WI: A peaceful partition of Spain 1700

There were two partition treaties designed to deal with the issue of Charles II of Spain lack of heirs. The first basically set Joseph of Bavaria as heir, with French Dauphin getting Naples and Sicily, while Charles of Austria gets Milan.

Joseph promptly died (some say poisoned), scuttling that plan. A second treaty divvied up the empire with Charles getting the bulk of the empire while Dauphin got Italy (Naples, Sicily, and Milan, but then exchanging Milan for Lorraine).

Both partitions involve a few other crumbs, but this is the bulk of the pie to be distributed.

Of note is that neither Spain or Austria agreed to either partition. France, Britain, Netherlands all agreed to both. Speaking harshly, but from a point of reality, Spain didn't really have much of a say. The rest of the world was going to grab the spoils or work to prevent someone from grabbing too much of the spoils. The best Spain could do was try to influence and hang on for what promised to be a bumpy ride. Austria didn't have the power to unilaterally dictate terms (get it all), but they had the advantage of being able to form a coalition to prevent France from getting it all.

Rationally, a compromise should have ensued. But Louis XIV was persuaded that the world would unite to prevent France from getting anything, so the choice was all or nothing. IMO, this was extremely flawed. Britain/Netherlands were not going to war except if France went for it all. They might not join France in fighting Austria, but they wouldn't prevent France from fighting Austria so long as France was only going for a share and not all. Spanish Netherlands in French/Bourbon hands was a major sticking point, so any deal likely has them anywhere but in a Bourbon sphere of influence. Without a coalition, Austria's prospects are not good. They can fight for a little more of the pie, but they aren't getting the whole thing. So if Louis accepts a partition, Austria is also forced to accept one.

Choosing either partition, or coming up with a new one, what happens for the foreseeable future (POV 1700)? You can have the option of Louis accepting partition while Austria doesn't. Britain/Netherlands, though, either join France or stay neutral (partition must realistically create that situation). Butterflies which may ensue: Joseph of Austria might not die in 1711, a whole slew of French heirs may not die 1711-1714, Charles might marry someone different and/or spawn male heirs (never did understand marrying him so late and to someone so young when producing more heirs was imperative - at that point Austria/Spain was down to Joseph and Charles and an old Leopold).

And finally, neither France, nor Austria, went into the conflict with a goal of unification of either with Spain, so please don't bring that viewpoint to the table. I know the War of Spanish Succession has come up before, but the threads always seem to go off the rails with notions of unification. Unification wasn't a goal OTL, so any rational TTL divergence involves only guarantees of non unification.
 
Spain had a rough go of it from 1700 OTL. Getting Charles on the throne really mucks them up. He was fairly incompetent in Austria, so there's no reason he'd do better in Spain. Say goodbye to the Bourbon reforms, and hello to a downward spiral.

In the Americas, the treaty of Utrecht gives Rupert's Land to Britain for good. TTL, both the Hudson Bay Company and French interests are still sharing it. France also gave up half or more of Acadia and Newfoundland. TTL, it's still mostly French. Without 13 years of war, France has a lot more money in the til, so they can afford to invest more in New France, thereby bolstering their claims.

With more money in the til, they can also afford to pay attention to the navy. OTL, it isn't that they had no appreciation of the navy, it was that they were too broke to maintain it.

These are only a few of the minor butterflies. The major ones are pretty much all wars fought in the 18th century.
 
There were two partition treaties designed to deal with the issue of Charles II of Spain lack of heirs. The first basically set Joseph of Bavaria as heir, with French Dauphin getting Naples and Sicily, while Charles of Austria gets Milan.

Joseph promptly died (some say poisoned), scuttling that plan. A second treaty divvied up the empire with Charles getting the bulk of the empire while Dauphin got Italy (Naples, Sicily, and Milan, but then exchanging Milan for Lorraine).

Both partitions involve a few other crumbs, but this is the bulk of the pie to be distributed.

Of note is that neither Spain or Austria agreed to either partition. France, Britain, Netherlands all agreed to both. Speaking harshly, but from a point of reality, Spain didn't really have much of a say. The rest of the world was going to grab the spoils or work to prevent someone from grabbing too much of the spoils. The best Spain could do was try to influence and hang on for what promised to be a bumpy ride. Austria didn't have the power to unilaterally dictate terms (get it all), but they had the advantage of being able to form a coalition to prevent France from getting it all.

