What if Louis XVI sought geopolitical gains in Europe and not America in 1770s?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if advisers in the court of Louis XVI reacted to the British troubles in the 13 colonies not by seeing this as an opportunity to humble Britain overseas in a war of revenge but as an opportunity to achieve political-diplomatic objectives in Europe, while Britain is preoccupied with intra-imperial problems and, perhaps, less able to interfere in Europe.

From the British evacuation from Boston and American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the French court investigates several options for political-diplomatic, even territorial gains, especially in Europe, that do not involve directly clashing with Britain.

Finally the War of Bavarian Succession in 1778 provides Paris the opportunity it is waiting for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Bavarian_Succession

In response to this Austro-Prussian clash, a France unemcumbered by commitments to the Americans or war preparations against Britain can offer its support to the highest bidder.

Perhaps the simplest approach could be for France to propose support for its Austrian ally against Prussia and Saxony over the Bavarian Succession in exchange for a substantial price, Bourbon control of the Austrian Netherlands. (partially reviving the formula of the 1757 treaty of Versailles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles_(1757)).

Remember again, in this ATL, France has neither recognized the Continentals, signed an alliance with them or gone beyond providing some supplies covertly.

Would the Austrians in 1778 be willing to see Austrian Netherlands be transferred to French occupation and Bourbon rule (perhaps under the Duke of Parma, if not Louis XVI himself) in exchange for French diplomatic support on the Bavarian Succession issue, subsidies for the Austrian military effort, and possibly even the participation of French troops against the Prussians?

If the Austrians agreed to such a deal and began implementing it immediately, French garrisons could begin to replace Austrian garrisons in Belgium, freeing up the latter to serve elsewhere in Germany.

How would varying degrees of French intervention in favor of Austria affect the outcome of the Austrian bid for Bavaria, and the general political situation in the HRE?

Would France be able to peacefully occupy of Belgium? Or would Prussians, Dutch or others (including local groups) fight in Belgium to prevent French occupation. If they did resist the French, would they prevail?

What would the Russians do, if anything, in response to this French move in 1778-1779?

What would the British do? Would they decide to not confront France over the move into Belgium, while focusing on pacifying the 13 colonies? Would they shift their focus to Europe and fight the French moves in Belgium while winding down the war with the Americans, perhaps conceding continental independence early? Would the British attempt to both fight to keep the French out of Belgium and to put down the American rebellion at the same time over the next few years?

What would have been the most likely consequences of Britain choosing any of these three courses of action?
 
There a lot of faults with this scenario.

First off France can't not see the ARW as a great way to humble Britain. But it is easy to convince them that direct military confrontation with Britain is a dangerous, unneeded path. This is especially true if the British succee in their efforts to keep Spain out of the war (whether by Britain being more generous or Spain being more cautious). With that you can limit France to financial and material support to the American Revolutionaries.

Another problem is the French already had another plan they were considering in 1777. It was a purposed invasion of Ottoman Egypt, which French agents viewed as a favorable target. And with the British focused on the Americas, the rich Levant is a tempting target. Especially when Russia recently trounced the Ottomans. And Egypt provides a way to aid French interests in India ad damage British ones. So it's going to be hard to convince the French that they should wait potentially years for the healthy Maximilian III Joseph to die. But its not entirely implausible.

Another problem is France proposing to support Austria. So many French ministers, nobles, and commonfolk hated Austria. That includes France's top ministers at the time, so it would require them swallowing a hard pill to support Austria. Yet if the prize is the Austrian Netherlands I could see the French being willing to help out. However I doubt they will go with the Duke of Parma route this time.

A bigger problem lies in Austria being willing to accept this deal. Firstly Maria Theresa would never take that deal. She OTL didn't understand her son's obsession with Bavaria and thought Bavaria wasn't worth a drop of Austria blood. And France getting involved on Austria's side, means you have a continental war. Which is exactly what Maria Theresa didn't want. Ad though OTL she allowed her son to frollick a little bit before reining him in. If he is proposing to give away the Austrian Netherlands and trigger a continental war, she is stepping her foot down right away, killing the deal, and negotiating an end to the hostilities with Frederick.

But even with her gone, Joseph II is not making that deal. OTL it was Charles Theodore who wanted to exchange Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands. But Joseph didn't. He didn't think the whole of Bavaria was worth the whole of the Austrian Netherlands. In fact he didn't even think the whole of Bavaria was worth some of the Austrian Netherlands. Instead OTL he offered Charles Theodore this deal: Joseph will take Lower Bavaria, Charles Theodore will be content with the rest of Bavaria. So as you can see Joseph II is a stingy man who has no intention of relinquishing the Austrian Netherlands, in part or whole, for Bavaria.

