WI/AHC: Wittelsbach Southern Netherlands

OTL, the Wittelsbachs tried to get hold of the Southern Netherlands in the late 18th century. Unfortunately, Prussia and friends curbstomped that idea.

I vaguely recall there may have been a suggestion that the Southern Netherlands go to a dispossessed Bavarian elector after the WotSS (Max II had been governor before the war IIRC), but then Karl VI gave up Bavaria and Austria kept the SN.

So, the challenge is at some point after the Peace of Westphalia, to have the Wittelsbachs wind up ruling the SN on a permanent basis (doesn't matter if it's from Heidelberg or Mannheim or in exchange for Munich). It doesn't have to be until today (although that would be cool), but ideally it should be AT LEAST for 2-3 generations.

EDIT: PS: Preferably that this Wittelsbach state is not attached to either Madrid or Vienna (i.e. simply replacing a Habsburg absentee landlord wearing either the Spanish or Imperial diadem with a Wittelsbach one)
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
Prevent/limit the WotSS by keeping Joseph Ferdinand alive and the Treaty of The Hague intact. The Wittelsbachs inherit most of the Spanish Crown, including the Spanish Netherlands. Keeping the British, Franch, and Dutch all onboard may be difficult, but it works on paper.
 
Prevent/limit the WotSS by keeping Joseph Ferdinand alive and the Treaty of The Hague intact. The Wittelsbachs inherit most of the Spanish Crown, including the Spanish Netherlands. Keeping the British, Franch, and Dutch all onboard may be difficult, but it works on paper.

I wanted to exclude that as an option by mere dint of it being the simplest way, and also because it simply replaces a Habsburg king in Madrid ruling the Low Countries with a Wittelsbach one. If you can get it detached from Spain as a secundogeniture that would be cool, though...
 
The Wittlesbachs might get it if they march on Vienna in 1741 as they planned. Vienna was unprepared and might have fallen as the Bavarians were supported by the French and Prussians at the time.
 
The Wittlesbachs might get it if they march on Vienna in 1741 as they planned. Vienna was unprepared and might have fallen as the Bavarians were supported by the French and Prussians at the time.

I know France wasn't exactly a great ally to Bavaria in the WotAS because they didn't simply want to swap Habsburgs for Wittelsbachs, but why DIDN'T Bavaria do that OTL? They marched on Prague right?
 
I know France wasn't exactly a great ally to Bavaria in the WotAS because they didn't simply want to swap Habsburgs for Wittelsbachs, but why DIDN'T Bavaria do that OTL? They marched on Prague right?
Yeah they did. I don’t remember there being a reason though to why they did that. My only thought is that they thought they could meet with Frederick and march on Vienna or rally more support.
 
The Prussians get stomped in the 7YW and lose considerable amounts of land and power. Frederick the Great becomes an outlaw or is killed at Leuthen or whatever you want.

The Emperor Joseph now has a free hand to trade the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria, butterflies not withstanding.
 
I know France wasn't exactly a great ally to Bavaria in the WotAS because they didn't simply want to swap Habsburgs for Wittelsbachs, but why DIDN'T Bavaria do that OTL? They marched on Prague right?
Yeah they did. I don’t remember there being a reason though to why they did that. My only thought is that they thought they could meet with Frederick and march on Vienna or rally more support.

Three reasons:

1. Charles Albert judged a march directly down the Danube to be strategically unsound, as it would leave a long exposed flank to his north where Austrian forces in Bohemia could cut off his army or attack Bavaria. It was safer to take Bohemia first, and since Austria seemed to be tottering there was no reason to think that delaying the assault on Vienna would have fatal consequences.
2. The Franco-Bavarian-Saxon-Prussian alliance was fractious and the states absolutely did not trust one another. There were already rumors of a truce between Prussia and Austria, and Charles Albert was afraid that if he marched on Vienna and left Bohemia to his rear, Frederick or Augustus might swoop in and occupy some or all of Bohemia. The Saxons in particular were a concern, as they had been promised some non-contiguous territory in Moravia and clearly would be better off with the contiguous (and royal) Bohemian crown.
3. Bohemia was an electoral title and Austria was not. Remember that at this point (late 1741), Charles Albert was not yet emperor, and the best way to win an election is to make sure your opponents can't vote. By invading and occupying Bohemia, the Bavarians and their allies could (and did) prevent Maria Theresa from casting her vote on the basis that the Bohemian succession was contested.