Rationally, a compromise should have ensued. But Louis XIV was persuaded that the world would unite to prevent France from getting anything, so the choice was all or nothing. IMO, this was extremely flawed. Britain/Netherlands were not going to war except if France went for it all. They might not join France in fighting Austria, but they wouldn't prevent France from fighting Austria so long as France was only going for a share and not all. Spanish Netherlands in French/Bourbon hands was a major sticking point, so any deal likely has them anywhere but in a Bourbon sphere of influence. Without a coalition, Austria's prospects are not good. They can fight for a little more of the pie, but they aren't getting the whole thing. So if Louis accepts a partition, Austria is also forced to accept one.

Choosing either partition, or coming up with a new one, what happens for the foreseeable future (POV 1700)? You can have the option of Louis accepting partition while Austria doesn't. Britain/Netherlands, though, either join France or stay neutral (partition must realistically create that situation). Butterflies which may ensue: Joseph of Austria might not die in 1711, a whole slew of French heirs may not die 1711-1714, Charles might marry someone different and/or spawn male heirs (never did understand marrying him so late and to someone so young when producing more heirs was imperative - at that point Austria/Spain was down to Joseph and Charles and an old Leopold).

And finally, neither France, nor Austria, went into the conflict with a goal of unification of either with Spain, so please don't bring that viewpoint to the table. I know the War of Spanish Succession has come up before, but the threads always seem to go off the rails with notions of unification. Unification wasn't a goal OTL, so any rational TTL divergence involves only guarantees of non unification.

If we go for a successful 1700 treaty, the idea was enlarging France's borders with Savoy (exchanged with Two Sicilies), Lorraine (exchanged with Milanese) and Guipuzcoa. With France able to sever relations between Austria and Spain (we can assume Genova would be satellized), at best the two great would be competing for influence in Northern Italy, worst case a war would occur at the first opening. War of the Tuscany Succession ?
 
There were two partition treaties designed to deal with the issue of Charles II of Spain lack of heirs. The first basically set Joseph of Bavaria as heir, with French Dauphin getting Naples and Sicily, while Charles of Austria gets Milan.

Joseph promptly died (some say poisoned), scuttling that plan. A second treaty divvied up the empire with Charles getting the bulk of the empire while Dauphin got Italy (Naples, Sicily, and Milan, but then exchanging Milan for Lorraine).

Both partitions involve a few other crumbs, but this is the bulk of the pie to be distributed.

Of note is that neither Spain or Austria agreed to either partition. France, Britain, Netherlands all agreed to both. Speaking harshly, but from a point of reality, Spain didn't really have much of a say. The rest of the world was going to grab the spoils or work to prevent someone from grabbing too much of the spoils. The best Spain could do was try to influence and hang on for what promised to be a bumpy ride. Austria didn't have the power to unilaterally dictate terms (get it all), but they had the advantage of being able to form a coalition to prevent France from getting it all.

Rationally, a compromise should have ensued. But Louis XIV was persuaded that the world would unite to prevent France from getting anything, so the choice was all or nothing. IMO, this was extremely flawed. Britain/Netherlands were not going to war except if France went for it all. They might not join France in fighting Austria, but they wouldn't prevent France from fighting Austria so long as France was only going for a share and not all. Spanish Netherlands in French/Bourbon hands was a major sticking point, so any deal likely has them anywhere but in a Bourbon sphere of influence. Without a coalition, Austria's prospects are not good. They can fight for a little more of the pie, but they aren't getting the whole thing. So if Louis accepts a partition, Austria is also forced to accept one.

Choosing either partition, or coming up with a new one, what happens for the foreseeable future (POV 1700)? You can have the option of Louis accepting partition while Austria doesn't. Britain/Netherlands, though, either join France or stay neutral (partition must realistically create that situation). Butterflies which may ensue: Joseph of Austria might not die in 1711, a whole slew of French heirs may not die 1711-1714, Charles might marry someone different and/or spawn male heirs (never did understand marrying him so late and to someone so young when producing more heirs was imperative - at that point Austria/Spain was down to Joseph and Charles and an old Leopold).

And finally, neither France, nor Austria, went into the conflict with a goal of unification of either with Spain, so please don't bring that viewpoint to the table. I know the War of Spanish Succession has come up before, but the threads always seem to go off the rails with notions of unification. Unification wasn't a goal OTL, so any rational TTL divergence involves only guarantees of non unification.