Now I mentioned a continental war earlier. Let me return to that point. If somehow you get this deal to be made, Austria is taking nothing less than direct military involvement from France. And if France joins, so does Russia. And then some other European states pile in. The end of that war, will be a victory for Frederick the Great and Catherine the Promiscuous.

And on your British question, Britain will stay out of direct military involvement. Britain simply can't make that sort of commitment without jeopardizing the wellbeing of the empire. They will however provide subsidies to Russia and Prussia.
 
If this transpired... it would lead to partition of Bavaria, at least initially. Lower Bavaria for unspecified parts of the Austrian Netherlands and or Anterior Austria for Charles Theodore and unchallenged succession in the remainder of Bavaria. But it would never be the entirety of these possessions, as Joseph is likely to be extremely stingy once his forces are in place and he can get a defacto partition accepted. If France does support them, then I suppose he could go back to the earlier agreements of the 7-yrs war yes.... to exchange Parma for the A. Neth. but that always strikes me as a rather inequitable deal. parts of the A. Neth perhaps yes....would be more equitable...say Brabant/Namur / and the better parts of Flanders or Luxembourg or some combination of in exchange for the Bourbons of Parma. Southern Flanders and Hainault could go to the French crown but they better bring something to the table so that the Austrians can make their eventual victory over the Prussians and Saxons stick. It will be a real smackdown on the two Freddy's and has the potential to undo his gains of his previous two wars. The French have got to at least balance or exceed the contributions of Russia on behalf of the Freddy's and Charles August. in which case at the outset..the Austrians probably have a near 2:1 advantage in effectives in the field in Bohemia/A. Silesia and Bavaria. Russia will take time to get their troops into the fray. .The risk of losing so much under these circumstances is probably going to be enough to give Frederick of Prussia pause as to whether he actually wants to go fwd. in defending Charles August rights as the heir presumptive. It will probably end up being negotiated out in a somewhat different treaty of Teschen analog that recognizes the partition that was effectively ion place and instead trys to find compensentory territories for Charles Theodore suitable to his surrender of Lower Bavaria.... Limbourg, Austrian Guelders and Anterior Austria in Swabia would probably be "generous" for Joseph.


Your missing though an earlier opportunity though if your going to have the French ignore intervention in favour of the American rebels/patriots (depending on your point of view.) in favour of greater influence on the continent....look to active intervention to prevent the partitions of Poland instead.
 
Oops should be Moravia not Bavaria for the opening positions of the Austrians. Autocrat is right though when he says that Catherine and Maria Theresa did NOT want another continental war over Bavaria for ANY reason...it wasn't worth unhinging the balance of power. It would almost certainly do that too. That of course was with Vergennes wiggling out of support for Austria to promote the Nth Am foreign policy to strike at Britain. Here if you have them moving in support of Austria then it will be by active or even passive diplomacy to support their cause initially for simply small gains somewhere else or a prid pro quo later somewhere else.

They don't want to strain the treasury either... and this is still the time when the major powers tried to avoid devastating continental wars if they could, speaking loudly and carrying a big stick would be the preferred order of the day. If it does come to war, the French had better have promised concrete and definitive support to insure victory ( to make sure they get something for their efforts other than false platitudes from their allies of the moment,) or Maria Theresa is still going to rein in this hair-brained scheme of Joseph's.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
The French had far more to gain in wealth and prestige by trying to force a confrontation with Britain on their terms that ends with more islands in the West Indies than they'd get by wrangling bits of Bavarian territory or a balance of power vaguely more favorable to them. Remember, this was before the Revolution in France and before the reorganization of the Holy Roman Empire. German territory wasn't an easy or profitable endeavor, having to deal with the hundreds of ecclesiastical and political microstates with populations that were in many cases feudal in both outlook and economic output. Owning an few Imperial Tollbooths is not worth fighting three sieges and losing 30,000 men.

Getting the whole of the Austrian Netherlands and Hainaut in return for support might be a decent idea not to frown at. But war with Britain, seeing as it already happened, makes me think that if France wanted to get bold on the continent, they should have gone after Hannover and brought everyone into the mess. Britain had enough on its plate at the time to support Frederick, and Frederick by this point was very much on the outs with Britain. A French foray into seizing Hannover, and perhaps Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Hanau, would be something Louis XIV might have tried to pull off, using the worldwide war with Britain to flex French muscles on the continent, but its not necessarily something Louis XVI would think of. And of course, such a move is bound to take things to a level Maria Theresa is not comfortable with, to say nothing of Catherine or the Dutch.

