WI: John Churchill Duke of Marlborough takes Paris in 1709-10

WI: John Churchill Duke of Marlborough takes Paris in 1709-10
In fall 1709 victory looked in site for the allies England’s greatest general ,John Churchill Duke of Marlborough, was ready to advance into France and march on Paris. All that was standing in his way was 75,000 French troops under Marshall Villars. The English meet this force at the Battle of Malplaquet and were driven off. My question is what would have happened if Marlborough had of decisively won the battle.
In Will Durant’s Age of Louis XIV he says that had French forces lost this battle King Louis XIV was determined to lead the defense of the Somme River personally in one last ditch effort to save France. This could have been especially disastrous if Louis XIV died in the next battle.
 
I'm not sure that Marlborough's chances are that good. If the french lose Malplaquet, there is a good chance they'll have to sue for peace IMO, but taking Paris is a different ballgame.

Firstly, even if the allied troops manage to break the French army, the butcher bill will be huge. IOTL they lost a quarter of their strength. Unless the French break early by some stroke of luck (killing Villars won't do it, he had competent subordinates), the cost of actually routing them will be at least similar. That will mean the army has to recover for a good long while, and makes whatever engagement comes next chancier.

Secondly, if the French assumed the next engagement would be on the Somme, they thought in terms of very slow movement, which is realistic. The king would have to come up in person, and in 1709, Louis was not up to hard riding any more. That means there would also be time to collect more troops - and there would be more troops. France still has a deep manpower reservoir, not least a fleet to draw on. And the Allied advance would be slow because:

Thirdly, there are still things in the way. According to my atlas, there's the fortresses of Denain, Douai, Arras, Le Quesnoy and Laon that would need to be either taken or circumvented and invested (how many mewn will the allies need to leave at each one?). Paris is still about 180 kilometres as the crow flies, maybe 240 if it walks, and those are not going to be easy kilometres. The French may have had their fill of their king and his wars, but that doesn't mean they would welcome foreign invaders. Supplying the army will be hard not only because the locals would resist (they always do, armies are used to it), but also because they have so little to provide. France in 1709 is famine country. The war stocks are held in the fortresses, so Marlborough would have to carry his grain supplies with him. And nowhere in Europe has an easily accesible surfeit of grain in 1709. In France, the famine lasted into 1710.

A victory at Malplaquet would mean a shorter war, and very likely a better outcome for the Allies, with the French having to give up more. But you won't see Marlborough doing a Shukov.
 
Marlborough and Eugene initially want to advance to Ypress and besiege this city. Since it was late in the season they thought they would lose a lot of men due to atricion in the low wet ,swampy country of West Flandres. There for they chose the higher grounds and besieged Mons.
Malplaquet was an attemed of Villars to distract the allies from this siege. Villars was in the defensive position and due to several facors he got more time to strenghten his favorable high position. If you see the maps of the order of battle it is almost impossible that the allies win this battle with a clear victory.
I think the best option is that Marlborough and Eugene did what they wanted to do initially and take the losses due to disease. Most likely Villars will atemed to lure the allies in battle but this would be on low grounds, which might have a better outcome for the allies.
A clear victory for Marlborough and Eugene would strenghten the weakened position of Marlborough in the UK.
If Mons feld, no doublty and this battle in the West of Flandres ended in a clear victory, like Blenheim, it would result in a devastating winter for the North of France. Allied troops ''fouraging'', read looting for food and fodder, almost in sight of Paris. This would have a same effect on the peace negotiations as a real siege or advance to Paris. Most likely a peace would be concluded before the start of the war season of 1710. A peace which will be this time be verry unfavourable for France and might be better for all Allied members.
 
Top