If Charles Albert had been bolder and more decisive, the allies might have marched on to Vienna. The elector, however, was a rather timid and vacillating man, and chose what seemed to be the safe option of a diversion to Bohemia rather than the potentially rewarding yet risky march on Vienna.
 
Last edited:
Three reasons:

1. Charles Albert judged a march directly down the Danube to be strategically unsound, as it would leave a long exposed flank to his north where Austrian forces in Bohemia could cut off his army or attack Bavaria. It was safer to take Bohemia first, and since Austria seemed to be tottering there was no reason to think that delaying the assault on Vienna would have fatal consequences.
2. The Franco-Bavarian-Saxon-Prussian alliance was fractious and the states absolutely did not trust one another. There were already rumors of a truce between Prussia and Austria, and Charles Albert was afraid that if he marched on Vienna and left Bohemia to his rear, Frederick or Augustus might swoop in and occupy some or all of Bohemia. The Saxons in particular were a concern, as they had been promised some non-contiguous territory in Moravia and clearly would be better off with the contiguous (and royal) Bohemian crown.
3. Bohemia was an electoral title and Austria was not. Remember that at this point (late 1741), Charles Albert was not yet emperor, and the best way to win an election is to make sure your opponents can't vote. By invading and occupying Bohemia, the Bavarians and their allies could (and did) prevent Maria Theresa from casting her vote on the basis that the Bohemian succession was contested.

If Charles Albert had been bolder and more decisive, the allies might have marched on to Vienna. The elector, however, was a rather timid and vacillating man, and chose what seemed to be the safe option of a diversion to Bohemia rather than the potentially rewarding yet risky march on Vienna.

So, we could see a Saxon-Polish-Bohemian union, Bavaria getting the purple and all Maria's got left being Hungary and her Habsburg lands? I'm suprised France didn't jump at the possibility of a four way power split (Saxony-Bohemia; Prussia+Cleves etc; Habsburg lands and an imperial Bavaria). But then again, Louis XV didn't really keep his foot on the gas as far as France's conquests went.
 
The Prussians get stomped in the 7YW and lose considerable amounts of land and power. Frederick the Great becomes an outlaw or is killed at Leuthen or whatever you want.

The Emperor Joseph now has a free hand to trade the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria, butterflies not withstanding.

Think you would need to negate internecine squabbles between various Wittelsbachs as well. AIUI, Bavaria and Saxony's dowager electresses (Maria Anna of Saxony in Münich and Maria Antonia of Bavaria in Dresden), as well as Karl Theodor's nephew and heirs, Karl II/Max IV of Zweibrücken were all AGAINST the trade, since the Zweibrücken boys would lose out on their inheritance in Bavaria (which was to be traded to the emperor) and in the Palatinate-Netherlands kingdom (where Karl Theodor planned to have his bastard son succeed him). Then Prussia joined the party and we got the kartoffelnkrieg (plum scrum) that was the WotBS
 
So, we could see a Saxon-Polish-Bohemian union, Bavaria getting the purple and all Maria's got left being Hungary and her Habsburg lands? I'm suprised France didn't jump at the possibility of a four way power split (Saxony-Bohemia; Prussia+Cleves etc; Habsburg lands and an imperial Bavaria). But then again, Louis XV didn't really keep his foot on the gas as far as France's conquests went.

The planned division at Nymphenburg was for Bavaria to get Bohemia, the Vorlande, Upper Austria, and the imperial crown (I'm a little unclear as to whether they would have actually taken Lower Austria), Saxony to get Moravia and part of Upper Silesia, and Prussia to get the rest of Silesia. Moravia was also to be elevated to a kingdom so the Wettins would be permanently royal (Augustus was king of Poland, but that was elective and not guaranteed to stay in the family). I have read some claims that France intended to take the Austrian Netherlands for its trouble but I'm not sure that was actually spelled out at Nymphenburg. Certainly that would have meant trouble with Britain, which was not yet at war with France at the time.

The problems with this arrangement are legion, but the main issue is the terrible relationship among the allies. Prussia, Saxony, and Bavaria are not friends; they are rivals who were only bound together by a shared greed for Austrian lands. Prussia betrayed the alliance twice because Frederick had absolutely no interest in a powerful Bavaria holding the empire with the aid of a powerful France; he wanted Silesia, but he didn't want to see Austria crushed absolutely. The Saxons switched sides during the war too, deciding that instead of snatching Austria's land they'd try for Prussia's instead. It's difficult to see any sort of division not falling apart immediately, or shortly thereafter, as the aims of the allied states are so incompatible.
 