So if France was to for some reason get imperialistic continental ambitions, it would have to be through leveraging their war with Britain to pick on the small weak German states that served as the only truly pro-British actors on the continent, or it would be a gift from the Austrians.
 
If this transpired... it would lead to partition of Bavaria, at least initially. Lower Bavaria for unspecified parts of the Austrian Netherlands and or Anterior Austria for Charles Theodore and unchallenged succession in the remainder of Bavaria. But it would never be the entirety of these possessions, as Joseph is likely to be extremely stingy once his forces are in place and he can get a defacto partition accepted. If France does support them, then I suppose he could go back to the earlier agreements of the 7-yrs war yes.... to exchange Parma for the A. Neth. but that always strikes me as a rather inequitable deal. parts of the A. Neth perhaps yes....would be more equitable...say Brabant/Namur / and the better parts of Flanders or Luxembourg or some combination of in exchange for the Bourbons of Parma. Southern Flanders and Hainault could go to the French crown but they better bring something to the table so that the Austrians can make their eventual victory over the Prussians and Saxons stick. It will be a real smackdown on the two Freddy's and has the potential to undo his gains of his previous two wars. The French have got to at least balance or exceed the contributions of Russia on behalf of the Freddy's and Charles August. in which case at the outset..the Austrians probably have a near 2:1 advantage in effectives in the field in Bohemia/A. Silesia and Bavaria. Russia will take time to get their troops into the fray. .The risk of losing so much under these circumstances is probably going to be enough to give Frederick of Prussia pause as to whether he actually wants to go fwd. in defending Charles August rights as the heir presumptive. It will probably end up being negotiated out in a somewhat different treaty of Teschen analog that recognizes the partition that was effectively ion place and instead trys to find compensentory territories for Charles Theodore suitable to his surrender of Lower Bavaria.... Limbourg, Austrian Guelders and Anterior Austria in Swabia would probably be "generous" for Joseph.

Your missing though an earlier opportunity though if your going to have the French ignore intervention in favour of the American rebels/patriots (depending on your point of view.) in favour of greater influence on the continent....look to active intervention to prevent the partitions of Poland instead.

There was no deal about the Austrian Netherlands originally. That's just a misconception that has developed. Joseph never had any intention of trading any portion of the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria. It was just Charles Theodore who hoped that Joseph would be generous and throw in some parts of the Austrian Netherlands. So Joseph won't give away the Austrian Netherlands to Charles Theodore for Bavaria or to France for help.

There are multiple reason the Hapsburgs were willing to trade Parma for the Austrian Netherlands. First off the Austrian Netherlands' wealth depended completely on the opening and closing of the Schedlt, which the Dutch controlled. Parma meanwhile was wealthy no matter what. Also the Hapsburgs dynastic interests always laid in Italy, rather than the far off Austrian Netherlands. Anyways it is unlikely for that deal to be made, considering how the political situation has changed since then. And Joseph is quite unlikely to trade the somewhat Germanic Austrian Netherlands for an Italian duchy.

France's treasury is low and there is so much debt that is weighing down the French military. OTL when Louis XIV's debt periodically caused military collapses. ANd OTL the French didn't have to make a huge commitment of troops in the ARW. But a continental war means lots of French troops are needed for several campaigns. So I'm doubtful that France will be able to keep up with the Russian army. But you are right due to geography France and Austria can probably gain the advantage in Germany. But Frederick can deal with that. All he has to do is hold and discover weaknesses or mispositionings of the French and Austrians and then exploit them. Meanwhile Suvorov will pour into Galicia and Hungry with a Russian horde.

Frederick of Prussia was trying to prevent Autria from gaining all of Lower Bavaria. OTL he succeeded and Austria only got part of Lower Bavaria. In OTL he could do that or even better with the pressure provided by Suvorov (the best in Europe) and the massive Russian army.

France I believe diplomatically tried to prevent the Polish Partitions. Indeed I believe they provoked the Bar Confederation rebellion. The problem was France could not oppose Austria, Prussia, and Russia.

