the United Netherlands) at that point was hard pressed to convince either maritime power to oppose France.

Louis’s second mistake was to occupy the barrier fortifications along the border of France and the Spanish Netherlands. Since the peace of Ryswick, Dutch soldiers had occupied the barrier fornications. The soldiers were under the command of the governor of the Spanish Netherlands, Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria, but were paid by the Dutch. Within six days of Philip V crossing the Spanish frontier, French troops appeared before each of the barrier fortifications. The Dutch soldiers were disarmed and put in prison. The French and Maximilian (who was in negations with Louis XIV) had managed the takeover without any mistakes. The Dutch soldiers were sent home and French diplomats throughout Europe insisted that France would withdraw its troops as soon as Spain could raise troops to replace them. Naturally this action alarmed the peace party in the Netherlands but they still wanted to negotiate with France. Louis’s third mistake was negotiating special privileges with Spain for French traders to the prejudice of the maritime powers. This action angered the commercial classes in both of the maritime powers.

But what if Louis XIV had avoided these mistakes? It was natural to want to aggrandize France at the expense of Spain but what if Louis had let such acquisitions wait until the reign of his son (and Philip’s father) the Grand Dauphin? Why even issue a document that could scare other nations in Europe with the possibility of a personal union between France and Spain? What if France and Spain had to defend Philip’s succession to the entire Spanish empire against only Leopold I?
 
In 1700, Louis XIV accepted the throne of Spain on behalf of his grandson, Philip V of Spain. Most of the countries of Europe recognized Philip as king of Spain with the notable exceptions of Emperor Leopold I, Savoy, England, and the United Netherlands. Eventually in 1701, the English and Dutch gave their recognition of Philip as king of Spain. For a period in 1701, Philip held Spain and its numerous possessions against only the opposition of Leopold I. It is not a stretch to say that Leopold I would have never been able to win a war against an alliance of Spain and France without the help of the United Netherlands. But Louis XIV bungled his foreign policy and provided a reason for the maritime powers to form the Grand Alliance with Leopold I.

Louis’s first mistake was to register in the Parlement of Paris a document recognizing Philip V’s place in the line of succession to the French throne. This document caused a flood of anger in the maritime powers, but in both England and the Netherlands there were strong parties determined to maintain the peace. The years following the peace of Ryswick in 1697 were prosperous for the maritime powers and many merchants did not wish to put an end to that prosperity. Many people felt that the will of Charles II of Spain leaving the whole Spanish empire to Philip V was preferable to any partition treaty, since France did not increase in territory with Philip as king of Spain, while any partition treaty would have greatly increased the size of France. William III (king of England, Ireland, and Scotland, Stadtholder of five of the provinces in the United Netherlands) at that point was hard pressed to convince either maritime power to oppose France.

Louis’s second mistake was to occupy the barrier fortifications along the border of France and the Spanish Netherlands. Since the peace of Ryswick, Dutch soldiers had occupied the barrier fornications. The soldiers were under the command of the governor of the Spanish Netherlands, Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria, but were paid by the Dutch. Within six days of Philip V crossing the Spanish frontier, French troops appeared before each of the barrier fortifications. The Dutch soldiers were disarmed and put in prison. The French and Maximilian (who was in negations with Louis XIV) had managed the takeover without any mistakes. The Dutch soldiers were sent home and French diplomats throughout Europe insisted that France would withdraw its troops as soon as Spain could raise troops to replace them. Naturally this action alarmed the peace party in the Netherlands but they still wanted to negotiate with France. Louis’s third mistake was negotiating special privileges with Spain for French traders to the prejudice of the maritime powers. This action angered the commercial classes in both of the maritime powers.

But what if Louis XIV had avoided these mistakes? It was natural to want to aggrandize France at the expense of Spain but what if Louis had let such acquisitions wait until the reign of his son (and Philip’s father) the Grand Dauphin? Why even issue a document that could scare other nations in Europe with the possibility of a personal union between France and Spain? What if France and Spain had to defend Philip’s succession to the entire Spanish empire against only Leopold I?

Well you also forgot one other thing Louis XIV did to antagonize England: recognizing James II's son as James III & VIII, rightful King of England, Scotland and Ireland. This was one of the straws that broke the camels back.

As to the other ones, well I think some are more possible then others. For one, Philip V could still have a right to France, but at the end of the main Bourbon line but ahead of the d'Orleans. Or recognize the rights of a second son of Philip V to France, if the main line goes extinct.