The planned division at Nymphenburg was for Bavaria to get Bohemia, the Vorlande, Upper Austria, and the imperial crown (I'm a little unclear as to whether they would have actually taken Lower Austria), Saxony to get Moravia and part of Upper Silesia, and Prussia to get the rest of Silesia. Moravia was also to be elevated to a kingdom so the Wettins would be permanently royal (Augustus was king of Poland, but that was elective and not guaranteed to stay in the family). I have read some claims that France intended to take the Austrian Netherlands for its trouble but I'm not sure that was actually spelled out at Nymphenburg. Certainly that would have meant trouble with Britain, which was not yet at war with France at the time.

The problems with this arrangement are legion, but the main issue is the terrible relationship among the allies. Prussia, Saxony, and Bavaria are not friends; they are rivals who were only bound together by a shared greed for Austrian lands. Prussia betrayed the alliance twice because Frederick had absolutely no interest in a powerful Bavaria holding the empire with the aid of a powerful France; he wanted Silesia, but he didn't want to see Austria crushed absolutely. The Saxons switched sides during the war too, deciding that instead of snatching Austria's land they'd try for Prussia's instead. It's difficult to see any sort of division not falling apart immediately, or shortly thereafter, as the aims of the allied states are so incompatible.

Britain tended to be a dog in the manger regarding the Low Countries. They don't want France to have the south, but France is the only one who wants the region IMO.

Which leaves us with a territory swap at Utrecht in the 1710s or at Teschen in the 1770s. AIUI, in the WotAS Austria was never doing so well they could seize Bavaria and force a trade.
 
Britain tended to be a dog in the manger regarding the Low Countries. They don't want France to have the south, but France is the only one who wants the region IMO.

Which leaves us with a territory swap at Utrecht in the 1710s or at Teschen in the 1770s. AIUI, in the WotAS Austria was never doing so well they could seize Bavaria and force a trade.

Maybe, in 1742, the Austrians recapture Prague (as IOTL) and destroy the French army there? IOTL the French got away. Wouldn't that give the Austrians a major advantage in the German theater?
 
Last edited:
Maybe, in 1742, the Austrians recapture Prague (as IOTL) and destroy the French army there? IOTL the French got away. Wouldn't that give the Austrians a major advantage in the German theater?

But would that major advantage during the war lead to an advantage at the peace talks? I get the impression that an Austria that's successful enough in Germany would spook Prussia and/or Saxony/Bavaria/France/Britain.
 
From what I can see, there are 3 options here, all involving a territory swap of Bavaria:

A) Karl VI is LESS of an idiot and coughs up the Austrian Netherlands so that the Habsburgs get to keep Bavaria in exchange.

B) Bavaria seizes Prague as OTL, but the Austria manages to force them out and take over Bavaria. Karl Albrecht is obliged to surrender Bavaria AND Bohemia, although letting him walk away empty handed is perhaps too extreme. So he gets compensated with the former Austrian Netherlands cause Britain doesn't want France there and the Habsburgs are a little too flush with land for anyone else's comfort.

Or C) Karl Theodor's territory swap is successful. Since this either means that somehow the Zweibrücken princes need to be gotten on board (how?) or a Habsburg victory over Prussia in the Kartoffelnkrieg, which I'm not sure is believable (unless France gets involved on the Austrian side like asked OTL, or both nations have more interested in the war (IIRC Austria was gearing up to fight the Turks and the WorBS was considered a sideshow).

Of these, A or B seem more likely IMO
 
A follow up question. Regardless of exactly how the Wittelsbachs get their little paws on the Netherlands (Max II and Max IV/Ludwig I strike me as pretty opportunistic types - not sure about Karls Albrecht and Theodor), how might a Wittelsbach Netherlands fare? The Wittelsbachs were traditional French allies against the Habsburgs, but here, when sharing a land border with France, I could see them being not so eager to jump into bed with the Bourbons. Or, alternately, they could go the whole hog and basically intermarry with the French/Spanish Bourbons in the 18th century as much as what they had with the Habsburgs/half-Habsburgs between the 1540s and Westphalia. How might they fare with the Dutch/British? (For now let's leave out considerations about a more Germanophone core to the Austrian lands than OTL once Austria gets Bavaria).
 
Top