The French had far more to gain in wealth and prestige by trying to force a confrontation with Britain on their terms that ends with more islands in the West Indies than they'd get by wrangling bits of Bavarian territory or a balance of power vaguely more favorable to them. Remember, this was before the Revolution in France and before the reorganization of the Holy Roman Empire. German territory wasn't an easy or profitable endeavor, having to deal with the hundreds of ecclesiastical and political microstates with populations that were in many cases feudal in both outlook and economic output. Owning an few Imperial Tollbooths is not worth fighting three sieges and losing 30,000 men.

Getting the whole of the Austrian Netherlands and Hainaut in return for support might be a decent idea not to frown at. But war with Britain, seeing as it already happened, makes me think that if France wanted to get bold on the continent, they should have gone after Hannover and brought everyone into the mess. Britain had enough on its plate at the time to support Frederick, and Frederick by this point was very much on the outs with Britain. A French foray into seizing Hannover, and perhaps Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Hanau, would be something Louis XIV might have tried to pull off, using the worldwide war with Britain to flex French muscles on the continent, but its not necessarily something Louis XVI would think of. And of course, such a move is bound to take things to a level Maria Theresa is not comfortable with, to say nothing of Catherine or the Dutch.

So if France was to for some reason get imperialistic continental ambitions, it would have to be through leveraging their war with Britain to pick on the small weak German states that served as the only truly pro-British actors on the continent, or it would be a gift from the Austrians.

The reason France would stay out of the ARW is because of not wanting to fight Britain, one of Europe's strongest powers. Which is why I proposed havign the British and Spanish negotiations ending favorably with Spain agreeing to staay out of the ARW. Without the Spanish joining France will be weary to join by itself.

France has lots of influence in Germany, so it was never too much of hassle for them to cross Germany unless they were opposed by the Empire like in the Nine Years' War.

Hanover was neutral during the ARW. So it would be an unprovoked aggression on France's part.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Another problem is the French already had another plan they were considering in 1777. It was a purposed invasion of Ottoman Egypt, which French agents viewed as a favorable target. And with the British focused on the Americas, the rich Levant is a tempting target. Especially when Russia recently trounced the Ottomans. And Egypt provides a way to aid French interests in India ad damage British ones.

I hadn't seen this before (although I imagined it in prior SHWI and maybe AH.com discussions). You've seen reference to a prospective plot against Egypt by France in the 1770s. Point me to where you saw it if you could thanks-.

And if France joins, so does Russia. And then some other European states pile in. The end of that war, will be a victory for Frederick the Great and Catherine the Promiscuous.

Why are we so sure that Russia would come in on Prussia's side, or come in at all? Not that I think it implausible or even unlikely, just curious about what Catherine's diplomacy towards Central Europe was at this time. (my recollection is that after 1774 Catherine took a break from wars for a bit, and her main activity related to the ARW was supporting a LEague of Armed Neutrality, under the circumstances, a somewhat anti-British position)

Minty_Fresh, I was proposing French interest in the Austrian Netherlands, not the German speaking portions of the HRE in the OP.
 
I hadn't seen this before (although I imagined it in prior SHWI and maybe AH.com discussions). You've seen reference to a prospective plot against Egypt by France in the 1770s. Point me to where you saw it if you could thanks-.

Why are we so sure that Russia would come in on Prussia's side, or come in at all? Not that I think it implausible or even unlikely, just curious about what Catherine's diplomacy towards Central Europe was at this time. (my recollection is that after 1774 Catherine took a break from wars for a bit, and her main activity related to the ARW was supporting a LEague of Armed Neutrality, under the circumstances, a somewhat anti-British position)

Minty_Fresh, I was proposing French interest in the Austrian Netherlands, not the German speaking portions of the HRE in the OP.

It's a snippet you see in history books about French invasion of Egypt, just like the de Broglie Conspiracy during the ARW. Essentially, Baron de Tott was sent to Egypt to check on the viability of a French invasion as a result of the thumping Russia gave the Ottomans (it shattered all confidence of Ottoman military power) and when de Tott returned he said it was viable.

OTL Catherine threatened to intervene on Prussia's side if the war didn't end. And her threat forced the end of the war. Basically she understood that Austrian Bavaria was not a favorable situation for Russia and decided to support Prussia and support the status quo.
 
Of course, if the French do abandon the Americans, then Franklin's prediction that they'd make their losses and come to terms with the British by invading the Bourbon colonies may come to pass...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Of course, if the French do abandon the Americans, then Franklin's prediction that they'd make their losses and come to terms with the British by invading the Bourbon colonies may come to pass...