On Charles's late marriage, wasn't this to do with the marriage agreement with Portugal that brought them into the war on the side of the allies side? Or am I mistaken? The ages don't work well though. Like he'd have to wait until his late 20's for the marriage to be acceptable if she hadn't died in 1704.
 
So to be clear, this is the partition of Spain's empire in the Mediterranean and not a partition of the Spanish mainland?
any partition you want. I've seen WI's splitting off Aragon (? what we call catalonia today). The basic desire is a relatively peaceful transition. If you can figure out how to avoid partition, while maintaining peace, go for it.
 
the idea was enlarging France's borders with Savoy (exchanged with Two Sicilies),
This is one I haven't heard of. Savoy wanted to expand into Milan, but that came as the price for joining the war on France's side, then switching over to the coalition. As far as I know, Savoy wasn't part of the partition talks. Victor Amadeus II had big ambitions, but very little ability to get it. Savoy was used as a pawn on both sides and only ended up with the two sicilies because the big powers didn't want them incorporated into Austria (Charles being the only Habsburg left to rule it all).
 
never did understand marrying him so late and to someone so young when producing more heirs was imperative - at that point Austria/Spain was down to Joseph and Charles and an old Leopold

It wasn't by choice that he waited so long for a wife. Originally Leopold contemplated Adelaide of Savoy (mother of Louis XV) for his second son - sort of as a way of getting Savoy on the Austrian side - but when that didn't happen; the next lady was his cousin, an infanta of Portugal (who was even younger than Elisabeth Christine). However, the lady died in 1704, and then there was the business of finding a replacement who wasn't French or French-adjacent (looking at you Bavaria). And unfortunately there weren't a whole lot of Catholic princesses in the 1690s, and the Habsburgs looked at Karoline of Ansbach but moved on when she refused to convert. Elisabeth Christine wouldn't have got a second look in if it wasn't for two reasons: a) she was the most beautiful princess in Europe; and b) she was cousin of the empress who was convinced that she could convince Elisabeth to convert (and the Welfs wanted to maintain the ties they had with the imperial throne).
 
This is one I haven't heard of. Savoy wanted to expand into Milan, but that came as the price for joining the war on France's side, then switching over to the coalition. As far as I know, Savoy wasn't part of the partition talks. Victor Amadeus II had big ambitions, but very little ability to get it. Savoy was used as a pawn on both sides and only ended up with the two sicilies because the big powers didn't want them incorporated into Austria (Charles being the only Habsburg left to rule it all).

There was talk of Austria keeping Bavaria and Max Emanuel getting the Sicilian crown (that was lying around); Josef I considered (reviving) the idea of a match between his sister, Maria Magdalene and the duke of Beja, and then giving Beja the kingdom of Sardinia (IIRC), there was another variation with the count of Ourem married to Josef's elder daughter getting an Italian kingdom; Maximilian II wanted the Spanish Netherlands, but Leopold wouldn't give them to him, and I can't imagine that Josef/Karl would do so either (although I think he wanted them with Bavaria). These were all various combos proposed (and that was just between the Habsburgs, the Braganças and the Wittelsbachs)
 
This is one I haven't heard of. Savoy wanted to expand into Milan, but that came as the price for joining the war on France's side, then switching over to the coalition. As far as I know, Savoy wasn't part of the partition talks. Victor Amadeus II had big ambitions, but very little ability to get it. Savoy was used as a pawn on both sides and only ended up with the two sicilies because the big powers didn't want them incorporated into Austria (Charles being the only Habsburg left to rule it all).
. At least, it is quite a standard explanation from french historians : Louis XIV had in mind exchanges with Savoy. The first opportunity is written down in the treaty : Milanese was destined to be exchanged with Lorraine (plus Navarra or Luxemburg for France), if the Duke of Lorraine should not accept, Milanese was to be exchanged with Savoy proper and Nice.
 
Okay, I wonder one thing... What would happen with Ceuta, Mellila and Oran? Who will inherit those cities? I know that Oran fell to Ottoman Algeria in 1708 (reconquered in 1733) but those other cities? Will the Austrians inherit it?
 
Okay, I wonder one thing... What would happen with Ceuta, Mellila and Oran? Who will inherit those cities? I know that Oran fell to Ottoman Algeria in 1708 (reconquered in 1733) but those other cities? Will the Austrians inherit it?

As I understand it, only the Tuscany principes would pass to the French, not the African ones.
 
Top