As to the barrier fortresses, that would be the stickler. I can't see Louis XIV wanting his grandson's territories to be occupied by the Netherlands, nor for Philip V to want to leave part of his empire in Dutch hands. France would naturally feel threatened by the Dutch so close to their borders. So that one is gonna no doubt still happen.

As to the special rights, I think that one could he butterflied away, or modified to let the English and Dutch keep their rights but add the French in as well. Truly if Louis waits to antagonize the Anglo-Dutch alliance until William III dies then I think the peace faction in England would prevail and the Dutch would be caught up in their second Stadtholderless era they won't be in any position to attack. Leopold I would have no alliances and wouldn't be in any position to attack France.
 
Actually I chose not to mention Louis XIV's recognition of the Old Pretender as king because it took place nine days after the signing of the treaty of The Hague. Louis was already going to war with England so I am thinking he thought recognizing the Stuarts might cause some form of a potential diversion for William III. I agree with your contention about Louis wanting those Dutch forces removed but would it not make sense to wait for a more convenient time to do that? Imagine what ten years of peace and reforms would have done for the Spanish empire in TTL. Besides, in TTL, both Philip's father and brother stand to inherit France, so I could easily see a great deal of cooperation between Spain and France for a longer period than what happened in OTL. Philip has every advantage in this scenario so just a little patience would be beneficial to Louis.
 
But weren't some of the Philippine reforms only possible in the aftermath of the War of Spanish Sucession. I'm thinking of the abolition of the Crown of Aragon here. Without the "treason" of the Aragonese Cortes and without having forcibly subdued Barcelona it would be much more difficult.
 
I concede that Philip V would not be able enact all of his reforms in Aragon. But do not forget that in this scenario he would keep the Spanish Netherlands, Naples, Sicily, Milan, Sardinia and he would be able to enact his reforms in those territories. Philip would also be able to enact his reforms in Castile. So in TTL, Spain could not help but be in better shape than during the reign of Charles II. This is a Spain that would avoid the fourteen years of war that were fought in Castile and Aragon in OTL. Even if Philip can not reform Spain in TTL the way he did in OTL after the War of the Spanish Succession, Spain would still gain from not being in a long war. Besides, who is to say that France (under the rule of Philip’s father and brother) might not help him reform Aragon with military assistance?
 
I concede that Philip V would not be able enact all of his reforms in Aragon. But do not forget that in this scenario he would keep the Spanish Netherlands, Naples, Sicily, Milan, Sardinia and he would be able to enact his reforms in those territories. Philip would also be able to enact his reforms in Castile. So in TTL, Spain could not help but be in better shape than during the reign of Charles II. This is a Spain that would avoid the fourteen years of war that were fought in Castile and Aragon in OTL. Even if Philip can not reform Spain in TTL the way he did in OTL after the War of the Spanish Succession, Spain would still gain from not being in a long war. Besides, who is to say that France (under the rule of Philip’s father and brother) might not help him reform Aragon with military assistance?

I don't think many reforms are going through in any of those places - certainly not in the Spanish Netherlands, which are at least as particularist as the Aragonese realms.
 
I must admit I did not consider the conformational history of the Austrian Netherlands. In OTL, they gave the Habsburgs a whole lot of opposition whenever they felt their privileges and rights were impacted. My contention is that the entire Spanish empire in TTL would have benefited from the reorganization of government that Philip V implemented in OTL. Even with restrictions, I can not see how the Spanish empire would not be in better shape under Bourbon rule.
 
I must admit I did not consider the conformational history of the Austrian Netherlands. In OTL, they gave the Habsburgs a whole lot of opposition whenever they felt their privileges and rights were impacted. My contention is that the entire Spanish empire in TTL would have benefited from the reorganization of government that Philip V implemented in OTL. Even with restrictions, I can not see how the Spanish empire would not be in better shape under Bourbon rule.

It's hard for things to be worse than they were under Carlos II, certainly. On the other hand, you don't want to inspire aristocratic rebellions throughout the non-Castilian territories.
 
The problem is that most know Spain in this era was on a downward track but people don't consider the reason. Sclerosis. The basic machinery of government and the economy was so jammed up with centuries of compromises and privileges, many of them contradictory that nothing could get done. And while the War of Spanish Succession was very damaging at least it gave a clean sheet, ideally you'd want a shorter Civil War that would still enable reform while causing less damage. But no one could reform Spain Empire without Civil War.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that most know Spain in this era was on a downward track but people don't consider the reason. Sclerosis. The basic machinery of government and the economy was so jammed up with centuries of compromises and privileges, many of them contradictory that nothing could get done. And while the War of Spanish Succession was very damaging at least it gave a clean sheet, ideally you'd want a shorter Civil War that would still enable reform while causing less damage. But no one could reform Spain Empire without Civil War.

