unprincipled peter
Donor
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.
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.