I know this is what the French and Spanish were worried about, and I guess Ben Franklin played on this fear, but I don't know how realistic it was, at least until America's demographic size and territorial appetites ballooned in the 19th century.

I mean yeah, a byproduct of a purely bilateral settlement of anglo-american differences *could* be a joint campaign against Spanish America and the French Caribbean, but there's no reason it's especially likely to happen. Everyone who speculated along these lines had ulterior motives to say this- Franklin because he war marketing America as an ally to the Bourbons, and the French because they probably thought it would sound good to add a preemptive/defensive rationale in support of their policy of revanche against Britain. The defensive rationale was probably extra useful in selling the policy to the Spanish side of the family.
 
I know this is what the French and Spanish were worried about, and I guess Ben Franklin played on this fear, but I don't know how realistic it was, at least until America's demographic size and territorial appetites ballooned in the 19th century.

Well, let's think about this. The British response to military unrest and rebellions was usually ruthless suppression and then an attempt to rectify the problem. The Act of Union with Ireland and limited Catholic emancipation, the Highland Clearances (which were then followed by Scots becoming more British than the English...).

I think some sort of conciliation with Britain, and recognizing American grievances, is possible. Say it's 1778. France has left America out to dry, but Saratoga has happened. Do the Founding Fathers press on, alone? Or is there a more receptive ear to Britain's offers of compromise?
 
what did the French really have to gain by joining the Patriots? not much. a trade treaty. humbling Britain. that's it. the bottom line is that they though it was going to be a quick victory. Unfortunately for France, the Patriots quickly switched to a 'don't lose, we're just hanging out til Mother Britain gets weary'. And then they screwed France over in every way imaginable during and after the peace. France completely misread the situation and got played. It's easy to see this in hindsight, but I think a lot of it was obvious at the time. covert aid to prolong the revolution, ending in Britain 'winning' and then a second revolution in another decade or two, all the while France building hegemony all over the globe, is by far a better strategy.
 
what did the French really have to gain by joining the Patriots? not much. a trade treaty. humbling Britain. that's it. the bottom line is that they though it was going to be a quick victory. Unfortunately for France, the Patriots quickly switched to a 'don't lose, we're just hanging out til Mother Britain gets weary'. And then they screwed France over in every way imaginable during and after the peace. France completely misread the situation and got played. It's easy to see this in hindsight, but I think a lot of it was obvious at the time. covert aid to prolong the revolution, ending in Britain 'winning' and then a second revolution in another decade or two, all the while France building hegemony all over the globe, is by far a better strategy.

France also sought to gain some valuable Caribbean islands, but indeed they misplayed their hand.

However I believe its been shown that Bavaria was not where France should or could have played their hand.

Egypt would have been a much better option.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
France really screwed up by making sure that North America was not part of the British Empire.

Taking the reeeeaaaaaallllly long view, maybe they did. Had they anticipated Prussia would unify Germany they would have seen how useful a a British Empire including North America could be in sparing them from beatings by the hypothetical future Germany in the 20th century. ;)

In all seriousness, whether ultimately it cost more than it was worth, France's policy in the OTL 1770s was a pretty predictable and sane policy.

Well, let's think about this. The British response to military unrest and rebellions was usually ruthless suppression and then an attempt to rectify the problem. The Act of Union with Ireland and limited Catholic emancipation, the Highland Clearances (which were then followed by Scots becoming more British than the English...).

I think some sort of conciliation with Britain, and recognizing American grievances, is possible. Say it's 1778. France has left America out to dry, but Saratoga has happened. Do the Founding Fathers press on, alone? Or is there a more receptive ear to Britain's offers of compromise?

Oh yeah, I'm not negging on the prospect of an Anglo-American settlement that keeps Britain and the colonies federated, I'm just skeptical that it would be ready any time soon to stomp down the doors of the Bourbon colonies Saint Domingue, Martinique, Guadalupe, Cuba and New Spain.
 
Taking the reeeeaaaaaallllly long view, maybe they did. Had they anticipated Prussia would unify Germany they would have seen how useful a a British Empire including North America could be in sparing them from beatings by the hypothetical future Germany in the 20th century. ;)

In all seriousness, whether ultimately it cost more than it was worth, France's policy in the OTL 1770s was a pretty predictable and sane policy.

In the short term the French expends millions of livres only for the Americans and British to become major trade partners in less than a decade
 
In the short term the French expends millions of livres only for the Americans and British to become major trade partners in less than a decade

And also almost going to war several times, and actually going to war in 1812. Plus the embargo of British trade under Jefferson.
 
Top