Well Spain's empire was desperately in need of reform, everyone can agree on that. But truly Spain could still be centralized. If the Crown of Aragon revolts and proclaims Archduke Charles as Carlos III then Felipe V could call on his relatives in France and crush the rebellion. Ideally it would be better for the rebellion to happen before the TTL Nueva Planta decrees, as it would look like a punishment for the revolt rather then the new King looking heavy handed. But the real problem isn't Spain proper but the rest of the European empire. How do you reform the Spanish Netherlands, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia and Milan? Each had autonomy from Spain so centralizing them is gonna be a bear. Actually I'm running into this problem with Apollinis et Dianae. Reforming the European parts of Spain's empire is incredibly difficult.
 
Well Spain's empire was desperately in need of reform, everyone can agree on that. But truly Spain could still be centralized. If the Crown of Aragon revolts and proclaims Archduke Charles as Carlos III then Felipe V could call on his relatives in France and crush the rebellion. Ideally it would be better for the rebellion to happen before the TTL Nueva Planta decrees, as it would look like a punishment for the revolt rather then the new King looking heavy handed. But the real problem isn't Spain proper but the rest of the European empire. How do you reform the Spanish Netherlands, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia and Milan? Each had autonomy from Spain so centralizing them is gonna be a bear. Actually I'm running into this problem with Apollinis et Dianae. Reforming the European parts of Spain's empire is incredibly difficult.

Exactly. OTL it was solved by the Spanish Netherlands being spun off along with many of the Italian possessions and that's probably the best option. In the absence of English and Dutch support Aragon won't rebel and proclaim Archduke Charles because they know they need external support and without that Nueva Planta probably won't happen. So from the Spanish perspective the OTL path but with an earlier and more decisive Bourbon victory is probably the best option.
 
Exactly. OTL it was solved by the Spanish Netherlands being spun off along with many of the Italian possessions and that's probably the best option. In the absence of English and Dutch support Aragon won't rebel and proclaim Archduke Charles because they know they need external support and without that Nueva Planta probably won't happen. So from the Spanish perspective the OTL path but with an earlier and more decisive Bourbon victory is probably the best option.

Well I think the main stumbling block is gonna be the Netherlands. The Crown of Aragon can be repressed any time and sense it would benefit Castile I can't see any major revolts outside of Aragon. Any in Aragon can be repressed by France and Spain. Italy could be centralized in Naples, provided Genoa can be used as a sea route for communications to Milan. Sicily and Sardina can be combined with Naples to create some sort of Crown of Italy or something like that. Plus any army can be easily shipped from Barcelona to Italy. But the Netherlands is the main problem. It would have to be centralized in Brussels but it would have to enforced at the end of a bayonet, which would mean a large army. So Spain would have to ship in forces to Antwerp or march them threw France. Without the Franche-Comte and Lorraine sending soldiers to the Army of Flanders is difficult. Maybe French troops could be used to suppress any revolt? I think getting the Scheldt river open would be a huge help to the popularity of the Spanish Government and a boost for the local economy. In all I think the reforms would be difficult but not impossible.
 
Well I think the main stumbling block is gonna be the Netherlands. The Crown of Aragon can be repressed any time and sense it would benefit Castile I can't see any major revolts outside of Aragon. Any in Aragon can be repressed by France and Spain. Italy could be centralized in Naples, provided Genoa can be used as a sea route for communications to Milan. Sicily and Sardina can be combined with Naples to create some sort of Crown of Italy or something like that. Plus any army can be easily shipped from Barcelona to Italy. But the Netherlands is the main problem. It would have to be centralized in Brussels but it would have to enforced at the end of a bayonet, which would mean a large army. So Spain would have to ship in forces to Antwerp or march them threw France. Without the Franche-Comte and Lorraine sending soldiers to the Army of Flanders is difficult. Maybe French troops could be used to suppress any revolt? I think getting the Scheldt river open would be a huge help to the popularity of the Spanish Government and a boost for the local economy. In all I think the reforms would be difficult but not impossible.

The Sicilians are not going to like your plan. I don't think there's much benefit in merging Milan with Naples, either.
 
Top